Standard

[rubberkite 19]

This is a message for all the modders...

I think that if we set a standard "consortium" of modder all comunity can benefit of its standard (open system)

For example Mando Missile should be a standard for every unit that use missile so we can build a standard weapon system like the IAWS idea by Myke

So the addon maker (modeler) can only think about weapons pylons in the 3D model, and assign a weight and weapon types to pylon so we can attach the correct missile/bomb.

Other standard should be the ace keys like caps lock for after burner... same use for all the Aircraft with AB.

If we create togheter some standard system and incentivate all the addon maker to use them like ( CBA ) we can reduce the time to develop an addon and elevate the stand alone addons standards.

Also we can certificate the addon checking rpt problems and also balancing the speed and armour of the newly generate vehicles so we can use them balanced in the war theater.

My english is not perfect I hope that this message is received by the addon makers and become the first step of a massive collaboration information sharing and teamwork.

I will offer some time resource to create some reference. ( I know that is not easy but why not try ? )

greetings

Rubber

[kremator 1064]

Totally agree Rubberkite. 100% supported here.

[rubberkite 19]

Totally agree Rubberkite. 100% supported here.

Thx Kremator, of course this way is not simple but there are some "hopes"

If some standard are defined and documented... the modeler can relase really more addon, with really higher quality in less time!

But this "project" need really more supporters.

we can start to define some standard.

I hope to read some agreement from Myke, Mandoble and other talented developer, that intend to work on a standard system we can start from aircraft and chopper and missile is a good start I think :)

[Inkompetent 0]

Definitely agree. And actually, to a big part, that's what CBA is all about. A common base for functions and extended eventhandlers for maximized compatability. I do agree Mando Missiles and CAVS (once done) should be included as well. The broader standard the better :)

[Defunkt 431]

I understand the appeal of what you're proposing but standards tend to assert themselves ground up rather than top down. MMA is a good example of that and obviously ACE also. Before ACE there was this thread which detailed a collection of addons that worked well together, I would suggest you're better off taking that approach and then perhaps petition addon makers to tweak for a best fit where required within that. You might also look at the ClanBase pack, I haven't but it sounds like a good collection (last I heard kju was going to add MMA as well).

[.kju 3241]

There are many loose standards. Getting something more organized did not work out so far.

There is:

• Mission naming.
  
• OFPEC tag.
  
• CAVS (armor value system).
  
• XEH/CBA.
  
• IAWS.
  
• Userconfig folder for external files.
  
• Split addons into multiple pbos.
  
• Binarize your addon (unless intentional for good reasons).
  
• As rpt error free as possible.
  
• Always provide a zip (7z) file for a release.
  
• Provide a readme or some other form of docu if meaningful.
  
• Provide a public key and sign your addon.
  
• Define permission/copyright/rules of usage.
  
• Many more.
  

You could call these also best practices.

If you are talking about game mechanic standards like CAVS, mando missile,

and others - most of the time these can be built to work out of the box

in a default way for new addons too.

I think it works fairly well.

To have this information easier to find in one place would be useful of course.

Same goes for better ways to educate people how to make good addons in general.

[mandoble 1]

Hi Rubberkite,

I will add some notes about Mando Missiles because many (most people) is missing what MMA really is. MMA is a framework to create missile based systems (systems for players, AI, flares, etc), so it is intended for the users to create their own MMA based systems using it, not just only to use the examples included in the pack. Examples are covering SAMs, AA, AG, manpads, ballistic, cruise missiles, torpedoes, huds, TV guided weapons, a framework also for chaff/flares/ECM and many more, but these are just implementation examples so that editors can use them as a baseline (or examples) to create new implementations. There is a default setup, including default huds, missiles, flares, etc that you can use in any mission but editors can create different setups, a full different hud system for all planes, different missile flight patterns, different difficulty levels to avoid or interfere missiles, etc. Said that, the current default setup present in many demo missions for many vehicle classes should not be considered a standard. On the other hand, the usage of MMA core functions is what might be more related with an standarization.