Addons at ease

[andersgrim 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ April 15 2003,07:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">that makes creating .MSI file very easy - you place several folders, run our utility and addon is ready to be distributed.<span id='postcolor'>

Is it possible to make kinda extension-guard??

So only flashpoint related files as well as harmless jpg and txt files is the only files to be packed into this installer?

That would remove the risk of ppl packing exe, dll files, registery-files and other files which may be harmful...

[toadlife 3]

First of all, I don't want to be installing 100 msi files on my computer. This would clog my registry and my add-remove programs panel.

I am however glad you guys are trying to address the problem.

I'm not a huge consumer of others' missions - I'm more on the editing side of things, so here is an idea for the future:

I'd like to some sort of integrated program (I'll call it the "OFP update Manager") come with the next version of OFP that makes the whole mission/addon thing completely seemless, painless and error free for the many folks who just want to PLAY the game.

Perhaps mission makers could post XML (or some other format) files on their websites that contain all of the info for their missions. Maybe even a browser plug in that integrates with "OFP update Manager" thingy, that would handle special links and load the "OFP update Manager" for them with the appropriate settings.

The user could either click on a link, and have the browser plugin load the "OFP update Manager", or the user could put in the URL for the website where the XML file is. The "OFP update Manager" would then connect, get the XML file, and display a list of missions available. Then the user would click on the mission they want, and OFP would magically download all of the necessary files, and install them automatically.

An "update" feature could automatically go out to the net, and download whatever updates are necessary for the various downloaded missions and addons.

Something like this could even be used to install official patches for OFP.

Along with a BIS supported standard to keep addons from stepping on each other, this could make things 1000% better.

What do you people think?

Just my 2 pennies.

[theavonlady 2]

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

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

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

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

[toadlife 3]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ April 12 2003,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">better compressionrate than zip or rar? good luck! <span id='postcolor'>

ever hear of a CAB file?

It doesnt much matter how well it is compressed anyway, servers' hardware compresses data before they send it to you, and your modem uncompresses it when the data reaches you.

If the file is super compressed then it will simply download a bit more slowly than a file that is not as highly compressed.

Ever wonder why you can download large text files at 15kbs on your slow ass 56k modem?

[toadlife 3]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 15 2003,03:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @ April 15 2003,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd like to some sort of integrated program (I'll call it the "OFP update Manager") come with the next version of OFP<span id='postcolor'>

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

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

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

yeah loading addons on the fly would be nice, but what about my other ideas? There needs to be a way for mission makers to distribute their missions to the masses without having to rely on BIS too much.

Another guy had an idea similar to mine, but his had one flaw...BIS is not going to host a site with a massive DB of everyones addons and missions and terrabytes of downloads. This would cost way too much money.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

I think Toadlife is on the right track with XML. I have been impressed with BISs use of XML for both MP and also the command reference.

If you must pursue this discussion then I think the use of XML is crucial to any management of it.

@Suma....my apologies for the X-Box inference...as you correctly pointed out I have little knowledge of X-Box. That comment was perhaps a little uncalled for...once again...my apologies.

[Skunk Monkey 0]

THIS IS THE BEST NEW EVER

Thanks BIS - "approved" addons are a great Idea

With regards to the installer, and having many addons installed, could there be a "PRO" option where users with a little more knowledge can just manually unzip the .pbo's to the mod directories they want to use.

At [sES] we already use installers to install addon "modules" with desktop icons to lauch all or some of the mods.

We have Winter, Nam, BAS and SES collection.

All modules are 20-60mb

[SFG 1]

I think a good idea.. down the road, would be to have the "Approved addons" from bis, released on xbox via live?

If possible

[der bastler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 15 2003,11: 02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's simple. OFP should only load and check for addons when a mission runs - not at OFP startup. You could have a million addon files in one single folder and never have memory map or storage shortage errors.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree --addon hotplugging is a "must-have"!

Addon development can be very frustrating...

save model, save config, pbo, copy pbo, start OFP, not funtioning, exit OFP, change config, pbo, copy pbo, start OFP, ...

And: addon hotplugging is essential for mission-dependend-live-addon-download-from-within-OFP...

But I want to remind: Operation Flashpoint is not a game for "simple" shooter gamers! Let 'em play on a public server and they'll get either frustrated (too many deaths, no success) or kicked (teamkills, destructive behaviour). Let's face it: OFP is some kind of insider's tip. Real coops need planing, there's no ingame-join (for good reasons), games are "boring" (but realistic). You need to control more than 6 keys and a mouse, there are longer game times; that can be very difficult/boring for people who don't know how to unzip/copy a file or who want a "fast fight".

If you want mainstream audience, you have to make mainstream products --but then it wouldn't be Operation Flashpoint; perhaps Operation Fleshpoint...

ideas for OFP2...

- addon hotplugging

- possibility for ingame-download of addons from certificated servers

- linux version (if you say it's not possible: How can we help? )

- at least limited ability to define custom classes

- netcode??? *duckandcover*

- custom island grid sizes (6.25m,12.5m,25m,50m,100m,...)

- to be continued

[Hugo the Clown 0]

Im not sure if this has been discussed/

What there needs to be, which I wish I could provide my self is a dedicated file data base kind of like quake files if any one has seen that. A data base of which files can be updated that way there could de a update option in the installer program we are discussing, also if some one down loaded a perticular addon that needed other addons to work there could be a some thing built in to ask the user if they wanted to dl the other addon or addons from the file server site.

I know there are sites like http://ofp.gamezone.cz and ofp.ru and others but it would be nice to have one where addon makers could login and update there files as they please.

oh well dreams are free

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Oooh...and how about an integrated development environment thats lets us code config files, stuff pbos, binarise pbos, view addon on terrain of our choosing, adjust brightness of the bulldozer viewer...etc...all from the one interface.

Imagine dragging an dropping a sound onto an engine to have it play the ogg rather than code it into a cpp.

These are all big requests...but like Hugo says...dreams are free

[Hugo the Clown 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These are all big requests...but like Hugo says...dreams are free<span id='postcolor'>

hahahahahaa very true

Im sure when the utility comes out it will benefit all addon creators in some way or another. nuff said.

[mads bahrt 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @ April 15 2003,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ April 12 2003,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">better compressionrate than zip or rar? good luck! <span id='postcolor'>

ever hear of a CAB file?

It doesnt much matter how well it is compressed anyway, servers' hardware compresses data before they send it to you, and your modem uncompresses it when the data reaches you.

If the file is super compressed then it will simply download a bit more slowly than a file that is not as highly compressed.

Ever wonder why you can download large text files at 15kbs on your slow ass 56k modem?<span id='postcolor'>

We're getting a little bit off-topic here but:

On normal file transfers across the internet, there are no compression. When you do use analog modems there are compression from the ISP to the customer. You can also use application-layer protocols which compresses the files being transferred, but http and ftp doesn't do that. (And neither does any lower-layer protocol in the ip stack)

There are more reasons this are not done:

1) Compression ads a lot of latency. A large part of the high ping on modems, is because they try to compress the datastream.

2) Compression is CPU-intensive - if you were to run a high-bandwidth fileserver with transfer-time compression, you would need a big-ass CPU to feed it.

Example:

While downloading over a 100 Mbps link from a 350 MHz sftp server (which does transfer-time encryption and compression of the data transferred) i could never get beyond 10 Mbps. When that server were upgraded to 1500 MHz i suddenly experienced the transfer rate rising to 70 Mbps - my own 1300 MHz Machine probably becoming the bottleneck. Before the upgrade this transfer rate could easily be achieved using normal ftp transfer.

In fact you can saturate a 100 Mbps link with a early 100 MHz Pentium with a good disk system, while a 700 MHz machine (with the same disk system) can't do this if it's supposed to do real-time compression at the same time.

But if we should discuss this we should probably find a more suitable forum.

[toadlife 3]

Yeah, I misspoke when I said "the server's hardware" compresses that data. I was reffering to us 56ker's who wont get any real benefit from the various compression ratios.

I was trying to point out that If you're downloading with an analog modem, diffrerent compression ratios will not make much of a difference, because of the hardware compression happening. If you have a broadband connection, the difference is compression not really relevant either, because you have a broadband connection.

I suppose with an archive that is 40MB when zipped, making it a 30MB RAR file, or 28MB CAB file, would save a bit of time on a slow broadband conection, but having a better compression format is way down on my list of things to improve when it comes to addon/mission management in OFP.

[andersgrim 0]

True,true and true.

But let's not forget the addon pbo..

MANY addons are uncompressed.

Many ppl are packing MLOD models with PBO Tool which makes the addon itself pretty big.

So mabye binarizing and compressing an addon with MakePBO (or other good pbo tools) should be a part of AAE...

[macguba 0]

1.  The decision is already made - BIS are going to do this.   Our job is to help them do it in the best way possible.

2.  Tigershark is right, this is too little too late.  But it still an excellent idea and I'd much rather have that than nothing at all.

3.  Tigershark is also right about the future:  that should be our main focus.  

4.  Leone is right too.   (better addons -> more money -> better addons)   It's in our interest for BIS to thrive commercially.

5.  Simple example missions MUST be included with AAE.   If there is no mission, how can you try out the addon?  

6. Remember that AAE is for people who have never clicked on the mysterious words "Mission Editor" and never will.   People who hate tinkering.    People who don't read threads like this.    The whole point is to encourage them to enjoy addons as much as we do.

7 The community should support this initiative as much as possible. It's only going to do us good.

[Matthijs 40]

Great initiative.

I am a little disappointed by OFPEC requiring a 3 letter tag, in which underscores do not count. All my personal addons carry the KM_ tag... I can imagine I'm not the only one with this problem.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. The decision is already made - BIS are going to do this. Our job is to help them do it in the best way possible.

2. Tigershark is right, this is too little too late. But it still an excellent idea and I'd much rather have that than nothing at all.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I don't agree. With OFP2 in the pipeline, NOW is the time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(...)

7 The community should support this initiative as much as possible. It's only going to do us good. <span id='postcolor'>

Totally agree!!!!

[-CCCP-Stalker 0]

Yeah yeah yeah. But WHEN IT IS GOING TO BE RELEASED Maruk posted the topic and gone away... Interesting isn't it ?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Another good idea - how about making sure that "Addons at Ease" approved addons will be OFP 2 compatible?

It was said in different interviews that backward compatibility was going to happen, so if we have this "AAE" initiative, it means that there will be loads of addons ready for the date of OFP 2 release

[Jahve 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @ April 10 2003,12:04)</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'>

And where are we to go about to aquire this MSN Installer utility?

[andersgrim 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 17 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another good idea - how about making sure that "Addons at Ease" approved addons will be OFP 2 compatible?

It was said in different interviews that backward compatibility was going to happen, so if we have this "AAE" initiative, it means that there will be loads of addons ready for the date of OFP 2 release <span id='postcolor'>

Which would also make a standard for addons for ofp2 from the very beginning!!

pretty nice idea!

Then you wouldnt have a discussion like this again...

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 17 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another good idea - how about making sure that "Addons at Ease" approved addons will be OFP 2 compatible?

It was said in different interviews that backward compatibility was going to happen, so if we have this "AAE" initiative, it means that there will be loads of addons ready for the date of OFP 2 release <span id='postcolor'>

One of the best comments made in this thread.

And if this initiative could salvage some true value, I think this would be it. If AAE guaranteed addons would be compatible with OFP2 then I would also support it 100%.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ April 17 2003,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Great initiative.

I am a little disappointed by OFPEC requiring a 3 letter tag, in which underscores do not count. All my personal addons carry the KM_ tag... I can imagine I'm not the only one with this problem.

<span id='postcolor'>

Me too. Try ds_ for OPGWC. It won't register at OFPEC, even though it's three characters. C'mon OFPEC...what's the deal?

The other thing that I would LOVE to see as part of AAE is the ability to patch pbo's. That way you wouldn't have to download all of the 1.1 version of something....just an update that can upgrade the pbo. I remember someone recently tinkering with this.....surely that could be something REALLY useful and not too difficult to put in AAE (since the patches BIS puts out do this anyway)?

[Matthijs 40]

I know it's not my job, but I just couldn't resist...

If the AAE organisation wants the layered .PSP sourcefile, just drop me an e-mail.

[Jahve 0]

The question remains: Where to get the MSI stuff?