New Rules of Modding for Arma 2 : Mod "clans" and "Projects" only ?

[EricM 0]

Arma 2 looks great, and that's good isn't it ? Still it's also a "curse" for the community, because we now have to match that quality if we want our addons to feel like "part of this world"

I'm going to quote myself on this one :

With each new generation of the engine, it gets harder and more time consuming to develop addons that look as good as the originals : see the MI24 in game ? How long will it take for the community to produce addons of that quality with all the great shaders and details ? A LOT !!!

I know, I worked on a Hind before, and though it's rather easy to get the rough shape right, the time you spend on fine tuning the details, UV, textures, specular, normals etc... is sickening (and don't get me started on the cockpits).

For OFP, it was easy to make something that looked as good as the original (blocky geometry, simple low-rez texture, lousy UV), for Arma 1 it's a little bit more tricky (more details, more attention to UV, multi-stage materials, higher quality maps), for Arma 2 it will be a pain to match the quality, and only professionnal-grade modelers and texture artists will be able to output game-quality mods...

That's how things go... the better looking and realistic, the more time consuming and complexe it will be. Otherwise, simple OFP-ported addons will look like a sore thumb in the lush and detailled gameworld of Arma 2.

This is why I believe the old way of "one-man-mod" or "one-man-addon" is going the way of the dodo with Arma 2. No hobbyist can now gather all the skills (real life expertise, modelling, UV, textures, shaders, configs) and freetime to produce game-quality addons on his own on a reasonable time frame (ie : before Arma 3....)

I believe that given the level of quality expected, only FOCUSED GROUP PROJECT will be able to survive in Arma 2.

"WWII on my own" or even "General Era" is mostly out of question and will never make it to final version, whereas things as "Project Antonov 12" or "Project Leopard II", where a team of artists gather to work one specific addon for the whole community has more chances of succeeding and delivering.

My two cents...

Edited May 25, 2009 by EricM

[.kju 3245]

level of quality expected

Sorry this is rubbish. :)

Everyone should make addons for himself, the joy and learning, as well his immediate

playing grouping / local community first and foremost.

The "BIF community", the "whole community" or whatever none sense does not exist,

and is no equation to take serious.

Another aspect is, that you are the one to decide where the prios are.

Perfect 1:1 remodelling, ultra high textures are NOT good ones IMHO.

It is always a compromise no matter what.

Despite that personally I prefer gameplay, non HW demanding, as error free ones.

Last aspect to put on the table for now.

Peoples knowledge improves, their techniques and experience with tools and

development in general does, so does the tools.

Still it's also a "curse" for the community, because we now have to match

that quality if we wants our addons to feel like "part of this world"

This is not true either.

Port your OFP stuff to A2, as well as your OFP environment and use only your stuff.

Pretty consistent in all means.

There is NO need what so ever to compare fan made work with professional.

FOCUSED GROUP PROJECT will be able to survive in Arma 2.

One more thought to peoples head to turn around.

In professional software development there is technique called iterative development.

The way to go here, as it is for real life projects most of the time nowadays.

Edited May 25, 2009 by kju

[celery 8]

I'm very much for this idea, I was going to suggest something similar if nobody else would.

It's all fine and well to make addons etc if you like it but if you really think that folks are going to actually use them just like that, you have to stop kidding yourself. If you look at which addons are widely used, you'll see that most of them are a part of a bigger mod.

Some general guidelines for making good addons

• Try to make your addon comparable to the vanilla ones: it sticks out like a sore thumb if it's uglier or its attributes are off. Always keep in mind that it will probably be used with vanilla stuff so make it blend in.
  
• If the addon you're making is already in the vanilla game, give it to a total conversion mod because a user-made XM-8 is not going to be used separately if the game already has one
  
• Unless you're making a larger mod, don't add trivial features (e.g. extendable smoking trays) that BIS-made addons wouldn't have
  
• Join forces with a modding team that is compatible with the addons you're making. That's the best bet you have to get your addons in use.
  
• The time for competition is pretty much over at this stage, so be cooperative with the whole community and encourage everyone to use your addons in their mods or as a base for their own addons
  
• Always remember to give credits where they're due. You're not winning anyone's admiration if you claim the work as 100% your own when it's not.
  

In my opinion the most important thing is that addons are put into larger mods and that the mods can be used with vanilla addons without blatant differences in speed, maneuverability, resilience, damage, recoil, look or sound.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

To be honest, I've found that the very best examples of modelling and texturing for both OFP and ArmA community addons have been produced by extremely talented individuals, even if they're part of a larger mod team.

BIS's work looks great because they have the resources (money) to hire and maintain either an equal number of good modellers and texturers, or a collective of extremely talented individuals (including some of the talented comminuty members I just mentioned), who can produce awesome looking artwork on their own (the latter case is more probable).

We can't hope to replicate this in the community: Our talent will always be a tiered system, with an unbalance in the number of people who are actually able to accomplish the different disciplines needed to produce addons.

The main problem with your suggestion is that the number of good modellers in this community is not equal to the number of good texturers, and there are even fewer good scripters, animators and config wizards.

I don't really know any addonmakers in the current community who has refused an offer of direct help from someone who's talented enough to improve their work. However, when you can't find a brilliant skinner who can match BIS' amazing ArmA 2 addons because the good ones are all too busy, what do you do? Stick it on the backburner and wait, or settle for someone who can produce something that doesn't look quite as good as BIS' work?

The end result is just the same as we have now: some good looking addons, some not so good. It's unreasonable to believe that we as amateurs can homogeneously produce content of an equal standard to that of the professionals.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Everyone should make addons for himself, the joy and learning

Of course, nevertheless quality is not rubbish.

Textures are not the only quality criteria, functionality as close to reality as it could get is rather important for me.

I was wondering in OFP why so many modders did exactly the same over and over again, the same wheel was many times invented.

The amount of shared/reused work has to grow, else it would be like for ArmA I : The best mods are released a few days before ArmA 2 release.

[Raptor 10]

I've to 101% agree to Q!

The Community live since OFP of the hugh variety of different Addon, ideas, solutions and ofcause their quality and that's what these community is based on.

So if you arn't happy with the quality of your addons, take the time for yourself but don't expect that the others will do so.

[Redkid Joker 0]

This idea seems an awful lot like the industrial revolution and mass production. Take the work made by craftsmen and split it up for several people to do one thing.

[Sennacherib 0]

I agree also with Q. I'm alone on my project for OFP, and i want to port my project in Arma2, and i would be still alone.

if I spend a lot of time to create addons, this is first of all for my pleasure.As I create scifi/futuristic addons, this is necessarly for my pleasure, because few people are interested :p

Edited May 25, 2009 by Sennacherib

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I don't entirely agree with Eric or Kju here. I can see both sides but I don't really think its a new situation. The skills gap problem has become more obvious with ArmA but the same situation existed in OFP 8 years ago.

It's not impossible for one person to have all the required skills needed to make a good addon (ok its not really likely but i do know several people that come close). People just need the time and support to learn. But I do think its impractical for anyone to think that person will deliver anything quickly. And while I do favour the "many individuals approach" in some respects I know the "team up" method gives a higher probability of success. Sharing the workload helps a lot.

In 7 or 8 years of being part of the OFP/ArmA modding scene I've met a lot of the "Lone Addon Maker" types. They produce some amazing models, textures and features that just blow your mind. They may lack only one of the skills needed to get it in game. So they ask someone. If that person can help you they usually do. When i've asked for help in the past i've more often than not got it.

On the team side of the coin, there are some huge advantages. Sharing of skills, the ability to learn from each other. Motivation and social aspects too. (I met two of my best drinking friends via modding) There are some negatives. Some of the big teams can present a very intimidating presence in the community. I know one person at least who was talking about modding ArmA, he took one look at ACE and said "I cant compete with that" and stopped trying to make scripts and models. Its not really ACE's fault but that standard in this community is very high. It is hard for new people to make a start unless they join a team or someone has the time to help them through their first steps in ArmA.

Eric has hit on a point a lot of people have fallen foul of. ArmA1's engine demands more technical skills and a higher quality than OFP did. It is harder to make addons that look "right" next to the stock BIS models. The engine's limits demand a higher quality standard from the addon makers to work properly without error or performance problems so the perceived minimum quality standard has gone up. There are some that say they value game play of looks etc but its funny the moment an ugly addon is released they are in the front row condemning it. I don't think anyone will ever or could ever impose rules or a way of working on the modding community. Sure the engine will always have rules we need to follow but I don't think you can ever force people into teams unless they want to.

In my opinion what we need is better access to information, tutorials and practical examples. BIS are unlikely to do that for us. It would be nice I must admit. Community members need to share what they have learnt and take the time to write accessible tutorials. But for that to happen the general attitude in the community needs to change. The first initiative to write tutorials came to a grinding halt because of a bad community attitude. There wer alot of "I want you to do ....." sort of demands got a "why should i spent my time trying to help ungrateful bastards" response. We need to help new comers not shout them down. Some people need to learn to respect ownership and copyright. Others need to climb down off their ivory towers and learn what 'community' means dropping this elitist and 'holier than thou attitude' they have adopted. We also need a decent set of guidelines to help new addon makers make a start into the ArmA modding scene. And people need to have the option to work how they want to. Either way they should be supported.

[max power 21]

I agree with Rock in that there can't be rules for addon creation. This might mark a general trend if there is an impetus for adaptation imposed upon the community. Especially in the early days of ArmA, like the early days of OFP, people were happy playing with simple retexes and ofp ports and that sort of thing. Because a model is not as slick as the ones ingame does not mean that it won't be enjoyed.

There's another term to examine here aswell. What is survival? If I make a stand alone addon and 10 people like it for their scenarios or whatever does that mean it perished? How about 5 people got a kick out of it, and I had a good time making it? Does that mean it's dead?

How about those addons that make it into the photography thread multiple hundreds of times but don't actually really get played with? Is that a successful addon or is it a dead addon?

I don't think it's necessary to impose these terms on any fan development. Someone makes something because they want to, and if they don't want to spend the time to do it all by themselves then they join up with other people.

[celery 8]

This idea seems an awful lot like the industrial revolution and mass production. Take the work made by craftsmen and split it up for several people to do one thing.

Mass production is what I've seen in OFP/ArmA. Everyone was making their own reskins and remodels (and imba config tweaks) of the same M4A1s, MP5s, G36s, Apaches, Cobras, M113s, US Army uniforms and so on. Tons of addons but only a fraction of them were used in any way in an even smaller fraction of missions. There's little incentive for mission makers to pick a single gun out of dozens of different versions, let alone force players to download a 50 MB weapon pack with every variation of that single gun already existing in the vanilla game just to play the mission.

[barmyarmy 0]

It is sad that with the new release so close that one of our better developers has such a negative view even before the game releases.

I beleive that the support and the community has only improved over the years, the learning curve is still steep, but I think it is getting easier.

Yes the abilities of the engine means that getting a perfect release right is getting more and more difficult.

However I beleive that the wealth of information now available in the community means that is much easier to get to Rev 1.0.

And there there is the talent and support within the community that those who are willing to share their efforts early with the community will find the constructive criticism and help and support to then create incrementally better releases, hence revs 1.1 and 1.2 etc will come along and I hope get better. Someone will offer advice on uv-mapping

While I do admire those people who take pride in their work, it is frustrating knowing that something is being worked on but that it won't ever be released until its 101% ready and perfect.

Release early, mark clearly as "beta" get feedback, you might also find that people send you "fixes", and you make new friends, and that in my opinion is how the community grows.

BA

Edited May 25, 2009 by barmyarmy

[sk3pt 0]

Interesting thread.

If someone could make a few good video tutorials, ArmA2 might see a golden age of addon making. :D Making such video tutorials is probably extremely time consuming though...

edit: like this one on Vimeo by James Thurber.

Edited May 25, 2009 by sk3pt

[modemmaik 53]

I think that we can expect many lower-quality addons (just like mine :D) at the start of A2. But that is just what comes around when you start modding.

You will improve your skills over time and public releases, when you receive constructive criticism and tips from the community. So know-how can also be tranfered, even without being forced into a modding team, when we try to share this know-how ;)

:edit: Nice to see that others agree :)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Celery why are you defending such lazy people? :confused:

If they only want to play vanilla missions - fine, they only get what they deserve. If misson makers want to include some addons - why not?

"Rules for modding" wont + shouldnt stop creativity of one or more addon makers. Back in OFP people were playing with custom addons and mods eg FDF, CSLA, BWMod, OFrP etc

Imho its better to wait for Arma2 + tools instead of jumping on academic "solutions". No reason to restrict mission + addon + mod making.

[EricM 0]

EDIT : I see the title of the thread was slightly misleading. When I talk about new "rules" I don't mean enforcing a closed clan structure, but rather advocating for a "per-project-basis" cooperation, where people with the same interest can freely gather and work together. See it more as "best practice" rather than "mandatory requirement"

The point of my post was not to stop individuals from doing their own addons (what would be the point ?) but rather to highlight the growing complexity and level of skill needed to produce them over the years.

That's why teamwork is even more important than before when it comes to addon making in Arma 2.

There will always be a few amazing-all-rounders, but currently the most used, better looking and most functional addons of Arma 1 come from cooperative work : RKSL, Project Racs, CWC, ACE... for a reason.

EDIT :

And to highlight my point :

WHO WANTS TO WORK ON "PROJECT HAVOC" ?

- I have a shiny MI28 HAVOC already in game in Arma 1

- I was given the base model by Digital Centurion some months ago and extensively reworked the UV, made the resolution LODS, new textures, RVMATS and basic config.

- I don't have time for more or skills or will to fix it completely

- If anyone feels like improving it (it needs interior, I never found good references) feel free to PM and I'll create a thread in Arma 1 or 2 for the team to post progress.

- I'm ready to release it under the same terms as BIS's models, so that it can be added to any MOD and further improved by anyone (in turn, those improvements shall be shared with everyone else).

It's all about teamwork and working together for the greater good...

Edited May 25, 2009 by EricM

[celery 8]

Celery why are you defending such lazy people? :confused:

I am one of those "lazy people" who see no sense in downloading something that already exists. I don't want to download a random addon just to play one or two missions that use it and either have to arrange my many addons into dozens of mod folders or get kicked from half the servers for having a file that the server doesn't. I also don't want to make missions that use addons because they'd be doomed to obscurity with no on-the-fly addon downloading in multiplayer.

If they only want to play vanilla missions - fine, they only get what they deserve. If misson makers want to include some addons - why not?

"Rules for modding" wont + shouldnt stop creativity of one or more addon makers. Back in OFP people were playing with custom addons and mods eg FDF, CSLA, BWMod, OFrP etc

Imho its better to wait for Arma2 + tools instead of jumping on academic "solutions". No reason to restrict mission + addon + mod making.

I don't want to impose absolute rules on anyone and I don't condemn the usage of addons but I wish that addon makers were more aware of each other's work and possibly worked together to make that ultimate end-it-all <weapon/vehicle name here> addon instead of many little ones of varying quality. Something that could be used in harmony with vanilla weapons and units without making distinction between official and community-created content. That's my dream as a potential end-user of addons.

[Raptor 10]

Everyone shouldn't forget that the most of us live in democratic countries and also here (BI-Forum) is the rule the decision is up to each individual to decide whether this better for him and no rule or advice will change it, fortunately.

There are too much factors if two or more persons want to cooperate, also social ones so. Ofcause it would be nice if people finding eachother and it helps to speedup the -whatever- process but better individuals and we will get one addon as thousand of pics and we wont get any addons.

I recommend that we all shall be happy that there will people and especially new people which will do or try to create addons, missions, sripts and alot of more stuff for ArmA2 as it will demand a high level of addon creation. :)

Edited May 25, 2009 by Raptor

[EricM 0]

Once again, the idea is to spread cooperation and promote teamwork as the best practice not to impose or restric individual liberties.

[sickboy 13]

I think the reasons for making Addons and Missions, Modding in general, is quite personal.

Fun and Enjoyment are also highly subjective.

Some work alone, others in groups. Some do it for their own fun and experience, others not for themselves, or other reasons.

Realism, fun, Scifi... Personally I dont really see why or how it matters.

I do believe that standards (+compatibility), guides and tools can go a long way in helping beginners and the community in general

to grow and create higher quality works, with more ease and less frustration. Which could even translate to the end-user pains of Addons etc ;)

But it really only counts for people who want that, possibly have shared goals, interests, intententions or wishes.

I feel very strong for Rock's post (last part);

Together with members of the Community we're trying to setup a platform for Developers to freely share and collaborate on any level we like,

with not too many strings attached.

The initiative is called 'Dev-Heaven.net' and some of you might've already come in contact with the site

through the teams and individuals that have already signed up.

The idea, next to the hosting of projects (and full-set of tools), is to cooperatively gain knowledge about all the aspects of ArmA(2) and the modding of it.

This knowledge, gathered at our wiki, forums, Skype, the biki, etc, could serve the Community and especially beginners, very positively.

DH can also serve as a social network where ppl come in contact with eachother, and their projects, mostly on a technical level.

We are still in preperations but hope to officially announce ourselves soon.

But to get back to the topic; IMO initiatives of cooperation, and especially the underlining of sharing knowledge,

can only be beneficial to the Community as a whole, but still leaves ppl free to choose individuality or teaming up,

and develop addons the way they want them, with or without the knowledge provided, and even inspire other branches of ideas.

None of which is mutually exclusive to either indviduals, small or large teams.

As long as the knowledge is freely available, and possibly also Tools that ease development.

But to underline, I think everyone should respect eachother's abilities and resources, especially considering we're doing all of it for free :)

Besides, a square football, is still a football, and will make a lot of football fans happy :D

[.kju 3245]

@ EricM

You are a nice guy, yet you made a bad thread topic and first post here. :)

Also in regards of your MI28 - please create a new topic.

Very little people will find it in here.

Besides that you concern is not fully wrong. Yet you seem to have a limited

perspective on this.

Most good devs in the community are professionals or have learned in uni how

to master analysis, design, programming, team work, organization etc.

---

Clarification to confused people:

Make addons for himself != make addons (all) by yourself.

First is motivation, later is how.

---

Small addons can be done by one guy too.

It is all a matter of task/goal at hand.

Addon = addition = mission = retext = confg tweak too.

---

Tried to make ACE the open dev shop to improve communities teamwork and raise

productivity. Unfortunately I failed miserably and ACE became rather closed team.

---

See Sickboy's recommendation with dev-heaven.net.

Next and last approach I am part of to create an open dev shop.

Besides that you can find more or less chaotic loose teamwork in the BIF, OFPEC

and other forums. If you want to improve seriously, join a capable team, site or

initiative.

Edited May 25, 2009 by kju

[ProfTournesol 956]

First of all, congratulation to the contributors of this very interesting and high level topic.

@Sickboy : i don't think that community splitting into smallest "dev" communities on different websites is very productive. On the other hand it's true that a beginner's/less beginners help on every subjects (config, modeling, texturing, scripting) is a very good idea, and not enough fulfilled (fulfiled ?) here.

@Rock : i agree 200% with what you said. I couldn't say it better - even if it was easy for me to write in english :D. It should be carefully read by every modders in this community.

[.kju 3245]

@ ProfTournesol:

You consider BIF the place for devs? For real?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I think maybe the mission reviewers and betatesters should participate more in saying i.e. "it's nice with NATO forces and all, but since there is nothing really NATO specific about the mission, you would be better off using default units and as little addons as possible".

That way the mission would most likely (imho) reach more people. I for one doesn't bother downloading a lot of addons just to play a mission, which might even conflict my own personal addon collection.

I often download and try addons, but usually not for very long. Naturally exceptions exist, for the types of addons/functionality that is never deleted (until brought in in a collection).

As for addon quality, my personal feeling is that the addon maker should rarely try to massively improve over default. I.e. unit addons today that are very very detailed, cause me so much slowdown on my system that I'm not able to use them.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Besides that you concern is not fully wrong. Yet you seem to have a limited

perspective on this.

Most good devs in the community are professionals or have learned in uni how

to master analysis, design, programming, team work, organization etc.

I think its you that has the limited perspective. Maybe in your "influential" clique but the majority of people that i seem to work with in this community are just talented enthusiasts.

Clarification to confused people:

Make addons for himself != make addons (all) by yourself.

First is motivation, later is how.

---

Small addons can be done by one guy too.

It is all a matter of task/goal at hand.

Addon = addition = mission = retext = confg tweak too.

That was clarification? :confused:

I think it might be clearer if you didn't try to use mathematical notation and explained a little more.

Tried to make ACE the open dev shop to improve communities teamwork and raise

productivity. Unfortunately I failed miserably and ACE became rather closed team.

I was always curious about that. I heard it was by trying to impose restrictions and working practices on people that didn't want them or want their work released as 'open source' community property?

Not to mention that fifty or a hundred people each trying to contribute in their own fashion takes far more skill and time to manage than most people have.

---

See Sickboy's recommendation with dev-heaven.net.

Next and last approach I am part of to create an open dev shop.

Besides that you can find more or less chaotic loose teamwork in the BIF, OFPEC

and other forums. If you want to improve seriously, join a capable team, site or

initiative.

But its these open initiatives led by closed teams which seem very intimidating to new people. Open independent forums like ArmAholic, ArmedAssulat.info and OFPEC are far more welcoming and forgiving than websites with intimidating project tools and reporting structures. While Dev-heaven will serve some of the more established teams and individuals as common jumping off platform and hosting for their own projects (ala sourceforge) I doubt many newbies will see the benefits immediately. That's not to say I think Dev-heaven is a bad idea. I just dont think its the best way to serve newcomers to the scene.

Edited May 25, 2009 by RKSL-Rock
typos and spelling