The 3 Cs of Addons

[Corkey 0]

I certainly apologize for any grammatical errors. I just didn't feel like trying to make this into a pristine essay. I think it conveys its message much better this way. And I'm too tired to even try fighting over it. I

just hope that some people can understand what I'm trying to say. Hope it makes it easier for people organize and work together. If not, oh well. I tried.

Quote[/b] ]With ARMA around the corner, I think it's time for the addon community to finally grow up. Let's face it, right now the OFP addon community is a jumble of bickering artists who spend just as much time

arguing over vert counts and who is doing what, as they do creating things.

If more then one team wants to do the same addon, let them. If some one wants to create high definition work, let them. Do comments like "Ohh man that's too high pollie, gona lag." really help anyone? I've

seen allot of posts in the ARMA forum about having BIS restrict content and such. That's not the answer. It's the community's responsibility to create and then file the addons. What we need is a system for

filing and grading addons, rather then saying, "Dude that 8,000 vert buss isn't going to work in ARMA." Basically it comes down to the same thing.  Detail amounts, pollie counts and texture size. There are

folks who want to squeeze the last frame per second they can. And folks that actually want to see a jeep or tank instead of a colored box. We will fight until the end of time about it.

It's not my fight any more, but I believe that we should just build categories for addons instead of trying to impose limits. When an addon is submitted for upload, why not just grade it according to how

detailed it is (Ie high, medium, low.) and grade it according to how polished it is? That way mission makers can just go and say, ok I'm going to need allot of these units and the player won't have to be close to

them, so I'll use low. For the main characters I'll use these nice high detailed units. That way it will make it easier for everyone.

Get over yourselves! Programers are the writers and scientists of the game. They are the people who know everything there is to know about the limits of the engine and the way  Programers are the ones who

give addons order and function. Modelers are the sculptors of the game. They are responsible for giving things shape and form. From the void they create the substance and framework of the addons. The

texture artists are the painters of the game. Without them we would be playing in a desolate wasteland of grays. Texture artists are the ones who give addons life.

Each of these individuals are crucial to constructing a polished, professional product. Each addon is a combination of programing, modeling and texturing. You cannot pick and choose. Addons will not work

without a config file. Addons cannot be seen without a model. Addons will not immerse the imagination without textures. In the end it all requires a balance of all three to produce a polished,

professional product.  Hence our difficulty arises. Programers feel that addons should be optimized for game play by adding features and removing details. Modlers believe that details should be added

regardless of the "Limits" programers try to enforce. Texture artist try to moderate between both detail and features.

Some would look at this and say, "Wow, How did the mod teams ever manage to release anything?" Truth be known, it's something called cooperation, collaboration and compromise. As addon teams merge

for ARMA and old teams splinter into highly skilled individuals, it becomes increasingly hard to determine the quality of an addon. Thus, enter the community, begins to complain of multiple versions of  an

individual addon. If you stop to think about it there are several good points we should began to appreciate.

Firstly, you are getting something for nothing. Secondly, each addon is different. Just because an addon is different doesn't mean it's "Bad." Thirdly, there are people who wish to create content which

represents something and those who wish to create something which is as realistic as possible. Fourthly, it's a game so technically what ever the engine will bear is the limit.

Writers can't tell painters how to paint, just as painters can't tell sculptors how to sculpt. Most people only have one skill when it comes to addon making. For those who have two or three skills, it is easier to

moderate between them. To Create you must Cooperate, Collaborate and Compromise.

- The humbled and ashamed individual previously known as Drill Sergeant. (Lost email and then passwords so had to re-regester a while ago)

[JdB 151]

Quote[/b] ]With ARMA around the corner, I think it's time for the addon community to finally grow up. Let's face it, right now the OFP addon community is a jumble of bickering artists who spend just as much time

arguing over vert counts and who is doing what, as they do creating things.

More often I get the idea that the majority of the mod/addon-makers are more mature then alot of the people that "abuse" their addons and whine about them on forums. I've been noticing a negative vibe of alot of addonmakers towards players and vice versa over the last year and a half.

What you call "arguing" is mostly referred to as "brainstorming", where people get up eachothers nerves to rid their ideas of imperfections, at least when part of the same team, of course the same can not always be said of inter-mod relationships.

Quote[/b] ]If more then one team wants to do the same addon, let them. If some one wants to create high definition work, let them. Do comments like "Ohh man that's too high pollie, gona lag." really help anyone?

I disagree with the whole "everyone can do what he wants to do", what is the point of creating over 50 M4A1 addons when only a maximum of 5 versions has ever been really popular, and the rest is left to gather dust? An awfull waste of development time that could have been spend on more unique projects.

I'm against the approval system, but some common sense never hurt any addonmaker (although working for ungratefull children that make up part of this community could of course be deemed an insanity in it's own right...), better to create one unique item then to have your precious piece of work dissappear in the pile of similar addons.

Also, comments like "that is too high poly" are helpfull, as I have seen many people over the years comming up with models and textures suited for BF2 and alike (that high poly or high resolution (in case of textures)).

The only comments that are really useless are those to the extend of: "you f*ckers are never going to finish this", "release the damn mod, it's been 3 years already" or "you guys are crap". Optimizing and balancing are one of the most important parts of gamedesign, both professionally and on an amateur basis.

Quote[/b] ]It's not my fight any more, but I believe that we should just build categories for addons instead of trying to impose limits. When an addon is submitted for upload, why not just grade it according to how

detailed it is (Ie high, medium, low.) and grade it according to how polished it is?

The problem is that this would mean that people with the most friends would end up doing "better" addons then those without, pushing out the really good addonmakers due to the "old boys network".

Quote[/b] ]Programers feel that addons should be optimized for game play by adding features and removing details. Modlers believe that details should be added

regardless of the "Limits" programers try to enforce. Texture artist try to moderate between both detail and features.

Not true what so ever, certainly not in professional gamedesign, and hardly in modmaking, as there is no "I" in team, and good mods optimize their addons to be balanced on all 3 fronts. As you say so yourself a little further down, "compromise". Beginners often make the mistake of not taking into account that their addon will not be the only thing on the island and "forget" lods and things like using 2048X2048 textures. Experienced addonsmakers don't make those mistakes.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

What ever happend, when ArmA is released, I really hope that five years after, every unit/vehicle/etc has been "remade"(as a single addon or pack, no replacement mod).

Looking at OFP, I'm missing "simple" addons like a M163 vulcan, an M1/M1A1, an MI-24..... and others.

Let's hope the best.

[Jackal326 1172]

I agree whole-heartedly with the majority of your post Corkey. I think the idea of addon-makers, if they made something particularly demanding of the user's hardware (e.g. a huge island with lots of objects), they shouldn't be criticised for it. They've poured their heart into something, only for people to say "It lags" - Buy a new (better) computer!

I do think that your idea about "categorising" addons is something which should be followed-up on. That said, I feel its something we (the community) will need to set a general standard for e.g. If it requires a 1.5GHz Processor and 512mb RAM its "Low", 1.5GHz-2.5GHz and 1024MB RAM its "Medium" and 2.5GHz+ with 1024MB+ RAM its "High" or something to that effect. It would then need to be up to the addon maker to say "OK, the tank is fairly high poly and the textures medium res, so its "Medium", but to be sure I'll see what my BETA Testers think and see how it performs on theuir varying setups"

[Messiah 2]

assuming Armed Assault uses a similiar benchmark function as OFP, could the benchmark used to test the addons be used as some sort of indication?

dunno... thinking out loud here

[Pathy 0]

I see a recurring theme to your post.

Basically this comes back to the same old issue that you have, of making stuff that is far too detailed for the OFP engine and being pissed off that people point it out to you.  

Well, it's all very well being a good modeller, but being a good addon maker is about achieving more than looks, you have to have performance as well. The best addon makers are those that make stuff that looks good and performs well too. As JdB has pointed out already:

A good modeller DOESNT try and make his model as high poly as possible, regardless of what the programmer limits him to. A GOOD modeller makes his model within the limitations he's given.

Likewise a GOOD texture artist aims for a balance between detail and performance.

And so on....

In my personal opinion, your perspective on things may be ok for amateur addon making like we do, but if you ever try and take that approach for commercial projects, you'll find yourself in a world of hurt. Performance should come first.

Of course a solution for us all would be to do something similar to what i'm aiming on for UKFs DPM 2 pack. To release low, med and high versions of the pack, with Low having less polies and smaller texture sizes, and high being alot more demanding. To be honest, i downsized my textures from 1024x2048 to 256x512 on DPM2, and there was barely a noticeable difference unless you got VERY close (ie, right up in the units face). Yet thats a 16x saving in texture mem usage right there. Just goes to show that you don't have to go overboard with either polies or high res textures to get good results.

[matt714 2]

What ever happend, when ArmA is released, I really hope that five years after, every unit/vehicle/etc has been "remade"(as a single addon or pack, no replacement mod).

Looking at OFP, I'm missing "simple" addons like a M163 vulcan, an M1/M1A1, an MI-24..... and others.

Let's hope the best.

Hmm I was actually wondering after reading your post, wouldn't it be a good idea to create an official "wish list" thread ?

[Victor_S. 0]

I think that people should be allowed to make whatever they want. If everyone wants to make an M4 then everyone should make an M4. Saying that everyone should only make one of an addon does not work becuase as we have seen with ofp addon quality gets better as more people figure out how to make them. The first three M4 addons were not the best.

[franze 196]

I don't know if my post will have much weight compared to what others have already said and compared to my limited understanding of what you're trying to say, but my perspective is that you can't please everybody - if someone makes an addon, there's always going to be some people who won't like it. These people will feel disappointed and then feel the need to vent; that's fine, but not from the maker's perspective. Given the time consuming nature and the amount of work required to please as many people as possible (IF that is his/her goal), it REALLY smarts when someone comes by and starts attacking the fruits of your labor. This likely isn't the intention of the upset person, but because the internet often muddles up what the person said, it gets way too much face value. As such, feelings are often hurt and this in turn usually creates a bad reaction on the part of the maker.

There's a multitude of solutions for both the maker and the player - such as ignoring the abusive comments or refusing to post critical comments about an addon; unfortunately, none of these seem like good strategies when emotions are involved. The player feels ripped off because the addon didn't meet his/her expectations, while the maker feels like he wasted all the man hours slaving at the computer to make the addon.

For example, the first mission I ever made and added it to a public site, it WASN'T a good mission (by today's standards.) Big deal, right? Apparently, it was for the guy who sent me a nasty email. At the time, I didn't reply to him other than to apologize to him with a very short "sorry" message, but why did he have to make that comment to me? There was no purpose in doing so. The mission wasn't that long. It wasn't big. What did he lose? I wouldn't know, maybe it WAS a big deal for him. But it's far more likely he was either having a bad day or was simply being a jerk.

Most addon makers, especially the many individuals that make up the community, don't have the luxury of only doing one part of the work as with a lot of larger addon teams or mod teams. They have to do the texturing, modeling, coding, scripting, etc. all by themselves. Thus, unlike a larger team, criticism can often be misinterpreted as an all out attack on the work of this individual. Not to say it doesn't happen with larger teams, too - but for a single individual, it does seem to hit worse.

Personally, I don't see this trend changing. There's no way to keep "the masses" from ripping "the addonmakers" a new one over something they don't like. At that point, no rating system is going to change anything - you can't stop someone using the bare minimums from trying a hyper-detailed addon and then complaining about how it runs. Think of how often readmes are simply ignored.

My pessimistic point of view says that addon makers have to get some tough skin and do the best they can to ignore the abusive, vocal, minority (or majority.) The same goes for players.

[mahuja 12]

Making lots of addons for one thing isn't the worst thing that can happen - the best ones get selected, and the community as a whole gets the best quality.

Though expanding the width isn't a bad idea either, of course.

----

My problem, however, is with getting them in use. Choosing what addons you want to use, is currently a thing left to the mission maker, not the player. You also get "addon dependency hell" for both single and multi player missions because of this.

I'm working on what may be a workable solution, at least for singleplayer.

Opening for varying addons for a multiplayer mission would be a big no-no for plenty of reasons. Cheating, desync, etc etc.

[nephilim 0]

OFP is a game not CGI

if you wanna create hyper high poly models youre in the wrong business m8.

i agree that its nice to make accurate and smooth models

but that not always suitable for games

specially now since normal mapping is available

(tho its not always good).

i saw you models corkey i and can say that these are very nice and accurate.

however these arent suitable for games.

as reference models for normal mapping yes

but nothing more.

an addon has to be ballanced out to work good.

i mean whats the sense in it when an addon has super looks but runs like shit and doesnt work right?

thats no fun.

even eyecandy games like doom3 dont exceed an average polycount of 4k.

but of course this is engine depended.

eg Biohazard/Resident Evil 4 can deal with alot more polys

at a narrow space whilest OFP deals with maybe the same polycount on a very vast space (including terrain data).

ive also talked to people who though that if arma comes out they can make highpoly models.

that kinda wrong and pretty naive to think

again normal mapping.

to make a brief statement

highpoly models are ok for reference but they should be kept out of games.

textures are the same thing

since arma uses normal maps i assume (and hope! )

that the texture count is kept low

eg 2-3 textures.

y? because for each texture (diffuse map) theres a normal map, a specular map and maybe some other thing.

so for each colormap/diffusemap your have 2-3 more textures that are needed for shading!

now sum that up for 30 differente diffusemaps...

(and ive seen worse for an OFP model...)

so if i look at todays available addons im getting chills down my spine as this wont really work or will run very crappy if addon makers continue like this.

theres no need to make one seperate texture for each button and what so ever

and also the smallest scratches wont be seen ingame most of the time anyway cuz the mipmapping will blur it if theres alot of these objects lurking round.

also those people been talking about "modeling style"

honestly... screw your style make proper addons.

if this will continue like this i can already imagine that upcoming addons will be quite crappy..

guess someone has to take you lot by the hand and guide you thru ...

also when making addons each sepreate section must know about the other field, at least a little bit.

its mandatory cuz otherwise everyone will be doing stuff on their own and thus the addon wont work 100% at its best.

[.kju 3241]

well put nephilim !

[Pathy 0]

Very well put. There does seem to be this common misconception that the higher the polycount, the higher the quality.

I'd say you're a better addon maker if you can make something low poly and good looking, than someone who has to go high poly to make stuff look good. And to be honest, once you get textures on, you usually don't notice the extra polies.

[nephilim 0]

exactly

[-HUNTER- 1]

I think the class system would be a good idea since now we dont have ARMA yet. If we sort out stuff like this right now its done before we start it up.

Think about the JAM initiative. Its now used by many addonmakers. Thats IMO a very good idea. And maybee start classing them into how heavy it will be for the pc. And also we dont know exactly what the performance will be for ARMA. You conclusions as this model is to high poly to run properly are a bit early I would think. Maybee you could load up 100 of those things and play arround and have fun.

We all have seen the past 5 years with all the millions of addons released. I myself have probally kept atleast 80% of the addons that got released. But I also agree that it should be up to the ppl them selves to create addons what they like. But I also dont see the point in having 10 versions of the M4 while only a few are actually used by many ppl because those are the best.

I understand that if somebody wants to learn how to model with making a M4 weapon its ok offcourse. But If your really putting in hours to create such a weapon while others have been there and done that. Is a bit useless imho. The ppl who play arround with OFP wont really feel the need for "another" m4 addon. And still use the other versions, and then all the work is for nothing, ppl will mention that to the creator and he wont have his work apreciated as it should.

But some ppl here say that high poly models dont work ingame. But why dont they work ingame? Because you guys think so, or because nobody wants them?

Because I myself would want to have the best quality weapons I dont give a flying F about FPS. I overload the system daily with uber high load missions and whatnot. But simply saying it wont work is a bit stupid.

Because we've have that situation with the blackhawks, with fastroping, with moving inside a vehicle flying, with trailers, with lots and lots of engine limitations that simple have been broken. And that didnt happen because ppl simply said it wasnt doable...

Gnat made a light version of the SUV DS released. It runs PERFECTLY not more then two other vehicles on my pc. And I dont have a uber pc. But I wanted to test out how it would run before I came to conclusions. And It seems many ppl here, who have the talent in creating super addons simple wave it away, ooh too high poly, naah wont work.

It might not work for OFP but these models are made for ARMA! And to think we have like 4 months before release (I think! now is a good time to start looking at stuff that will run with ARMA. Because if you see the maps and read the stuff like 100 sq km maps well I think a weapon like those in the pack definatly will be working well with the newer engine.

ps. finally a really interesting topic, its been ages!

[nephilim 0]

sure highpoly models will WORK in ofp.

but its a matter of fps....

eg 24 3k m4´s will give you a greated fps than 24 30k poly m4´s ( on the same rig)

some people dont seem to get the big picture.

ofp has to compute all the vertices data of that model

and a 3k verts /polys is fairly low compared to 30k vert/poly monsters.

i agree with you on the other points

Quote[/b] ]Because we've have that situation with the blackhawks, with fastroping, with moving inside a vehicle flying, with trailers, with lots and lots of engine limitations that simple have been broken. And that didnt happen because ppl simply said it wasnt doable...

these are things that can be worked around of course.

but polycount/vertices is quite a different matter.

if you want to play with a slow_as_snail_ofp fine your deal.

i certainly dont want to

i dont want to get into details ive explained that often enough....

itll go on like this anyway..

one groups wants uber hyper real models the other group moans about performance issues (or even the same).

get grip guys, you need to get somewhere in between

BOTH wont really work for ofp (at least)

unless you favor running around alone on desert island LOL!

[Corkey 0]

To sum the article up.

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Cooperate, Collaborate and Compromise.</span>

Nothing will get done if people do not make an effort to implement some sort of system of grading addons / keeping CGI people OUT of the gaming world.

This thread is about the OFP mod community adopting some sort of RULES, to which addon makers MUST adhere. If no rules are adopted, then you have no right to tell some one else that they cannot do something / their work is useless. ect.

This thread is not about me, it's about the future of ARMA and OFP.

And if lights aren't going on in people's heads after reading this, well then they never will go on. Consider this my final attempt to make myself clear. If you don't understand what I am saying now, you never will.

*edited because I forgot the [/size] bracket set up above.

[Pathy 0]

You can't impose rules on something that we do as hobbyists. I mean;

Quote[/b] ]then you have no right to tell some one else that they cannot do something / their work is useless. ect.

So what right do we have to lay down rules?

Anyway, as far as i'm concerned, if someone releases something to the public, they open themselves up for critisism. Now we try and keep that constructive, as it's only polite, and theres zero point in critisism that isnt constructive. However, a small collection of addon makers have a very hard time taking any sort of critisism at all. I know of *someone*, who for example, will make an M4 with all the nuts and bolts modelled, and when i've said "but, you could do that detail with textures, it wouldnt be a particually noticeable difference, and your addon would perform better", i got a mouthful in return.

It's not rules or grading that we need, it's sensible heads who don't model every nut & bolt, or use 10 different 4096x4096 jpg textures just for the sake of it. Unfortunately, it's ingrained in alot of peoples minds that high res, high poly = better, and i think alot of addon makers think that the higher poly/res they make thier addons, the higher people are going to think of them as an addon maker. I know, because i've been through that stage myself; when i started out (think i was 15/16 when i started) i thought that if i made high poly addons with high res textures, i'd be regarded as a good addon maker (which i guess was what i guess i really wanted at the time - now i don't give a flying f***!. But that mindset is still engraved in alot of people, and it's a shame.

To sum that up, we don't need rules and regs, we need to challenge a few misconceptions about what constitutes a good addon.

Imo, looks good and performs well = good addon. That can be done without going overboard on texture sizes and polycounts.

Looks good, makes PC chug = addon i'm not going to use = bad addon. No matter how skilled the modeller or texturer must have been to have made the model and textures, it doesnt change the overall performance of the addon.

[sparky 0]

Since this topic is getting more and more interesting.....

I have made a small poly research about OFP limitations.

Maybe a few of you remember the M60A3 i released few months ago, that was my 1st model i have ever made, it was really highhhhhhh poly (23277faces), made 100% with O2 based on BIS m60. Since then i learn a few things. OFP can't handle models above 9000-10000 at least with D3D HW T&L cause, simple it crashes. Modells above 24,000faces, cause ofp to crash even n the desert island, with no D3D HW T&L on at all.

Unfortunately that's a sad, fact, by the time i was creating them i didn't use D3D HW T&L so i didn't notce that, only when i release it i realise that OFP can't handle it.

But what is the conclussion in all this?

simply High Poly models are awesome (i'm a high poly lover too), but simply aren't very suitable for games. unfortunately that's the truth. A good high poly model can be used as a good blueprint or even better to produce a normal map, for the final model, but it's pointless to put it in game, cause no matter what is your pc specs, the engine can't handle it (btw neither VBS engine, so don't expect ArmA to).

A model is easy to create, the hard part is when the texturing time comes, then you have to put all your skills, and make all the little details in texture, and the same time to be as realistic as can be, avoiding creating model parts.

I Agree with the idea of categorising addons according to pc specs, that will be good, at least for those who want to have high-poly addons.

Also is bad for those who pretend knowing everything, point with the finger at others and blaming them for their addons. This is a free community BIS has realesed O2 for everyone, so who is the one who can say, "don't make that!", it's up to everyone not to download an addon, as much as to the creator not to make it.

And my final words......

People who creating things (modells, textures, islands) are people who have high creativity feelings, so when someone appears and starts telling them, "you should do that", "you shouldn't do that", "why bother making it at 1st place" "etc, etc", .that is something that huts their feelings, it doesn't make them better as addonmakers, it just makes them feel bad. I think that this community should treat with more respect to the addonmakers, cause most of them are giving a good effort of time, and spirit on each creation. If you don't like an addon just don;t download it, it's bad when start loughing at others effort, or if you don't like something you could tell it in more polit way.

remember, averyone has a starting point so

"Where i am you were, and where you are , i'll be"

that's all i have to say.

[nephilim 0]

people always get things at the wrong end hehe

@xsparky

i have absoultally nothing against highpoly models as ive stated previously, andi also like to make them.

also i dont think someone should care what models whit whatso ever poly count is made for your own usage/entertainment/research/learning.

but if you want to release this high polymodel as a game model to the community you must bear in mind that not everyone has a super good rig.

tastes are different. but for the sake of gaming fun

keep things sensible

i agree on the other points.

of course you cant say thats bad and thats good or acting biased, however ofp´s physical limits are known,

you cant push them any further like things that can be scripted, without suffering cutbacks in  FPS

@seargent

i got you full on this

also categorizing addons is pretty good

but i think there should be quality options for players to make.

eg 2-3 different versions of and addon.

eg highRes medRes and lowRes

eg highres would have all the fancy nuts and bolds and high 2048*2048 textures

medRes would have the 2nd lod of the highRes model as very first lod and 1024*1024 textures and so on.

what ya think?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

This thread is about the OFP mod community adopting some sort of RULES, to which addon makers MUST adhere. If no rules are adopted, then you have no right to tell some one else that they cannot do something / their work is useless. ect.

I can’t express how wrong that sounds.  The moment you impose hard and fast rules on the addon makers in this community then it signals it's death.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind the post i can only describe some people suggestions as naive at best and hopelessly short sighted at worst.

This community doesn’t need "RULES" that "MUST" be adhered to.  It needs people willing to share what they've learned in a decent manner and a decent set of guidelines; poly counts and textures etc.  This means no more patronising/degrading/condescending comments.  No more your addon is shit because its got too many polys, or its yet another M4 variation.

Cooperate - Teach other people what you know.  But do it in a friendly none threatening way.  If you want to help people learn write some tutorials, post them on places like OFPEC or OFP.INFO or even on these forums.

Collaborate - This doesn’t mean you have to throw your own ideas away.  Find people that want to do similar things as you.  Scripts, Planes, Tanks anything and see if you can share resources, research and maybe even models and textures.

This won't mean the end to the next 2,487,948 M4s we'll have to endure through ArmA etc It just means the community will to talk to each other and gets know each other better.  You never know, you may even make some friends.

Compromise - You may want to make the most detailed the most accurate addon in the known universe but at the end of the day it has to work in game with other addons.  When OFP:CWC was first released you were all happy with ~2000 poly models.  Resistance came along, ~4000 polys was doable.  Now thanks to the increase in PC specs and the OFP:R engine we can run high numbers of addons with 4-6000 polys on most machines with some pretty impressive textures.  But that doesn’t mean we can have every soldier and ever vehicle running around with 10,000 polys, crap lods, 5x2048x2048 textures and a 5K view distance.  You may well need to compromise your own ideal if you want it to work well once you release it to the community.

What is needed in this community isn’t “Rules†its guides.  Solid formal guidelines for making addons and suggestions for “best practiceâ€, tips to get the best performance out of addons.

Any discussion about regulating the community, handing out “approval†ratings and classes is quite frankly stupid and short sighted.  People need to think about supporting the community not restricting it.

People will always produce and release some really bad/unusable addons.  But the honest feedback and constructive criticism you give these people helps them improve.  With each addon they learn something new.  Even if they make yet another M4 maybe they will bring some new idea or standard or quality to the community that either they or others will be able to use to improve their next addon (hopefully not another M4) and they will share what they’ve learnt.

If you want to post something useful why not discuss the creation of a community accepted standard.   This should be regarded as a suggested level to work to.  Not hard and fast rules to be policed by wannabe moderators or self appointed experts.

Possible areas are:

- Poly counts

--- Units/Avatars

--- Weapons

--- Vehicles

--- Planes

- LoDs

- Texure sizes

-- 1 tile vs many tiles

-- Acceptable Sizes

- Scripts

-- How many loops is too many?

There are some very talented people in this community, both skilled modellers and textures artists that know a lot about the OFP engine.  I'm sure with the help of BIS we could hash out a set of Recommended Guidelines for addon makers in OFP and ArmA.  Hopefully it will help new and old addon makers conquer the confusion over poly counts and textures once and for all.

[sanctuary 19]

/me agree with Nephilim and Pathy

When an addon is giving me performance problems when i try to make a mission using it, i just uninstall it.

Certainly, one can make addons with billions of polygons i have no problem with anyone wanting to release something like this, i just think it is too bad when a model maker disregard the constructive advices and put them on the same level as an useless "that's just stupid" reply, as there are several methods to optimise an addon for OFP/ArmA.

Quote[/b] ]To sum that up, we don't need rules and regs, we need to challenge a few misconceptions about what constitutes a good addon.

I think a big model/texturing FAQ is needed , regrouping all those hints and tips lot of addon makers learned while doing their models.

That should really help model makers that are not totally used to the OFP/ArmA/VBS engine to avoid some mistakes and release unplayable addons that lead into bad critics.

As XSparky said, bad critics usually hurt so much the model makers feeling that he then ignore the constructive one that could help, that's human and understandable.

There was this thread that i think should have been pinned ( *hint* *hint* to moderators ) in one of the development forum, that was a great start at such model/texture big faq and contains a lot of very good and usefull tips from people knowing a lot about model optimisation.

[-HUNTER- 1]

people always get things at the wrong end hehe

@xsparky

i have absoultally nothing against highpoly models as ive stated previously, andi also like to make them.

Ahh cool so you will make that uber cool M4 addon in the pack!?

Nooh I also understand what your trying to say, and I understand why you were saying it. But these models will be for the new platform called ARMA from which we all dont know the performance. Maybee such models will work perfectly, and its also about what kind of missions you want to play, large full on assaults with 100 soldiers would be harder then a SF group doing SF insertions and whatnot.

Besides if you read that ARMA will support 1000s of soldiers and vehicles moving about, certainly such weapons will be doable for gameplay.

And if you see that the SUV runs perfectly in OFP! Seriously its the same as having 3 other vehicle addons. And actually it might even runs easier then having three others because OFP needs to calculate 1 vehicle moving, but ok thats another point.

But the set of guidelines I prefer to say over Rules would be a very good idea. The idea of getting standardized addons to match certain rules and or catagories...

And now is the time to try to implement something like this.

Im still not sure how and what as most of you guys. And well to be honest im more player then creator, but still I think getting a general guideline out will be a good idea. You can manage addons like that, and also ppl can check in which section they should download addons. Or something...

This is a very interesting thread imo! Finally some good talking about the world of OFP and upcoming ARMA.

And @pathy

Quote[/b] ]So what right do we have to lay down rules?

We dont have the right, but we can still do it. Even though if it were to keep things organised. But then again, you guys, pro modders are in my opinion to put down guidelines and or rules. But it has to be done in conjunction with the other modders and highly skilled ppl. And eventually in conjunction with players.

You guys make the addons we play arround with. So if you guys implement a set of guidelines that would be reasonable ppl could follow them. Think allong the lines of JAM, getting a standard for addons instead of only ammo.

And you mentioned that it is ingraned in ppl's mind that high poly models are better, but then again you could say its ingrained in your mind that its not that way. And you are right for OFP! But for ARMA that doesnt go. Because we dont know the specs for that yet.

EDIT

OMG 2 other ppl just posted the same ideas but allot better written! I agree completly with RKSL on this. And that what he brings up was the same thing I was thinking about.

[nephilim 0]

Quote[/b] ]As XSparky said, bad critics usually hurt so much the model makers feeling that he then ignore the constructive one that could help, that's human and understandable.

thats true

but sometimes harsh words make people want to proove they can do better

take it as a personal challenge

[wipman 1]

Hi, if i were an addon maker... i'll say that do the addons in 3 qualitys, LOW MED & HIGH will be a good idea, but that's a lot of work for some addon makers that work alone with no help from other people; so that (by force) wouldn't work for everyone.

Im reasonabily good in some fields, but i can't do the 100% of "my" addons alone; many people complain, but i don't use to receive jelp from anyone, only some fellas; so "my" addons could only enter in the cathegory of "unfinnished" addons or "stolen addons". But i agree with you Nephilim; not only because you're a girl (i never seen you) i agree with you because make cathegoryes will be a good idea. Let's C ya