The 3 Cs of Addons

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

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.

I totally agree, besides if you look at some of the packs out there with Low/Med/High versions they usually just refer to textures not polys.

We need addon making guidelines not a community "class system."

[miles teg 1]

Bingo: Constructive Advice. This is something alot of people don't know how to do. If players are polite about asking for a high poly/Hi-Res or low poly/low or medium res addon, or making their views known on them, then sometimes addon makers will listen.

For my mod (The Lost Brothers) alot of people have been asking for higher detail addons nicely and we have indeed been improving the detail and quality of many of our addons, however we still try to keep things sane and not go nuts with polys or high-res textures.

A perfect example of a rock solid mod that made the most out of the least would probably be the FDF mod. They made lovely addons along with missions with plenty of units that worked fairly well frame-rate wise. I think that the majority of OFP players really appreciated this.

For the Mods that have never been released at all, at the very least they have released a few addons here and there to keep players happy. (UKF mod, Falklands Mod, etc...)

So they shouldn't be criticized too harshly.

At any rate, I agree with the original post and most of the comments here. Rules will kill ArmA modding. The more freedom, the more awesome addons will be made. Flexibility in addon making is one of the most awesome things about OFP.

OFP addon makers have routinely broken the limits of what was thought possible in OFP. So alot of credit goes to BIS for creating such a flexible game engine.

I expect that ArmA, while it will probably be a little buggy for the first 4 updates or so, will continue in this tradition. As long as the OFP addon/mod making community keeps working together, I think things will go very well in ArmA.

Now if only Footmunch could get "Footmunch Fridays" going again.

We need more super nice and talented addon makers like him in OFP.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[-HUNTER- 1]

We forgot map making guidelines or well, I dont know how big maps will get for ARMA. And how building guidelines will be. But maps will have several different models...

A small step for addon makers, a giant step for opflash kind!

Also I feel soo small between you modder guys and girl!

But were talking allot about the way it is right now, but its just the future and ARMA is were we need to go towards. And seeing the things that go on right now therefor such guidelines would work...

[nephilim 0]

@wipman

witht he high,med, low res i was reffering to lods and textures

you have to make lods anyway

lets illustrate it a bit hihi

High Res model

HP_hRes (highpoly highres) 1st lod

HP_mRes (highpoly medres) 2nd lod

HP_lRes (highpoly lowres) 3rd lod

HP_lRes2 (highpoly lowres2) 4th lod

Med Res model

HP_mRes (highpoly medres) 1st lod (was HP 2nd lod)

HP_lRes (highpoly lowres) 2nd lod (was HP 3rd lod)

HP_lRes2 (highpoly lowres2) 3rd lod (was HP 4th lod)

Low Res model

HP_lRes (highpoly lowres) 1st lod (was MP 2nd lod)

HP_lRes2 (highpoly lowres2) 2nd lod (was MP 3rd lod)

that way you dont really have any extra work

well only packing and saving files maybe

but you dont have really "extra" work since lods are pretty handy anyway (a must!

@manhunter

youre right and thats what i mean

if somethings not going to change arma´s unofficial addons will be crap and unplayable

[[aps]gnat 28]

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?

Well, I agree.

And many of you have valid points ....

But I'd like rename RULES .... to GUIDELINES .... there are no real rules in OFPR addon making, I would say there has just been general self-regulating practice Guidelines, like;

- If you can't add 8 of them to a mission without the average comp going to 5fps .... it'll get deleted

- If it looks pretty but bounce on the ground for no reason .... it'll get deleted

- If it can't be used in CTI's then ..... it'll get deleted.

- If it is a one-off addon with no "opposite" ..... it'll get deleted

- If it has a 2 inch thick "How to Use" manual .... it'll get deleted

- If it ignores JAM ..... it'll won't be widely accepted.

- If you don't consider ACES ..... it could be passed over.

- If its another M4 ...... chances are it'll get ignored.

If you make addons "non-personal use or practice" and know the guidelines, you can only expect two results with the bigger OFP community ...... it'll be used (a little or a lot) or it will be a passing photographic wonder (at best) ...... you must understand that before you release otherwise you could well get unexpected feedback.

Another variable is people;

- Some are just experienting and don't understand rules or guidelines (or care) .... until after they release their in-perfect pride and joy

- Some are "professionals" who spend years refining and perfecting a special addon(s) and will never release until perfect.

- Some (like me) only know half the story and are prepared to release went it starts to exceed their skill levels.

Either way, the OFP addon hungry community won't stop downloading it until AFTER that all becomes clear

Sorry, I'm hardy worthy to contribute to a thread on this subject, but I was feeling a point-of-view.

[-HUNTER- 1]

So like how high poly are you talking about, arround 10000 somewhere or ?

Im only a noob at creating addons, how ever im working on several project, and 1 includes a high poly model from DS but not from the pack... But im only texturing it. yet, gotta learn O2 more. I started to learn how to create islands.

[nephilim 0]

high poly like CGI

that can have billions of polys

but for games 10k is pretty high already

i think unreal 2 chars were made of 10k polys

at least it was that Ada girl,

@gnat

yar should be quidelines

but thinks like ACES or JAM are optional i think

*hides*

[Footmunch 0]

But things like ACES or JAM are optional i think

One of the main motivations for ACES (and perhaps JAM?) was to standardise weapon power: if all the units use the same hit values for an AGM-65, then

mission makers can replace, say, an F-16 with an A-10, and it won't 'break' the mission.

In addition, if there is a standard weapon power, addon makers creating, say, a T-80 can adjust their armor value to reflect the strength of these

weapons. So, addons like ACES feed into larger projects like Common Armour Values.

IMO, you don't have to use ACES/JAM directly, but it would be a bad idea to create a new Maverick weapon that had twice the hit power - it would

destabilise the established balance.

Back on topic - there is a lot of co-operation happening, but most of it goes on via PM: just because you don't _see_ it doesn't mean it doesn't happen .

For example, note how many addons have readme's thet mention help from other addon makers.

Edit - for speeling

[JdB 151]

Weapons should be made as powerfull as they are in real life, not made to balance against another weaponssystem just for the sake of gameplay. Weapons aren't balanced in real life either.

"Highpoly" is hard to define, it depends on the engine, type of model, usage and system it is run on.

[ebud 18]

Weapons should be made as powerfull as they are in real life, not made to balance against another weaponssystem just for the sake of gameplay. Weapons aren't balanced in real life either.

Thats not the point. The point being that if 5 people made RPG7s, with jam at least all the rpgs would behave the same way. That is the balance in question. Not balancing everything out to be equal for the sake of balance per side.

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Weapons should be made as powerfull as they are in real life, not made to balance against another weaponssystem just for the sake of gameplay. Weapons aren't balanced in real life either

I think the term balance is meant to refer to real world balance i.e. Not giving a T72 the same armour values as someone elses T80 e.t.c Perhaps a better choice of words would be consistent?

But I don't think you should confine it to addon packs, just a simple list or recommended armour and weapons values would be just as useful, if not more so.

Addon packs like JAM & Aces are fine if a mission maker wants to guarantee consistent values across a whole range of weapons.

But a simple\clear lookup table will go a long to ensuring that. To suggest people’s work will be ignored if they don't use XYZ addons is not a good idea IMHO. Especially if there are valid reasons not to use such addon packs.

[Footmunch 0]

Yep, it was my poor wording - rather than 'balance', ACES presents a consistent real-world-based 'ranking' for the weapons.

So, as in the BIS headers, a Maverick is more powerful than a Hellfire, while a new ACES Brimstone is somewhere between the two. This also applies to maneuvarability, area effect, etc.

As for overall guidelines, the most obvious starting point should IMO be the BIS values. It should be noted that the ACES Maverick has just the same power as the BIS Maverick - it's a 'normalisation' point.

[[aps]gnat 28]

To suggest people’s work will be ignored if they don't use XYZ addons is not a good idea IMHO.

I did not mean the community SHOULD ignore the addon, I mean natural "usability" (ie lack of it) will mean it will not be widely used.

@Footmunch

Quote[/b] ]As for overall guidelines, the most obvious starting point should IMO be the BIS values

Agree, if thats not used as a starting then it would have to become a stand-alone Mod I would think. Thats what WGL aims for, yes?

Hopefully ArmA won't cause us a world of hurt on this "normalisation".

[mahuja 12]

But I don't think you should confine it to addon packs, just a simple list or recommended armour and weapons values would be just as useful, if not more so.

But a simple\clear lookup table will go a long to ensuring that. To suggest people’s work will be ignored if they don't use XYZ addons is not a good idea IMHO. Especially if there are valid reasons not to use such addon packs.

There's more to it than this. If both addons exist in a mission (one soldiertype carries an M4 made for it, and a different soldiertype carries another M4 made for it) then with JAM they can exchange ammo. Why would an m4 mag not fit into another m4?

Other than freestanding mods, what reasons are there to avoid compatibility?

...If you want to create a mod that is so über that the rifle blows tanks to pieces with a near miss, of course you can't use it.

I don't know if compatibility means it will require it, (will inserting an unused magazine name be an error?) - but even if it does, it will encourage its users to get into the standard. For the "big" central mods like these the "addon dependency hell" shouldn't be much of a problem. a standard that will only help the addons grow better.

[Pathy 0]

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.

.

Ahh yes but the point was that alot of people are under the misconception that high poly/high res = good, when it's really not the case, and as a result, they make/demand addons that really arent suited for the engine.

You're right that ArmA will change things, but not by much - because you STILL don't need to go high poly/res to make things looks good. Infact, even more so with ArmA and the whole bump mapping thing - look at BF2 modding, and most things made for that are generally lower poly than your standard OFP addon equivalent. How do they do it? Bump map the details!

So, to clarify, as its 4am and i don't think i'm particually clear, i think ArmA will actually push things the other way, meaning models can be even LESS detailed and still look bloody good, saving on poly counts further.

A point i've just thought of. The whole thing has a law of diminishing returns, and there comes a point where you do not notice the difference from going any higher poly or higher res. For example out of my own work, UKFs DPM 2, there is barely any noticeable visual difference between the "raw" version with BIG texture squares (i draw everything large and then downsize to lower res), and the more complete version which has texture sizes 16x smaller than the "raw" one - seriously, you can barely see the difference. So it'd be pointless for me to release high res just because i think it's impressive, when i can go much lower res, and it still looks just as great (IMO ), and performs much more efficiently. What i'm saying is that there comes a point when you're just wasting polys or texture space, because the benefit you're getting from those extra polys/higher res textures is minimal.

It's up to addon makers to realise what is actually worth doing and what isnt.

Just got in from work, its now 4.20 am, forgive me for the sloppyness of my reply