Tigershark

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suchey @ Feb. 22 2003,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FL.A.C (Flashpoint Addon Collective) pronounced like flak ?<span id='postcolor'> I like this idea.....Flac.....has a ring to it...and the words don't sound like we are some committee which I'm sure the community will react negatively to

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (contraz0rz @ Feb. 21 2003,14:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Operation Flashpoint Addon Committee (OFPAC)<span id='postcolor'> Too formal

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 21 2003,14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Feb. 21 2003,07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone is a comedian  <span id='postcolor'> I wasn't joking.<span id='postcolor'> Doh...sorry

Everyone is a comedian

Yes...there is a lotta love in this thread....but not that much. Any serious suggestions?

OK...so we have a number of interested groups who want to align with each other. What should we call this group of mods. We need a catchy name so we can say...we are a member of the such and such. The Cartel The Alliance

Viva la revolution! Actually guys...Avon Lady kicked this all off......I'm just running with it while she sits back with her legs up on the coffee table.

Guys...I think all this talk of committee and such is bogging us down a little. Let's start small and start with increased co-operation and communication between keys mods to stop duplication and share cpp stds. Then once we have a foundation...move to making a "committee" or central website as powerslide suggested (that idea has merit...although it's kind of an OFPEC for addons) Start small...BAS and RSS have already begun discussions....Codeblue is on board as well....we already share stuff with Project UK Forces. Let's self regulate first and then move to the "committee" idea.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kikill @ Feb. 21 2003,09:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ofpec is already rating addons<span id='postcolor'> Kikill....well spotted....the Addons Section of OFPEC was started for this very reason....to make sure quality addons were hosted and therefore OFPEC Approved. Unfortunately...Wolfsbane and I differed on opinions of the importance of Addons in the community and sadly the whole addons section of OFPEC has become a graveyard. Other sites are doing a better job of hosting addons...albeit without quality control.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @ Feb. 21 2003,09:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ummmmm...I don't think the idea should just be to make "popular" addons as such. Whilst it mightn't matter to you about Canadian forces, it does matter to them. And this sort of thing should be done in the spirit of inclusion not exclusion. There may well be plenty of addons that you will never use, but somebody out there may find them absolutely perfect....and I don't think this should (or could) be the sort of thing where we telll people what they can play OFP with. Just as a general principal, does everyone basically agree on the following aims: 1. Reduce and eliminate redundency. 2. Standardised config values as much as possible. 3. Open source on configs (put it in the read-me). 4. Co-operation on technique/skills. I am leaving out creating uberPBO's for the time being, because I don't know that there is an ideal way for the selection of the items to be placed in it yet...but that may change (I only just woke up). Also I still stand by the idea of having mod-teams etc having a forum of their own....not to choose who is making the best model/texture etc, but to concentrate on the above 4 aims, and to encourage more dialogue between everyone. Ultimately if it seems that everyone can't work together on making uberPBO's, then just drop it..... PS...those of you who are reading this thread just waiting for an outcome....participate plz...have your say...it's your community too  <span id='postcolor'> Objectives nicely summed up there Leone

Which why there needs to be one central controlling body. Mod teams can contribute or modify the tank pbo or the weapons pbo...but one body needs to recompile the PBO to incorporate the changes. Look guys...this aint gonna be easy...lets not kid ourselves......but just coz its hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try and set something up. I see the bigger problems in people saying "Why is XXX mods M4 better then my mods M4?...I like mine better so I'm gonna keep it." What I hope would happen is people say "XXX mods model is better, but YYY has better textures, ZZZ has better accessories and BBB has better iron sights...how can we pull these together to make the best and single M4" Thats the biggest challenge as I see it

Yeah...whatever happened to those Lavos HMMVs...we specifically didn't put these on our list of projects for the simple reason, as you said Schoeler...they would be the std. Those do great work. But they seemed to have died haven't they...what happened to them? The .50cal HMMV??

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 20 2003,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Feb. 20 2003,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My campaign hinges on half their addons anyway. Â I still need a decent C-130 and a Wasp class LHD. Â Other than that, I have all the personnell for the west side.<span id='postcolor'> Well, here's the point we're all talking about. Do you think that the west addons you're using are superior, equivalent or inferior to BAS'? Or are BAS not appropriate? If not, why? Damage model? Weapons? Disagreement on realism features (uniforms, backpacks, radios, etc.)? What if the differences in requirements are relatively trivial and BAS would be will to add some new units to their Delta/Ranger line to accomodate real life models that are slightly different that are needed for OCB's mod? See the potential here? Elimination of redundancy, and more time for the OCB team to concentrate on gameplay more than anything else. It could even give them enough extra time to double the amount of missions and campaigns they originally intended to produce. If you get back in touch with the OCB team, tell them to have a look at this here thread. <span id='postcolor'> Excellently put Avon...and that's what I'm talking about..Hooah! If we can easily accomoate such a request it means a simple addition for BAS..and the mod in question can devote themselves to other tasks BAS or some other mods hasn't covered. Excellent stuff!

Actually..I have already spoken with someone from Codeblue who was very interested in using our M4s. I'm just not sure that he realises it means referencing them in the units CPP file....not us handing over the M4 for him to modify and create his own with.

Excellent point Soul Assasin...never thought of the added extra there regarding values for tanks and such. So...looks like we have a new era of co-operation here. The discussion should continue...but I think Soul and myself will take the BAS and RAS stuff offline.