Addons at ease

[OxPecker 0]

OK, my questions (sorry if they seem silly, but I'm not as well versed in the mechanics of how OFP handles addons as some) -

1. I mightn't be reading this correctly, but are you suggesting 1 installer/exe for each individual addon? Thats sounds like a LOT of downloading, which will put off the casual gamer just as much as the way things are now. It will also mean severs will have to give a list of each individual AAE exe file you will need to download.

2. Will there be compatability issues with existing addons - am I going to have to clear out my addon folders so as to install them?

3. The demo missions - just how basic or complicated will these demo missions be, or be expected to be. Will it be a simple "here is a mission with the new tank - go and blow up some enemy" or will they be 2mb epics featuring latest scripts, custom music and images etc. If they include fancy scripting and such, they might not give a true indication of the addons worth - i.e. scripts might be used to make the addon seem more fucntional than it actually is.

All in all though, I think this sounds like an excellent idea. Some sort of addon standardisation is long overdue.

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 10 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. The demo missions - just how basic or complicated will these demo missions be, or be expected to be. Will it be a simple "here is a mission with the new tank - go and blow up some enemy" or will they be 2mb epics featuring latest scripts, custom music and images etc. If they include fancy scripting and such, they might not give a true indication of the addons worth - i.e. scripts might be used to make the addon seem more fucntional than it actually is.<span id='postcolor'>

My understanding is that it can be as basic or as complicated as the addon maker wishes. I mean, any of us could make a mission for an addon - it's a simple matter of one or two triggers and some waypoints at the most simple level. And I'm sure if the addon maker prefers not to make a mission that he's got a friend or someone else willing to make a demo mission for him.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 11 2003,05:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 10 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. The demo missions - just how basic or complicated will these demo missions be, or be expected to be. Will it be a simple "here is a mission with the new tank - go and blow up some enemy" or will they be 2mb epics featuring latest scripts, custom music and images etc. If they include fancy scripting and such, they might not give a true indication of the addons worth - i.e. scripts might be used to make the addon seem more fucntional than it actually is.<span id='postcolor'>

My understanding is that it can be as basic or as complicated as the addon maker wishes. I mean, any of us could make a mission for an addon - it's a simple matter of one or two triggers and some waypoints at the most simple level. And I'm sure if the addon maker prefers not to make a mission that he's got a friend or someone else willing to make a demo mission for him.<span id='postcolor'>

OK, I guess what I was getting at is what happens if someone makes a mission with a lot a fancy scripts that make the addon do all kinds of neat stuff, and the person who downloaded it thinks these are standard features of the addon. They may be in for a big letdown when using the addon in other missions.

Good thing or bad thing - I guess it depends on your point of view.

[redface 1]

a request to the developers:

i'm in favour of the demo mission idea, though it can get impractical as well as it overloads your user/missions folder even more

my suggestion would be to add a small preview option in the editor so that you can see the addon before inserting it (also displaying the name of the file being used)

this would make it so much easier to select the appropriate addons for your mission

now I see a nice new Amazon addon, i put it in my addons folder, but in the editor I can't possibly guess where the addon is to be found

it would also help us in the effort to clean up our addons folder, as it would show that this or that bad addon is in that file (rather than having to download them all again, now with proper tags, which I think would be unfair to the lots of us with dialup connections)

a search option would come in handy as well, or just a central website that lists all quality addons and tells where to find them exactly

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (redface @ April 11 2003,08:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'm in favour of the demo mission idea, though it can get impractical as well as it overloads your user/missions folder even more.<span id='postcolor'>

In case you're not aware of it, search The FAQ for "mission subdirectories".

[Powerslide 0]

I think it's a great idea unfortunately it may be too little too late. I had hoped BIS would get behind the addon makers early on and weed out the good stuff and release it in patches (with the full "if it breaks your game don't come crying to us" disclaimer of course). I would also like to see approved addons released in patches, it's a big step by BIS to even suggest what they have so far and perhaps they can assign people to look at addons and rate the quality prior to approval as they are busily working away on OFP2 (perhaps code for wheeled APC's ) and just don't have the spare time. I don't know, with the right organization something like this would greatly simplify things and promote the really good stuff out there. It would also create a standard.

[colonel_klink 0]

I think the idea of standardising addon installation is a good idea. Auran, the makers of Trainz issued a Despatcher program which allowed the easy installation of addon content. This I felt was good for their community, just as I see this initiative from BIS as a step ahead.

I support the idea of adding a demo mission that shows off the new addons features. Perhaps in the installation the user could have the option to install the demo mission.

As for required addons, I personally don't create addons that are dependant upon non BIS addons, however I can see that bundling the required ones with the new ones would have its pros and cons. Nothing worse than trying to use a new addon if you don't have the others the new addon needs. On the other hand some addons are fairly hefty to download as it is for 56k'ers.

Standardising through OFPEC addon suffix naming is a good idea which works very well in 99% cases.

A means of uninstalling addons is a good idea and one that most OFPers would appreciate. I do concur that any installer would add to the user's registry.. very little programs don't.

Clickteam's installer works well, and any MSI installer could do the same job.

There has been debate in th past that some OFPers won't download addons that have their own installer. Personally having an installer that searches the registry for the addon folder and proceeds to install directly, in my mind is better than having to navigate to the addons folder manually.

This installer could be used for mission installations too, for both PBOed and user demo missions.

Great initiative guys from BIS.

[-CCCP-Stalker 0]

I have absolutly new and I think great idea. Let's say that installers are already inplemented, they have a patch feature etc. But what's with readme ? It will be installed in addon folder. User then must to go there, find it, copy it somewhere, read it, delete it LOL That's a lot of work. I think that OFPAM (Operation Flashpoint Addon Manager by DKM) file shoul be distributed among with the addon. It'll go to addon folder than and people don't need to delete it. Just DL small and useful prog and have all their addons full of info about 'em etc. Also DKM need to modify their OFPAM to have and entry called "Mission" to show if there is a test mission or no.

As Soul_Assasin already said we here in RSS fully support the idea. And please make the installer quicker 'cos we have one small thing closing to release...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Colonel_Klink @ April 11 2003,10:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There has been debate in th past that some OFPers won't download addons that have their own installer. Personally having an installer that searches the registry for the addon folder and proceeds to install directly, in my mind is better than having to navigate to the addons folder manually.<span id='postcolor'>

The difference is that now we're talking about a global installer standard. That's a bit more comforting than the dozens of home-brewed methods used until now.

Standardization is indeed consolation.

[colonel_klink 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 11 2003,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Colonel_Klink @ April 11 2003,10:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There has been debate in th past that some OFPers won't download addons that have their own installer. Personally having an installer that searches the registry for the addon folder and proceeds to install directly, in my mind is better than having to navigate to the addons folder manually.<span id='postcolor'>

The difference is that now we're talking about a global installer standard. That's a bit more comforting than the dozens of home-brewed methods used until now.

Standardization is indeed consolation.<span id='postcolor'>

That's true. With the new initiative standardisation may become a reality.

The trouble is there are some people who will repackage the addons to add to their own installation. Here is where problems could arise.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Colonel_Klink @ April 11 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The trouble is there are some people who will repackage the addons to add to their own installation. Here is where problems could arise.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey! It's a free world!

[ale2999 0]

Ya there is notin wrong if after u take the addon and put it in a mod folder. better thing is that if the installer would give the recommended place to install the stuff, but allow change in location if the user is an advanced one

[Skaven 0]

This seems like a great idea to me, as it will not only increase the addon's quality standarts as it will be a good chance for we addon makers to work a little bit closer to BIS.

Also the interest Maruk is demonstrating really makes me happy, we addon makers would never be able to do anything without your continous support, thank you.

I think I'm talking for all the BAS team,we already have the system sugested implemented, and we'll be more than happy to help all addon makers and MODs that will need us not only in this topic but in all topics.

I think it's time for we all to cooperate, together we can make our game 10 times better,and after all tat as always been our goal, I'm sure that a lot of addon makers don't know how to make missions, but there are a lof of mission makers that also don't know how to make addons, it's just a question of cooperating as I've said before,it's nice having addons, but if we can't use them properly than what's the point in making them ?

It's true that Maruk as only sugested but if a big percentage of we addon makers follow this sugestions, than I'm sure that the rest will come after us. I'm IN

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 10 2003,17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at one of the greatest (IMO) addon packages (Seb Nam Pack), it is such a pain in the back to install for even very experienced computer users because of the lack of an installer.  <span id='postcolor'>

Get the installer from http://www.suicidesquad.co.uk

As we are using a lot of Addons on our server we started using Installers quite some time ago. That way we can ensure that everything is installed to the correct locations and that people don't start showing errors when playing. We use NSI (from the guys that made WinAmp) to create the installers. Very simple to use and it's free.

I think the general introduction of installers to the addons community would be great - but mod folders should be supported (especially for big addons like the 'Nam pack), as many people tend to install a lot of addons and then wonder why they're short of memory. Using mod folders OFPR gives us the great chance to load these addons only when we want to.

[dm 9]

I don't see what all the fuss about packs is about... afterall its gonna be the same overall file size in a big pack as it would be in lots of different individual addons...

Also, big packs, normally ones made by gamers, who are not related to the addons in any way (see Peanuckles' Desert Pack) can become out-dated as new versions of the addons are released... If they were mod serviced, i.e. updated every time a new addon/addon version was released, then it would offer increased support to the end user.

I do however agree with making "server packs", for example, once our special ops project is done, we [bAS] will also be releasing a "server pack" which will contian all of the special ops helicopters, soldiers, vehicles etc...

That way, the servers can say "you need the BAS Spec Ops Pack", this would mean 1 click for the download (for cable users it would be a quick download), and you're ready to play...

Then, on the site there can be a listing of what is in the "server pack" so that the 56k'ers have the choice of either grabbing the whole pack, or downloading the addons on an idividual basis.

I think keeping all the addons seperate if great, as it allows the 56k'ers to download in chunks, rather than having to download a 100+ Mb pack with a load of addons that they will never use...

I am on 56k, and to be perfectly honest with you... if all the current addons we re-standardised, I would download them again...

As regards to installers, the only feature I would want would be an upgrade/patch facility, that way, when something is updated, all you have to do is download a patch, rather than the whole addon again...

This would be better for the 56k'ers, as downloading say the SEB Nam Pack (40 megs) is a big commitment... If when the modules are released, or any of the pack was updated it could be done with an exe patch program, that would be much better than having to re-download the whole 40 meg file (I know the modules will be seperate, and have their own cpp's, i was simply using this as a basis for an example)

To sum up, in my opinion the "Addons At Ease" initiative I see it as this:

[*] The Addons should be standardised (using the OFPEC TAG system) to eliminate any addon clashes.

[*] The installer should feature versioning, and an upgrade/patch capability. This will allow users to keep up to date, and not have to repeatedly download the same files.

[*] The installer should also feature a window for the readme, similar to the licence agreement window in O2 that HAS to be read beforeinstallation can continue.

[*] There should be a REFERENCE Data Base, that stores all of the URL's for the addons, where it is the Addon makers responsibility to update if urls are changed. Also, OFPEC could become offical offiliates of BIS, so that their "Addon Depot" can become an "Offical Repository" for addons.

[*] Multi-language support should be featured... Who/What did BIS use to translate for the final game? We [bAS] are making an effort with the MH-47E update to feature multi-language support, and to that extent we are lookinh for some way of translating the commands/text into the different languages. So far we have relied on native speakers of the language to do this.

[*] Standardisation of models and textures (picking up on SelectThis' point) addons should go through a "screening" to ensure they adheer to the standards. Models should have set limits of polys, and textures should be in either *.paa or *.pac format (I know these do not give as good a result as *.jpeg, but the game engine is designed to run optimally when using these texture formats.

[*] Demo missions. The demo mission we (Nagual) produce at BAS are often quite complex and show the addon to its full potential. Maybe a demo mission to be included in the installer would have to be a certain size (the mission folder) and would be a basic mission that highlights the features of the addon.

[*] Addon advertising... Once a selection of top quality addons are assembled they could be submitted to the PC Games magazines out there for inclusion on the free discs. This would not only increase advertising for the game (and boost resistance sales) but it would also bolster the community, as they would be tempted to get involved by some clever wording in the readme i.e. "Check out the forums at www.flashpoint1985.com for more information and updates to these and many other addons"

phew... long list there, but in the long run I fell that a project like this, if run properly could breathe new life into Operation Flashpoint, and start a whole new "generation" of OpFlasher's.

Feel free to pic out any points in my post, and improve or change them  

[Rastavovich 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I think that OFPAM (Operation Flashpoint Addon Manager by DKM) file shoul be distributed among with the addon. It'll go to addon folder than and people don't need to delete it. Just DL small and useful prog and have all their addons full of info about 'em etc. Also DKM need to modify their OFPAM to have and entry called "Mission" to show if there is a test mission or no.<span id='postcolor'>

Changing OFPAM and OFP_IFC (the info file creator tool) is no big deal. And the info file used by those tool was developed with the target to make it easier to find what pbo is what addon and which classes and dependencies are there.

[Baron silas Greenback 0]

YAY

Will this Installer program list all the addons that the user has installed?

Readme Idea...

If addon makers renamed there readme files to there addon name, it would be so much easyer to Find the codes needed when using these addons for our own missions. Also it would eliminate the need to extract the readme and rename it...there could be a readme file folder for all the readme's?

Also I thought ofp manager was a good idea you could install and uninstall addons as you see fit just by having the program rename the files you didnt want to a different file extension.

very simple and affective. only down fall was trying to work out what the odd named addons were.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Baron silas Greenback @ April 11 2003,14:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Readme Idea...

If addon makers renamed there readme files to there addon name, it would be so much easyer to Find the codes needed when using these addons for our own missions. Also it would eliminate the need to extract the readme and rename it...there could be a readme file folder for all the readme's?<span id='postcolor'>

BIS' MSI builder automatically prefixes the ReadMe.txt file with the name of the addon and places the readme in a new OFP\Addons At Ease\ folder for future reference.

The readme text is also optionally displayed at the end of the MSI install process.

[nyles 11]

I think the idea itself is very very good. However I have my doubts about realisation.

A few weeks ago, there was a discussion about including certain addons in missions used in the 'Electronic Sports League'. The result was that no addons should be included, as the current presence of the league maps on public-servers is one of the reason, the league has so many clans joining. It is a common fact that maps with addons are almost never played online, as there are way too less people playing which have them installed. So basically for the ESL, this would mean that the league maps would rarely be played public, resulting in the loss of a good way to recruit new players and clans for the sports league.

Now with certain top-notch addons being advertised directly from www.flashpoint1985.com, chances are increasing that more and more people will be playing online that have at least some of these 3rd party addons installed, making it possible to use them in ESL-specific missions.

The problem i see though is about the standard of these AAE classified addons. There are many very excellent addons out there; many of them having a much more polished look than BIS' own models that shipped with the game. However, in my oppinion AAE addons should follow a certain guideline. They should be balanced with the rest of the game units and also there should be an even distribution of West- and East-based models.

In the ESL, there was one thing avoided by not agreeing on the usage of addons: The question which addons should get in, and which not? The problem simply is that this community spawned a shitload of addons, so to say. There are so many talented modellers, skinners and coders here, that we can for sure list ourselves on one of the top ranks on a ranking based on the quantity of custom addons. It will be a hard decission to decide on only a few of them to enter the special new inner circle of AAE addons.

I'm also with Suchey here, I personally would like to see things focused on mulitplayer compatibility, as well. Some addons are great for singleplayer, but can hardly be balanced in multiplayer. Because of this, I fear that it will be a tough thing to decide on which addons being pimped and which not.

[Soldier8Boy 0]

Well, I myself do not like the thing about having a mission with each addon. At WW2EC we have an Addon Department and a Mission Department that work seperately. We put out as many quality addons as we can and then later our mission department builds the missions which then go up on the site.

[brsseb 0]

Addon Installers is nice for newbies, but please: Make an option for "advanced" users to manually install the pbo files, maybe a button on the front of the installer that says "Manual install (Advanced) " that puts the pbos in an temporary folder, leaving the registery unharmed.

Also, some installers do use the registery, some dont it seems. A warning on the installer window saying if it is to change the registery or not would be nice.

On the matters of the 1.91/1.9 and the OFPEC Tagging system is all good. Also, for debugging issues or something, all the custom classnames you used should be listed somewhere in the readme file.

Btw, also, some weapon makers dont make a standard soldier equipped with the weapon, like "WEST->Man->Soldier ("The weapon")". Thats irritating, and newbies not into the "this Addweapn...etc" stuff will be a bit lost.

Having a mission shouldnt be mandatory, because it depents on what type of addon it is. It should be encourraged, sure, but not mandatory.

Yes, and please, dont call your readme-files "readme.txt", if your pbo is called ABC_Gunship.pbo, name your readme: "ABC_GunShipReadme.txt", and a jpg pic: "ABC_GunShipPic.jpg", so that the files sort themselves in the addon folder. VERY important, especially when your broken the addon limit and you need to clean up, deleting/updating addons and stuff.

BRSSEB

BRSSEB

[Johann "onn" Bitsoenn 0]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @ April 10 2003,124)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dear Addon makers,

we believe it's time to try to change the way how are the addons distributed if we want them to be more accessible to every user of Operation Flashpoint.

In order to achieve this, we want to introduce an initiative "Addons at ease" in near future.

We want to adress following issues:<span id='postcolor'>

Very good idea, but... 1st, it is strange that it has been introduced so late..., 2nd - it has some problems...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission.<span id='postcolor'>

Probably that's the biggest one. While monkey-at-keyboard-type users will benefit a lot from AAE standard, more advanced users will became somehow limited. But...

AAE standard with Installer would be somehow acceptable if the Installer file would be able to be accesed by a compression system (as some zip-exe files, autoextr. archives, are accesable without running the exe file). Then, less advanced users will just click the button, while more advanced ones will extract the files and do what is needed to...

And from other point of view, the whole idea with installer is just... somehow a crap, because well... If somebody want's to use certain beautiful addon, he WILL do it, at any cost. So - he will learn how to :]

It is then better to teach peoples, than to make other people dumb.

Important thing is also the linux-problem mentioned before...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Most addons currently come without any mission. We believe any addon for general public should come at least with one simple demo mission.<span id='postcolor'>

Absolutely true. Even if the addonmaker itself would not be able to make any mission, he will for shure find someone who will do it happily :]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3) Many addons and mission require some other addons etc. so it's sometimes very hard to get it all working in the game. Ideally, we would like to see single files containing logical collection of addons and missions and have gamers to get just the single file to play with it in the game (without having to open the mission editor etc.)<span id='postcolor'>

I think that the idea will sound better if we describe it somehow like here:

1) No single tank/gun/whatever releases. That complies of course only to some specific addons group - mods. If someone makes i.e. German, Canadian, British, or Whatever mod, it would be really better if he will release a whole pack update once a two months than unlinked addons more often.

2) No using other-people-addonparts in separate releases. Instead - if you made any addon using someone else addon, then it it a modification - and very probably it will be better to release them both in one pack. What would it give? Firstly, the pack itself will then contain more varieties of the same thing (so for example - modifications of the chopper with different loadouts, modification of tanks by differing the turret). Secondly, it will able both addonmakers (original author and modifier) to check each other's work for any mistakes, and for any issues of quality. Then - it will bring us better quality addons.

If that description is ok with AAE - I buy it :]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4) We want the OFPEC TAG system become standard in the addon making community as it seems the only reasonable way how to keep addons compatible.<span id='postcolor'>

No point to argue. Absolutely right.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) We consider version 1.90 / 1.91 as the only one supported platform for this initiative.<span id='postcolor'>

Right. Unfortunately, these words in your post mean that there is no more patch planned for the game than 1,90/1,91. :'(

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At the end, we would like to advertize selected best quality addons compliant with our initiative at www.flashpoint1985.com which we hope will bring more fun to all of us and more recogntition to you, creators of great new content for the game.<span id='postcolor'>

That is one of the most important points. These addons - addons of best quality - will be then on something like "must-have-list", and then - it will be a message for mission makers that they can use these addons freely in their missions. It is as for me the main point of AAE standard...

Some more issues for the AAE standard not mentioned in your post are:

- no need for extra scripting by final user. He just puts the addon into editor and plays. Of course it shouldn't limit more advanced user to modify or enable some extra functions via the initfield/whatever.

- scripts bundled with addon, not in separate script file avaiable in mission folder only.

- as mentioned before - weapon needs the guy which carries it. (but that is already an old issue)...

- some naming standard needed in custom weapon folders in editor. Let the final user not to be forced to search half an our for the addon. standard sides - to be put under standard sides, other - as required, but... ie. "/West/French - Armoured" instead of "/West/somefrigginname - Armoured". Also, there should be some standarisation in the side's of certain nations, to avoid situation in which some of selected country addons are on East, some on West, and some on Resisstance. One exception is while the country has changed it's place in history map, like middle-eastern countries, which were (and older items should be put) on East side, and now they are (and current weaponry should be put) on West side.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know there's a lot of eventual controversy and issues in this effort. I recommend you to use this thread to general comments to the initiative and tu start new threads if you would like to discuss any specific point into deeper detail.<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you for enabling us to comment,

Greetings :]

[maddogx 13]

I think AAE is a great idea and I totally support it, as long as the MSI installer will allow addon makers some flexibility concerning install paths (mod folders, etc.).

There's just one issue I'm concerned with:

Will there be limitations for addons like on OFPEC, such as realism? There are many high quality sci-fi mod and addon makers out there that create their own weapons and vehicles. Will these addons be excluded from AAE?

MDX

[lee_h._oswald 0]

What I would like to see:

When a new addon comes out, you can choose between 3 Files:

1.) Addon+Mission.exe

2.) AddonOnly.exe

3.) MissionOnly.exe

----

When installing I want to choose between THIS:

1.) Install to "C:\Programs\Codemasters\OFP\..."

2.) Extract files to ... [browse]

---

This would be great! think about it.

MfG Lee

[BigWolf 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tactician @ April 10 2003,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm glad BIS is taking initiative towards addons, and if anyone wants a sample mission made for their addon, I think there should be a pool of mission editors to volunteer and make something for those who don't have the means to do it themselves.  I, for one, will volunteer.<span id='postcolor'>

I too volunteer

One point tho, if this does suceed, I do hope a similar initiative is brought in for BIS's next game (just maybe a little earlier   )