lockdown on modding

[andersson 285]

Quote[/b] ]Addons have to "just work". If they don't "just work", people don't use them. If your group has one guy on a modem, or in parts of the world where they pay by the megabyte, and that guy has to download a huge addon that's not guaranteed to work, your group is not going to use that download.

That is one of the reasons I download CoC or finmod without hesitation or tests. I know it will work in MP with my friends. Most of the time we end up with finmod because its easy to play, well configured and buildt.

But I guess both CoC and finmod have good knowledge and understanding of playability. If BIS will give some addons "green light" I could download them without further testing and depboing before play (not all of us can compensate with good connections or hardware).

CoC and finmod are examples, there are other addons that we use ofcourse..

Quote[/b] ] Is this thread going somewhere?

Yes, there is a discussion about BIS-approved addons. The rest is an OT about 56k...

edit after reading Sanctuarys post: Agree. I would like to have BIS-approved addons because I would know that they are "good to go". But that doesnt mean that noone can make "non-approved" addons like today.

[Dwarden 1126]

this problem is minimal if :

- there are excelent sources of mods (providing both http and ftp high speed access) for both server forward downloading or web browser / downloader programs ...

- addon makers for huge mods learn to made not just "big" versions but also differ version patches ....

then people with slow bw can easily ask someone with broadband or go there (e.g. school) download stuff and in case of update just get small low bw friendly differ patch ...

of course there will be tons of people just playing plain unmodded game ... all fine each to his own ...

[walker 0]

Hi All

I am one of those who has been arguing for BIS certification for a long time.

I am not saying I or anyone else programs perfectly; bugs happen and most programming is: code it, test it, code it again etc.

Standards do allow thing to integrate and make it easier for users to to understand how stuff works.

Consider the browser you are using the window all has the same furniture. Top Right hand corner: Box with X closes, Box with the darkened top maximises, Box with black line at bottom minimises; The Menu system is the same across all the windows programs: File, Edit, View, Tools, Help, even the contents of the sub menus are almost identical and it is not just Microsoft.

That is because that is where the user has come to expect them. First person shooter all use more or less the same keyboard layout.

At CoC we standardised our network transport layer so that we only had one bit of network code to for all our products. Everything we run in MP uses it.

Then we released CoC NS so others could use it. It was not just altruism we wanted an environment where different bits of code were not all fighting to use the same resources where every ones stuff would break. It made our lives easier and it meant other things like CTI did not have to reinvent the wheel.

We did the same with UA making a standard artillery system. We were not bothered about the models we new there were plenty of different artillery pieces out there more than any one person or Modding group could model and that the OFP community is blessed with the best model making talent there is in any game. We wanted a standard artillery system that "just worked." So that the mass of model making talent in OFP could go do its thing.

We new the math for working artillery was complex and getting it to work over MP across the Internet (the harshest network environment there is) would be hard enough without keeping it to basic systems engineering principles. For the record even multi-billion dollar firms do not do it as well as it has been done in UA1.1 never mind the the VBS version.

The basic black box is the first and most important software engineering principle. Yet so much work does not follow even this principle. Certification will force people to follow proper programming rules if they want the shiny label.

It will also act as a stimulus to professionalism in use of the Real Virtuality engine and foster an educational environment that will benefit those who look to using there modding experience to follow a career in simulation, game making or programming.

I for one look forward to a day when being BIS certified is as valuable as an MSCE or Linux Certification.

Kind Regards Walker

[.kju 3245]

Quote[/b] ]if BIS want to add some certification to show which addons are considered as optimised and bug free for Armed Assault

dont mix this with the pbo certificates for cheat protection announced by BIS at the mapfact workshop.

AFAIK BIS didnt say anything about commenting addons in one way or another.

i dont think its even close being possible for them for many reasons - not taking into account if its "good" or "bad".

ArmA needs A LOT better documentation and overall support - especially MP.

[stakex 0]

It could be me but there seems to be at least three diffrent conversations going on here.

Going back to the original point as I understand it, trouble finding a server that you have the mods to play, there is one thing BIS could have done to fix this. Instead of makeing addons restricted, a simple system that allows players to download the mods directly from the server they are connecting to would solve this issue. Something along the lines of Call of Duty's mod download system.

Obviouslly a system of such would have its own drawbacks, especially with large mods... but in situations where the mission on the server is useing a couple small mods that are hard to find, it would make things much easier. And would be a better solusion then restricting modding.

[fer 21]

@all: I think statex makes an excellent point - if actual problem here is the difficulty of joining servers due to missing addons, then it does seem that a better approach to distribution from the servers is the correct solution. A lockdown, in contrast, would require the community to trade-off too much of the diversity in return for a more homogeneous server landscape.

On the other hand, if the objective here is to ensure consistently high levels of quality, then again the lockdown would fail for simple logistical and commercial reasons: the amount of effort required to adequately test the body of work being produced by the community would be significant - and unless BIS starts asking players to pay for mods, where is the economic justification?

For sake of argument, let's say that BIS did opt to create a lockdown scenario, and employed a number of people (perhaps trusted volunteers) to do the testing. Would this not create a bottleneck? How would mods - and patches for mods - be prioritised? What effect would this have on mod teams, which are by nature composed of volunteers?

The moment you start to work out the logistics of a lockdown system, it seems to fall apart as an idea.

@walker: I know what you mean about certification, but I think you're missing the point that MS, Oracle etc. make a huge amount of money from the programmes - from the sale of study materials, right through to the provision of exam papers and documentation.

Ultimately, anyone who's spent time in the software development game has to question the real value of MCPs, MSCEs etc. - beyond being a useful process for graduate hires to differentiate themselves in the first 1-3 years of their careers. Honestly, is it really any more than a terrific revenue stream based more on B2B marketing?

Standards for development, on the other hand, are a great idea. What BIS has started for ArmA, with the creation of the wiki and one hope with the dissemination of detailed guidelines for poly counts etc. (one hopes!, all of this is good.

Again, I think we need to look for solutions that provide the community with platforms / systems / guidelines that empower, without doing anything to restrict creativity. The good will out - and an experienced engineer will usually agree that it is impossible to legislate for all future possibilities - so why constrict?

[GAU-8 0]

I like stakex' comment as well.

probably the simplest to get "ALL" teh items you need per server/game.

[aus_twisted 0]

There allready is a way to keep track of servers and what addons they use which can easily be downloaded from the servers that support it. OFP Watch is obviously not built into the game but it does everything addon servers need it to do and is very simple to use.

OFP Watch - http://www.binarybone.com/ofpwatch/

[crashdome 3]

This is economics in the simplest forms.

Alot of quality mods are few and far between because there is no benefit to it other than the self-satisfaction. Why can't BI license their engine like other large engines are? I could be wrong, but it sounds like approaching BI with a license request is like approaching the CIA with a request for information.

Leave the rest as is... we have a ton of mods and it keeps enthusiasm high... but personally, after 5 years, I look back on what I've done and get depressed because it is time I could have spent doing something for some other sims where people regularily charge for addons, etc...

I realize a few people are very happy with my work and I promise I wouldn't be greedy, but I have ZERO motivation to continue any work for this engine because it is far harder to write code for (OFP scripting is by nature buggy as hell and piss-poor debugging capability) than any other sim in which I can get even a small monitary benefit from.

I applaud those who give stuff away for free.. don't get me wrong and I would probably do so for the majority of my work. However, if CoC released their NS package for $50+ I would have paid that... it is that good. Problem I guess would be how to prevent piracy but that is another bridge to cross.

I vote leave it as is, but BI please license your engine, provide some tools (or allow them to be made/sold), and allow the authors of mods some reward for their work.

As far as Walker says about standards and things like NS... that should be given. Someone makes a good tool and it will become the standard by default. Allow people to charge for it and you'll see more quality tools.... atleast from me you will.

Doing what the original poster suggests could be catastrophic. Imagine two people working on a similar addon. Imagine Person A finishes two weeks before the other.... what does Person B do??? they wasted everything for nothing... I say let them both offer their ideas for whatever price they want... free or not.