The PBO prefix

[fasad 1]

G'day all,

This might be an obvious topic, but I haven't found the answer. Three questions:

Does anyone know what the CA prefix stands for?

What is the the benefit of using a pbo prefix?

Should we use CA as a pbo prefix (the Visitor3 tutorials/manuals suggest we should) for community content, or something else (such as our OFPEC tag)?

Cheers

[Jackal326 1182]

Not sure what the CA stands for exactly, probably a hang-over from an early game-name BIS were planning on using but dropped in exchange for ArmA; or I'm missing something blatantly obvious.

The benefits of using a PBO prefix (such as mine; SJB), basically prevents any conflicts that may arise from two (or more) people making the same sort of addon. For example, two people decide to make an M16A3, using the M16A4 model, and simply changing textures and the config. However, neither use any OFPEC standardised tags or any-form of unique prefix. As a result, both files are simply called M16A3.pbo and one would over-write or conflict with one-another. However, had they both used unique tags, e.g. ABC_M16A3.pbo and DEF_M16A3.pbo. That way, players can use both addons at the same time without issues (assuming they use the tags for new classes in the config.cpp etc).

So, for your third question, see above and to summarise, yes, register a tag and use it.

[fasad 1]

Thanks for the reply. It sounds like I was on the right track, but I still can't see any benefit of a prefix over a normal directory structure. Neither are mandatory, and as far as the game is concerned they have the exact same effect. If the prefix was mandatory it might force "lazy" addon makers to make an effort to avoid conflicts...

As I understand it, class names are not affected by the pbo prefix, meaning two separate PBO's with unique prefixes can still conflict. Is this correct?

[Synide 0]

ca=possibly 'combined arms'... from what someone else posted along time ago...

pboprefix=always use it, and never have your pbo names the same as the original game content pbo's.

unless you are completely overriding a certain original pbo, but even then i personally wouldn't called the new pbo the same name, i'd call it 'lowPlants.pbo' and have the prefix inside called 'ca\plants'... but that's just my 2c worth...

ie. i have aawWpns.pbo, aawBodies.pbo, aawUI.pbo, aawPlants.pbo, etc. etc.

there respective prefix's are 'AAW\aawWpns', 'AAW\aawBodies', 'AAW\aawBodies', etc. etc.

why? it's idiot proof.

PS. a pbo prefix IS mandatory... if you do not provide an alternative it use's the name of the folder it is pbo'ing as the name of the prefix.

[Snake Man 407]

I still can't see any benefit of a prefix over a normal directory structure. Neither are mandatory, and as far as the game is concerned they have the exact same effect. If the prefix was mandatory it might force "lazy" addon makers to make an effort to avoid conflicts...

Its already said twice in this topic, please use <TAGNAME>_ in all your addons, configs and hey even mission variables and stuff.

For example

aawWpns

aawBodies

VTE_wpn

VTE_chara

etc. Then there will be no conflicting content created.

[.kju 3245]

AFAIK the pboprefix is only an (optional) useful tool.

It is important for path specifications.

Like for models, textures, sounds etc inside configs.

$PBOPREFIX$

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">keg\saraplants

config.cpp

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">model = "keg\saraplants\clutter_grass_general.p3d";

PBO name:

sara_grass

With a pboprefix, like stated already, the pbo name and path

specifications are independent.

---

Without the pboprefix:

PBO name:

sara_grass

config.cpp

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">model = "\sara_grass\clutter_grass_general.p3d";