Tigershark_BAS

Looking good...cant wait for the finished product.

Weird..I just saw this last night and thought it would make a nice addon. Textures would be easy...hardly any panel lines...just some weathering.

@BlueFlight...thanks...it's hard not to be a little cynical after the various experiences BAS has gone through. Never said don't report bugs..or that we don't want to hear about them....just making the point make sure they are legitimate AFTER reading the Read me file...and perhaps phrase them positively and not in a negative manner. @Lt. Damage. For the record...I thought the treatment of your Hilux addon was appalling....and the only reason I didn:t post in that thread was because I believe someone else stepped up to the plate and asked everyone to show a little consideration. I know you meant no harm in your previous comments....but it did provoke a reaction from me...I apologize.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lt_Damage @ April 23 2003,02:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But hey, BIS deal with that all the time, and without throwing tantrums. I *always* read the readme. And I certainly read the readme before posting a bug on a forum.<span id='postcolor'> Tantrums? I believe TJ was merely expressing his frustration. As for BIS dealing with it. You would be correct in your statement if it weren't for one thing. WE DON'T GET PAID!! THEY DO!! In fact....these addons COST US to make for you. In TJ's case...as he is self employed, he took several days off and therefore did not get paid.  In my case...bills for websites, phone calls, tools and software to make better addons...for every BAS member...time away from family/friends, girlfriends...wives plus tools and software to improve the quality of what they do. You may say that not working is TJ's choice and for every BAS member making those sacrifices is our choice....true....but here is the kicker...we make those choices for YOU...the community...we do it because we love to make addons....and we love for people to enjoy them. Unfortunately....as we are not employed to this.....it is very difficult for us swallow some of the comments thrown our way when so little appreciation is shown into the cost of making the addon to all the team. I know BIS deals with this...but their livelihood depends on it...we buy the game for them...and them improving it means more sales and loyal customers who will buy their next game For BAS...we could close it down tomorrow and everyone would be a lot happier with more time and less pressure added onto their already busy real life committments. I found your comment Lt. Damage particularly offensive. Everytime I hear this "BIS deals with it" argument my blood boils. Perhaps we should start selling these things....then you could throw shit at us and we'd smile the whole time. But  we DO NOT want to sell them...we also can't due to license agreements in O2. In fact......I think BAS is gonna start producing developer diaries....just so you all can appreciate just how much blood, sweat and tears go into these things. We do the best we can with the advanced knowledge and toolsets BIS have...and some cases we are doing it better (who ever thought an helo would rappel in OFP)....and still it's not enough. These addons are as perfect as we can make em....but as we are human...they are not perfect. And it is pushing the boundaries of what we can do with OFP. Let's all recognise that and back off a little.....some things dont work perfect in MP...OK....don't accuse us of being sloppy....recognise that with advanced capabilities like this comes advanced scripting and there may be problems. I've seen this happen time and time again with all kinds of addon makers. DKM's RAH-66....pushed the limits...and peeps shot it down. I think I've vented enough....bottom line....bugs are fine.....but exercise a little better judgement when posting and articulating them. Addon makers want to improve their projects....but not when people are being so negative.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (jacobaby @ April 22 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have to admit guys that I went through today, after reading the posts before I went to work a bit pissed off. In fact I was feeling like jacking in the addon making business apart from private ones for myself and my friends/team mates. Why? Because of all the negatives coming from people who dont read the notes. In this whole thread, only 2 things have been mentioned that have really been worth the effort of reading. Firstly the error that was caused by the CPP2BIN app, meaning that we had to release the BAS_cargo addon again, thanks Lee for that, and the other is the player fast roping away from his rope. This has been checked and rechecked and rechecked several times, I even had to learn how to make basic models in Oxygen to do it, so I am a bit annoyed at missing that for the final. For the AI it seems ok, so it must be the final adjustments to the hold position that altered it for the player. That is worth sorting, so next time we release a vehicle that will be stowed (we have at least TWO in the works PLUS a boat that you and an AI team will be able to be extracted in...) we shall probably update that as well. A REQUEST.  If you think you have a genuine bug, and it is NOT mentioned or covered in the readme, and you can confirm that it does it repeatedly and can provide an example, then please let us know. But read the list of known issues first...you will see that pretty much all of the complaints to date are covered in that. Regarding the chopper moving in circles. It is trying to get in formation with the leader, probably due to the Roadway LOD in the helicopter, there is nothing WE can do about this, but skilled players would know to give the pilot a WP or a HALT. Regarding the Hold Position. For me it works all the time. The way it is scripted is this; You press HOLD POSITION. The AI pilot will come to a HALT. (gunner leaves group so he can try and defend of his own volition, chopper has to be set to Careless to make it stop). When the chopper is at 1kmh or less the Chopper will be fully halted, and a hint box will appear, confirming that. Now you can do as you like, the chopper will not move. I find it best to Fast Rope myself, and then get the group to fast rope. The chopper will be free to move now without further action from you. If the chopper IS moving around, then it is my guess you have Clicked the action too many times. I have made it as foolproof as possible without making a huge script base which probably would never have got finished.... However it seems there are some "fools" you just cant cater for..... Its the same with the vehicles in cargo. I deliberately made it so there was a bit of a pause in proceedings, in reality loading a Jeep or anything aboard a Chinook is time consuming and tedious. Just be more accurate with your mouse clicks and I am confident your problems will be fewer... My biggest laugh of the day is the guy who complained he couldnt use the Police Jeep with the cargo sling. I have a crazy imagination, but even I cannot come up with a scenario where US special forces would want to be carrying a police jeep around.....  Im surprised we dont get asked for the shopping trolley and UFO to be fitted inside..... About the flares, I guess I could have put an engine on condition in there, but I didnt really bank on you guys firing rockets at it on the floor........ In reality the CM systems are completely automatic I believe. The balance of the comments today are more inspiring, so maybe I will do some more scripting in the future.... But I know other addon teams feel the same.... we work our arses off to get these to you..and it seems all you want to do is compete to find bugs and glitches as fast as you can  So to all you who are just enjoying having the latest addon with ground breaking capability, and who have made comments of appreciation.. YOU'RE WELCOME!!!!   To the others.....if you wanna compete, try looking for the extra details we included but didnt mention..... TJ<span id='postcolor'> Well said TJ.....I only textured this baby back in the day when it was a TJP helo and haven't worked HALF as hard as you have on it. And I was a little dissapointed as well....reporting bugs is important....but I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the perception of people clammering over each other to report the first bug is what is most disheartening. Guys....I know most of you didn't mean to show any disrespect....but please....for the good of all addon makers....show a little appreciation for the hundreds of hours poured into these new units that get created it for you. And for god sake read the README.....believe it or not...a lot of time gets put into these as well....and it is VERY frustrating when people ask questions and point out errors that are expressly addressed in the README.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ExtracTioN @ April 22 2003,03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the new update of the littlebirds will you be able to shoot from cargo position also the AI <span id='postcolor'> No..this is a limitation of the engine...the animations have changes to show your gun at the ready...but you will not be able to fire from the planks.

Making addons has cost me my soul, a leg and my pet dog I had for 10 years.....not to mention my sanity.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (coporal_punishment @ April 21 2003,02:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is BAS also looking to orelease a BAS island<span id='postcolor'> Yes...Nagual has something in the works.

Aaaaaaah...Project Iraqi Information Minister a success I doubt you'll see a full list of features before release. I believe TJ wants to keep any features a surprise. Not sure what features they are....but I could edit some more Photoshop images to show what we'd love to have in them? Perhaps I could Photoshop cargo carrying abilities, slung loads under helo and even fast insertions and automatic helo extractions? They would be really cool additions to our MH-47E.....one day.......dreams are free.

Well gentlemen.....as TJ explained...I am a master at Photoshop and I do claim this helo will make you all wanna have our babies. I may have edited that photo of the MH-47E....I may be overselling the chopper. Then again....maybe I didn't...maybe I'm not. Â But TJ is one of the main team members working on this bird. What do I know? I guess we are just going to have to wait patiently for release. Then the truth will known to all. *Goes off to play with his fast roping MH47.....or maybe not*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 17 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another good idea - how about making sure that "Addons at Ease" approved addons will be OFP 2 compatible? It was said in different interviews that backward compatibility was going to happen, so if we have this "AAE" initiative, it means that there will be loads of addons ready for the date of OFP 2 release <span id='postcolor'> One of the best comments made in this thread. And if this initiative could salvage some true value, I think this would be it. If AAE guaranteed addons would be compatible with OFP2 then I would also support it 100%.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 17 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another good idea - how about making sure that "Addons at Ease" approved addons will be OFP 2 compatible? It was said in different interviews that backward compatibility was going to happen, so if we have this "AAE" initiative, it means that there will be loads of addons ready for the date of OFP 2 release <span id='postcolor'> One of the best comments made in this thread. And if this initiative could salvage some true value, I think this would be it. If AAE guaranteed addons would be compatible with OFP2 then I would also support it 100%.

Surely someone out there has the talent to reskin them?

Oooh...and how about an integrated development environment thats lets us code config files, stuff pbos, binarise pbos, view addon on terrain of our choosing, adjust brightness of the bulldozer viewer...etc...all from the one interface. Imagine dragging an dropping a sound onto an engine to have it play the ogg rather than code it into a cpp. These are all big requests...but like Hugo says...dreams are free

Oooh...and how about an integrated development environment thats lets us code config files, stuff pbos, binarise pbos, view addon on terrain of our choosing, adjust brightness of the bulldozer viewer...etc...all from the one interface. Imagine dragging an dropping a sound onto an engine to have it play the ogg rather than code it into a cpp. These are all big requests...but like Hugo says...dreams are free

I think Toadlife is on the right track with XML. I have been impressed with BISs use of XML for both MP and also the command reference. If you must pursue this discussion then I think the use of XML is crucial to any management of it. @Suma....my apologies for the X-Box inference...as you correctly pointed out I have little knowledge of X-Box. That comment was perhaps a little uncalled for...once again...my apologies.

I think Toadlife is on the right track with XML. I have been impressed with BISs use of XML for both MP and also the command reference. If you must pursue this discussion then I think the use of XML is crucial to any management of it. @Suma....my apologies for the X-Box inference...as you correctly pointed out I have little knowledge of X-Box. That comment was perhaps a little uncalled for...once again...my apologies.

Aaaah....this is something we can both agree on....yes it is good to see BIS getting involved....I just hope they can also take it to the next level with our help.

Aaaah....this is something we can both agree on....yes it is good to see BIS getting involved....I just hope they can also take it to the next level with our help.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 15 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tigershark, I have to disagree. Yes, I know this initiative would have been better much sooner, but that's no reason not to go ahead with it now. We are still looking at another 9+months before we get OFP2, so any addon management would be welcomed in the meantime. Besides, the lesson learned by implementing AAE could help with a similar scheme for OFP2.<span id='postcolor'> I expect this will be the reply from many in this thread. Fair enough...I can respect that. Your reply, however, did not rebutt the contention that this is all curing the symptoms and not the disease. Which was fundamentally my point....there would less need for complicated addon management if we could put our heads together and figure out how to better handle addons in future game engines. Furthermore...let me ask....what is it exactly BIS is bringing to this process? What value add are they providing after the community has been self-regulating (poorly but slowly improving) for the past 2+ years? As far as I can tell the value add is advertising on their site for the addon maker (not sure exactly how this helps now with the few excellent news and hosting sites we have out there), official recognition of the OFPEC tagging system and possibly a installer tool. Perhaps it's just me....but I fail to see the value add here. It's not hard to draw a commercial link between this "initiative" and the rapidly approaching release of the X-Box version of OFP. Not suggesting BIS plans to make money off us addon makers.....but you can't help but see there is a factor of self-interest here in providing an easy method for X-Box users to easily access community addons. Someone in the OFPEC forums asked this about AAE: "Isn't this like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted" I would like to suggest that devoting time to this rather than addressing addons in future editions of OFP is like devoting energy into making a complicated GPS device to track the horse when he runs away rather than taking a hammer and nails and fixing the damn barn door

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 15 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tigershark, I have to disagree. Yes, I know this initiative would have been better much sooner, but that's no reason not to go ahead with it now. We are still looking at another 9+months before we get OFP2, so any addon management would be welcomed in the meantime. Besides, the lesson learned by implementing AAE could help with a similar scheme for OFP2.<span id='postcolor'> I expect this will be the reply from many in this thread. Fair enough...I can respect that. Your reply, however, did not rebutt the contention that this is all curing the symptoms and not the disease. Which was fundamentally my point....there would less need for complicated addon management if we could put our heads together and figure out how to better handle addons in future game engines. Furthermore...let me ask....what is it exactly BIS is bringing to this process? What value add are they providing after the community has been self-regulating (poorly but slowly improving) for the past 2+ years? As far as I can tell the value add is advertising on their site for the addon maker (not sure exactly how this helps now with the few excellent news and hosting sites we have out there), official recognition of the OFPEC tagging system and possibly a installer tool. Perhaps it's just me....but I fail to see the value add here. It's not hard to draw a commercial link between this "initiative" and the rapidly approaching release of the X-Box version of OFP. Not suggesting BIS plans to make money off us addon makers.....but you can't help but see there is a factor of self-interest here in providing an easy method for X-Box users to easily access community addons. Someone in the OFPEC forums asked this about AAE: "Isn't this like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted" I would like to suggest that devoting time to this rather than addressing addons in future editions of OFP is like devoting energy into making a complicated GPS device to track the horse when he runs away rather than taking a hammer and nails and fixing the damn barn door

As the founder of OFPEC and the co-creator (along with Snypir and SelectThis) of the OFPEC Tagging system and as a experienced addon maker who assembled the Ballistic Addon Studios team....I would like to say that I fear that this is all too little too late. I can't help but vent a little frustration here....Where were you guys 1.5 - 2 years ago when we started the tagging system and realised this would get out of control? We asked you back then for your support to help convince the community (what a battle that was!!! and still they are not completely convinced about the value of it. Now there is talk of Addons At Ease with a list of standards that BAS has followed since our first addon.......I don't see how this all is really helping....now that we have a proliferation of addons out there with no tags and little standards. Guys at BIS....I'm sorry...I don't mean to be critical of you....I just needed to get that off my chest. It's just that you always seems to be REACTING to issues rather than being PROACTIVE to prevent them. My personal feeling is that this whole idea (AAE) is simply addressing the symptoms of the major issue of how OFP handles addons. It does not address the true problem...just the complications that arise from it. I believe a much more beneficial discussion would be had if we cut our losses and talked about how to implement better addon support in OFP2. Things such as: -Being able to skin models without requiring another PBO file with exact same model (p3d file). The mission editor would have a "browser" that would let the mission maker choose a unit, view it in 3d (like bulldozer) and then choose the appropriate "skin" rrom a list of installed user created skins. Not unlike how we choose faces for characters at the moment using the Player screen. -Addon version control -Established standards for development (max polycounts, techniques and tricks from the developer to help us build better more effecient addons) -The ability to create a single base model and have it "tack on" separate pieces such as weapons pylons so that a single aircraft can have mutiple loadouts without creating a new P3d for each variant. The list goes on.....and we could vastly improve the problem we are facing now by simply better handling how addons are handled within the game engine. The first idea alone would mean less PBOs....which would mean less hassle and mistakes made by people who simply want to reskin a unit to make look like their countries vehicle/plane/unit. With some creativity we can limit many of the problems we have now by innovative solutions to how addons are created and handled by the engine. My feeling....it's too late for OFP1. I think we should look forward and deal with the illness rather than trying to cure the symptoms. But hey....on the other hand...I could just be a rambling visionary....I don't know;) I mean...the tagging system....2 years before its time. BAS Addon creating standards which bear a remarkable resemblance to Addons At Ease.....6 months before it's time. You can choose to dismiss my comments but the fact remains...as someone who has been with the community from the VERY beginning and even helped forge part of the community (specifically editing and addon making) we enjoy today, most of the warning flags I raised have now become reality. And my current fear and warning flag is that none of this is directly dealing with the problem but only with the symptoms. So here's our chance...and a chance for BIS....the chance to be proactive about dealing with problems in future OFP products! Are we and BIS going to step up to the plate? Or are we going to continue to discuss standards that are probably only good for another year of life in OFP until OFP2 comes out next year? And when it comes out are we going to see a repeat of the same frustrating issues with addon development we experience now? For the record...I think the toolset provided by BIS to make addons is actually pretty good. I think the method of making addons is pretty sound...it's how the engine handles them that maybe needs some work.

As the founder of OFPEC and the co-creator (along with Snypir and SelectThis) of the OFPEC Tagging system and as a experienced addon maker who assembled the Ballistic Addon Studios team....I would like to say that I fear that this is all too little too late. I can't help but vent a little frustration here....Where were you guys 1.5 - 2 years ago when we started the tagging system and realised this would get out of control? We asked you back then for your support to help convince the community (what a battle that was!!! and still they are not completely convinced about the value of it. Now there is talk of Addons At Ease with a list of standards that BAS has followed since our first addon.......I don't see how this all is really helping....now that we have a proliferation of addons out there with no tags and little standards. Guys at BIS....I'm sorry...I don't mean to be critical of you....I just needed to get that off my chest. It's just that you always seems to be REACTING to issues rather than being PROACTIVE to prevent them. My personal feeling is that this whole idea (AAE) is simply addressing the symptoms of the major issue of how OFP handles addons. It does not address the true problem...just the complications that arise from it. I believe a much more beneficial discussion would be had if we cut our losses and talked about how to implement better addon support in OFP2. Things such as: -Being able to skin models without requiring another PBO file with exact same model (p3d file). The mission editor would have a "browser" that would let the mission maker choose a unit, view it in 3d (like bulldozer) and then choose the appropriate "skin" rrom a list of installed user created skins. Not unlike how we choose faces for characters at the moment using the Player screen. -Addon version control -Established standards for development (max polycounts, techniques and tricks from the developer to help us build better more effecient addons) -The ability to create a single base model and have it "tack on" separate pieces such as weapons pylons so that a single aircraft can have mutiple loadouts without creating a new P3d for each variant. The list goes on.....and we could vastly improve the problem we are facing now by simply better handling how addons are handled within the game engine. The first idea alone would mean less PBOs....which would mean less hassle and mistakes made by people who simply want to reskin a unit to make look like their countries vehicle/plane/unit. With some creativity we can limit many of the problems we have now by innovative solutions to how addons are created and handled by the engine. My feeling....it's too late for OFP1. I think we should look forward and deal with the illness rather than trying to cure the symptoms. But hey....on the other hand...I could just be a rambling visionary....I don't know;) I mean...the tagging system....2 years before its time. BAS Addon creating standards which bear a remarkable resemblance to Addons At Ease.....6 months before it's time. You can choose to dismiss my comments but the fact remains...as someone who has been with the community from the VERY beginning and even helped forge part of the community (specifically editing and addon making) we enjoy today, most of the warning flags I raised have now become reality. And my current fear and warning flag is that none of this is directly dealing with the problem but only with the symptoms. So here's our chance...and a chance for BIS....the chance to be proactive about dealing with problems in future OFP products! Are we and BIS going to step up to the plate? Or are we going to continue to discuss standards that are probably only good for another year of life in OFP until OFP2 comes out next year? And when it comes out are we going to see a repeat of the same frustrating issues with addon development we experience now? For the record...I think the toolset provided by BIS to make addons is actually pretty good. I think the method of making addons is pretty sound...it's how the engine handles them that maybe needs some work.