Common addon pack

[nierop 0]

Lolsav,

The Trinity island version 1.2 is what i really would like to see included.

Trinity version 1.2:                    1,373 kb zip-ed/2,684 kb pbo-ed

Need these addons:

Industrial pack: AGS_ind 2.0:       2,536 kb zip-ed/5,160 kb pbo-ed

Harbour pack: AGS_hckit 1.3:      1,850 kb zip-ed/3,314 kb pbo-ed

Both by Agent_smith

[Lolsav 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 16 May 2003,13:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to mention that the users will not be happy about it. Do you really expect people not do download new versions of an addon just because it isn't part of a pack?  <span id='postcolor'>

From my past experience: YES.

The usual procedure i have seen lately is: PPl download addons and test them, check their "utility" (a concept not even aproached along this discussion) for multiplayer missions and advise it to Servers admins. This seems to be the path evrywhere (correct me if im wrong)

Ppl will not have an updated version on their gaming folders if they are not in use of a server where they usually play or if it conflicts with a past addon. I mean, whats the use of having a addon if u cant really use it? The main "conflict" i see here its about maps having old versions of addons that cant be simply edited or replaced asap or at addon makers wishes. We all should compromise in a time to live of a addon until a next update/release.

Cmon, how long do u all take to research/test an addon? is 4 months that much???

[nierop 0]

Denoir, I think your autoupdater is a really funky idea. We just need a software tool that can do this (I have no experience whatsoever in that field). The point you make about not having to download addons that are already on your HD is very valuable. If the version checking will work, I say, do it.

But still, I hope you'll agree that one way or another addons makers have to accept that not every new version of their addons can be implemented real-time. Realize how many addon makers are around, multiply this with their release frequency, and you have the number of times people should update their addon-packs to play on a server. To me this then seems way too often. So the point you make about an database that contains all latest version of the addons, is, in my view, not so relevant. The database should just contain a steady set of addon versions. The speed of incorporation of new versions (so when the links in your update list get updated) depends on the update frequency of the MP convention addon-pack. This "update frequency" is a matter that has not been discussed or set yet.

@Lolsav

Our current experience is, indeed, that people enthoustically keep on trying out new addons and are reporting back what they would like to see included in the next addon-pack update. And also we are discussing the removal of stuff that is used to little extent or is considered redundant (well, maybe this is as we just started formulating an addon-pack). I expect that to stay current practice, bt on a larger scale.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Bandwidth bandwidth all is bandwidth

Which is faster a T2 line moving bits down the info superhighway at near light speed or a lorry full of CDs moving at just 60 mph?

The answer for those who dont all ready know is the lorry. It probably costs less too.

The answere to the problem is a CD

The distribution by Computer magazine as cover disc.

Here is part of an email I sent to BIS last month.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Magazine cover disk

And lastly we received offers recently to put The Command Engine on magazine Cover discs. We want to do this but would like your permission before going ahead. We would also like to suggest that rather than just the CoCs work an OFP MODs CD be made along with as many quality addons as possible. Perhaps as part of the Addons At Ease project? In conjunction with a special offer marketing drive on the Gotty edition as many other game producers do with their games toward the end of their product life cycle.

<span id='postcolor'>

When I say end of product life cycle there I mean BIS are now concentrating on OFP2

A secondary distribution method would be by post from national nodes say one in each major country using the community there are OFP sites in most countries or regions. All that would be needed is a a CD writer. All docs etc would be in the CD as txt or PDF including an optional CD cover.

A tertiary method would be downloads from those nodes. Allthough they had better have plenty of bandwidth.

Kind Regards walker

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 16 May 2003,13:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to mention that the users will not be happy about it. Do you really expect people not do download new versions of an addon just because it isn't part of a pack?  <span id='postcolor'>

From my past experience: YES.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, if you are willing to go with that assumption then a big addon pack is no problem. Perhaps it is as you say but I don't think so. From my experience people directly download a new version no matter how slight the changes are.

Take for instance the marvelous BAS MH47e. How many people have the old version without the cool scripts? Not many I'd say.

And trying to predict how long between updates is a hopless cause since the mod teams are not in any way synchronized and their development cycles are diverse.

Now one could of course gamble and let people play with different versions of addons, but I don't think that would be very popular.  

[Lolsav 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 16 May 2003,14:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now one could of course gamble and let people play with different versions of addons, but I don't think that would be very popular.  <span id='postcolor'>

Actually my only concern in a case like that is: Are they compatible? Can the both versions stay in a server/mission?

Since u are using BAS example ill tell u from my experience with the littlebirds. Great chopper, nicely modeled, a total sucess. We included it in our SES pack 4.0 (total downloads around 500).

Not much time after a new version of littlebirds came out, and we had alredy dozen of missions with that addon. Option: delete the missions or fix them all? Or wait till the next addon pack update?

The second option wasnt hard to pick. We just patiently wait. And we wont rush into a new addon until evryone is sure it isnt bugged (remember the kiowa?)

[nierop 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Take for instance the marvelous BAS MH47e. How many people have the old version without the cool scripts? Not many I'd say.<span id='postcolor'>

<sigh> The question is not so much what some people might like or want for an ideal situation. For single player missions, sure, I use the newest version. But plz take a step back and put in mind that we are talking about MULTIplayer (that means multiple players at the same time ) stuff here. Already, people that play on MP servers HAVE TO ADDAPT to that servers standards, if they wish or not. And believe me, people are willing to addapt to this because this is the only way for map makers and server owners can offer the stuff the visitors seek; MULTIplayer addon experience. How can I make a map with units, and as soon as BAS releases a new version some players have a different game (with different units) than others as the version do not match? Therefore, addon packs change at discrete time points set by the server owner. You see, standardization is already current practice; THERE IS NO OTHER WAY FOR MULTIPLAYER SERVERS.

If you don't believe me I invite you to come and play on ZEUS addon-server with you having all newest versions of addons  installed. You will probably be kicked from the game for not having the addons the map designer had in mind. Who do you blame? The map maker for not using the latest versions? Come on..!?

The reason why these packs are so big, is that addons cannot be loaded from mission to mission. Lets assume a player has all the addons to play a certain mission. The only way for him to stay on the server and play the next mission, is to have al the addons handy for that mission. As is quite uncertain what will be the next mission these is a large set the player needs. You see that downloading on demand will not work in game

[Guest DKM-jaguar]

i am only read up to page 5, BUT i think it is all YOU who miss the point, me and DeadMeat seem to have our ideas pretty clear.

BTW, these packs should ONLY be formed with the addon makers permission, if they dont want to be in the pack, then you cannot put thier property in it, as a rule of honour. They produce it, you follow thier wishes.

[benu 1]

Lolsav: i have to side with denoir in the updating issue. I don't think that one should use an older version of an addon for half a year when a new, improved and bug-fixed version is out that is (most of the times) compatible to the old one.

Denoir: i like your idea of an universal addon management system, but i don't think this is possible. Or it least it has to be done by people with a) too much time and b) enough "influence" in the ofp community to pull it off.

This discussion is first of all a negotiation between server admins who want to use addons on their server. It shall help the admins interchange missions without addons hassle and it shall help players who download the COMMON addon pack and can play on LOTS of addon servers instead of just the one they d/l the addon pack from.

Instead of discussing via mail Lolsav chose to let all the players, mission makers and addon makers be part of the discussion too. I really don't understand why especially DeadMeat is so pissed about this. There are admins that want to use BAS addons on their server and help those addons getting used more in mp and he starts flaming as if someone wanted to break his addons or something... i really don't get it. Quite the opposite is the case, if this pack comes to be then it will be easier for the average player to play on addon servers, more players will d/l the addons and see them in action and it will boost the use of his (and others) addons (and his/their reputation).

The point that Nierop made is: whether this agreement comes to pass or not, NOTHING will change for addon makers. The changes will only affect server admins, players and mission makers.

-The players only BENEFIT, as they have no additional restriction because of the common addon pack but more possibilies.

-The mission maker get an oppurtunity to make missions with lots of addons that get played on many mp servers NONETHELESS. This is not the common thing now. But it comes with a price: they have to restrict themselves to the addons from the common addon pack. But mission makers who don't want to do that can make all the missions they want anyway, those missions will just not be played on the servers of the participating admins (or later when all the needed additional addons have been included in the pack). THIS IS A VOLUNTARY DECISION OF EACH MISSION MAKER. Nobody is forced to do anything by this agreement.

-The server admins get more players as those players from other servers of this addon agreement can play on all participating servers and more missions (same reason, compatible addons). The price is that they can (well, actually they can but should not) install additional addons or they will lose the compatibility. This is the reason why i am in favor of MORE modules, infinite if need may be. This makes it possible for server admins to expand the addon list beyond the core modules and helps preserve most of the advantages this agreement bestows. We will see in the later part of this discussion if this is thing than one admin (me ) wants or not... And i repeat the same thing i said about mission makers: you as admin can use this to benefit from it (more missions, more players) but you don't have to. THIS IS VOLUNTARY.

-The addon makers (i repeat this because it seems to be hard to understand): NOTHING CHANGES AT ALL FOR YOU, except that maybe your addons get exposed to more missions, players, servers and online games. If you have objections to your addons being used i don't understand why you release them at all... If you have no objection about your addons being used on mp servers then i don't understand what the flames are about.

[nierop 0]

Ah jaguar, is it that you want us to follow your whishes ? I hope you realize that the physical form of the pack is not so much an issue here. Issue is the AGREEMENT of some MP servers to use a standard set of addons.

You see that, leaving the physical form of the addon pack out of this discussion for a sec, we can agree with each other on that WITHOUT needing permission of addon makers. Its just our agreement.

Different point is that you, as addon maker, have control over release of VERSIONS of your addons. So if you do not permit us to distribute older versions we cannot do anything about that. But read my post above and realize that the distribution of older version is already current practice and is from a server owner and map maker point-of-view the only way to run the server properly.

IF all addon makers would completely forbid the distribution of slightly older versions, the MP addon community will crash to a halt, as, i already mentioned, we cannot expect players to keep track of updates daily. Therefore, another, maybe to you less sexy form of standardization is needed.

If you, however, just want to complain about the 6 months update period, I say you have point, as this seems awfully long to me as well. But, as said by others, the update frequency has not yet been a matter of serious debate.

[Lolsav 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benu @ 16 May 2003,14:38)</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">Lolsav: i have to side with denoir in the updating issue. I don't think that one should use an older version of an addon for half a year when  a new, improved and bug-fixed version is out that is (most of the times) compatible to the old one.<span id='postcolor'>

If its compatible no problem, just a minor update, and we dont even have to mess with the pack

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir: i like your idea of an universal addon management system, but i don't think this is possible. Or it least it has to be done by people with a) too much time and b) enough "influence" in the ofp community to pull it off.<span id='postcolor'>

Errr, where is that universal addon management tool? Is it real or an idea? We working on stable stuffs here

[dinger 1]

Addon makers have to make their stuff as backwards compatible as possible. Mission Designers should be spending a lot of time on their design: testing, debugging, scripting. So initial releases don't need to be adapted by MP admins right away; someone's gotta build a decent misison for them. And in the first month or so, people will be testing the stuff for themselves.

The big problem, of course, is that with MP stuff, few (addon makers and mission editors) do enough testing, and even all the testing in the world isn't going to reveal all the bugs that a production release will. So, just as with current game releases, many of the more sophisticated Addons have their first release as a sort of beta: it all works, as far as we know, and we caught most of the bugs. But we don't expect it to be perfect, and we do intend to patch it if it has some serious issues. Further, we pledge to work with mission editors to ensure that their missions function with any updates.

Now, from this perspective, the problem addon makers are having should be clearer:

As much as we don't want to, we do rely on mass distribution and "production testing" to catch some remaining pernicious bugs. A "canon" of old stuff may be good, but the fear is that it will only serve to enshrine buggy junk by limiting the exposure of an addon in those critical early weeks when the addonmaker can make changes, and then ossifying a version that itself has problems.

And again, I still say you guys could do more. I at least am eager to deal with MP mission designers and server admins throughout the development process; it guarantees product that will be used and appreciated.

[nierop 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And again, I still say you guys could do more.<span id='postcolor'>

I say, start small, see how things work out, then make plans for bigger things. The obections you make on addon tesing I se now are valid, but dont be too afraid; this initiative still involves a small number of participants. And also people will alsays keep on playing with the newest versions, but not on convention addon-pack servers.

[dm 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DKM-jaguar @ 16 May 2003,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i am only read up to page 5, BUT i think it is all YOU who miss the point, me and DeadMeat seem to have our ideas pretty clear.

BTW, these packs should ONLY be formed with the addon makers permission, if they dont want to be in the pack, then you cannot put thier property in it, as a rule of honour. They produce it, you follow thier wishes.  <span id='postcolor'>

Indeed, although its a bit narrow minded (after all, we make the addons to be USED, not to sit around looking pretty...)

If we did not care about the MP community, we would not spend so much dev time making MP versions of all our scripts. That alone shows that we are as dedicated to making MP as good and easy as SP...

I also have to say that I totally agree with Denior on this issue. He has struck the nail firmly on the head. Just because it is not in an "uber pack" is no reason not to have the addon, and, with the MH-47E, and any future BAS updates it will NOT be possible to have both versions running on your computer (not without causing CTD's and random lockups in some cases, and totally impossible in others - due to the pbo's having the same names.)

I think that you server guys are being the narrow minded ones here, as come on guys, you run servers, at least ONE of you has to have the html skills to write a small html script to do this? Surely...

And, as Denior says, no respected addon maker wants people using the old versions of their addons... it just defies the point of making new ones...

This is why I, and a lot of other Addon makers are SO opposed to "Uber zip's" or "Uber Pbo's" as they act like a time warp, trapping addons in time, freezing the older versions there until the update, a sluggish 4-6 months later...

AND to top it off, with an "Uber zip" you would be GUARENTEED to be downloading at least 2 or 3, if not MORE, addons that you allready have... talk about redundancy...

I can also GUARENTEE that you would kill off all but the most hardcore of 56k players (yes, you may think its good, as your pings would go down) but its a very very large sector of the community that you would be isolating...

If you want to make your Servers POPULAR, you need to do several things:

1) Make it easy to get the addons, WITHOUT having to downlod copies of what the players allready have.

2) Appeal to the LARGEST audience possible

3) Be as UP-TO-DATE as possible

As I have allready iterated, "Uber zips" are like time warps... they freeze addons in time, keeping old (often buggy, or poor) versions of addons in circulation, would have an incredibly long gestation time - addons would have to be chosen, tested, apporved, and added... all agreed on by several people, to ensure the "quality" levels are kept high...

All this takes a phenominal amout of time IF done PROPERLY... same as a decent addon...

Again, I beg of you guys... listen to reason, and try and do it via an html script, so that addons can be the dynamic things they are designed to be.

[Lolsav 0]

Seems we have 2 wills in conflict in here. Maps vs Addons, where both cant live without each other.

1. Addons are updated ---> Maps who use old version not ---> delete 30 maps to get the update ---> No way!

2. Addons updated ---> check for its stability (no further updates = that requires times passing by)---> Update the server addon ---> make it compatible with the players using the server ---> make a pack with addons used on server = evrything runs smooth, nobody gets hurt.

[blackdog~ 0]

I cannot believe you are thinking of a CD-ROM!

CD-ROMS = MONEY

SHIPPING = MONEY

MONEY FOR ADDONS = MAD ADDON MAKERS

MAD ADDON MAKERS = BAD OR NO ADDONS!

Who in the bloody hell would pay for a CD-ROM with addons on it anyway?

[dm 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ 17 May 2003,00:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">MAD ADDON MAKERS = BAD OR NO ADDONS!<span id='postcolor'>

or

OLD VERSIONS = BAD ADDONS

the whole point of updating is to improve the addons... if everyone keeps the ainchent pack versions, then whats the point in us updating??

Also, 90% of the missions will not "break" during the update process... we ensure this does not happen by keeping as much of the cpp info the same as possible...

The major thing you would have to do is tweak the waypoints, and remove any extra scripts... not a huge effort... really now is it??

[Rastavovich 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cannot believe you are thinking of a CD-ROM!

CD-ROMS = MONEY

SHIPPING = MONEY

MONEY FOR ADDONS = MAD ADDON MAKERS

MAD ADDON MAKERS = BAD OR NO ADDONS!

Who in the bloody hell would pay for a CD-ROM with addons on it anyway? <span id='postcolor'>

Good question. But not really important here. But I bet everyone with 56k and no flatrate + no friends with faster conns could imagine such a way, cause it may be cheaper then actually downloading all that stuff. 200 mb take ~600-800 mins to download on 56k. If you just have to pay 1 euro/dollar/whatever per hour it might be handy to get a CD for 2-4 euro/dollar/whatever. But as I said, this isn't really a topic here.

While I follow the discussion here one question comes to my mind:

"Why do you all make such a drama out of it?"

Why don't those server guys simply do what they plan to do and look if there is a player acceptance for their doing?

It isn't really a matter of version conflicts, download size, redunancy or updating. If players accept limiting the abilities of the addons, but they can play online with limited (but still in some cases better) instead of default units, why don't let them?

[shrike 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, I beg of you guys... listen to reason, and try and do it via an html script, so that addons can be the dynamic things they are designed to be.<span id='postcolor'>

Just a quick reply today since it's late:

That exactly is the problem when you run a server. You have to take the momentum out of changes to keep it all in the flow. The way you're suggesting it (database, constantly updated link collection, whatever) would mean that I'd have to check ALL sites EVERY day to keep the server up2date with what the players may have downloaded already. While this may be a little exagerated it would come quite close to that.

I don't know about others but for me it's simple: A no-go. I have a job, I have a life and this nerdy hobby already uses up a lot of time.

Same with maps: How do you keep up with constantly updated addons? You can assume it's backwards compatible but you can't be sure.

You HAVE to take a snapshot of the current addon situation and use it for a while. I am sure every server admin agrees with me here.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your concerns and I wouldn't want old versions of my oeuvres being used by the community or a part of it, too.

But we're talking about making it all playable, on another level as you do, but nonotheless of importance for the survival of the OFP community. And THIS is my main concern, it's weak enough already - and don't get me started on true MP quality which is hard to find these days.

Try to see it this way: You are the artists, map designers are the directors and we are the cinemas.

So let's please find a compromise but I urge you to understand admins and map makers concerns. Ask a buddy who runs a server and whos opinion you trust. He will tell you the same. Stability and consistency with player installations are the root of pleasant MP gaming.

And I have to agree with what has been said before: Addon packs are used by all major addon servers already. If we agree on a viable solution we facilitate it for the players, who supply the blood we all drink of.

If we don't agree, the situation will stay as it is. I will use and update our addon pack whenever I feel it's time, and I will use working versions of what we have until all maps, the server and our community have been updated in a controlled manner.

Good night and I hope we will all be happy.

[benu 1]

DeadMeat: i totally agree with you regarding quick updates of addons. And that is what this discussion is about: getting input and perspectives from all sides and see what is the best solution. And even Lolsav said that he could imagine quick addon updates if they are compatible with the old ones. So it could work out after all.

Shrike: If you use a common addon pack with other servers then there are other admins working with you, so it could turn out that even with regular updates this thing could mean less work for you. But of course, SOMEONE has to do it. But as admins seem to be a motivated and masochistic lot anyway, i am sure that it could work

You both are very quick to put things down when nothing is even decided upon yet. Let's collect wishes and infos from all sides first and see what (if anything) is possible.

[shrike 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benu @ 17 May 2003,02 )</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Shrike: If you use a common addon pack with other servers then there are other admins working with you, so it could turn out that even with regular updates this thing could mean less work for you. But of course, SOMEONE has to do it. But as admins seem to be a motivated and masochistic lot anyway, i am sure that it could work <span id='postcolor'>

It's about updating the server in a timely manner. No I am not masochistic enough to check and do this every day. Hell once a week is too much if you have to check 80+ Addons in the worst case. Other than that I agree with both of you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You both are very quick to put things down when nothing is even decided upon yet. Let's collect wishes and infos from all sides first and see what (if anything) is possible.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't have the feeling I am putting anything down. On the contrary I am all for finding a win-win solution for everybody hence explaining my concerns, that's all.

[walker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ 17 May 2003,01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cannot believe you are thinking of a CD-ROM!

CD-ROMS = MONEY

SHIPPING = MONEY

MONEY FOR ADDONS = MAD ADDON MAKERS

MAD ADDON MAKERS = BAD OR NO ADDONS!

Who in the bloody hell would pay for a CD-ROM with addons on it anyway?<span id='postcolor'>

Hi all

Why post it when the computer mags will distro it on a free cover disc.

Why would you pay for the CD if it came free on a magazine?

CD Rom costs less than 50p postge about 1 english pound max probably so say Max 1.50 english pounds

Compare it to modem cost for the downloader

200mb would take a 56K modem at a normal speed of 48k assuming all other links in the chain were perfect it takes 416 minutes at 10 a minute local rate telephone that is 41 english pounds

Maths Huh? Amazing how many people dont do it.

Now let us look at the server costs.

BANDWIDTH IS NOT FREE. I run servers I know.

The cost of running a 10 Gb a month server for a year a costs around 60 English pounds.

10Gg x 12 = 120,000,000,000

Such a site can supply 120,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 = 600 people per year but only at 50 people per month.

To run a big enough server to supply over 1 million people the 200mb file would cost a lot more than I have but it apears that we have a volunteer in blackdog

Of course not everyone has broadband or even a modem but I guess rich capitalists ignore them

Why would anyone pay for a bandwith?

Kind Regards walker

[blackdog~ 0]

Why post it when the computer mags will distro it on a free cover disc. Why would you pay for the CD if it came free on a magazine?

The magazine isn't free :), and I don't think everyone gets a gaming magazine and it would be hard to have PC magazines distro the disks for you. Please restate the question because I don't think I understand.

200mb would take a 56K modem at a normal speed of 48k assuming all other links in the chain were perfect it takes 416 minutes at 10 a minute local rate telephone that is 41 english pounds

I am American and I don't use pounds, but still, this will all be made up for once they start playing on the MP servers :). Plus, hourly ISP's are shit, most ISP's charge by the month and not the hour now (not sure about 56k). Reread what DM said about the CD idea :)

BANDWIDTH IS NOT FREE. I run servers I know.

True, but not true. It would be possible for a person to run a server with one of those 'unlimited bandwidth' hosts which just caps the bandwidth for every second. Problem solved.

I must emphasize that I want SINGLE downloads as well, not 200MB things. There should be a text file that the server provides that lists the addons needed and where to download them (from a reliable server, of course). Once agian, http://www.tacticalblunder.com/adonlist.txt

To run a big enough server to supply over 1 million people the 200mb file would cost a lot more than I have but it apears that we have a volunteer in blackdog

No, you don't. It would be up to servers to provide their own mirrors and files locally/from other places such as OFP.INFO.

Of course not everyone has broadband or even a modem but I guess rich capitalists ignore them

Thank the ISP industry for that

Why would anyone pay for a bandwith?

They wouldn't. See above...

Kind Regards walker

Same for me. Sorry for getting you angry if I did :)

[Junker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's about updating the server in a timely manner<span id='postcolor'>

The packs would be updated every 3-6 months which is a good idea, we at SES have had this system running for awhile now and it works great.

56k isnt a problem, if you have a 56k player in your clan just burn it on a CD and send him it after the mian pack he could download the patches to update it.

(Buying magazines at Å7 a time  NO WAY)

I think we should have a e-mail service or something like that to keep all clans up to date with the addons pack.

[nierop 0]

*IMPORTANT*

Ok to continue on-track I would like to have lists of the addons in the addon-packs of all the participating servers. I suggest that we put addons used by all servers in the convention-addon pack immediately. For the differences we can start to have a discussion after that, but before we need an overview of our desires, as signified by each servers addon list.

Can this be arranged? I am working on a list for ZEUS. I personally prefer to have an excel-file.

Let me know...

Pimmelorus

[ZEUS addon-server]