Modding Community becoming exclusive Club?

[rocket 9]

A tip - make sure that you UV map out your objects without having non-mirrored faces sharing the same texture space. I do this for all my addons, and it's made making maximum use of the shaders (ambient occlusion texture etc...) much, much easier. I'm essentially putting all my mods in and it's working fantastically.

[Romolus 0]

What do you guys have with your ArmA II tools?

a1 pbos work in a2.

a1 configs work in a2 - with little modification at times.

a1 scripts work in a2 - with little modification at times.

a1 rvmat work in a2 - generate some rpt warnings. You can learn from BI rvmat.

v3 wrp work in a2 - unbinarized load slow though.

a1 SAT work in a2 - yet loading seems not to work perfect.

a1 textures work in a2 - ofc can be improved. TexView X will make it possible to save in

the new format, unless community develops tools itself faster (seems likely).

a1 p3d work in a2 - vehicles seem to be simple, infantry need more work.

a1 rtm work in a2 (possible changes unknown).

Anything else missing on the list?

Honestly, I didn't take you as someone who is satisfied with a somehow "working" solution ;)

For example, the old OFP island format was "working" for ArmA, but I think you agree that it was a pain in the ass and everyone was happy when we could do some "real" ArmA terrain.

I didn't look into the ArmA2 file formats yet, so I'm quite a bit cautious about recommending to use ArmA tools to Mod ArmA2. In some cases waiting for proper tools could be better than going full steam with the old ones. Especially for terrain.

Models and textures might not be that critical. But I think we're going offtopic there already.

I think the main point here is that it's not really about the tools.

Sure, us old farts from ArmA or OFP modding know how to even bend the old tools to work for ArmA2, or write our own, but that's not the main problem for someone just starting out with modding on ArmA2.

The main problems someone probably has are like: "What's that UV mapping thing everyone is talking about?", "What the hell is that shader stuff about?", "Why do I end up with twice the polygon count as others and my model still doesn't look as good?", or "What's all that bracket stuff in the configs?", or maybe even "Err, what's a variable again?".

And you don't really learn that from following an ArmA2 specific tutorial.

Once people understand the underlying principles, it takes them only a small effort to figure out how to use the tools (even the old ones) from looking through the forum or the Biki, or maybe even just tinkering with them a bit.

But the less they understand the principles, the more they'll struggle with the info they find here.

So what are you missing to save A2 from dying?

More people who are seriously interested in taking on mission making :)

(And maybe BIS to really fix the AI vehicle issues, since those almost completely ruin the combined arms idea the game is so outstanding for)

People toy with addons, but they play much longer with missions.

Gameplay is much more defined through missions than addons.

So if you ask me that way, my answer would be: Missions :)

Edit: Oh and way more free time of course ;)

Edited July 1, 2009 by Romolus

[soul_assassin 1750]

Romulus hit it right on the money. Before anyone even thinks about modding for ArmA2 they should understand some things in general about modding, things that don't even belong in these forums.

[.kju 3245]

Is this real true SA?

There are very different ways of modding. Mission making is modding as well.

Simple config tweaks too.

We agree that specific changes require more understanding, better tools, much time etc.

This is why the initial question is completely wrong IMO. Complicated stuff was always

complicated and always will basically.

Yet at the same time for non complex modding, this game engine had never had

such a huge amount of tutorials, info to search from, ppl to ask, ppl sharing.

And simple modding is still as fine as it was in the early days of OFP.

In general these discussions here in the BIF, like in general the BIF modder crowd

is very focused on the modeling area. Yet most seem to fail to see that they are

just one aspect of it. Never seen these types of discussions at OFPEC ie.

The second point is here at BIF is a lot of talk. Yet most times little or no gain,

consequence and no action results of it IMO.

At the same time there are real hard working people decoding the formats, writing tools,

sharing new information, making missions, teaching people.

This is what people should focus on, instead of big words.

PS: OAC made many of the best campaigns of OFP available in A1 - very little interest.

Will OAC make OFP and A1 campaigns and missions available in A2 depends on the interest.

PSS: Artists main concern is their work. While mission designers and feature devs are focused

on their work actually being used - is that true?

Edited July 1, 2009 by kju

[soul_assassin 1750]

Yes I truly believe it. Even things like missionmaking require more skill then just knowing how to add groups in the editor. Successful missions come from logical understanding of gameplay, voice recording, scripting (which requires a solid understanding of programming [ here read programming as the process and not knowing the syntax]) and many more elements.

For config edits also. Yes you do not need to know C++ as a pro but it certainly helps if you understand classes, inheritance, different variable types like booleans and integers, arrays etc.

Oh and there are plenty people here who don't just throw around words and actually help and contribute

[.kju 3245]

That was not the point and not in any way said. The mindset in general in the BIF is different than at OFPEC.

The specific case is never the norm.

In terms of missions, even a simple mission with only waypoints, if put well can make

a very interesting gameplay scenario.

Same is true for a good story or atmosphere - even simple technical means can achieve

huge impact, while huge technical means in no way must related in a good result.

In terms of configs. The fix to make the chat window not interfere with the current

chat is already a huge benefit for MP. Simple and very effective, no?

Edited July 1, 2009 by kju

[max power 21]

Are we talking about modeling, here, kju, or unit making?

And by focus, what do you mean by that?

Also, please qualify what you say about people on the BIF not realizing that modeling is only on of many potential modding methods.

[Romolus 0]

There are very different ways of modding. Mission making is modding as well.

Simple config tweaks too.

We agree that specific changes require more understanding, better tools, much time etc.

This is why the initial question is completely wrong IMO.

Agreed, that some things require more effort than others, but that's not the point the op was referring to as far as I understood.

The point as I see it, is that once you want to do a bit more than just clicking around in the mission editor, things become complicated in ArmA and that the op feels that while there is some knowledge about those things, he feels that it's pretty much inaccessible for many. And I can see that he has a point there, although I think the conclusion he draws from it is different from what I think is the issue here.

Complicated stuff was always

complicated and always will basically.

Yet at the same time for non complex modding, this game engine had never had

such a huge amount of tutorials, info to search from, ppl to ask, ppl sharing.

And simple modding is still as fine as it was in the early days of OFP.

And that's where we start to disagree.

Like Soul_Assassin mentioned, even mission making starts to get complicated very fast and to a point where you really benefit from at least some basic understanding in programming.

I agree that you can create quite interesting missions without anything that requires some kind of programming, but that already ends when you want to use some more sophisticated triggers or init lines.

Just have a look in any mission-making related forum here or on OFPEC and you'll see that even the most basic topics that come up there are things where it gets to putting scripting commands into triggers, init-lines or script files.

It's obvious what people are struggling with when they start out, in my opinion.

And this was already true even for the OFP demo.

People with even minor knowledge of programming had it way easier to figure out what was going on in those demo missions, while many who didn't already had a feeling that they were left out and no one really was sharing info. (Somene still remembers LustyPooh's forum? *nostalgia* ).

But if you had some ideas about programming, you could just open up the files and see for yourself. It's just the most efficient way to learn those things. Once a programmer knows the concepts, he just looks at (highly technical) refs/specs and other programmers code, because everything else is way less efficient.

You don't see rocket scientists discuss things in layman's terms either.

So my advice is: If someone's struggeling with mission making, scripting or don't see how configs really work, then don't just run searching for the next tutorial that covers the specific thing you need. Since even if this feels like a fast way to learn things, you're cheating yourself from learning the principles and getting a much better understanding of how things really work.

With a tutorial, you maybe learn one specific thing if you're lucky and the tutorial is good. But if you learn the principles, you learn how to manage a whole set of problems.

If you already do some mission editing, scripting or config work, I bet that you're not really unsuitable for learning some basic programming and it won't really take any longer than searching a tutorial for every single issue you're facing.

For modeling and texturing, I would say the same applies: Try to learn the basic principles instead of trying to find a specific tutorial that seem to exactly match your problem. Because most of the time the issue isn't that specific, but more general.

Don't get discouraged by the difficulties of modding. Start easy, one step at a time, make sure you get into the basics and things will get much easier over time

In general these discussions here in the BIF, like in general the BIF modder crowd

is very focused on the modeling area. Yet most seem to fail to see that they are

just one aspect of it. Never seen these types of discussions at OFPEC ie.

That's mainly because the modeling crowd is mainly here, while the scripting crowd is mainly at OFPEC. Just count the posts in the forums here and at OFPEC and you'll see. Always was that way.

But while you're right that people usually fail to see that there's more than one area, this certainly is true for both forums. I've seen solutions on OFPEC that I thought only a programmer could come up with :D. (I'm one myself for a living, so don't get me wrong there)

The second point is here at BIF is a lot of talk. Yet most times little or no gain,

consequence and no action results of it IMO.

At the same time there are real hard working people decoding the formats, writing tools,

sharing new information, making missions, teaching people.

This is what people should focus on, instead of big words.

Uh, easy, easy. You really want to go into that discussion (again)?

First, I think it's ok to assume that we're all here for our personal enjoyment, because we have fun with the game and in modding it. So I really think it should be up to everyone's self to decide what to focus on and how.

Everyone's already working hard in their day job, so pulling that line about working hard here where people come in their free time, is a bit unfair, don't you think?

Second, maybe you should have a look where the idea of a forum comes from (beside it being some software on a website) and you'll see that the idea of a forum includes talking pretty much.

If you see the exchange of ideas and opinions as little or no gain, then maybe that's not the fault of a forum :)

PS: OAC made many of the best campaigns of OFP available in A1 - very little interest.

Will OAC make OFP and A1 campaigns and missions available in A2 depends on the interest.

I would be interested in your opinion on why there wasn't much interest in the OFP campaigns in ArmA.

PSS: Artists main concern is their work. While mission designers and feature devs are focused

on their work actually being used - is that true?

I think you're artificially dividing those groups. In my experience often people fall into more than one of those categories, so I think you can't really make a clean cut conclusion like that.

Especially when people do those things in their free time, I think it's only natural that they try to enjoy their work. (Well, even if one doesn't and is a bit masochistic he would enjoy it by definition, would he? :D)

(@mods: Now what's the point of including smilies in the 5 image limit of a post? Someone might take me too serious without a smilie here and there :p

Oh, I get it. You mean I should write shorter posts :D)

[[frl]myke 14]

I think it's time to get into this discussion i've started. :D

Let me first clarify a few things for those who don't know me (only a few do as i guess).

I've been around since OFP although not directly from the release but not long afterwards. I've get involved into mission making (and for this also scripting) pretty quickly although i've never created something rememberable.

At ArmA 1, i was there from start, switching from .sqs scripting to .sqf scripting which was a pain for me personally as at first i couldn't understand the flow at first. But after a while, i get used to it and now i guess icouldn't write a script in .sqs anymore. Also wrote some rather complex things (A-CEP anyone?) and i guess i can say i'm pretty good at scripting but surely still not the same league as Spooner or Mandoble...and probably never will be but thats ok.

At the end of ArmA 1 i've become more and more interested in addonmaking, also created some rather simple addons which were script-based (Dynamic Viewdistance) and then slowly heading over to real addons, starting with retexturing, some simple copy/paste things. Just to get a feel on how things work, not only in O2 but also model.cfg and config.cpp wise.

In all this time, the most i've learned myself by learning-by-doing and trial&error methods. But was never scared away if it turned to be more complicated than i thought at first. I know some things just needs theyr time and the learning curve is always goin up.

The further i go, the more complex things get, i know that and i'm not scared to try it over and over again.

And that i rathe prefer a good quality, you can check for yourself by looking at Footmunchs F-16C i've ported to ArmA 2. Although it is a port, i didn't limited myself to just "port it so it works" but i was trying to make it as perfect as i was able to do with all my knowledge. Although it is not perfect, i guess i can be happy with.

So you can see, i'm not a complete noob at all. I also know how to use the search function (thx for pointing, oyman:rolleyes:) and i am also able (and willing) to ask for help whenever i get stuck. And i also do know that there will always be an answer at the end which will be helpful for me.

So you might think now, why the hell did i started this discussion (and it is a discussion, not a request for help, those i would have put in the editing section).

The point is, while i was searching for answers, i've had the feeling that informations were too much clustered all over different websites. I had to get peices of infos from everywhere, rarely found something in one piece. Often enough i've stumbled upon tutorials that just were outdated, not reflecting the actual state of knowledge (from what i can judge) for ArmA or even ArmA 2 (for the last i know it's most probably too early for).

While it was relatively hard for me to find the right answers and solutions, i thought how would it be for a beginner? These people can be very easy scared away.

I agree that modelling/scripting/addonmaking/whatever is pretty fast pretty complex but everyone has to start somewhere. Just go back and watch your own "early works"...i did and had to laugh (about my own of course).

I see a lot people complaining that there are ever fewer talented people doin stuff for ArmA(1/2). Some are leaving and there are not so much newcomers to fill the gap.

Why is this? Is it really "only" because of the learning curve?

Sure, they can always ask on forums and they will get a helpful reply sooner or later. But it would be better if they could find the answers more easily and ,most important, much faster. If you're stuck with a problem and you have to wait...well, maybe 24h, to get an answer that let you continue with your work...unless you stumble across the next problem you have to ask for.......you see, it breaks the workflow you're into and can be very frustrating on the long run.

And once again, i'm not against a site like dev-heaven.net. It is also needed like a similar site for the "lower skilled people".

mainly, there would be a place: the BIKI. But this site is far away from being complete or even up-to-date. Often enough when searching it, i hit pages for OFP but can't find the related ArmA info.

It's true, there are surely a lot of pages holding valuable info for a lot of problems. But there also, why some people insist to have theyr own site or keeping it on site XYZ? Why not having it there AND in the BIKI?

And a final word: i'm not attacking anyone, not directly nor indirect. I just throw questions in the room and see what happens.

[soul_assassin 1750]

+1 to Romolus again :)

Come to think of it, someone show me a modding community which is as transparent, kind, helpful and mature as this one.

Edit at Myke:

well then by your own accord the fact stands at that the modders in this community are NOT elitist just UNORGANISED :)

And yeh the info is spread all around but isn't that why god invented bookmark button? :D

Edited July 1, 2009 by Soul_Assassin

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Reading this, I actually have to chip in and say that when I got my hands on OFP, I started mission making from absolute zero 6-7 years ago with only the manual that came with the OFP, and 90% of my learning material were other missions which I could unpbo and examine, community and BI ones, and I learnt it from there on.

I got into the addonmaking and used the same procedure, except that as the time went by, opening addons to see how something was done was made harder and harder by the various ways to protect the PBO's and p3d's. I don't want to start a discussion on why it was done, but I can certianly say that understanding things were harder without any reference material, while the missions never got the encryption treatment and remained "open source" to be learned from.

With that said, I also have to agree with SoulAssassin's and Rom's excellent posts.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Sniperwolf572
Spelling

[rocket 9]

*second the above*

The outcome of this topic, for me, is that I'm going to release all my source material so that people can use it to review and see how I did things. I'm also going to try adding info to the biki... but... the reason I don't add to it generally, is that I'm not ever really entirely sure I am right... I just know what I have been able to make work. I think it's a good discussion, and agree with SA and Rom's posts also.