Project Reality Development

[st3rv 10]

I wonder how close the fictional 'Takistan' is to Afghanistan and whether the assets can be used in non-Arrowhead ArmA2 mods.

Most likely

[Lhowon 10]

I wonder how close the fictional 'Takistan' is to Afghanistan and whether the assets can be used in non-Arrowhead ArmA2 mods.

Very close, they've basically said the terrain is based on Afghanistan. They've also said it's all backwards compatible, so any ArmA 2 assets will be able to be used in Arrowhead.

[Snazz 10]

Would be good.

PR had to get special permission from DICE to use official BF2 expansion/booster pack assets but I guess BIS is more open about that.

[craig.turner 10]

I have informed my Team not to post in this thread as it is deteriorating rapidly, and to be honest its pretty pointless anyway at the moment.

Cheers

UKF

[th3flyboy 0]

Honestly the only two potential problems I see with PR, are licencing and ignoring community standards.

I don't see it as a good idea, or right, to restrict what servers can run PR, as that will harm smaller units that can't afford dedis. As for ignoring community standards, that can cause all sorts of issues with working with other mods the player wants to use. This community is about freedom to do what you want, however if the mod team decides to do things that throw standards to the wind, that can cause issues which will only cause headaches later on for everyone. Please remember that standards are there for a reason. If you don't do things the proper way, things can come back to haunt you. While it's good to do things stand alone, if you are going to do it that way, do not do something which breaks established standards, or you will wind up having people complaining about people not being able to do things they would have been able to do if standards have been followed.

I respect you want to do this your way, and I believe you should, however please do not throw the bird at units that can't afford dedis but want to use your mod, and please do not do something which can throw a monkey wrench in things for everyone else. In the end, while you should operate as standalone, I'm 90% sure that it's allowed to include CBA with a mod, and remember this, it's a Community designed library, meaning you guys are allowed to contribute as well, and it will prevent some issues that will cause un-needed issues for those who are doing things like making missions or mods to work with yours.

Good luck with the mod, but please don't do anything to go and throw the bird at the community in any way, as we don't need a civil war to break out because people get angry at each other. There is a reason there are standards, it's to prevent people from doing things that break other people's work. While you should make it stand alone, it should not be designed in a way that has an obvious potential to break other things. I hope you guys do well, but at the same time, I hope you guys remember to do things that will ensure that people have the freedom to use your mod along with other mods they may like as well, and not require a licensed server to host.

Good luck guys, and I hope you guys succeed, the community needs a mod like yours.

[0Eleazar0 0]

Q. Will the Devs use/borrow/lease third-party mods or will they develop every feature themselves?

A. "PR:ArmA2 will exist as a standalone modification. It will remain self contained, self developing and not rely on or use externally held add ons from other sources where at all possible."

We will not be using ACE 2 or CBA, everything we do we will be doing in house as a team, for us this is what will work best for us.

Yes it will take a bit of time, however we can then work at our speed, and are not dictated by other Mod Teams, to redevelop so that we remain compatible with them.

On what grounds is using CBA mutually exclusive to creating a stand alone product. This would be like saying you aren't going to use ANSI C++ and STL because at anytime the committee could change the standards and you would have to redevelop all your code. This is fantasy, the CBA isn't making updates which invalidate or deprecate large portions of code, if any at all. With as much time as you guys are going to spend developing this, any updates you would have to make to your code, if any, would be a toss in the bucket compared to all the time and effort you will put forth in duplicating the CBA's work. Not only that, it ensures anything you do will be compatible with other people's work. So any mod currently in existence or that will be in existence which compliments your mod can be used by community servers.

The reason you are getting so much flak on this from the community is because it's anti community. The expertise, knowledge, and experience of your team would greatly aid CBA, making not only your better quality from cooperating with other leading development teams, but also increase the quality of community mods at large via your adept contributions to the project. Lastly, your stated reason for not using the CBA just doesn't add up. The CBA is not a deterrent to creating a stand-alone mod and your fears of spending more time updating your code to the point it becomes more burdensome than had you not participated are misplaced.

I think PR has a great team and I have spent countless hours spent playing your BF2 mod. The criticisms people are making of the mod are way off-base, it's as if some people offering criticism of BF2:PR either played the mod very little or absolutely not at all. People also need to realize the limitations of BF2 and that the PR team simply could not incorporate everything they would have liked to. The very fact that PR team members play and enjoy ARMA 2 should reassure everyone here they appreciate it for the same reasons we do. Even if you stick to your decision, I will always be a fan of PR and know your work in ARMA 2 will be commensurate, expectedly more so, to my experiences of BF2:PR. I'm definitely excited about your announcement.

Edited March 16, 2010 by 0Eleazar0

[-10th- Rezza 10]

This is not helping at all.

QUOTE [uK FORCE] O.P LEAD

At the end of the Day we are entitled to run this Mod how we want are we not ?

We are an experienced team having been in Development for over 7 years now - have won Mod of the Year and runners up previous, so are not that naive.

We are also in the process of developing our own Retail Game as we have the ability to do that, with our own Engine Licence.

/QUOTE

So whatever you guys say these guys are experienced staff.They already know whats going on and they already decided.Nothing more to talk about it really.

[Defunkt 431]

The reason you are getting so much flak on this from the community is because it's anti community.

Jesus this is fucking outrageous. Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate how their mod should be made and declare them 'anti-community' because you don't understand their choices and their plans don't fit your own agenda? Moderators, please, this idiotic spam is undermining this thread and an otherwise very exciting project.

---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

Suggest that anybody interested in this project should continue their participation in the PR:ARMA2 Forums instead.

[Jax_2009 10]

Jesus this is fucking outrageous. Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate how their mod should be made and declare them 'anti-community' because you don't understand their choices and their plans don't fit your own agenda? Moderators, please, this idiotic spam is undermining this thread and an otherwise very exciting project.

---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

Suggest that anybody interested in this project should continue their participation in the PR:ARMA2 Forums instead.

Well aren't you the center of outstanding feedback. Here's a little nugget of information for you.

The thing is... After so manny years of OFP modding the community finally came to its senses and found out that working together was better for all of them. For that to be realised alot of fighting and swearing on the forums came before it. And thats because all the mod's that came out where not compatible with eachother. THATS WHY THEY MADE COMMUNITY GUIDE LINES. TO get rid of all that shit once and forever. But ow PR comes around and start doing the same as 10 years ago when all that fuzz was going on. The community guidelines also prevented people from using other people's content or edit them without permission. In my eye's its like PR ignores that history. And within a year other people that will build Mod's will go do the same again... Cause hey.. PR had no problems with it also... And than the shitzz starts all over with incompatibility and such.

So i suggest think further than only your own Mod those community guide lines are not there for nothing. And it will make alot of modding easy'r. And people in the community will be glad to help. And the nice thing is.. it can still be it's own standalone Mod.

That is what all the fuss is all about.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Jax_2009

[0Eleazar0 0]

Jesus this is fucking outrageous. Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate how their mod should be made and declare them 'anti-community' because you don't understand their choices and their plans don't fit your own agenda? Moderators, please, this idiotic spam is undermining this thread and an otherwise very exciting project.

Could you at least make an attempt at rational debate rather than ad hominem attacks? I am open to any substantiated arguments you are able to make and will respond sensibly. There is no need for your sensationalist antics.

[whisper 0]

It's funny how you can count many many mods/addons not using CBA that never got any flak from "the community".

As much as I respect CBA's team work, using CBA is not, has never been, and never will be a requirement for everything made in ArmA2

It's a tremendous help for mod makers, and maybe PR team will realise it, but at the end of the day, if they chose not using it, who cares? Not using it has never broken the community.

If using external modules that can break the deal upon new version change is not possible for PR, I can perfectly see their reason and they would be right to do it.

As stated before, it has gone in nobody's mind to throw stones at FDF Mod. And suddenly, PR doing it like FDF Mod is going to break the community? lol

PR's goal is a unique, simple, "download and play", mod. They want to avoid messing with third party, because they have their gameplay tweaks, their balance, all done to fit together, for a PvP gameplay that does not exist today. Which means it will break absolutely nothing, since what it could break is today non-existent.

It's much ado for nothing, because

1) PR is going to do what many have done before (not using CBA) without a single remark from the community

2) PR is going to change something that is currently non-existent in ArmA2 anyway, ie can't break anything, it's something new. Since when OFP community is afraid of something new? :O I do not recognise myself in this community anymore, tbh. All this is non-sense

Edited March 17, 2010 by whisper

[Jax_2009 10]

Could you at least make an attempt at rational debate rather than ad hominem attacks? I am open to any substantiated arguments you are able to make and will respond sensibly. There is no need for your sensationalist antics.

He can't help it...he's mad because his knuckles are scarred from dragging the ground. ;)

---------- Post added at 08:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

It's much ado for nothing, because

1) PR is going to do what many have done before (not using CBA) without a single remark from the community

2) PR is going to change something that is currently non-existent in ArmA2 anyway, ie can't break anything, it's something new. Since when OFP community is afraid of something new? :O I do not recognise myself in this community anymore, tbh. All this is non-sense

It's not the new that bothers me....it's the idea they stated on their forums of limiting the mod to certain servers which defeats the open and free usage that is our community.

By the way...nice missions, you really should finish them....

Edited March 17, 2010 by Jax_2009

[Snazz 10]

It's not the new that bothers me....it's the idea they stated on their forums of limiting the mod to certain servers which defeats the open and free usage that is our community.

Stalker's Q&A from PR forums:

"Q. Will there be a server license system with fixed servers setting to avoid various customized rules we see on Arma2 servers ?

A. Anyone who has the mod can host a server using that mod. That is the way the ArmA architecture is. The only thing they could limit is the BIKey files, but that would only prevent unauthorized mods from being used on the server, not prevent people from actually hosting. Also, the server/client files for the mod will be exactly the same. It's virtually impossible to stop people from running custom PR servers as it is with any other ArmA2 mod."

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f440-pr-arma2-general-discussion/77975-arma-2-faqs.html

[Lhowon 10]

Not only that, it ensures anything you do will be compatible with other people's work. So any mod currently in existence or that will be in existence which compliments your mod can be used by community servers.

It's clear that this is what you are actually worried about. Whether PR can replicate (or merely not use) CBA's stuff is irrelevant to you because the end result is the same. I can't be bothered typing it out again so I'll just quote myself - allowing full compatibility isn't the unambiguously good thing you claim it to be:

If servers can add whatever mods they want or make whatever changes they want to PR then how could they possibly ensure it is played with the intended focus?

How would you feel if a mod you had worked hard on, with the express purpose of creating an engaging teamwork-focused PVP experience, had its gameplay significantly changed and a bunch of other content mods made a requirement - thus alienating a bunch of potential players from that server - and have it still called Project Reality? Actually it doesn't matter how you'd personally feel, the point is that's the position the PR devs seem to hold.

And I think that's a very valid position and one which is in the best interests of the community, simply because it's the only way to ensure an uncompromised PVP game-mode will be experienced by everyone, instead of being diluted into countless variants on semi-populated servers.

The reason you are getting so much flak on this from the community is because it's anti community.

No it is not, that is complete tripe and adds nothing to the conversation.

The expertise, knowledge, and experience of your team would greatly aid CBA, making not only your better quality from cooperating with other leading development teams, but also increase the quality of community mods at large via your adept contributions to the project.

Your sense of entitlement is enormous! Why should the PR devs take valuable development time away from their mod to add to CBA? You can't just expect people to put their time and effort into something as if it's somehow their duty. We're bloody lucky to be getting anything from them at all. Your implication that they are somehow anti-community because they don't contribute to a pre-existing project is downright insulting.

They are doing the community a massive favour by potentially creating a successful PVP mode that is played by lots of people, something ArmA 2 simply doesn't have.

[whisper 0]

It's not the new that bothers me....it's the idea they stated on their forums of limiting the mod to certain servers which defeats the open and free usage that is our community.

By the way...nice missions, you really should finish them....

Well, it's how it worked out, apparently well, in BF2. I can somewhat see how it avoids unstructured public games, time will tell how it turns out.

It's probably more a burden than an easier work anyway to set-up all the server licensing system, so I don't see other mods going this road for their distribution.

About the concern for smaller clans not having dedicated, I may be wrong as PR is new to me, but from what I've read here and there, such clans simply end up on bigger clan's server, as the motto seems to be having more players on less servers (with good administration done on said servers) where eveyone is having the best experience possible, instead of scattering players everywhere on empty fields, because PR is already larger than BF2 and empty battlefields kind of destroy the experience.

Which is where I come back with my question to PR team about expected scale in ArmA2 PR :)

OT : thanks for comment on CTB :) (Though latest version suffer from an outstanding bug making Mobile Respawn unusable that I need to tackle). I do my best in my very few free time (it's 2AM here and I'm not in front of PC since long, and won't be long more, typical night :( )

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

This thread has become nothing but a flame war. Is there any chance of it being locked?

[-Eddie- 10]

Why lock it, just give infractions to the people causing trouble. They've been given two warnings, and still argued against them.

Never have I seen a community so immature and stubborn since PR was introduced to vBF2.

[Binkowski 25]

Why lock it, just give infractions to the people causing trouble. They've been given two warnings, and still argued against them.

Never have I seen a community so immature and stubborn since PR was introduced to vBF2.

So, we can't express opinion on this matter? That's part of making a mod or addon, dealing with the people who don't agree or have a different opinion.

[Snazz 10]

It hasn't gotten THAT bad IMO, the CBA argument seems to be repeating itself and some need to understand the difference between BF2 and PR but otherwise it's reasonable.

[-Eddie- 10]

So, we can't express opinion on this matter? That's part of making a mod or addon, dealing with the people who don't agree or have a different opinion.

All the flaming, bashing and spamming stops here and now. This Mod will not divide the community more than any other Mod does so for the sake of those looking for valuable information stop spamming the thread with such nonsense.

This and all other unrelated spam is considered to be removed anytime soon.

The fact your community claims to be so mature yet can't follow directions from a moderator is just hilarious.

And in case you can't tell what the spam is

@PR Team: Don't waste your time with discussing your critics to death. It won't help. And it is not going to become better, even when you released the mod. Ask the BAS guys (e.g. DM). Or any other guy who ever released something *big* in the last years here ...;)

[Snazz 10]

Talking about maturity probably isn't going to help, but that's just my 2 cents.

BTW this thread has been quite civil relative to some of the YouTube comments.

EDIT: Most of the bad ones seem to have been marked as spam or removed.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Snazz

[0Eleazar0 0]

It's clear that this is what you are actually worried about. Whether PR can replicate (or merely not use) CBA's stuff is irrelevant to you because the end result is the same. I can't be bothered typing it out again so I'll just quote myself - allowing full compatibility isn't the unambiguously good thing you claim it to be:

Do not tell me what my opinion is. My opinion is the full content of the words I stated and nothing else. Perhaps you failed to see "Not only that", implying the inclusiveness of my prior comments as well as the following.

No it is not, that is complete tripe and adds nothing to the conversation.

IT being not choosing to use and contribute to CBA. CBA is a community project which would be sensible for a team like PR to use and a great aid to the community if they contributed. How exactly would you characterize actions which choose not to partake in a community standard when practicality allows it. Perhaps you are right, in this regard they could be said to be indifferent to community rather than the totality of that, anti-community. Understand my statement only says what the words state. I never stated PR as a whole in every single case was anti-community, only in this particular case are they anti-community. If you were to ask me what I thought of them overall, they would be pro-community. It is only in this specific area that they are being anti-community.

Your sense of entitlement is enormous! Why should the PR devs take valuable development time away from their mod to add to CBA? You can't just expect people to put their time and effort into something as if it's somehow their duty. We're bloody lucky to be getting anything from them at all. Your implication that they are somehow anti-community because they don't contribute to a pre-existing project is downright insulting.

They are doing the community a massive favour by potentially creating a successful PVP mode that is played by lots of people, something ArmA 2 simply doesn't have.

Your failure to read my posts in their proper context is enormous! When did I ever state they were obliged to contribute to the CBA or it is some sort of afforded privilege? I only stated they are only so much to contribute to the CBA as their principles in this specific area are pro-community. As with any decision other factors and principles could be resolved to be greater than contributing to the CBA, but the current statement from PR members have not been compelling. They provided notions that appear as though they will actually be a hindrance and their reasons for doing so, at least to me, are not significant enough to bar the use of the CBA.

Lastly, I agree on your point that they are doing the community a favor. This need not be somehow at odds with the views in my prior paragraph. People can have complex opinions, which all or nothing assessments fail to accurately represent.

[froggyluv 2130]

For the love all of things holy -give it a rest people. I'd love to able to come into this thread and see any updates or real info, not drama induced, pseudo-legalese courtoom testimony about nothing other then over bloated opinions.

Let the freakin team develop the mod in the way they see fit and let the mod thrive or fail of it's own fruition.

[Lhowon 10]

Do not tell me what my opinion is. My opinion is the full content of the words I stated and nothing else. Perhaps you failed to see "Not only that", implying the inclusiveness of my prior comments as well as the following.

Don't be disingenuous - if PR creates all the features they want added by themselves without CBA then why do you still want them to use CBA? From your post it seems obvious that you want mod compatibility. I've told you why that shouldn't be a priority for PR as it is in some respects directly contrary to what they are trying to achieve.

IT being not choosing to use and contribute to CBA. CBA is a community project which would be sensible for a team like PR to use and a great aid to the community if they contributed. How exactly would you characterize actions which choose not to partake in a community standard when practicality allows it.

Pragmatic. They want a stand-alone mod that prioritises accessibility, and having it as one complete package that does not rely on anything else is a sensible approach to making that happen.

Your failure to read my posts in their proper context is enormous! When did I ever state they were obliged to contribute to the CBA or it is some sort of afforded privilege? I only stated they are only so much to contribute to the CBA as their principles in this specific area are pro-community.

Saying that not contributing to CBA is "anti-community", which you did, is heavily implying it is something they really should be doing, which you have no right at all to expect of them. That is your sense of entitlement.

Lastly, I agree on your point that they are doing the community a favor. This need not be somehow at odds with the views in my prior paragraph. People can have complex opinions, which all or nothing assessments fail to accurately represent.

Accusing PR in any respect of being anti-community is not holding a complex opinion, it's expecting something of a mod which you have no right to expect, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are hoping to achieve.

[0Eleazar0 0]

Don't be disingenuous - if PR creates all the features they want added by themselves without CBA then why do you still want them to use CBA? From your post it seems obvious that you want mod compatibility. I've told you why that shouldn't be a priority for PR as it is in some respects directly contrary to what they are trying to achieve.

You still insist on extrapolating from your own imagination, you cannot read my mind. You have no way of rationally knowing I am being disingenuous. You are really being unreasonable with this.

It's a duplication of efforts, unnecessary. Using the CBA would remove this inefficiency and at the same time be of benefit to the community.

Pragmatic. They want a stand-alone mod that prioritises accessibility, and having it as one complete package that does not rely on anything else is a sensible approach to making that happen.

Except that the CBA would not make things anymore or less accessible. Accessibility has no bearing here, this is the point I have been repeatedly getting at. Why can't the CBA be a part of the complete package? How is the CBA and a stand alone package mutually exclusive?

Saying that not contributing to CBA is "anti-community", which you did, is heavily implying it is something they really should be doing, which you have no right at all to expect of them. That is your sense of entitlement.

I did and then I partly agreed it would be more accurate to state it as indifferent rather than the full measure, anti-community. You mischaracterize my position even when I partially concede a point to you, unbelievable.

Accusing PR in any respect of being anti-community is not holding a complex opinion, it's expecting something of a mod which you have no right to expect, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are hoping to achieve.

You failed to comprehend what I said. I did not say the anti-community proposition was the representation of my complex opinion, rather I stated my opinion in it's whole, given anti-community in it's specific context vs the overall tendencies of PR's pro-community actions wrapped up with the other opinions in my post are complex. As far as I could tell, you were attempting to over-simplify the matter by implicitly alleging I was to be either entirely for or against PR with no privations which I believe to be unfounded. If you do not understand this to be the very definition of a complex opinion, you should consult a dictionary.

There is nothing inherently bad about having expectations of a developer. I have a right to my expectations as a free individual ground in natural rights(read Locke). Expectations can be misplaced or unreasonable, but that does not preclude my right to them. You are conflating expectations with entitlement, they are two very different kinds of things. Are you asserting that expecting a developer to contribute to a community standard(e.g. CBA) is necessarily disrespectful? That is quite the proposition, I doubt you could ever even come close to proving such a thing.