time to standardise?

[twisted 128]

there are thousands of mods of ofp. and hundreds of great ones.

with armed assualt it is supposedly easy to convert the mods to work in the new game.

but the trick comes in when combining multiple mods. for example, some armoured vehicles are just too strong and take too many rpgs to destroy.

so while waiting for armed assualt it would be the ideal time to figure out 1) if standarisasation of weapon damage and armour values would be a good thing.

and 2) what the standardisation would be.

amazing work has been done (as you already know) with JAM3 and CAVS.

but all too often people say standardisation would've been great but its too late for ofp. but IMO its the perfect time for it now.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

This is one aspect I'd like to see made use of. Hopefully the BIS values will be as realistic as possible meaning a community standard like JAM won't be needed... BUT, it'd be nice to have an alternative that'd more realistic still (as BIS will have to "balance" them too for gameplay sake).

Something like JAM would be great, but also something for standardised armour values too, and penetration values of certain weapons (which the new engine should hopefully allow). Meaning a SABOT round will punch through armour much more efficiently than a HEAT shell.

I'm assuming the value codes will be similar if not the same as they are now, only maybe with an extra line or two to accomodate the new engine features such as the improved physics (which should bring with it penetration if they've worked on ballistics!.

Anyway... as they say. The sooner the better! We could at least plan things now for all the things we should have standardised. Maybe have it open source but with a few ppl who control the "upgrade" if you get me. Anyone can modify it but they need to be tested and approved before it becomes a new public standard! Also if it's always a seperate file this will make updating everything that little bit easier, espeically with all those weapon packs that are sure to be released along with units.

[ninjatek 0]

You can't stop people from making mods however they want to. Many people have different ideas on how things should work or be balanced such as damage, armor, penetration and the like.

But if an official group was made to say no no, that is not how we invision a NIJ TL IV vest to stop bullets, or a stealth bomber to fly, or the type of damage from a Stinger should be, and what about the modder who is doing a Star Was, or GI Joe cartoon mod? Then there could be some real frustration and bitterness in the modding community.

I think it would be fine for groups of modders to create their own approved mod lists.

What I would really like to see is being able to automatically download any mod a server is running if I don't already have it.

With information about that mod before the download with an option for me to not download it and move onto another server if I want.

[snoops_213 75]

You can't stop people from making mods however they want to. Many people have different ideas on how things should work or be balanced such as damage, armor, penetration and the like.

But if an official group was made to say no no, that is not how we invision a NIJ TL IV vest to stop bullets, or a stealth bomber to fly, or the type of damage from a Stinger should be, and what about the modder who is doing a Star Was, or GI Joe cartoon mod? Then there could be some real frustration and bitterness in the modding community.

I think it would be fine for groups of modders to create their own approved mod lists.

What I would really like to see is being able to automatically download any mod a server is running if I don't already have it.

With information about that mod before the download with an option for me to not download it and move onto another server if I want.

Good points here. Yes people will make their own stuff their own way. However i think most people here are in the frame of mind that the more realistic the better. Standardisation should occur for ArmA now! No we cant stop people from creating what they want, how they want it, and we shouldnt try to either!!!!

I think the point is to get all the mods that are trying to make a realistic addons to adhere to a common standard. Things like GI Joe or StarGate are fun mods with little to no real world values, so these things can do what ever they want. Why would that cause fustration?

It does need to happen before we get to where we are now with OFP. Great game, awesome addons but too may things are not compatable with each other .

Oh well just my 2 cents, hopefully BIS/Community sort this out. Cant wait for this awesome game to be released. Patience Grasshoppers! Good things come to those who wait!

[twisted 128]

You can't stop people from making mods however they want to. Many people have different ideas on how things should work or be balanced such as damage, armor, penetration and the like.

But if an official group was made to say no no, that is not how we invision a NIJ TL IV vest to stop bullets, or a stealth bomber to fly, or the type of damage from a Stinger should be, and what about the modder who is doing a Star Was, or GI Joe cartoon mod? Then there could be some real frustration and bitterness in the modding community.

i agree completely. it should be a choice.

modders should always be free to do what they want. they have kept the community alive and i have a lot of respect for their works.

But, its more from a realism point of view,

When you have 4 great weapon packs it's nice to know that they all function in a way that it's compatible with the other mods you get.

it'll be nice to know that the hot new tank is going to respond to AT rounds in a way very close to what is expected or 'real'. and be assured that the sexy new ak-101 you downloaded will deliver the same kinda take down power as its real life equivalent.

it's a seal of apporval i'd definetly look for and i would choose one mod over another because of it.

[the_shadow 0]

i say, balance the addons against the values BIS has used, it´s the easiest way to balance things.

unless BIS makes a new damage system.

[whisper 0]

First, imho, a mod is just the tool to standardize (see FFUR in that matter). After all, it's a mod, it has everything to re-calculate damage value, armor, ranges, etc...

FDF has its own set of standards, WGL another, FFUR a third one, etc, etc....

The "standard" if needed, is for independant addons, not included in a mod.

They could be "FDF compliant" (ie following FDF rules), or any other mod, but I've not yet seen that, usually the mod comes after the addon and reuse it by changing its parameters. Not yet I've seen "FDF compliant Australian Army addons", for example.

This "base OFP" standard (ie you're not playing a mod, but using addons and you'd like a standard) should follow BIS rules. After all, "base OFP" is just BIS mod

Unfortunately, there are some errors made by BIS which make it a bit unrealistic. What to do for realism-freaks (that we all are ) but not using mods? Currently, we have JAM, CAVS, and some other famed addons serving as base for standard (INQ M1 for example). Apart from JAM, I only saw "it's too late" comments for them.

Thing one must know before, is if the slight errors made by BIS in OFP will be corrected in ArmA. I guess not.

[TermiPete 0]

Love these debates!

I'm working with SPQR on the the CAVS thing and I *know* I'm making slow progress -there's simply way too much RL in the way of standardisation goodness :P

It has been great to get cooperation with JAM happening, and to see Kuriyami (of EECP) and King Homer (INQ m1) keen to support CAVS as a way forward.

SPQR has brought a lot of knowledge fom OFrP and there have been numerous contributions and insights from people and team like the Lost Brothers.

The big thing is that these polls show overwhelming support for the ideas of both realism and consistency.

So I'll keep beavering away.

Check out the CAVS thread if yer interested.

TP

[R3MF 0]

i'd like to see open standards such as jam3 and cavs be adopted by mod-makers.

[ninjatek 0]

I am not a modder, I have only made a few maps. But I was wondering what type of forumula is used for things like like firearms and bullets and armor.

Are numbers for damage and range just kind of guessimated and plugged in, or do they take say the cycle rate of the weapon, barrel lenght, weapon weight, calibure, mass, KE, of the bullet and other factors like that and plug them into variables to try and reproduce the effects?

[whisper 0]

I am not a modder, I have only made a few maps. But I was wondering what type of forumula is used for things like like firearms and bullets and armor.

Are numbers for damage and range just kind of guessimated and plugged in, or do they take say the cycle rate of the weapon, barrel lenght, weapon weight, calibure, mass, KE, of the bullet and other factors like that and plug them into variables to try and reproduce the effects?

We were using normalized calculation made by Bobmoran for our OFrP weapons.

For example (from OFrP boards) :

Quote[/b] ]direct hit:

((energie kj)^0.25)*8 (Å• un chiffre aprés la virgule arrondi au plus prÄs)

indirect hit:

((energie j)^0.5)/25 (Å• un chiffre aprés la virgule arrondi au plus prÄs)

indirect hit range:

((energie j)^0.5)/500 (Å• deux chiffres aprés la virgule arrondi au plus prÄs)

with "energie" (energy, obviously ) like this

E=0.5*mass*speed^2

Constants in formula are chosen to stick with BIS range of damage, but this way we keep a relatively realistic performance scale for different bullets

I think it gives results very near FDF ones, if I remember well.

We had the same for dispersion, and dexterity parameters (depending on weapon size and weight).

This is because we didn't touch BIS parameters for soldiers resistance.

If you take WGL mod, for instance, they changed the ratio "bullet damage"/"soldier armor", so they won't use the same parameter range.

I think the main lever for finding the correct numbers is more game testing than purely numbers. That's why formula results often have to be tweaked a bit.

And TermiPete, keep up the excellent work!

[TermiPete 0]

Hey ho

1 Step closer to meaningful standardisation - I've released a CAVS+JAM testing config.

CAVS thread

Give it a whirl and drop in some feedback!

TP

[EiZei 0]

I can live with the status quo. Ill rather take a mod which style I like better rather than see it crammed to an arbituary standard.

[Dwarden 1125]

Standards are good ... of course no problem with something better if it support standard switch / config too

[crave22 0]

Standards = good. That's my two cents, at least.