Common addon pack

[shrike 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So then why work hard? Instead of packing everything together and then repacking every time an addon gets updated, why not just host the individual files instead?

The exception to this would be packs of addons that are super stable and/or whose makers no longer are around or intend to update them.

This also makes it easier for players to update. Rather than downloading a corrected 200MB file, they can just download the separate 10MB updated addon file.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't see the requirement for a new addon pack everytime something gets updated. Of course the main pack will have to be updated (and I have no problem doing this when I am bored at work) but all the players would need to download is a much smaller update, as you mentioned above. That's exactly what we're doing right now, our full addon pack is 146 MB in size, the upcoming update will be around 50 MB while some old files will have to be deleted by the players.

Offering the individual files instead would have the "update" advantage but seems very inconvenient to me, so far our players are happy with the solution we currently offer.

Another very important thing (for server owners) is consistency between the files installed on player's clients and the files installed on the server. Just linking to the respective download locations would force me to frequently check whether there is an updated version on the remote site and update the server accordingly, because that would be the addons the users would download.

By offering a (unified) addon pack at least I can make sure to a certain extent that players use the same addons as on the server.

The downloadable pack and the addons on the server side can be simultaneously changed/updated.

I am aware of the fact that there might be a slight delay for the players until they get the newest version of an addon but this is a small price to pay for the possibility to play on many different servers, according to their map, gameplay and/or social preferences...

Lt. Damage where are you and your great addon update tool??

Edit: Ze English ist not eazy for ze Germans...

[nierop 0]

Blackdog~, your arguments are not relevant to this discussion, in fact, you might just as well have not posted them...

1st. This discussion is about servers that already do require addons. What are you suggesting? They remove it to make their server more popular? Hmmm, I think this is not the idea of thisa thread.

2nd. Fact is that some servers (like ZEUS as in one of your examples) already agree with an united addon pack. Plz let everyone, also people that do not own a server (..if that would be even a criterium...), discuss this matter freely.

Cya,

Pimmelorus

[ZEUS addon server]

[Rastavovich 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obviously, most of you aren't even server owners - of course server owners want their servers to be popular - don't you think - thats why they don't use addons - most people simply won't download them...<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that weird... they want to be popular, so they don't use addons? There are plenty of very good addons out, that make OFP a better game and they are never used... Shouldn't it be inverse, servers become popular because they use addons which give a new game feeling? Of course ppl tell themselfes "oh, damn I have to search together all addons used on this server...and if I change the server I have to get some more...I stay with the servers without addons", but I am sure 90% (even of the 56k users) will download the basic modules when they just have to click once on one site to get them (instead on searching several sites for each addon).

I just wanna say it is worth a try.

[Lolsav 0]

As a method of work (and im skipping the should we or shouldnt we have a common addon pack discussion) i would propose to start wich island should be included.

Jelhallabat, Hellden, Trinity 1.2 (its compatible with old one wich is nice), and im not sure about sicily for inv44. It was a big disapointement to see that it only has the names changed from Malden. Need some feedback here.

This one is not ready yet, but it has some nice textures, need a thought on this too: http://jennik.spika.cz/index_en.htm

Any other suggestions?

[benu 1]

If i have to stop use addons on my server to get "popular" then i am happy that i am not "popular". We only have "dedicated" players, which d/l the addons they need for the mission. And the play "dedicated" too. Playing on "popular" servers... well, i stopped doing that some time ago because the players there were so "popular". Every lamer without even a grasp of what this game is about can play on a "popular" server, and most of the time the gameplay is exactly like that on "popular" servers.

And the addons from bas, dkm and kegetys just enhance gameplay so much that i wouldn't want to miss them. The lack of those addons makes "popular" servers unpopular for me. To each his own i guess. The "popular" server will enjoy their 60vs60 ctf games which i will never be able to see on my server (and i don't miss them btw).

Regarding new version of addons already in the pack i would say that they get updated as fast as possible. Most of the times the versions are compatible to each other anyway and it helps people with the addon pack to play versions which rely on the new versions without waiting 4-6 month. I think those updates 2 or 3 times a year should be used to put new addons to the pack or remove old ones, but just version updating of existing updates should be left to the players/admins. I have new versions of addons on my server within minutes of release sometimes, i would not want to wait month

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vixer @ 15 May 2003,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">whats the use of having a BAS module? The addons from BAS get updated almost every 2 months or so, you will stay busy updating the module all the time <span id='postcolor'>

As I'm the one maintaining the SES modules and installers, that is our least problem. As we divide the addons in thematic modules we update just one module if there is really a need to change something. In general there is a small update after 2-3 months and a major update after 4-5 months. Updates from the old pack are available for download when that happens (so you only need to download the new stuff).

To Avon: The generic pack (those addons not belonging to a thematic module) installs about 140mb into our SES mod folder. The 'Nam installer installs the complete 'Nam Pack 2.0 and Jungle Everon to a seperate Vietnam mod folder. BAS SpecOps & Winter modules get installed into the regular addons folder (or in any mod folder you select). In total we use about 291mb of addons (unpacked size, 189mb for the installers) adding all modules together.

The advantage of a modular system is in the fact that a server who doesn't use 'Nam missions doesn't need the 'Nam module. And if a player from that server wants to play a 'Nam mission on another server he just needs to download one installer that will install and setup everything needed without going 'addon hunting' first and then f***ing up the installation with 10 error messages...

About the work it costs to maintain these installers: The hard work is deciding on the updates (what goes in, gets thrown out) - this is a general effort and needs to be closely coordinated (to ensure proposed stuff is really tested, to inquire for comments, to kick buts, etc.). This, of course, doesn't get easier if more than one server's affected, but I think it's well worth it.

The installers themselves are the easiest part - once you found your way through the NSIS installer config.

To those who think addons have no place on MP servers: get lost.

We use addons for quite some time now - and we like it, and the people coming to our server like them, too (and they don't mind the big download - also we document what's in the pack, so you can get the stuff seperate if you want).

[Harkonin 0]

Since I love a good argument I'll have to side with the SES boys on this 1. There is a huge demand on servers to streamline some common add-ons our server included since we use about 200+Meg of addons at the moment. As stated befor this should primarily be for co-op servers since the mission makers get a wider freedom to mission editing. Updating modules is relatively easy since after an initial pack is put out it can be updated with new smaller packs with either the new addons or updates for existing ones which will be like a "patch" installer. Vetserver has also adopted the Mod folder with a desktop icon and makes for easy use, all addons in the modfolder are launched through the new icon (also keeps the editor from getting cluttered with nonexistant addons).

Just my 2 cents, goodluck Lolsav and Daddl.

[shrike 0]

Lolsav:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As a method of work (and im skipping the should we or shouldnt we have a common addon pack discussion) i would propose to start wich island should be included.<span id='postcolor'>

On our addon server atm: Trinity 1.2, Winter Nogojev, Ia Drang, Jelalhabat, Ackropolis (it's a bit ugly but it's more like a funpark for unconventional stuff).

Of course we go with the flow here, the only one that HAS to stay is Trinity 1.2 and of course 'nam and winter stuff. If CatShit1's Afghanistan map will be out before we end the discussion I would be most happy to include it as well.

Harkonin:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As stated befor this should primarily be for co-op servers since the mission makers get a wider freedom to mission editing.<span id='postcolor'>

Ehm, I hope you don't mind if we participate, too? A majority of our players like  player vs. player maps w/addons...

[Lolsav 0]

Hmm we better start posting the size along with the names, so at the end we have an idea of the size.

Hellden                                                          1,26   meg

Trinity  1.2                                                     8       meg

jelalhabat_isl                                                  1       meg

bastler_greece3                                              1,5    meg

sebnam_ia_trang                                             4       meg

i44_sicily (althought a beta but gives us an idea)  4       meg

kegnoecain_snow                                             56     meg

drno_isl (dr. No)                                               0,5    meg

Edit: Benu request

Links and sizes (packed / unpacked):

STT Desert Malden 1.00 7.5mb / 8mb

ftp://www.gamezone.cz/ofpd/unofaddons2/catintroupdt2.rar

[Guest]

I think you can repack kegsnow down to about 35mb....just needs to stuffed again...no changes

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @ 15 May 2003,18:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think you can repack kegsnow down to about 35mb....just needs to stuffed again...no changes <span id='postcolor'>

As the data are compressed upon distribution this won't be a problem - and as OFP checks the island with a checksum different versions should be avoided. On the other hand Keg just could release an updated version (road bugs fixed)...

[dinger 1]

I see the advantages of a single, massive download. If we can get everybody "on the same page" mod-wise, we can build missions that people will use, and have MP sessions that will be attended.

And of course, I'm not alone. We're working at this from many angles. Witness the numerous collaborative efforts out there.

But we're talking about a couple of different htings:

A) a single, downloadable "übermod". This would be a good thing in theory, but in practice, you'd need to coordinate what goes in and what goes out. With many dev teams and egos, it could get ugly fast.

B) standards and standardization. We're all working towards this, part through collaborative efforts, and part through our own initiatives (Snypir's support pack, CoC_UnifiedArtillery, CoC_NS, CoC_OSS, just to name the ones I'm most familiar with). Still, there's a lot of stuff out there that's non-compliant or semi-compliant with existing standards (TAG, for example). And then there's all kinds of different interpretations over what constitutes acceptable damage levels. For example, I've seen 155mm HE shells that do more damage than LGBs, and MLRS M26 rockets (with a 700 pound payload) hit like an RPG.

THen we're talking about poly counts. Some of the stuff out there is really pretty, but only because it kills your machine with a high poly count.

What I suggest you do, Lolsav is the following:

1) yes, go for mod representation, but follow an imperial model: all mods have representatives and can discuss and negotiate, but the power to make the key decisions lies with the core group.

2) the core group should have someone with absolute authority, and a few delegates with expertise in particular fields (I would have: scripting, 3D models, config.cpp, and mission editing).

3) You distribute to representatives an FTP site for their submissions. The core group then decides what goes in and what doesn't. Actually, I'd have the feedback be:

A) Accepted

B) returned for modification (note exactly what needs to be done. For example: "TAG the MG50", or "lose 4000 polys".

C) Rejected

4) Automatically accept any addon produced by The Chain Of Command

[dm 9]

hmmm... indeed...

Whilst you guys (especially the server admins) are NOT worried about versioning, WE (I know we at BAS are, and I expect the other mod teams are too) ARE worried about it... After all who wants people to play with the older version of their addon??

It can cause no end of problems for both us [the devs], you [the players] and the server admins. Whether it be missions that do not fucntion correctly, people wondering why certain features are not available in older versions of the addon (you'd be suprised how many emails we get about that one...) class clashes (if something is updated in a new pack, the older version may cause errors with the new one, or some other new item that has been released to support it, or that uses it will show errors and so on...

As you can see this is going to be a BIG headache to get right, and to keep updated...

To be honest - I don't care about the filesize, I'm on 56k, and whether its 1 200meg zip, or 50 smaller zips, its still gonna be the same overall size...

What I am worried about tho, is older versions of our [bAS] addons floating around causing no-end of errors with newer ones...

Also, another issue with these "uberpacks" is that you end up with a truckload of addons that you will never use, just because someone else wants them in the pack... how fair is that?

To top it off, you are not going to be able to include all the addons, so what happens to the high quality, but lesser known addons? they just get left to sit on a ftp somewhere, and no one ever uses them...

THAT is the main issue with "uberpacks" what goes in? and what does not? do they go in as pbo's within a large zip? or do they get put under one big pbo with its own cpp?

I feel very strongly about this issue, and think that it would be MUCH better to spend the time and effort in creating "universal" addons, to the same standard for armour, damage, models and textures across the board, that everyone will want to use... not just shoving them into a big zip... which quite frankly, anyone with enough skill to use a computer can do...

[Lolsav 0]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DeadMeatXM2 @ 15 May 2003,206)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I feel very strongly about this issue, and think that it would be MUCH better to spend the time and effort in creating "universal" addons, to the same standard for armour, damage, models and textures across the board, that everyone will want to use... not just shoving them into a big zip... which quite frankly, anyone with enough skill to use a computer can do... <span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm, to start i wanna say i respect and love the work of addon makers. Or else we wouldnt have this discussion eh?

Now about the "stuff all in a pbo or zip" comment, that wont solve Servers/Map makers problem, cuz we need a standardisation here. We need players who connect to the servers to have the same addons as the server... therefor thats why a common pack idea was born.

[Skunk Monkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dinger @ 15 May 2003,18:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A) a single, downloadable "übermod".    This would be a good thing in theory, but in practice, you'd need to coordinate what goes in and what goes out.  With many dev teams and egos, it could get ugly fast.<span id='postcolor'>

No!

A set of modules conatining sets of collected Addons ...

Not Every Server will want EveryModule..

but with missions built using the addon modules, that way the map-maker knows his map can be played on many servers.

[Harkonin 0]

Not many "mainstream" editors will know enough to make 1 huge pbo with a cpp so a large zipped file with individual pbo's should be the most relevant way to go.This shouldn't be a problem if kept up on by the server admins/owners. The initial pack would be the hardest since everyone needs to agree on it but patching it should be quite simple for most clans since we all release "patch" links or host them ourselves.  The most important part at this point is to unify the Clans and servers in a common pack. For exmaple Lolsav has e-mailed me if we were willing and my response was simply it depends. All the clans and servers are going to have to give and take a little but I feel the "core" components or what they have heavily upon their servers already should be not sacrificed. For example our server uses the ZSURealistic,Vulcan Realistic, M21High, KSVK, and a few other individual addons almost as much as the Bas addons and Sebnam ones. A large discussion needs to be done with all involved and even those who are not.

  Just think of never being kicked from a server for not having "their" addons pack again.

Maybe I'll just keep dreaming.

[Skunk Monkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vixer @ 15 May 2003,14:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">whats the use of having a BAS module? The addons from BAS get updated almost every 2 months or so, you will stay busy updating the module all the time  <span id='postcolor'>

Hence a BAS Module ... so that any Updates only effect that single module .. ... ...

[dm 9]

I know exactly where you are coming from, it's unbelivably frustrating when there is one last addon you need to be able to play with your mates....

I just feel that the way you are going about it is wrong... "uberpacks" are good for stable, and complete addons... something which we are yet to see for OFP... as bugs are all ways going to appear... its the way it goes... I mean, even the game had to be upgraded, didn't it?

What we need to do is get "common addons" BEFORE we can even thing about making a "common addon pack"

I know Sigma-6 is on the verge of publishing a "standard armour formula" that we can use to make our tank addons accurate, what we need to do is release formulae and standard values for everything, from ammo, to body armour, and so on...

ONCE we have that done, and the addons can be made common - so no one addon "owns" the battlefield with its ridiculously high armour values, THEN we can start putting together either "uberpacks" OR creating html databases for each server listing the addons required for each game type.

E.g.

Game Type: Modern Desert Warfare.

Required addons: BAS Deltas/Rangers, BAS Littlebirds, MAF Hummer, MAF Abrams, MAF M113, UCE Desert OMON pack and so on

With each of the addon names being a direct link to the actual addon, that way, before playing a type of game (which can vary from WW2 Acrtic to vietnam to modern jungle) the player can download all of the required addons, and then play. This way YOU guys DON'T have to keep updating an "uberpack", just updating the html database, which is based on the addons on the server. And people dont end up with a stack of addons on their comp causing memory-map errors... That way, EVERYONE is happy, yes?

[Skunk Monkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nierop @ 15 May 2003,14:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This means that if we make a "winter pack" and a "BAS pack", the bas weapons are not available to winter missions.<span id='postcolor'>

No A map Can Contain Addons From 2 Packs. But instead of listing 15-20 addons required and servers checking to see if they have all the addons the mapmaker just says needs BAS + Winter Modules From the Common Addons Pack. Although these packs place some restrictions on the map-maker all map-makers I have Spoke to think its a good idea as their maps will be played by more people.

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DeadMeatXM2 @ 15 May 2003,20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E.g.

Game Type: Modern Desert Warfare.

Required addons: BAS Deltas/Rangers, BAS Littlebirds, MAF Hummer, MAF Abrams, MAF M113, UCE Desert OMON pack and so on

With each of the addon names being a direct link to the actual addon, that way, before playing a type of game (which can vary from WW2 Acrtic to vietnam to modern jungle) the player can download all of the required addons, and then play. This way YOU guys DON'T have to keep updating an "uberpack", just updating the html database, which is based on the addons on the server. And people dont end up with a stack of addons on their comp causing memory-map errors... That way, EVERYONE is happy, yes?  <span id='postcolor'>

I think the way they are doing it is actually better, instead of having an 'uber-pack' they have several 'mini-packs' for different themes, as, if you want to go play on a server for a night, you get all the addons, as people may choose to play missions from different eras, but if you want to play, say, with your mates, or a small game, you just get the small pack specific to the type of game you want to play, having a list on a webpage is not a very good way of doing it, as the player joining the server doesnt know which mission is coming after the one that is currently being played, so when the admin switches the map, he gets kicked out of the game for not having the right addons, which can cause numerous headaches which is why servers normally stick to a core set of large addons instead of lots of individual ones, also the updates wont be too much of a problem, as its not as if there are 4-5 arctic addons a month, or 4-5 vietnam addons, even at BAS we normally only release addons every couple of months or so, and if the player doesnt want to download the pack again he can just go to the addon site and grab the addon...

[dinger 1]

überpack or subpack, you still have a lot of negotiable issues to deal with.

It's a good idea. It's also interesting to see how the different groups (MP missionmakers, MP admins, Modmakers) react to it.

From a modmaker's perspective, this is a good idea, especially if my mods get included, and my idea of realism is applied. The more my vision of OFP gets circulated, the better.

of course, if everyone worked from pure self-interest,we'd get nowhere. But many mod teams are doing more than putting out pretty models, they're promoting their vision of OFP -- everything from system requirements to what sort of missions should be played.

The Mission Designer and MP admin ultimately decide the vision of OFP they want to endorse.

So here's the problem: how "political" do you want to be? And the degree of selection made has an effect on quality too.

If you say "let the editor decide", and just take everything and bundle it together, you'll get some interesting side effects: different rotor scripts will look different. FPS effects will not be predictable. Vehicle damage won't work too well, and so on.

If on the other hand you go for a "standard view", what will that standard be? How much work are you willing to do?

I'm always thinking in terms of artillery, so here's what I'm talking about in concrete terms:

We're in beta with CoC_UnifiedArtillery. A number of mod teams have produced some excellent artillery pieces that we're scripting to follow a common MP, communication, targeting, and terminal effects protocol. We need to do a lot of testing to get the sheaf effects looking right, and adjust the damage so it's all "Believable".

Now, let's say that this is worthy of inclusion. Okay. And in there are several other artillery pieces.

On the same map, we could see say an 81mm mortar section that follows UA protocol (call them up, map click on target, request a fire mission, calculations ensue, mortars aim, fire, shells fly trajectory and hit target), and say a static field gun with a "Shell Cam", flying 3200m and causing LGB effects.

That's one way to do it, and it would be a tad unpleasant.

On the other hand, standards enforcement might be something like:

A) you force UA to adhere to a different standard (shell cam, for example), at which point we raise a hissy fit and withdraw the addon (A MLRS with a max range of 3200m and has a single HE blast is not something we want our names associated with).

B) You make the other artillery pieces adhere to my standard. I'd love this, and be willing to help out, but maybe the others wouldn't. And what about people developing the same model (MLRS for example)? What about unauthorized ripoffs (the DKM m109 comes to mind)?

You're right that we're all gonna have to sacrifice something. And I'm with you in principlpe that as much as possible should be left to the mission editor/mp admin. But in practice that raises some issues.

[benu 1]

Maybe i am wrong but when i read DeadMeatMx2s posts i get the impression that he thinks this is about one big "uberpbo". This is not the case, there will be installer/zipfiles containing the "normal" small pbos. So if BAS updates it's Rangers they can be replaced in the common addon pack easily (and fast). This is just a sort of "agreement" between mp server admins and mp mission makers and mp players which kind of sums up to the following "if you, the mission maker, do use addons from this pack only, then your mission will work on all servers participating and you, the players, have the guarantee that with this addon pack you can play ALL the mission on lots of addon servers without having to hunt for lots of obscure addons or getting dropped form the server."

Nobody HAS to use this addons or restrict his mission or server to this addons. This is purely a voluntary decision. It's an offer to the mission maker in the form of "restrict yourself to this addons and get your missions played on many servers." I know many really good addon maps which get played on way to few servers cause to few servers can install all the addons each and every mission needs. I normally install all kind of addons for a good mission, but i had to reject quite a few cause it's just not feasible to install 50-100mb of addons for ONE mission only. No mission maker HAS TO restrict himself, but if this "agreement" comes to be then it will have the adverse effect: his missions will not be played on all the servers participating cause they "can't" install "unofficial" addons. This is a point we should keep in mind. This is not a "me vs you" issue, it's about consensus and an agreement.

The players are the ones benefitting the most from this: download once and play on many servers without trouble. The players can install additional addons to play on other servers. No restrictions for them.

The admins have to hunt less for addons too, but i think this is a normal part of admin life which i don't mind much. They also have to restrict their addons and missions (like the mission makers) if they want to comply to the agreement here. Like the mission makers they can choose not to comply with this agreement and have players being dropped or missions not working on their servers. I am using part of the SES addon pack on my server, but lots of additional stuff too. Players from SES may be able to play on my server, but i wouldn't count on it. Same goes for "my" players on SES server for example. With this point, too, it is important to keep in mind that this a voluntary agreement which benefits all better the more admins are taking part (same as with the mission makers again).

I am not sure if it is wise to start with specific stuff while the general framework is not agreed upon, but i can throw some of my wishes in too

First of all, i have players i can bury to their noses in addons so my approach would be "the more the better." I don't think this would be much of a problem as long most of the stuff goes into modules. Why limit the maxsize too much? There are so many good addons out there and it's not fair to all the addon makers who put time and talent into those addons. A maxsize per module is ok and important i think, but why restrict the number of modules by restricting the size of the SUM of all addons? And i don't like the idea of removing addons (and the missions using those) EXCEPT if they were not REMOVED but REPLACED and there is a possibility to maybe convert the missions using them. This would be another big plea i would adress to the mission makers: if you make missions for this addon pack, please update them to changes OR allow (maybe selected) others to update them IF THE ADDONS CHANGE.

Regarding which islands get in: catintro should be in, even as a beta, maybe as part of an desert or eastern module. Winter Nogojev, Sebnam + Jungle Everon, Desert Malden (or it's successor), Hellden, Skye, Jelalhabat.

I could make an endless list of addons (starting with everything from dkm, bas and kegetys), but i think the framework should be agreed on first or everyone will be arguing about different themes and an agreement would not be possible cause everyone is talking about something different altogether...

[dm 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benu @ 15 May 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe i am wrong but when i read DeadMeatMx2s posts i get the impression that he thinks this is about one big "uberpbo". This is not the case, there will be installer/zipfiles containing the "normal" small pbos. So if BAS updates it's Rangers they can be replaced in the common addon pack easily (and fast).<span id='postcolor'>

Then why not download the addons seperately? As that would be a lot quicker/easier and less hassle for everyone involved.

My main point is, that with the available technology, this kind of system is very slugish, and will inevitably end up way out of date before its even ready for download.

To use a scenario that pretty much everyone should be familiar with: BHD (*shudders*)

McKnights' hummers were forced to travel quickly in order to avoid casualties from "sniper" fire. However, due to the time delay in relaying the info from the P-3 Orion, to the Joint HQ at the airfield to the C2 Blackhawk over Mogadishu, and then to McKnights hummers... This meant that McKnight was instructed to turn AFTER the junction...

This is very much what this "uber zip" of addons will be like, I can guarentee it, everyone will always want different addons, and by the time they are decided on and finalised, the pack will have "missed the turn" and be out of date...

just think about it...

[Lolsav 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DeadMeatXM2 @ 15 May 2003,22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then why not download the addons seperately? As that would be a lot quicker/easier and less hassle for everyone involved.<span id='postcolor'>

Quick reply:

A map with an old version of an addon will work with updated addon?

Isnt it preferable to have the addons before joining a server?

Do the missing addons come up with a link when u try to join?

.. Lets keep going

[Guest DKM-jaguar]

I dont get why we need to limit addon makers to putting things into a small share of a 200mb pack, when they can produce high quality addons without having to think about if it will be too large for the pack. Why change the system of leting addon makers release when and if they are ready. To be honest, i cannot see such a system as a large pack such as this being adhered too by addon makers or users alike. putting all these addons in one jumbled pack will have the effect of making it all seem  like it is from one maker, those not in thier own unit classification wil be very hard to pin point to a certain mod without a huge readme of all the contributors on it, which you know from past experience that the average player cant be bothered to read the notes. without the percentage of the users knowing who made what, it could be much easier for people to claim other addons as thier own work, and will make identifying parts from addons in the pack harder, as they might be shared. I think that this kind of pack will create almost to much co-operation, leading to individuals misusing the trust, and eventually the system will break down as teams who tried to work together end up suspecting each other. i just think this will not be stuck to by anyone.