The Art of Standardization.

[Drill Sergeant 0]

1998 has come and gone, as has 2002.

We are nearing the year 2005. Over the years

a substantial amount of addons have been developed.

The one thing that most of them lack is Standardization.

Now sure we can't all make everything 110% seamless.

But we should at least try and group addons according to

there detail level.

A decided level of detail should be implemented and standardized.

Now sure we can all vary things, make things different and interesting.

Yet some standards of Standardization should be implemented.

We need to realize computers can handle more detail than they could

in 2002. We also know everything has it's limits.

Now if you don't want everything standardized, so it can mesh together

fairly seamlessly well that's fine. For those who are interested in

standardization I have a few ideas.

I. The addons need to have some structure as to "Standard" construction.

A. The texture size, and amounts of texture files.

B. The amount of polygons in a model.

C. The amount of special effects within a addon which are handled by scripts.

II. The ability for addons be "Classed" by there "Standard"

A. def textures (Size, number off)

1. Type of object

2. Use of object

B. def pollies (Amount of)

1. Type of object

2. Use of object

C. Special effects via scripts.

1. Type of object

2. Use of object

Now of course standardization does not mean everyone absolutely

has to maintain a certain texture/pollie count. However it would be

helpful for people to create certain addons within a certain standard.

There should be more then one type of standard also, low def, def,

and high def. If you feel one of these definitions is out of your computers

rendering power, simply steer clear and let the authors continue there

work in peace.

If a standard for low def, def, and high def were in place, mods from

certain time periods could decide upon a definition level and use it.

This would allow more playabilty as the addons will atleast share something

in common.

This was the follow-up to my o2 tutorial. (My Final project)

This is a first draft of the article, if you feel this is a good idea,

I will finish the article, if you don't like it, I will withdraw the final steps.

Copywrite Drill Sergeant Saturday, 13 November, 2004 12:52:27 AM

Not to be reproduced without author's express consent.

[calm_terror 0]

eh how does this standardize anything but prettiness?

standardizing should be done on the armour and weapon values not on textures and objects...

there is no need for standards in prettiness.

[Drill Sergeant 0]

Was just one of my last ideas I thought i'd try before

I moved on. Guess we don't need it. Sorry for the waste

of space. Mods please lock.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]We need to realize computers can handle more detail than they could

in 2002. We also know everything has it's limits.

Said it before. Said it a million times. This way of thinking keeps OFP locked within a certain performance envelope regardless of new technology (which could be better put to use allowing more things to happen at once on a larger scale IMO). I suppose if you find aesthetics more important than gameplay this would mean a lot. Then again the OFP community has pretty much done this already.

[/bitch]

[Heatseeker 0]

I like the idea, it would be nice if units from diferent modders looked/worked good with eachother not to mention performance issues when using a large amount of diferent user made addons. A good balance betwean detail and performance would be good for conversion mods.

Thats problably why vbs1 should be good, all those high quality units are made to work and look good together.

Maybe too late but i hope modders will colaborate more when OPF2 comes .

[lee_h._oswald 0]

     C. The amount of special effects within a addon which are handled by scripts.

This (for me) is the most important thing.

I remember the time we played CTI(modified addon version by me) nearly every day.

Then Sigma's new US tank pack arrived and I added it as fast as I can.

And everything goes wrong......

Sometimes the cti spawn script did not worked correctly, because of some sort of "surviving after tank is destroyd" script inside the abrams.

Players spawned as "normal" soldiers and were no longer "connected" to the cti script system. They were not more able to use the buildings and so on.

I asked here in the forums how to disable all the scripts, no answer.

Other addons had other "cti unfriendly" scripts inside, so after a lot of work and many cti rounds we could not finish, I stopped making new cti maps and finally we stopped playing...

---

Every addon has it's own explosion/and whatever scripts inside, it would be better to have something like FlashFx mod to handle fire/explosions/etc.

If addon maker really MUST include their own scripts, make them switchable to turn on and off.

But set them OFF by default and include a selectable game logic or whatever for the editor. So "normal" users can also use them easily with all the nice thingies you have added.

---

I really like the idea of some basic standardization, it could help to use addons better/more easy together.

Maybe some old addons can easily get a "newer" look to fit with modern stuff.

MfG Lee

[offtime 0]

Was just one of my last ideas I thought i'd try before

I moved on. Guess we don't need it. Sorry for the waste

of space. Mods please lock.  

yeah, just a girl

seriously, good piece of text art

[BraTTy 0]

But most addons do conform to a poly count standard.Most addonmakers follow guidelines described early on modmaking.(imported addons may be very high poly)

Thats not the problem....Its the lods,some addonmakers make high res addon but dont finish the lods,so its high res all the time.

And that is a good idea about making scripts disable.I was going to do that ,why I never did,suppose its because the hiddenselections needed to be manipulated at all costs.

If your making a tutorial,your off to good start,please just continue on

[Master_Chief 0]

Death to standardization!!! Be happy with the addons you get you near-sentient rancid ham statues!!!

[bflidifyed 0]

well i think they could do it by addon specs.... many addons have killed my computer because they are highly detailed and so on... and sum run ok (low poly models.... square wheels and box tanks ) it would be nice and easy to see sum kind of system so i can tell if it's worth me downloading it cos it is guttin when you download a cool addon and your pc cant handle it on anything but desert island with 2 trees to shoot at anyway..... bye

[BraTTy 0]

Somone (kegetys ? lol) should make an addon preformance test,so we can spot the cpu hungry addons

[Ares1978 0]

Death to standardization!!! Be happy with the addons you get you near-sentient rancid ham statues!!!

I agree.

And the best way to kill this game is by creating more limitations.

[Ares1978 0]

Somone (kegetys ? lol) should make an addon preformance test,so we can spot the cpu hungry addons

Sure. Let's start by testing his latest masterpiece for compatibility.

[colonel_klink 0]

This has been discussed at length time and time again and while it is a good idea, the practicalities of it would be a: too difficult to enforce, b: some, if not most addon makers would ignore it, c: addon making is a hobby and most hobbyists don't like standardization as it takes away the important ingredient of the hobby and that is fun.

Personally I look at it this way. I make addons for my own use first, and if they are any good I release them. If not they stay on my computer. That said I enjoy pushing the engine boundaries, and sometimes that might mean that I add details and things that some people might not need in an addon.

I think Drill Sergeant has good intentions and I applaud her for that, however addon making is a voluntary hobby and I think we should make allowances for each addon maker's individuality.

[kegetys 2]

Somone (kegetys ? lol) should make an addon preformance test,so we can spot the cpu hungry addons

Sure. Let's start by testing his latest masterpiece for compatibility.

The roads in Al Maldajah?

[Ares1978 0]

The roads in Al Maldajah?

No, sorry, I was talking about the DxDLL and don't worry, it wasn't criticism. My point was more that variables like that are sure to make any standardization even more complicated.

What's your opinion the standardization subject? You're on of the gurus, right?