Addon & Mission Standards

[blackdog~ 0]

I know, I know, I'm probably the last person to be talking about this kind of thing, but I'm truly concerned about the organization of ArmA addons & mods so I guess I'll step forward and start this.

As mentioned on Radio Check #4, addon & mission standards are something that is absolutely imperative for us to discuss before the release of Armed Assault. I think that there should be a committee of five or nine (should be an odd number, for voting) experienced modmakers who vote and make decisions (that pretty much automatically takes me out of the equation, but I'll host whatever functions/websites/voice servers are neccesary for this project).

The standards committee should cover simple things such as naming guidlines (for both addons and missions) and other more important things like ammunition standardization (which came far too late in OFP unfortunately)...

We first need volunteers - experienced volunteers who know about modmaking and/or scripting. If you're interested either reply to this thread or send me a PM.

I'll make a seperate forum on my website if anyone is interested in participating. There would be two open discussion forums. One forum would be where anyone could post a new thread and/or propose a new idea. People could discuss the idea, and then there would be a secondary forum in which only moderators (committee members) could post new topics. Most of the new topics in this second forum would be stemming off of topics in the first forum. The secondary board would be kind of a "consideration board" where further discussion and ideas could take place.

There would then be two final boards (moderator only, but viewable by the public). One board would be where could be further discussed by moderators and where standards could be drafted. The last board would be a place where final drafts of standards are posted, and voted on by the nine moderators...

Ahh that's all I have to say right now. Who's up for it?

[metalchris 0]

The problem with standards for configvalues is : Not everybody will be happy with them.Some will demand more realism , others more balanced values , and so on.

In terms of performance guidelines from BIS would be great.

For example it would help if we'd know about the polycount and texturesizes of the standard Armed Assault vehicles.

The problem i see here is , that some will demand fewer but more highpoly models and others will want massive lowpoly tankarmies. (Basicly repeating what FER said on Radiocheck)

Greets Chris

[jakerod 254]

Although I doubt that any Island standardizations are needed I would be willing to volunteer for a position in that. But beyond islands I do not really have skills in any of the other categories.

However I do support this idea and think it is a much needed movement.

[deanosbeano 0]

Hmm i thought Bis already got this covered kinda ?

Quote[/b] ]"Certified Content Developers" will probably supported by BI in a special way and will get more information plus answers to their questions; also they get the signatures for their PBOs.

altho i see the above idea catching the overspill from this,given the history of flashpoint addons

source

[blackdog~ 0]

Hi, there would also be a "seal of approval" for all compliant addons after they are checked out by committee members (no this isn't a ploy to get addon betas). And maybe we could even give out prizes on a monthly basis to the most compliant addon of the month? I don't know.

Another thing that would be addressed by the committee would be ammunition values and weapon sounds for small arms, tank weapons, as well as aircraft bombs and such. We would release an independant addon similar to JAM, but there would be more frequent updates and better organization, and most of all better sounds that match up with the ArmA enviroment. The worst part about JAM for me were the sounds.

Edit: Well it sounds like BIS would only be supporting only certain developers, and it also doesn't sound like BIS would be laying out rules or standards among those people either. I think that this initiative would just compliment that.

[fer 21]

@ blackdog

It's lovely of you to offer all these tools to the community, but I think you totally missed my point in Radio Check #4. Here's my post from the RC Check thread:

Quote[/b] ]

I can't claim credit for this - it's an idea that has been around since about the dawn of time! I'm just a talking head

However, in all seriousness, I do think it would be useful if some potential 'type guidelines' could be suggested by the community. Something along the lines of:

Type A: High Poly (# polys) / High Texture (texture size) / JAMx / Low Perf.

Type B: Med Poly (# polys) / Med Texture (texture size) / JAMx / Average Perf.

Type C: Low Poly (# polys) / Low Texture (texture size) / JAMx / High Perf.

etc.

The different types would not be better or worse than each other - just useful labels to describe how the addons might be optimised for different purposes etc. This might help cut out some of the negative "too many polys" comments, when addon makers can simply say which 'type' they are aiming for.

Also, please don't take the focus on polys, textures and performance as a final list of characteristics - maybe there are more? I'm sure there are ppl out there with better ways of looking at this. I hope folks will start thinking, and then share some suggestions.

My point (and apologies for not stating this in the thread, although I thought I covered it in the podcast) is this: the community does not need self-appointed central commitees to define 'official standards'. Instead, perhaps people can propose a number of alternative systems, and let the addon-makers simply 'vote with their feet'.

I realise this means there may never be a single 'standard', or it may take a while for one to emerge as dominant, but that probably doesn't matter. The fact that not everyone uses JAM is not a disaster for OFP - it has been a useful standard for some addon makers, but it does not restrict different approaches.

In a nutshell, experience has taught me (at least) that standards are only really successful when they are taken-up organically - not imposed. By all means, suggest candidate standards, publish them, support them. Just don't expect them to be adopted simply because you feel they are 'correct', or have the backing of 'names'. Just offer up a suggestion, encourage others to suggest alternatives, and then trust the community to adopt what it finds useful.

- Fer <TZW>

[blackdog~ 0]

Hi, that's kind of why I'm taking the approach of having a heirarchy of forums and such on the road to standardization. I personally think that your style of assigning standards is a little bit more limiting than what I am imposing.

Or maybe I just don't understand exactly how your standards will work. Most weapons and addons etc. use all kinds of different texture sizes and it would be difficult to assign an exact rating to certain texture sizes or an exact rating to certain poly counts...

[fer 21]

Don't worry too much about the detail of my suggestion (it was not meant to be any more than a basic example). Also, please don't let me deter you from your plan - I think any work that can be done to suggest candidate standards is great.

[crashdome 1]

I think this idea is a good headway.

How about using categories of standard?

MP Capable (CTI, Coop)

SP Capable (200+ units, 100+ units)

Each having guidlines that it runs at a minimum fps based on a minimum spec?

I hate to bring this idea out because most people hate MS as it is.. but this idea is very good:

Vista is trying to create a system where the OS determines a level between 1 to about 7 where the worst part of the hardware somewhat marks what level you are at. You got awesome CPU but terrible GPU? maybe you are only a 3? add a new fancy GPU... now you are a 5.

How about using something like this for addons?

Addon A: works on 3 or higher

Addon B: works on 5 or higher

I mean, I am not suggesting copying the Vista system, but rather the concept is that there is a minimum level of performance for an addon. Why not expose this value?

[Lou Montana 101]

What can be done is multiple categories :

Weapons : real values V/s balanced values

Vehicles : nice vehicles V/s multiple low polys

What should be standardized too is mission names :

1-4_C_HeadHunter for a 1 to 4 players, Coop mission named HeadHunter? more? less?

plus those who add "@" to be the first mission displayed...

maybe ArmA allows us to determine an icon on the side of the mission name to say "coop mission" or "deathmatch"...

[blackdog~ 0]

I put up a forum at http://www.surfacezero.com/standards/forum

We can continue discussion there...

[wamingo 1]

If all you manage is impose a naming convention standard for missions on major mission hosting sites, I'll be more than happy

But really, It wouldn't hurt anyone to follow such a simple thing.

eg

[type]_x-y_[name]

x[type]_[name]

x-y[type]_[name]

or whatever...

cheers.

[blackdog~ 0]

Indeed, that's something that I was wanting to address as well. I was talking with Certa (OFPWatch) about an idea for a program that would syncrhonize a frequentyly updated database of missions amongst ArmA servers with the utility running... I could explain more if you want me to.

Guys, if you are interested in standardization of ANY KIND please register and post on my forum... maybe we'll end up agreeing on things!

[scousejedi 0]

What is needed is something like the Doom3D benchmark. A mission that everyone has that we can place some addons in or even a series of missions.

So then if my scjPzIV addon is used in the mission benchmark_tank I can check my fps and compare it to the fps in benchmark_tank run with a BIS tank. This tells people what the performance hit is with my addon compared to a similar BIS tank at the same spec.

If I get 32 fps on  benchmark_tank with BIS and my addon (probably produced late btw ) gets 28 then people know how that tank impacts on their system: 87.5%_BIS

We could have benchmark_man, benchmark_weapon, benchmark_plane etc. As long as the benchmarks are standard we can actually assign a %_BIS to our addons.

Now this means that instead of d/l a 'high perfomance' tank we can d/l a 125%_BIS tank - one that gives us 125% of fps compared to standard BIS units.

Just a few thoughts - I know this doesn't address weapon loadout and islands and the final number of benchmark_etc missions might be huge but what do you think?

[dinger 1]

I eat with my hands; I see no need for a fork

yeah, okay, some good ideas there; Fer had some interesting ones too.

So, I'm going throw in my two sense based on a couple observations on the current state of things. Feel free to ignore me.

Currently, standards are done to greater or lesser degrees in the mature "OFP Mod system", where the "Full conversion mods" apply -- to varying degrees -- a set of standards on the addons they select. But addons have to be "selected" for this; sometimes the addon maker is even asked permission before such an honor is awarded.

These "standardized mods" are or are not successful not because addon makers "buy into" them, but because people play them. People play them because they're simple: one download and everything's taken care of.

So standards or "guidelines" should not be geared to whether the addon makers use them, but whether people play them; and that means standards that are useful are ones that the player knows will work, and work simply. If you're going to have a system that adheres to standards, simply having a .pbo signed by the "standards authority" isn't enough -- you have to put that fact on the main description, on ofp.info, or wherever, and even use those standards to organize addons.

But there's something else about full conversion mods: Even with that simplicity, the overwhelming majority of OFP players have never used a single addon. (the FP1985 posters are the very nut of the hardcore). Why?

Every step you put in between "pressing start" and the thing working reduces your audience enormously. This brings me to the current "standards addons".

Every time standards are brought out, that same old battle horse of JAM comes out, and people bicker over why it wasn't successful. Here's why I really didn't like JAM:

It broke things.

An addon maker using JAM has two choices: A) Bundle JAM with the Addon (as many do) or B) Rely on an external dependency.

B) adds a big step between "pressing start" and the thing working. A big step means that many, many people simply aren't going to download the addon: it's too complicated. And the addon maker has to field a whole bunch of PEBKACs complaining that "the addon is broke".

A) works for the addon. But JAM is a shared resource, and has been updated several times. Not all the addons that bundle it are updated. What happens when I want to play a game with some friends who are using an older addon, and I go to install it? things get overwritten. Or, if I use a later version, backwards-compatibility might be broken (or simply not thought of).

I know; we have similar problems with CoC_NS (or rather, it's probably just me who never seems to have the latest version).

But the lesson here is that external dependencies are bad for standards. If the addon wants to use JAM and CoC_NS, great. If they want to use their own network transport, so much more power to them.

Finally, there's the question of ensuring standards compliance without overwhelming those tasked with assessing addons. I'm not convinced that having "other mod teams" do it will work -- that'll encourage elitism and bad blood. (generally when someone asks someone to do something "for the good of the community", they usually mean, "for my greater glory")

But the idea of "assessing addons" might work, if you put all the work in the addon maker's hands:

make them document the polys and LODs, how many textures, and what resolution they're at. Have them specify the format and bitrate of sound files, and the max number of simultaneous voices their addons uses.

Have the config guy indicate what AI detect and engage ranges are used, what the ROFs are, and anything else likely to eat up CPU or bandwidth. Also get that poor config character to write up correspondence tables between RL ammunition types and in-game effects, armor thicknesses and values.

Have the scripter explain what events use MP-enabled functions, and hence traffic, and what traffic there is.

You'll still get problems (especially in configs and scripting), but the very effort of documenting an addon to a standard will take care of many of them; and if the system is flexible enough, you'll find plenty of room for "exceptions within the spirit of the rule".

Then you can have your "standards authority", whether a peer or a standing group, look over the documentation, make sure it's clear and fair. When approved, the documentation goes in a file with the addon, and the standards label on the cover.

You put that out there, and it won't be in anyone's interest to "Cheat" on standards. But will it be in anyone's interest to adhere to standards? It depends on what the end user wants. The best standard doesn't always win.

At least you can force people to make missions for their addons.

(Speaking of which, when we released UA 1.1, we did with a bunch of missions, some of which don't cause a CTD. A couple of those require islands available in the WGL Islandpack. I'm proud of the dude who posted to the thread that he wasn't going to download the addon, because some of those missions required non-stock BIS stuff. And people wonder why there aren't enough missions for addons)

[TeRp 1]

Well, as much as I would like to have a common standard on config values I know that it is not possible.

There were far to many factors not included or not taken into account in JAM & CAVS (e.g. the amount of explosives in the bullets) and it even won't be possible to include them all. The other thing is, that JAM was supposed to be a common standard for sharing the same magazines - but there are many different types weapons with the same caliber which can not be equipped with the magazines of other weapons (e.g. G36 & M16 IIRC). And including all types of magazines and types of bullets would be far to much to achive in something like JAM and CAVS.

I think what should be standardize are mission and addon names.

There should be a naming convencion for missions and addons (the Tag-System initiated by the OFPEC did a good job so far) and nothing more.

[Commando84 0]

i liked jam addons, cause you could choose to equip troops with totally custom weapons but still have jam magazines and easily throw in a jam ammo crate from the editor and get magazines easily without needing to type in addmagazine codes

these days i usually use some script for it.

anyways sweet podcast! Keep 'em coming guys!

gonna be intresting to see how things will go when arma gets out.

[Scillion 0]

I only ask that those who are able to comprehend the situation, and have the ablility and resources to give this Idea a real fighting chance, will step up for the sake of all of us. We need organization. We need a website with All the New Standard Mods and Hundreds of Missions that can all be played by the New Standard Mods.

The Community is what made OFP Great. That community has been waiting a long time for the clay(AA) to mold into the best FPS(more that just a shooter) game of all time.

[Leader 0]

This is all very good but how will you handle those mod makers that do not want to follow your guide lines?

[Scillion 0]

Someone talked about keeping things simple. To get the major part of the community involved it must be like Goggle.

A hundred different search engines yet Goggle struggled to the top. Was it the best engine? I don't think so. Was it fancy or pretty or big? Nope. It was Simple and Useful. Even my mother could use all it's features the first time she entered the site.

We need a well organized site that Makes a Standard of Mods. No longer do you upgrade individual mods. You download one Upgrade and that upgrades the entire New Standard Mods. It adds the new mods and Upgrades the one's that need upgrading. SIMPLE.

This site has Hundreds of Missions that work with the New Standard Mods. These Missions must be organized and easy to download. Graded, Dated and with discriptions and maybe a small pic. Keep it Simple for the user. Also links to other sites with New Standard Mods Missions.

Now those mod makers that don't want to follow the guidelines will be happered because all his friends are loving the New Standard Mods site. Then when he tries the site he loves it too.

(In a perfect world)

[wamingo 1]

Now I've been out of the editing loop for some time now and I'm not sure what JAM looks like today or if it has changed, but... Isn't JAM's partial failure really due to it going out of its bounds?

If JAM fixed just the namespace problem - making cross addon mag's compatible, it would easily have been a widely acceptable standard.

If JAM starts standardizing more, like the specs of weapons, no matter how ideal it may be for the end user, it will without a doubt turn many addon makers right off.

Of course it's odd if m16 with special scope by whoknows does 2x damage of the m16 with no scope made by whocares... But this is where you need to start splitting up your standardization-modules up.

Again I don't know if JAM or whatever has changed since whenever. But basicly these standards can't be under the same roof. The more stuff you try to shove down someone's throat, the more likely they are to resist...

[jakerod 254]

This is all very good but how will you handle those mod makers that do not want to follow your guide lines?

They will be shot for crimes against the state.

Seriously though there is nothing you could do. You couldn't make them use it. You could only encourage it and let it give them the advantage.

[andersson 285]

I would like some standardisation in addons but its very difficult. As Dinger pointed out there are alot of aspects in an addon, not only textures and polycount. Today ALOT of "accepted" addons (used on many servers) takes too much cpu and/or bandwith for their role in a mission.

If it would be possible for BIS to put their "approved stamp" on addons that are up to arma standard (gameplay vs looks + quality) I would download them and use without hesitation.

But I doubt that will ever happen...

And ofcourse I would like a mod like wgl to alter the "approved addon" to be more realistic...

Anyway, I forgot my point... too tired.. I think its something about peoples different view on what should be the standard and what should be accepted (f.ex one with a GOOD computer do not understand the fuzz about LODs as his/her computer can compensate...) Sorry and good night..

[.kju 3239]

1. You may not forget about gameplay.

2. KISS.

3. Rather to enforce, the world is better off with pure and simple information.

4. Suggestions of good practice are welcome.

[crashdome 1]

Can I interject a question which is related to this idea?

Why are there no mods which are similar to groups in other engines (UT series, Half-life, etc..) where the mods work to produce a single product? There is an enormous amount of talent in this community and I think the problem might relate to the fact that there is just a huge pool from which to grab stuff.

Look at Red Orchestra mod, etc..

That's what I want to see... get BI involved in launching more retail products in association with mod teams. That would help seperate quality from quantity real fast.