U.S.T.P. Guide to realism for YOUR addons

[Dzesser 0]

Project USTP is intended for giving the realism to future addons for Armed Assault from the independent developers.

USTP it is the table, in which are included the characteristics of vehicles and weapon, such as armor, the damaging effect of projectiles, and much other. All parameters will be represented in the form, convenient for their substitution into config of addon.

USTP it will help you to make your addon maximally approximating real world without the time losses to retrieval for necessary data from the separate sources. Furthermore, USTP it will help finally to remove unbalance and large spread of the characteristics of addons from the different developers.

USTP it will be comprised with the attraction of the leading world information sources on the armaments, it is maximally objective and impartially.

Filling of base USTP will begin, when become finally they are known the parameters of config of units in Armed Assault.

Will you use USTP in your addons for Armed Assault?

[Batukhan 0]

I think i heard something about BIS validating addons? So that they themselves could choose the addons that really FIT into the game. I think that's a pretty good SYSTEM

[dmarkwick 261]

If USTP becomes a well used staple, the way that JAM has become for Operation Flashpoint (albeit for completely different reasons), then yes I would use it.

[dmarkwick 261]

I think i heard something about BIS validating addons? So that they themselves could choose the addons that really FIT into the game. I think that's a pretty good SYSTEM

I don't think BIS will be validating addons. I heard something about this but it turned out to be wrong. It's be an enormous undertaking for them and an unnecessary one, the good addons find their own levels

[Batukhan 0]

I don't think BIS will be validating addons. I heard something about this but it turned out to be wrong. It's be an enormous undertaking for them and an unnecessary one, the good addons find their own levels

If they DON'T, then yes, it's a very good idea to make certain and strict standards for addons. Maybe the addons sites could reinforce them?

[kutya 0]

IMO the idea is good, BUT people are simply people. They won't follow a guy with his first post an no fancy website. I accent it's a good idea, but you need to get some important people behind you (CSLA, WGL or some other popular mod) and only then you can press standards.

So make this big and stable, only then you'll succeed. By big I mean many mods supporting your idea and by stable, don't give up after a few months. Just my opinion.

[BraTTy 0]

Right... how could a new member with one post manage the content of our addons?

A lil more experience please

[Jonovt 0]

You estimate his experience on how many posts he has on a specific forum?

[scousejedi 0]

Given the shear number of quality addonmakers in the Germany 1985 project I think that theirs will be the standard that every other addonmaker tries to conform to. If an addon maker wants his addon used that it would have to be playable with their stuff.

[Scrub 0]

Rather than manage, or waste time making a website, or even having experience considered, this could simply be a sticky with a spreadsheet on agreed upon values for units in catagories. That's all we really need, a lookup table that has supporting documentation I.E.:

The M-XXX has YYY millimeters penetration and moves at ZZZ meters per second, as per 'Janes' -HTTP://blahblah.com

Chobam armor has Z times the value of traditional laminated steel as per Blah Blah source.

If people disagree, let them post their source and we will need to either find the truth (because a countries weapons data has NOTHING to do with national pride... right? right!?!? ), or compromise. I believe this does not need to be a huge deal.

[max power 21]

I would really like to participate in the discussion about how to simulate this stuff. I think I have some information and skills that might be valuable to you. I don't know anything about the inner workings of flashpoint, much less ArmA, but I do have some experience in abstracting the physical nature of things into game rules, and I have excellent analytical skills. PM me if you're interested.

[dmarkwick 261]

Right... how could a new member with one post manage the content of our addons?

A lil more experience please

I think a well implemented and useful idea will be the proof of the pudding, not his post count

[BraTTy 0]

You estimate his experience on how many posts he has on a specific forum?

Uhmm ya, on a 5 year old game.

How else could we estimate his experience?

What addons has he made? Were they balanced ? What groups has he worked with?

BTW this has been tried a few times

[dm 9]

Peoples relative experience aside, I think this IS a good idea.

However, somewhere like the BIS Wiki would be a better place to host it, and it should also NOT be a labeled "standard" as it is my experience [with JAM] that people don't like having to "conform" to other peoples standards.

I know this statement seems to contradict its self, but hear me out. When making JAM, a lot of people disagreed with the values, but rather than trying to give input they simply ignored the project. Now, if we have a collection of mathematical formulae on the BIS wiki, such as:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">XXmm of RHA == YY in the config settingor

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">to convert from RHA value to config value add XX and multiply by YY

Then people would be able to make compatible addons (as long as formulae were provided for all aspects of the config entry) Because as it stands, no one really knows what the config values should be to replicate real world values. So we end up with all these different addons, some are "uber tanks" and others will explode at the first sight of an explosive. Having a standard, possibly BIS "approved", formula on the wiki should eliminate this.

As I understand it, ammo config is handled very differently in ArmA, meaning that we *should* be able to use BIS' default M4/M16 magazines in all our M4/M16 addons, and be able to define the sounds, fire modes etc on the WEAPON rather than the magazine. Meaning that a 5.56 bullet is a 5.56 bullet across the board, since all the other values are managed in the weapon. So as long as the majority of ammo types are in the ArmA "core" then we shouldn't need to define extra types (in most scenarios) meaning everyone is on a level playing field.

[BraTTy 0]

And I was going to say that in my earlier post.

Someone like Deadmeat,Selectthis,Kegetys may have a chance at implementing this

Jam has set a standard.

The problem with jam is that its mainly for modern rifle ammo

It didn't take over all ammo (plane 30 cal,50 cal, tank shells etc..)

To balance out the whole ammo problem

[noisycricket 0]

I don't know enough to vote, but I'm all for realism and immersion. Getting a large number of individual realism mods together in one pack is important to get servers to use them i think.

[Cifu 0]

Well, in first sight, this is a very good idea. But second sight, it's easly become a disaster for realism.

One easy example:

A T-72B(M) with Kontakt-5 ERA.

The T-72 w/ Kontakt-5 ERA capable to stop an DM-53 or M829 APFSDS-DU round. So, the T-72 front armour in this case are invunerable for almost any western MBT. But many are begin to whine, because the Leopard 2A4 or the M1A1 are need to be better, than the T-72, just because... they are better, everybody know, even the Discovery Channel say it.

So, now what?

[Batukhan 0]

Aaahhh, the old GAMEPLAY vs REALISM argument..

But that's actually another issue. We can have a generally playable and unrealistic game, but also have STANDARDS. Sure, we can make the M1A1 BETTER than T72, but then we need the standards, to make other vehicles proportionally with the same strength. I.E. when we have a BIS-made T72 that has these and these weakpoints, then "the other guy's" T72 should have somewhat same weakpoints, and be destroyed more-or-less in a similar way, not overpower the "ever-so-great-M1A1" :P