Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chipper

Exclusive Armed Assault report

Recommended Posts

I think Baphomet, that the real issue is there, well intentioned people making weaponry they consider 'real' whilst other people not liking the feel of it and trying to tweak it.

Sometimes the community looks at addonmakers and cringe when theres another fight about 'realism' simply because 'realisim' is a big mud fest in every-sim-that-is-released. It drives some of us nuts and really we only want to play and enjoy the game. But when mod makers start getting into fights about 'realism' it turns everything muddy.

Chun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure I'm wasting my breath again repeating this warning, but the only way community developed content is going to be sane or stable in Armed Assault or Game2 is through the Certified Content Developer process. Yeah, you can do it your 'own' way, but it's going to be vastly more work and headaches.

Basicly I don't see this as going to be much more than proving you read a readme and built your content using the model BIS documents. It's vital that you follow the directions when they come out. Sure, you can make your stuff any way you choose, but you're shooting yourself in the foot and doing the community a huge disservice if you ignore the help BIS will be giving.

This is not at all a limit on modifyability. Rather, this is enabling you to modify content in a far more optimum fashion than was practical in OFP. If you pay attention - which is the objective - then it will work to your advantage. If you disregard the work BIS is building, and try to brute-force outsmart the system or reverse-engineer the logic to do things the way you think they should be done, you're going to break the system.

Of course opinions will vary about this and that properties and parameters. If you follow the directions, then those can be flexible to your whims. If you don't follow directions, you're going to hose your platform. And who's fault is that really?

The problem is that you're taking a pessimistic glass-half-empty approach. Turn it around, and try to think of what advantages BIS would be offering through the system.

Now the biggest challenge is getting everyone to work together. Everyone's got their shortlist of addon makers they're peeved at for one reason or another, and the friction comes down in variablely to lack of communication for one reason or another. If Baphomet doesn't like some param values, fine. Follow BIS's directions and they're modifyable. If ORCS has their own opinions on the proper capablity of Russian armor, fine. Follow BIS's directions and they're modifyable. If WGL wants to overhaul the system to make the next-gen WGL, fine, Follow BIS's directions and they're modifyable. If Sanctuary wants to make some animations, fine, Follow BIS's directions and they're modifyable. Notice a pattern here?

There's been far too much unwarranted pessimistic assumptions going on in these forums making baseless speculation from those who ought to know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you got it wrong.

Everyone will be able to create new addons (as oppose to addons at ease), but only the "certified modmakers" will be able to get it signed in online play. This means that you, if you play on a server with signed addons, wil HAVE to have the original addon (not a tweaked one).

On a server that doesn't use certified addons (maybe your own server), won't be testing for the authentity of the addons other people are using (well, will probably check for filesize etc. like in ofp but that's all).

This means, that if you want to play around with your friends with your own addons, it is possible. But if you have a dedicated server, you can choose to only be using certified addons and there **hopefully** avoid cheating this way.

You got it exactly.

Just every modmaker can register at BIS and apply for a signature, and most of them will be given (except those who really don't need it). When you pack your PBO then, the signature is included and can't be faked.

The server admins now have the option to set which signatures are allowed and which are not. So they could define that no BIS addon may be used, but only Combat and Philcommando addons. As the signature in the PBOs is destroyed when you unpack them, cheating by modifying config values can be prohibited.

However, I think anyone who has a solid understanding of weapons, and is trying to make a realistic mod, would want the basic feature that allows for such things to be correctly implemented. It carries over to weapons like the Mk-19, AT-4... hell, anything that has an adjustable sight (meaning, basically EVERY weapon) would benefit from having such a feature.

So you think the modmakers present were a bunch of idiots not knowing what to ask? I can tell you, we asked for hours and got lots of interesting information, and this is why you have the article here. And I swear you, there were more interesting things than whether M203 sights can be done or not.

All in all I can only tell, that anything going away from the articles is useless speculation. We really asked a lot, but we also saw that not everything can be implemented and that there are higher priorities than some of the here mentioned features. Every feature requires more changes in the source code than many of you would think, so just let them work and give constructive criticism once the game is out. They have a pretty long list, and your ideas surely won't be put on it anymore.

Rastavovich gave us a pretty well image of how the game will be. What you can read in this article is most of it, all wishes and desires that go ahead of it are totally speculative and have nothing to do with Armed Assault. In contrary to the press interviews with BIS, the participants of the OFP Workshop were some of the longest and most talented mod makers in the community. You can be sure that they did what they could to get as much information about ArmA as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]So you think the modmakers present were a bunch of idiots not knowing what to ask? I can tell you, we asked for hours and got lots of interesting information, and this is why you have the article here. And I swear you, there were more interesting things than whether M203 sights can be done or not.

I question the fact that out of a group of mod makers, nobody was interested in getting the functionality present to enable sight adjustments for weapons that need them.

How long would it take to get an answer to the question of adjustable sights? Hmn?

How much influence would adjustable sights have on the game? Quite a bit. Mortars, M-203's, M-79's, Mk-19's, AT-4's, sniper rifles, machineguns... pretty much every weapon in the game would be influenced by it, and some of them would go from "Zero-functionality sights" to "Works just like the real thing", which would obviously be more realistic and make the weapons more user-friendly and usable.

If you think that this feature isn't important, or that somehow every single question you guys asked over the course of it was infinitely moreso, whatever. banghead.gif

You guys had an opportunity to get some really critical questions answered, and while you no doubt did a good job in a lot of respects, there are some important things that you apparently missed. The worst part is that you think that a feature like adjustable sights is "uninteresting". icon_rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, folks.

First, I'd like to thank Mapfact.net for the opportunity to come to the Workshop, and for the fine reception that I found there.

Now, let's get to the questions:

Dyslexic: I am a modmaker, and I was showing off at the workshop a mortar system with adjustable sights as God commands mortar sights to be adjustable: by reference deflection, elevation and deflection.

So I think I speak with authority on what happened concerning your question, and I'll get to answering it.

But let me make some general statements about how to interpret statements by game companies, and for that matter, how to understand what it is that people in software companies do.

Game companies will make general statements. By definition, developers are optimistic, enthusiastic folks. There's a lot they want to do, and they're perpetually tweaking. They also tend to underestimate the time it takes to do things. Thus when developer says:

"We want to include this", that translates to "We want to include this, but probably won't have time"

likewise:

"We hope to improve this feature", means "we know it's a problem, but it's not likely to be improved." (So don't count on a complete overhaul of the AI).

The basic rule is: A) If a feature isn't announced, don't count on it being there. B) If you (as a gamer) don't actually see the feature in game, don't believe the announcement. Follow these two rules, and you can determine the state of just about any video game in development.

As far as software companies, well, there's a big difference between developing games professionally, and playing them, or even making community mods for them.

Professionals have to work on their project every day. They don't get to choose which aspects of the project they can focus on, and which ones they can ignore. So most of their time is spent doing things that aren't the most fun in the world, but are necessary to get the product done in a polished state.

Moreover, with a game in development, they're not eager for every bit of information about it: they've got the thing right in front of them. For them, it's not an attractive, sexy game they'll be playing in the future (although I'm sure that most of them look forward to it being exactly that), but rather the work they've got to do.

We see something like this in doing mods. Meeting with the other people at the workshop, it turned out that each of us had a whole list of addons and modifications that are considered well known to the community that he had not seen. We are experts in what we do, which is make stuff; gamers are experts in playing things.

So, take Rastavovich: he worked on OFP addons, then got a job at BIS. From his talk, it was obvious that he had an area of expertise in BIS, and he is not their marketing guy, nor is he the producer and director of ArmA. From the interview, it was equally clear that every addonmaker there had questions about how ArmA was going to affect his personal OFP development interest; many of these questions Rasta could not answer for the simple reason that they were so technical, he would have to be working on exactly that subarea of development.

The summaries of what went on at the demo also reflect the general enthusiasm for the game: in many cases, you need to apply rule B above.

As for the question of sights: Yes, my recollection is that 3D iron sights are in there, but the game engine will still support the 2D-clad sights from OFP. That means that not every sight we looked down was 3D, and thus, by rule B), don't believe that all BIS stuff will have 3D sights. But I would say it's safe to believe that you can put one on your M16 addon that you'll be releasing in the first week of Armed Assault.

Concerning the issue of adjustable sights: The question might have been directly asked at some point; whatever the case, I'd say the odds are very high that Armed Assault will not have adjustable sights in the box.

Does that mean you can't make them? Who knows? Our job has always been to take what the developers provide us with and go beyond it.

I'll get to the certificate issue next, but first I need to take a break from my own long-windedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of post-walling. That's the Darmpreis biggrin_o.giftounge2.gif

But Dinger is correct, Rastavovich said about the most features that they'll be probably there or, especially about the certified content developers, that they're not yet sure how it and all its odds and ends will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe, welcome back mate... Good to see you all enjoyed yaself.

Your rules doesn't apply all developers though:

They officially announced that CWC contents would be there

-Its not

They, well not officially, but between the lines it was sugested that multiple gunner postitions wouldn't be there

-it is

Now, im not complaining though, I would change for multiple gunners every day. Just wanted to rant a bit, and its allways nice to tease a modmaker.

... Well, maybe not, but still, its allways nice to tease - ey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...most of things are interesting...but this : "Certified Content Developers"...will be something usufull to create a good future to this game and his comunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, of course, there's always that. What content makes it into distribution is a decision made between BIS and their publisher. So really, it's all up in the air.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if CWC stuff isn't in there. It's five years old, and would have to be retested in the new engine. That ain't worth it.

"Certified Content Developers" (CCD) created a bit of confusion because the exact purpose is a little vague.

My guess is something like this:

BIS has an addon problem. Anyone can make an addon, and put it in a mission, or put it in an addon folder.

BIS cannot authenticate addons or do any such work itself: it's too much work, and the liability is too high. They can't provide an official repository, because of copyright issues. Hot Coffee has them and publishers scared too.

But worst of all, I can make a handheld howitzer, and call it an M16, and it will work in multiplayer.

So BIS needs to provide some protection against such cheaters. That's what this system is about.

Now, I would have asked the question, "can you have multiple signatures?", so that the addon developer could sign something indicating its provenance (such as CoC), as well as a "validating authority" (such as WGL) could sign it, indicating that it adhered to a set of standards.

But it was clear that the answer to that question would not be known.

This system will not stop cheating. As long as the players have access to the binaries, they can bypass all such features; have it report back authenticated addons, or whatever.

It will perhaps solve some problems with addons right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, I would have asked the question, "can you have multiple signatures?", so that the addon developer could sign something indicating its provenance (such as CoC), as well as a "validating authority" (such as WGL) could sign it, indicating that it adhered to a set of standards.

But it was clear that the answer to that question would not be known.

Well, if they don't support multiple signatures WGL still could repack CoC's addon... wink_o.gif

Or they could do it that way: if the admin says "load all addons with the signature of Mapfact" the game automatically loads all addons which are in the cfgPatches of the Mapfact addons, even if they are not signed or signed by another mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, that's basically my point: no sense worrying about these thigns now. Our job is to do what they don't do, and very few limitations are insuperable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Dyslexic: I am a modmaker, and I was showing off at the workshop a mortar system with adjustable sights as God commands mortar sights to be adjustable: by reference deflection, elevation and deflection.

So I think I speak with authority on what happened concerning your question, and I'll get to answering it.

I very much look forward to seeing those mortars. smile_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Concerning the issue of adjustable sights: The question might have been directly asked at some point; whatever the case, I'd say the odds are very high that Armed Assault will not have adjustable sights in the box.

I was expecting this. Without a big push towards getting them in from the community, I didn't really think they'd decide it was an important thing for this game. I do expect to see it in Game2, however, and I intend to discuss it with BIS in some capacity between now and the release of that game.

Quote[/b] ]Does that mean you can't make them? Who knows? Our job has always been to take what the developers provide us with and go beyond it.

Good luck to those who make an attempt.. it's definitely a worthy cause.

Thanks for taking the time to write that up, Dinger. It's appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I see as a disadvantage from CCD is that you have to rely on the original addon maker to fix the addon.And from the experience in OFP 80% of all addon-makers consider "It looks nice in the OFP Combat Thread" a working status,they rarely are designed with MP in mind.But besides that,shouldnt be that much of a bother.

Nice report btw,unfortunately it seems to reassure me that until this point BIS was like "Improving AI? whats that for?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way !

I do not want to make their job.

One person ask for a feature...

Just in that moment they think about it "loud" ... 100 hundret others came and vote to do this not ...

More and more i understand BIS Information Politic

We want Multi Gunner ...we will get it

We want more scripting commands ... we will get it

We want more Support ... they will try it

We want better Graphics ... we will get it

We want more Protection for Addons and Servers... we will get it

All this things are nothing ?

Ok Ok they do not certificate "Klobürsten" Addons but this Addons are really for the Ass rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn...

It was a very great präsentation and i´m sure, that AA will be our next power game.

I´m sure that BI will eleminate the rest of the bugs and present us a big game.

One love

Mr-Murray

MAPFACT-Member

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, one last thing:

if bis only have time to finish atless one of the things that we bitch about, what is your hope? confused_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, one last thing:

if bis only have time to finish atless one of the things that we bitch about, what is your hope? confused_o.gif

normally the genius of the lamp ask for 3 wishes and not 1 smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, don't you think 3 is asking a bit much? Let alone one?

(if there was ONE wish however, it would be walking on vehicles biggrin_o.gifyay.gif )

*ahem*

As I said, I believe it's asking a bit much at this stage. tounge2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also im sure BIS will be releasing patches and updates after the release of armedassault like OFP adding new features, vehicles, and of course bug fixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]A BI-developed vegetation generator, called Linda, is producing varied and realistic vegetation without any handcraft.

Does anyone know how 'Linda' works and why will they not be releasing it to the community?

This could be a great tool for island makers!  wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linda was suppose to be in GAME 2 remember?

Its normal BIs want to keep it and improve it for GAME 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]A BI-developed vegetation generator, called Linda, is producing varied and realistic vegetation without any handcraft.

Does anyone know how 'Linda' works and why will they not be releasing it to the community?

This could be a great tool for island makers!  wink_o.gif

I think this might be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linda was suppose to be in GAME 2 remember?

They never said that they're releasing it. And hey, BI can do what they want, you'll always complain about it. We'll get O2, we can do all we need with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linda was suppose to be in GAME 2 remember?

They never said that they're releasing it. And hey, BI can do what they want, you'll always complain about it. We'll get O2, we can do all we need with that.

i ment to say that Linda was suppose to be for Game 2. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]A BI-developed vegetation generator, called Linda, is producing varied and realistic vegetation without any handcraft.

Does anyone know how 'Linda' works and why will they not be releasing it to the community?

Because it is too complicated, and releasing it would also require them to write a documentation (remember the complaining about the barely documented O2?) which would take a lot of time. Last but not least, Linda is pretty useless for the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×