Addons at ease!

[Matthijs 40]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ April 18 2003,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question remains: Where to get the MSI stuff?<span id='postcolor'>

A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.

Unless BIS is going to release their own MSI creation app, I think MSI creation is just really simple nor user-friendly, let alone graphically appealing.

It's license even allows commercial use for free.

Clickteam's installmaker might be a nice alternative. It's the most popular installer for Rainbow6/Ghost Recon addons:

http://www.clickteam.com/English/installmaker.php

I wrote a step-by-step tutorial a while ago.

http://www.korpsmariniers.com/download/installmaker-tutorial.pdf

Example installer screen:

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ April 18 2003,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ April 18 2003,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question remains: Where to get the MSI stuff?<span id='postcolor'>

A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.

Unless BIS is going to release their own MSI creation app, ...<span id='postcolor'>

We will release this utility once we incorporate some changes that are based on the feedback in this topic. This willl be hopefully within a few weeks.

[Jahve 0]

Thank you, Suma

[toadeater 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Delete this message please. I saw someone already answered the question after I wrote it. <span id='postcolor'>

Ok, I am re-editing this message now because of the controversy it seems to have caused.

I want to say that the only thing about AAE I'm opposed to is if this installer is going put junk into the registry. MSI is known to be bloated and buggy (what do you expect from Microsoft?) and is overkill for installing simple addons. Unless there is a good reason for BIS to need this registry info, another installer or plain old zip files would be much better IMHO.

MSI Errors

[soul_assassin 1723]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @ April 20 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Delete this message please. I saw someone already answered the question after I wrote it.

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

at least if u asked the queston once again it wouldve been more useful then u just editing it and telling that u already got the answer

[Winters 1]

Its the add-on/mod/mission makers that have kept this game so popular for this length of time, many games are extremely popular when released but without the proper tools for the fans to use shortly fade away as gamers move on to the next big thing. It is great to see BIS taking such an interest in the communities tireless efforts to keep this great game alive. I welcome any effort that brings the community together like this and like the idea of a standardization. I like to make missions for everyone to enjoy and i know i am missing out on a lot of good addons by some lesser known makers as i am unsure of how many people may actually have and or want to use them.

[toadlife 3]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @ April 19 2003,16:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I want to say that the only thing about AAE I'm opposed to is if this installer is going put junk into the registry. MSI is known to be bloated and buggy (what do you expect from Microsoft?) and is overkill for installing simple addons. Unless there is a good reason for BIS to need this registry info, another installer or plain old zip files would be much better IMHO.<span id='postcolor'>

If written properly, MSI installers are the best way to install software on Windows systems.

Microsoft began pushing MSI awhile back, because of all the other installers out there were constantly stepping on each other.

Yes, at one time I ran into an MSI installation that screwed up my registry, but this was not a random error caused by Microsoft technology, it was a mistake made by the person who compiled the installer.

At my work we use policies to deploy MSI based software accross a domain of over 1200 computers in 5 locations spread out across an area of over 3000 square miles. This includes office software, McAfee Virusscan, and two other custom MSI installer we made ourselves.

We started deploying software this way two years ago and have never had a computer's registry screwed up by any of the software we've deployed.

As long as the MSI maker BIS releases is tested thouroughly, I wouldn't worry about it screwing over anyones machine.

As for the MSI file inserting registry info, the only info it has to insert is the info about which files are installed and how to uninstall it..this is about the same amount (well probably a little more) of registry info as any other installer would have to insert.

As for myself...I'll continue the old method of installing stuff and skip the MSI method, but for the casual player out there, this shouldn't be a harmful thing.

[Matthijs 40]

MSI packages will definitely add to the value of OFP in general. Especially for newbies. And newbies is what we need, if we want to keep OFP alive. After all, they are the ones that will pay for a copy of OFP, and thus keep Maruk's fridge filled. The rest of us already has a CD or two.

I'm quite sure addon-makers will still distribute ZIP variants for the people that want them.

[toadeater 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @ April 20 2003,23:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for myself...I'll continue the old method of installing stuff and skip the MSI method, but for the casual player out there, this shouldn't be a harmful thing.<span id='postcolor'>

Now there's a good point that may have been overlooked. We can still always get the files from the addon makers themselves I suppose and avoid the numerous hidden evils of MSI.

[Blender 0]

I hope to see some At Easy addons soon. Installing some addons was reall diffucult to me.

[Matthijs 40]

"Hidden evils of MSI"? I think people that really know how installers work, don't really see a problem. Don't worry, the BIS team will make sure it works fine.

As to if anyone would use it: I will certainly put serious effort into it to make my addons A@E compliant. Chances are good that the upcoming combat diver (CoC Open Swimming System) addon will be an Addon At Ease. The mission is in the making, and it will be MSI packaged if BIS' MSI tool is available.

[Dwarden 1124]

I think A@E should go more beyond care about release quality.

What about same initiative for addon development (list of addons which are in work).

Like tank, transporters and other vehicles, airplanes, copters, ships, weapons, infantry models, equipment, buildings, trees etc.

Like these forums, but simpler and more organized.

So someone who want made new mod comes and enter search, let say M21, he can see "already done" "under progress" or just "planned", this give to him chance to see quality of already released mods, who and what is preparing.

It makes also very simple possible to standalone modders to teamup instead of multiple work on "same" object with same "not excelent" result (instead of 3 mediocre addons is one excelent better).

MOdders will be able to set ETA dates on site, pictures, links etc.

I know similar project aproach to this already exist, just my opinion is that supported from BIS results into excelent addons in future (and it give great base for OFP2).

just my 2 cents...

[Jahve 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ April 18 2003,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.<span id='postcolor'>

I cant find it in XP... where is it?

[Matthijs 40]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ April 24 2003,08:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ April 18 2003,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.<span id='postcolor'>

I cant find it in XP... where is it?<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, it's not on the XP cdrom. Win2k distribution only:

<cdrom>:\VALUEADD\3RDPARTY\MGMT\WINSTLE

You can also get a copy of the latest version from:

http://www.ondemandsoftware.com/FREELE2003/

Wininstal LE has been made with network admins in mind, not to make distribution of single files easy. I would advise you to have a bit of patience, and wait for BIS's MSI tool.

Question for Marek and his team:

Will there be a possibility to automatically remove existing files? My tag has always been KM_, which is not allowed by OFPEC. Automatically letting the installer delete older versions of an addon, would make the life of a user much easier.

[Jahve 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ April 24 2003,11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cant find it in XP... where is it?<span id='postcolor'>

argh

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 15 April 2003,05:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @ April 15 2003,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd like to some sort of integrated program (I'll call it the "OFP update Manager") come with the next version of OFP<span id='postcolor'>

Not me! I just want OFP Addons on the Fly (OAF).

It's simple. OFP should only load and check for addons when a mission runs - not at OFP startup. You could have a million addon files in one single folder and never have memory map or storage shortage errors.

We shouldn't have to manage anything anymore in the future. If it'll take that much longer for each mission to load, so be it.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree wholeheartedly. It seems that simplifying addon installation will only exasperate the memory problems associated with the way it is handled now. A newbie could click on 4 large addons through AAE and suddenly he is puzzled by "can't memory map o.pbo" errors. That could be real messy. Fix the memory mapping THEN do AAE, imo

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (der bastler @ 15 April 2003,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- addon hotplugging

- possibility for ingame-download of addons from certificated servers<span id='postcolor'>

yes!

I wish we could set ingame-download of addons through a field in the squad.xml.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ 13 April 2003,17:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...That's why the modding community would appreciate receiving decrypted v1.91 config source files from BIS so total conversion mods would be possible. Total conversion mods are the direction which OFP is going.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you talking about the primary config.bin? I already have that decoded config.cpp.  How do you think "Dynamic Range" works? Or are you talking about the individual config.cpps in the addons?

[kegetys 2]

Something that I believe would be useful to people playing on public servers would be an ability to search some kind of addon list for certain addon classnames, so for example if a player gets an error saying "Missing addon: KEGnoecain_snow" when joining an MP server he could just go to the AAE website and type "KEGnoecain_snow" into some search field and find out that he needs to download Winter Nogojev and of course links to where to download it from.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ 28 April 2003,08:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something that I believe would be useful to people playing on public servers would be an ability to search some kind of addon list for certain addon classnames, so for example if a player gets an error saying "Missing addon: KEGnoecain_snow" when joining an MP server he could just go to the AAE website and type "KEGnoecain_snow" into some search field and find out that he needs to download Winter Nogojev and of course links to where to download it from.<span id='postcolor'>

I think a better way would be to include a field in the config.cpp called "Descriptive name" which it uses when it needs to make that prompt.

For example, a descriptivename entry like "Ballistic Addon Studio's Little Bird Addon version 1.0" would look much better in that prompt window.

Of course, that would require a game patch better yet, make it part of ofp2.

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 28 April 2003,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think a better way would be to include a field in the config.cpp called "Descriptive name"<span id='postcolor'>

How could you do that with AAE? Would need a patch in OFP.

[maddogx 13]

Exactly and in my opinion that would be unnessessary just for AAE. I thought KEG's idea was alright.

[suchey 0]

I guess everyone has covered just about every angle of this proposed system. It remains to be seen what will happen officially, but I certainly hope that it some how incorporates easier distribution of multiple addons for the multiplayer front...players are falling off on the dedicated servers at a quick clip and a nice shot in the arm for the multiplayer community would be most welcome.

BIS...any official word on how you have decided to handle this system as a whole?

[WhoCares 0]

Does MSI run on Linux machines? Just asking, because Linux-server Admins might want to use AAE Addons as well... Or do we expect, that those Linux nerds are used to non-push button solutions

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ 05 May 2003,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does MSI run on Linux machines?<span id='postcolor'>

I believe MSI stands for MicroSoft Installer, is solely for Windows and neither Bill Gates, Microsoft nor Windows have anything (currently) to do with Linux.