View Full Version : Addons at ease
Dear Addon makers,
we believe it's time to try to change the way how are the addons distributed if we want them to be more accessible to every user of Operation Flashpoint.
In order to achieve this, we want to introduce an initiative "Addons at ease" in near future.
We want to adress following issues:
1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission.
2) Most addons currently come without any mission. We believe any addon for general public should come at least with one simple demo mission.
3) Many addons and mission require some other addons etc. so it's sometimes very hard to get it all working in the game. Ideally, we would like to see single files containing logical collection of addons and missions and have gamers to get just the single file to play with it in the game (without having to open the mission editor etc.)
4) We want the OFPEC TAG system become standard in the addon making community as it seems the only reasonable way how to keep addons compatible.
5) We consider version 1.90 / 1.91 as the only one supported platform for this initiative.
At the end, we would like to advertize selected best quality addons compliant with our initiative at www.flashpoint1985.com which we hope will bring more fun to all of us and more recogntition to you, creators of great new content for the game.
I know there's a lot of eventual controversy and issues in this effort. I recommend you to use this thread to general comments to the initiative and tu start new threads if you would like to discuss any specific point into deeper detail.
Thanks
theavonlady
Apr 10 2003, 11:31
Well, so much for hush-hush.
BTW, may I suggest that we refer to Addons At Ease with an acronym, like AAE? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
theavonlady
Apr 10 2003, 11:41
And now for some issues:
Comment #1: If there's anything a lot of people hate, it's installers of harmless files that alter Windows registry. However, I think people will adjust to it as time passes by.
Comment #2: The installer does not allow you to define mod folders. It forces addons into the Addons subdirectory. This is very bad. Many people are overwhelmed with MBs/GBs of addons and I don't have to tell you what happens when you start up OFP with so many, do I?
Comment #3: I would like to disagree with having to bundle other people's addons that might be required for the addon itself or for the sample mission. I think you're making a big mistake in this requirement. I can understand requiring the addon maker to supply multiple MSIs for each addon. That would allow for a new single MSI to replace a single one that's been updated.
If you would allow this, that would lead to another problem of requiring addon maker A to bundle a sample mission in addon maker B's MSI file.
Another major disadvantage of requiring the bundling of addons together is the increased size of the download file, especially when so many people might already have the latest version of the bundled addon.
Looking forward to your reply.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @<hidden> April 10 2003,12:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why is this necessary? Addons go in the addons folder, missions go in the missions folder? I can see it being useful for large packs/bundles, but for every individual addon and mission to have it's own installer seems a little pointless, and a bit messy...loads of registry entries everywhere. But for packs/mods....sure, sounds good.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Most addons currently come without any mission. We believe any addon for general public should come at least with one simple demo mission.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A nice idea maybe, but again every little addon having a mission? There are a lot of addons (ie a plant, or a traffic cone) that it would be a bit silly to have a mission for? Perhaps you might narrow this down to only certain types of addons.
Also remember that people who make addons don't necessarily make missions. Or that isn't how they choose to spend their time. Although I would agree that something could/should be done to stimulate this mission makeing side of things, this might not be the best way to do it....but that's for another thread http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3) Many addons and mission require some other addons etc. so it's sometimes very hard to get it all working in the game. Ideally, we would like to see single files containing logical collection of addons and missions and have gamers to get just the single file to play with it in the game (without having to open the mission editor etc.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nice idea, but a couple of difficulties. Who chooses, what is the criteria, who releases it and how is it distributed? If BIS were willing to put together some packs and have them available for download or even a ultra-cheap (like a "Have This File Burnt To CD" sort of site) I think this could work.
One of the problems though (and this has come up many times before) is the whole issue of balancing various user-made addons. Not only keeping things relatively equal, so everyone doesn't just grab the same gun/tank/whatever, but also balancing realism vs gameplay.
If this sort of thing is going to be done, then it really (IMO) needs to be done on a big scale. Big packs, covering a large number of addons...all balanced to a good degree.
The other alternative (and if this has been discussed and dismissed before then don't flame me hard) is to be able to download not just the mission file, but any required addons that the client does not have (and needs) from the server. I don't know how feasable or popular this idea is, but it works for a lot of games, and certainly is a lot less stress on the user.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4) We want the OFPEC TAG system become standard in the addon making community as it seems the only reasonable way how to keep addons compatible.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yep! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) We consider version 1.90 / 1.91 as the only one supported platform for this initiative.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yep again http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I am really glad to seee BIS taking an interest in the user-created addons side of things, but I think maybe some aspects would need to be thought out, discussed or modified a little bit more. Not in order to make everyone happy, but to make as many people happy as possible http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Hope to hear more about this,
Leone
I too do not think that each and every addon needs a demo mission. A good readme is sufficient imho.
And as AvonLady said i really DISLIKE installers. You can't see what they do (many from my players complained that the bw-mod installer screwed up their ofp installation as it installs exe and dlls and stuff) and you can't use modfolders. I have 15 modfolders at this moment which i load on demand. And i think with growing numbers of addons modfolders are the only way to go. Letting every addon be put in the same directory by an installer just leads to useless waste of ram and huge, unsorted, chaotic addon collections.
I'd support this idea. I'd even try to make sample missions, but they will not be very sophisticated or contain a big story. Just a little mission that shows the addon and it's possibilitys. Also I'd like to be able to modify the installer. Mainly I mean to be able to add an image to it like with the MT-LB installer for instance, or backround music that plays during installation (music is not that importand though).
PSC
*edit*
If I understand Maruk correctly a mission should be added, but is not 100% necessary.
theavonlady
Apr 10 2003, 12:56
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PSC @<hidden> April 10 2003,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I understand Maruk correctly a mission should be added, but is not 100% necessary.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I understand it as required and I agree that it should be.
Som many good addons have come out with no demo missions and by coincidence mission makers aren't inspired to use them.
I think this is unnecessary myself, and just complicates something that worked perfectly fine to begin with. I understand and appreciate what you're trying to acheive, I just don't see the need.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we believe it's time to try to change the way how are the addons distributed if we want them to be more accessible to every user of Operation Flashpoint.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Can you explain why they're difficult to access now?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) We consider version 1.90 / 1.91 as the only one supported platform for this initiative.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This doesn't sound like it supports every user of OFP. I gather this means that the installer system is optimised for 1.90/1.91, but that 1.46 users can still access unofficial addons through the usual means?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Most addons currently come without any mission. We believe any addon for general public should come at least with one simple demo mission.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't think this is necessary. It takes long enough to make addons as it is. Leave the mission making to the mission makers.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3) Many addons and mission require some other addons etc. so it's sometimes very hard to get it all working in the game. Ideally, we would like to see single files containing logical collection of addons and missions and have gamers to get just the single file to play with it in the game (without having to open the mission editor etc.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Agreed, but can we still edit this file if we want to, to alter it for our tastes?
Thanks for your continued support of our community.
Cheers
Mr B
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @<hidden> April 10 2003,14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is this necessary? Addons go in the addons folder, missions go in the missions folder?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I am afraid this point shows again what is the main reason of this initiative. We want to make addons extremely easy to use - click and play. Copying files into specific folder is a think that is way to diffucult for many computer users.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A nice idea maybe, but again every little addon having a mission? There are a lot of addons (ie a plant, or a traffic cone) that it would be a bit silly to have a mission for? Perhaps you might narrow this down to only certain types of addons.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
While I agree not every addon needs to have a mission, the addon that is intended to be used by users, and not only by editing comminity, needs to have one. Nobody wants to tell you that you cannot make addons without missions - but if you do, they cannot bear Addons At Ease mark - and absence of this mark will tells users such addon may be moire complicated to use.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also remember that people who make addons don't necessarily make missions.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is valid point. We are considering how to address this. One option is to provide a simple mission template which addon makers could use as a basic of their "minimal" missions.
To avoid any misunderstanding:
Addons At Ease is not meant to be a standard all addons released have to accept. It is meant as a "mark" telling users that if they will download an addon marked with appropriate logo, they will be able to install, use and uninstall it easily.
You can produce any addons not conforming to the rules above - but such addons cannot bear "Addons At Ease" mark.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PSC @<hidden> April 10 2003,14:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mainly I mean to be able to add an image to it like with the MT-LB installer for instance, or backround music that plays during installation (music is not that importand though).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You will be able to modify an image shown during installation, but no music/sounds will be played and you will not be add any.
whisperFFW06
Apr 10 2003, 13:17
I would personnally raise a single objection against MSI installers : Linux servers. At least, zip files for Linux servers should be kept available, or installing addons on server would be... hard http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif (given the fact that one can be not aware of the pbo name of the installed addon, etc...)
Otherwise, is nice to see you once more giving full support. Thanks.
whisperFFW06
Apr 10 2003, 13:18
Ok, seeing Suma's reply, it would be up to addon makers to provide zip files, so it's all right.
Whis'
So, the AAE mark is like the little chef's hats on the side of packet cakes, that tell you how much skill you need to bake the cake, and AAE mark is like one hat? You can still bake cakes that don't use the hats system, it's just for the benefit of the shopper so they know what they're buying?
I think I get it now http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif .
in regards to packaging everything together - I put forth an idea some time ago - not sure if anyone from the team saw it at that time, and it would require an update to OFP (I doubt if that would make it feasible).
Basically, every addon must have a new section in the config with an author contact email and a download/info url.
When you write a mission with any addons, the mission collects all that info for each addon.
When a user loads the mission, if there is an error for missing addons, the name, the contact and url for the addon get written to an html file, which can have a shortcut in the OFP start menu folder, or a new button from the options menu.
That way if a user gets a missing addons error - they will automatically have a resource to track them down. It's not a perfect solution, but better than coming to the forum and asking what addons a mission needs.
A fantastic initiative http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The OFPEC tag system was instituted for that exact reason - to keep addon's compatible and uniquely named.
But: the tag registration is down at present. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
It will be back up this weekend, and we'll make it more accessable.
Here is the listing as it currently stands:
http://www.ofpec.com/addons/tags_list.php
Thanks BIS!
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @<hidden> April 10 2003,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Comment #3: I would like to disagree with having to bundle other people's addons that might be required for the addon itself or for the sample mission. I think you're making a big mistake in this requirement. I can understand requiring the addon maker to supply multiple MSIs for each addon. That would allow for a new single MSI to replace a single one that's been updated.
If you would allow this, that would lead to another problem of requiring addon maker A to bundle a sample mission in addon maker B's MSI file.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This point seems really valid to me and we agree it needs to be discussed.
I think rules could be changed a little:
- sample mission should not require any other addons beside of the one being installed and official BIS addons
- if the addons itselft requires other addons to work properly, it it has to:
i) include such addons in requiredAddons[] list
ii) provide exact insructions where to get the addons
iii) the addons in question has to be "At Ease" as well
Solving addon dependecies is often one thing that makes using many addons real nightmare, and we would really like to make this as easy as possible.
If you have any comments, feel free to discuss it here. We are aware that an initiative like this can have an important impact on addon makes, and that why we discuss with you here it before starting it.
whisperFFW06
Apr 10 2003, 13:26
I just discussed this with OFrP members, seems that this is something which will be more than welcome.
So far, about pack system and demo mission, we fully agree on this topic, and support the idea.
But what about versionning?
To make it more clear:
The entire and only goal of this initiative is to make the best addons available and accessible for the more casual gamer and not only for the small community/minority as it's now and hopefully make the community bigger and Flashpoint generally stronger within the gaming world.
If you don't want your addon (and in this case I understand the addon as mission or addon, not only addon in the Flashpoint term) to be more accessible to general public, fair enough and continue to do everything as you do it now.
We don't have any plan to do distribution of addons, it goes beyond this initiative. Our intention is to establish a submission and evaluation process and select the best addons (solely from BIS perspective) and recommend it at our official websites.
Concerning many special points and issue (including topic by Avon Lady using some insider information).
I see three major issues to discuss:
- the installer
- addons with or without missions
- addons or mission requiring addons to be installed from other sources
Generally, we preffer to make it easy for average gamers than to make happy hard core addon fanaticts but we're always ready to listen to your feedback.
We [BAS] will definately be supporting this initative, an excellent idea, and with official supoort I can forsee great things to come...
Regarding the installer, will there be any option for an upgrade/patching system? Similar to the official BIS patches, so that the user does not have to re-download the entire addon, just a small update.
whisperFFW06
Apr 10 2003, 13:44
If the patcher is able to jump from any version to up-to-date version, then it indeed would be an excellent idea.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @<hidden> April 10 2003,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But what about versionning?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's a good point. Currently, there's no way how to make versioning in Flashpoint missions and addons (this is something to consider in our next game).
But we definitelly should consier some versioning for the AAE packages.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @<hidden> April 09 2003,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Our intention is to establish a submission and evaluation process and select the best addons (solely from BIS perspective) and recommend it at our official websites.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It would be GREAT if BIS would wrap up these files which they select as being 'best' in a single installer package (say once every month or so)...this would allow a single package of addons to be used as a (BIS) standard and make things ALOT easier on multiplay servers! Its alot easier to say "you need the latest update of the user addon pack from the BIS website" than to say..."you need this list of items to play". With a single package in place, addons may actually becomes useful for dedicated servers!
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DeadMeatXM2 @<hidden> April 10 2003,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...Regarding the installer, will there be any option for an upgrade/patching system? Similar to the official BIS patches, so that the user does not have to re-download the entire addon, just a small update...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That would be a nice feature. The possibility to update only single files inside a previously installed PBO. Like only the config.cpp, or a texture or P3D.
PSC
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @<hidden> April 10 2003,15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To make it more clear:
The entire and only goal of this initiative is to make the best addons available and accessible for the more casual gamer and not only for the small community/minority as it's now and hopefully make the community bigger and Flashpoint generally stronger within the gaming world.
Generally, we preffer to make it easy for average gamers than to make happy hard core addon fanaticts but we're always ready to listen to your feedback.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yep...that's a lot clearer thanks Maruk. The only thing I wonder about is how you you actually go about getting these packs or addons to the casual gamer....and would they have a clue what AAE even meant? It would seem to me to be the fanatics that are the ones most likely to download such addons, because they are the ones who know where the sites are, and follow the progress of such things.
The casual gamer I suspect doesn't check Flashpoint websites, nor look for updates (or even patches). So how would they know about AAE? But I suspect this is something that BIS and CODEMASTERS might want to talk about (or not http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) Just thought I'd mention it.
Yes, I talk too much, but one last thing...would this be an initiative that could be extended to an entire mod project at some point in the future? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thanks,
Leone
whisperFFW06
Apr 10 2003, 14:22
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suchey @<hidden> April 10 2003,15:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @<hidden> April 09 2003,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Our intention is to establish a submission and evaluation process and select the best addons (solely from BIS perspective) and recommend it at our official websites.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It would be GREAT if BIS would wrap up these files which they select as being 'best' in a single installer package (say once every month or so)...this would allow a single package of addons to be used as a (BIS) standard and make things ALOT easier on multiplay servers! Its alot easier to say "you need the latest update of the user addon pack from the BIS website" than to say..."you need this list of items to play". With a single package in place, addons may actually becomes useful for dedicated servers![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't think the goal is to make a single file, it is to tag addons with AAE and provide easy installation system. For doing so, addons have to be approved.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @<hidden> April 09 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think the goal is to make a single file, it is to tag addons with AAE and provide easy installation system. For doing so, addons have to be approved.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yeah...Im just saying that if they are going to "recomend" certain addons, it would make things MUCH easier on Muliplayer servers if they would also put all of the "recommended" files into a single installer so there could be a standard pack of sorts for use in 'on line' play.
whisperFFW06
Apr 10 2003, 14:34
Well... First though on the 3 points showed by Maruk :
- Installer : Well.. Something which could track version numbers and make appropriates updates if possible.
- Demo missions : The template would be really excellent. In my opinion, demo mission is required.
- addonRequired : so far, the propositions seems quite OK. Would it be possible to add some auto download feature? Like, let's say addon X is required but missing, make a pop-up appear askig "Addon X is required, but appears not to be present on your system. Do you want to download it? Yes - No". Further, this way, this would solve the issue raised by Suchey about single addon pack for dedicated servers, as the only thing required for such a pack is an addon just stating the correct addonRequired sections.
Whis'
CanadianTerror
Apr 10 2003, 15:00
Considering that this is not an engine change or modification but just a suggestion(order?) in how to do addon distribution. why so late?
Most of us have like 3-4 gigs of addons at this point without any "proper official" way of doing it.
I don't disagree with the idea, it just seems like it should have been brought up a long time ago.
whisperFFW06
Apr 10 2003, 15:22
this is not just a suggestion, considering the patching system that has to be built. This takes time
theavonlady
Apr 10 2003, 15:37
BIS and everone else, regarding version upgrades and patches, would this free product be better than MSIs:
Patchwise Free (http://www.hanmen.com/products/pwf3info.php)
No, I've never used it but Toadlife used it to create small patch files to update the beta versions of his mission Lojack 2. From the patch end user side, it was great!
WhoCares
Apr 10 2003, 15:38
Suchey:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah...Im just saying that if they are going to "recomend" certain addons, it would make things MUCH easier on Muliplayer servers if they would also put all of the "recommended" files into a single installer so there could be a standard pack of sorts for use in 'on line' play.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
whisperFFW06:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- addonRequired : so far, the propositions seems quite OK. Would it be possible to add some auto download feature? Like, let's say addon X is required but missing, make a pop-up appear askig "Addon X is required, but appears not to be present on your system. Do you want to download it? Yes - No". Further, this way, this would solve the issue raised by Suchey about single addon pack for dedicated servers, as the only thing required for such a pack is an addon just stating the correct addonRequired sections.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think those two ideas put together would be a great solution. The server provider would make his own (empty) installer, referencing to the various addons used by the server.
I personally do not create addons, but I have experience using them and answering questions on how to get them going. Therefore I will say:
I think this is a very good idea. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Look at one of the greatest (IMO) addon packages (Seb Nam Pack), it is such a pain in the back to install for even very experienced computer users because of the lack of an installer. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
SelectThis
Apr 10 2003, 16:21
Great idea!
Some other issues which may be relevant.
For custom models
- certain standards regarding face counts,resolution lods and their use. Verification could be time consuming especially if the models are binarized.
-texturing standards (eg, use of pac/paa rather than jpg).
re: Installer, not too keen on the idea but if it works and allows flexibility (eg install into a non-ofp folder) then it should be ok.
re: One installation file (exe or zip) but what about the number of pbo files? My preference has been to make lots of small pbos rather than one big one, basically on the assumption that a pbo is not fully loaded unless it is actually needed.
SelectThis
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @<hidden> April 10 2003,17:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BIS and everone else, regarding version upgrades and patches, would this free product be better than MSIs:
Patchwise Free (http://www.hanmen.com/products/pwf3info.php)
No, I've never used it but Toadlife used it to create small patch files to update the beta versions of his mission Lojack 2. From the patch end user side, it was great![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm happy with Clickteam's installer and patch maker - it's the standard for Ghost Recon mods, and you can create addon subfolders if you want to. You can also use the Flashpoint registry entry to find each user's install path, so it's a perfectly brainless procedure for a user to install from the executable.
Eviscerator
Apr 10 2003, 16:35
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suchey @<hidden> April 10 2003,15:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @<hidden> April 09 2003,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Our intention is to establish a submission and evaluation process and select the best addons (solely from BIS perspective) and recommend it at our official websites.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It would be GREAT if BIS would wrap up these files which they select as being 'best' in a single installer package (say once every month or so)...this would allow a single package of addons to be used as a (BIS) standard and make things ALOT easier on multiplay servers! Its alot easier to say "you need the latest update of the user addon pack from the BIS website" than to say..."you need this list of items to play". With a single package in place, addons may actually becomes useful for dedicated servers![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Also if once there are quite a few addons in there how about offering them up to several PC Gaming magazines? OFP never gets much attention on their demo CD's so adding something like, say, the Nam Pack, BAS work, Kegetys work and all the other great addon makers work, we may be able to give the ofp community not able to access forums/news sites something to play with, because if a million people bought the game (and 200,000 bought res) there are a lot missing out on all the addons which greatly increase the gameplay, may just give the ofp community the boost it needs
theavonlady
Apr 10 2003, 16:41
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (earl @<hidden> April 10 2003,19:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm happy with Clickteam's installer and patch maker[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That was the 2nd one I had in mind. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Here's another important concern: intentionally and unintentionally malicious MSIs.
Someone could come out with an MSI the clobbers other official and unofficial addon files.
Any way to prevent this? This could be a more prevelant problem if support for mod folders is added, since mod folders can have any name. So if someone creates an AAE MSI with a folder structure of \Res\Addons, for example, this can happen.
A minor solution is to institute a unique mod folder naming convention - at least as far as AAE goes. For example, forcing mod folders to start with a unique character (I personally use "@<hidden>") would assure that no official files could be overlayed.
Am I being overly concerned? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Tactician
Apr 10 2003, 19:20
I'm glad BIS is taking initiative towards addons, and if anyone wants a sample mission made for their addon, I think there should be a pool of mission editors to volunteer and make something for those who don't have the means to do it themselves. I, for one, will volunteer.
This is very sensible and long-overdue.
I know people like to tinker with models and publish their toys to the world.
As someone who's done both mods and missions, I can tell you some of the main reasons why such products don't get more circulation:
A) Missions that require a bunch of individual mods don't get downloaded or played.
B) Individual mods without missions don't get downloaded until there's a reason to do so.
AAE facilitates modmakers' releasing missions and addons together. Guys: an addon isn't complete without a mission. Besides, addons need "field testing". How can you say you've fully tested an addon without making a mission?
And we've got the other generic problems:
C) Every step we take up front to simplify the process will increase its distribution. This is a game. I know many people (and many very smart people) who will download something, fire it up, and if it doesn't work, just throw it away. Others will just be uneasy.
This is a principle that I use in making addons with respect to the mission editor's load (keep it simple), and it makes sense to extend it to the addon system.
D) Increasing support of the OFPEC TAG System makes sense. Avoid unintended consequences.
E) It's optional folks. I don't see for a moment releasing an addon only in AAE format. If someone wants to do it "the old way", that will still work.
F) I don't think BIS should engage in the mire of selecting "officially sanctioned addons", on artistic merit. That's our job. They can do what they're doing right now: releasing standards and incentives for adherence, and encouraging the ocmmunity as much as possible. But we're the ones who end up voting on stuff. You want an "addon pack" of stuff adhering to a certain standard of quality? Contact the addon makers and put one together.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dinger @<hidden> April 10 2003,02:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You want an "addon pack" of stuff adhering to a certain standard of quality? Contact the addon makers and put one together.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There have been quite a few servers that have done this...unfortunately it hasnt taken off very well in most cases. Most players cant seem to figure it out. Having a pack of all the addons which BIS considers as high enough quality to be linked from their page gives them a stamp of approval and a common downloadable file facilitates an easy method of ensuring that players have a similar set of addons available for multiplay. Server could be labeled as 'AOE pack' servers...or something similar. This certainly doesnt mean that different packs cant be put together individually and if a server wants to add additional items, no one is stopping them. So far addons and multiplay dont mix well...if you search back through the forums you'll find a variety of topics in which individuals have attmepted addon packs for their servers and report that their servers were reduced to very few players because they cant find all the addons (even if they are in a single pack somewhere). Having a standardized pack bound by the 'AOE' standards overcomes some of the obstacles currently present in bringing addons to the table in multiplay...and the "AOE" stamp facilitates an instant standardization of items included on a server. People dont have to travel a ton of web sites and download packs for every server...it simply makes thing easier on server admins and players alike. Imagine having an addon pack of items that can be downloaded from a variety of sites and yet it contains the same items...multiple servers running that pack gives the player choices in where to play and opens the door to mission makers to use a variety of addons in a single mission for on-line play without worrying about the ability of the players to find all the addons included.
Gen.Carnage
Apr 10 2003, 21:03
To Suma:
Implement a line of code into the MP engine that will display the value of MOD_URL, that will be placed in config of every addon. server can broadcast this value to all clients on mission start, those who are missing a certain addon, will display the MOD_URL value, belonging to that addon.
MOD_URL, ofcourse , would tell the player where to find the addon.
as for the AAE , we dont have any objections to it, but we will also host the 'pure' addons in zip on our server, for those who dislike installers.
Making demo missions for the addons that need them; sure, but making it mandatory is not a good idea.
Lots of addonmakers dont know how to/want to make missions, while their addons might be superb.
Carnage
Soul_Assassin
Apr 10 2003, 21:09
We, here at Red Star Studios also think this is a great idea and fully support it. This system willmake it easy for ordinary (and by ordinary people i mean people who are mabe not as fanatic as all of us here http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) to use addon stuff without having to read each and every readme for a new install.
The tagging system developed by OFPEC is also great and we think should be used as a base standard anyway.
I love the idea of sort of labling up-to-this-standard addons as it will act as sort of a Review magazine and will allow users to have a better view of whats up there.
Jackal326
Apr 10 2003, 23:13
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (earl @<hidden> April 10 2003,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm happy with Clickteam's installer and patch maker - it's the standard for Ghost Recon mods, and you can create addon subfolders if you want to. You can also use the Flashpoint registry entry to find each user's install path, so it's a perfectly brainless procedure for a user to install from the executable.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree, although I do support the idea of a standardised form of installer. If such a scheme is implimented, SJB Addons will be using it.
Wadmann
Apr 10 2003, 23:16
I would like to point out one thing in respect to providing an imbedded link to direct players to a web site containing addons: They sometimes change!
Some of the bigger players in the industry may have one URL from day one, but other individuals may have to change hosts for a variety of reasons. Even OFPEC was once "OFPEditingcenter" and they are one of the more popular sites! I think that a cental database is a better idea so that no one will get the infamous 404 error while searching for a needed addon.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wadmann @<hidden> April 10 2003,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some of the bigger players in the industry may have one URL from day one, but other individuals may have to change hosts for a variety of reasons. Even OFPEC was once "OFPEditingcenter" and they are one of the more popular sites! I think that a cental database is a better idea so that no one will get the infamous 404 error while searching for a needed addon.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A central database that redirects to the proper links. It doesn't have to contain the files, just some html or scripts. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
To releave some frustration than the Developers might be getting: Obviously something like htis can only be included in OFP2 since 1.91 is final. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
iMoRtAliS
Apr 10 2003, 23:53
Good thing for sure, but i think suchey is right by making package not single files for each add-on. Its way more easy for map developers / server admin to launch one add-on patch then tell this servers use ver. x.xx. Usually when you release upgrade you pak maps, weapons and units in a single installer its easy, fast and map dev are not asking themself if they can use this add-on. It's pretty frustrating to get drop by server cause one add-on is missing and today find an obscur add-on is very complicated... So I guess an "Official unofficial add-on package" would be the best it could be released on regular basis and would be easier for everyone. Off course the ideal scenario is the distribution of the missing add-on in-game but they are still too many 56k out there http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
By the way Suma, when is BIS going to release complete sources of v1.91 config? Those config files which came with Binarize are v1.75. That way making Total Conversion mods would be possible simple to launch by just typing:
OperationFlashpoint.exe -mod:MODNAME
- No need to put files to addon folder
- Mods displayed clearly in your OFP folder
Nobody uses single addons on public servers - it's just too much hassle with files etc. I think total conversion mods would be the key in making OFP more interesting.
Nice idea.
I havent fully read everything in this thread (in the middle of making an addon demo misison), but a few thoughts on some things i picked up.
Demo missions with the addon:
I dont think its always a good idea to pack the mission with the addon, in some cases that would work. But at bas we like to use music and large rsc files, which often makes the missions about the same size as the addon. So it is impractical in all cases to double the addon d/l size. Keeping them seperate is less limiting for addon maker and mission maker, and gives the end user the option to d/l only what they want.
Extra addons in the mission:
This is something bas have discussed, and came the conclusion that the demo missions should only require the addon of focus. This is good in theory, and can be workable, but in practice, it is not always a good plan. Eg, now that bas have released units (delta rangers), i prefer using them in place of the defaut nato units. So if an helo addon requires troops in the mission, it is generally better to use our addon troops for many reasons.
So i think there should be some room to move regarding extra addons, especially if the extra addons are from the same mod / studio / team as the addon of focus.
But if a "Demo" requires even more addons, say to set the scene in a desert / winter environment, the mission could be considered a "feature" mission, where the extra addons are known about and accepted.
Templates:
I've actually been working on a few templates lately. I was mainly making them for mates and bas, but they could be useful for people to set up fast but rounded missions. The general template (coop + sp) has everything needed for a complete mission, like a clean briefing, working endings and objectives, and dialogs for time of day and vehicle / option selections.
Anyway, this idea sound good in general.
Hellfish6
Apr 11 2003, 00:26
Wow... spend a day at work and look what I miss!
I am very fond of this idea. If it can reach a wider audience, then we should support it. Remember, guys, over 1 million copies of OFP have been sold (and 200,000+ copies of Resistance) and as of right now, only 23,274 people are registered on this forum.
So, a lot of people out there are not coming here. They may check the flashpoint1985 page every once in a while, but for whatever reason, they are not coming to the forums and probably aren't going to other community web sites. If we can hook even a few thousand more people with this idea, think of the potential that the community will have - how many more addon makers out there might be inspired to put down whatever they're playing and fire up Oxygen.
If all those people that for whatever reason don't play OFP anymore find a reason to play again, because BAS has put out those great Delta/Rangers or DKM has their Commanche, CoC has workable artillery implemented, etc., then we'll be a happier and healthier communuity.
I frequent a message board for another game, Combat Mission, and I know a lot of guys that hang out there and bought OFP, played it for a few months, and then uninstalled it. They've recently become VERY interested in all these World War II addons that are coming in soon. They're starting to go out and buy Resistance so that they can upgrade to 1.91 for when Invasion 1944 and everyone else releases their mod.
These are the people that AAE will help most - the people that aren't regulars around here, and that may only check out the OFP forums every once in a while. They will simply be able to go to one centralized area, find what they want, download it and in a matter of minutes be playing. Simplicity for the masses!
And if we do get more people to buy Resistance or GOTY because of this, then BIS will get more money. And if BIS gets more money, we will get a better OFP2. It's as simple as that.
Someone mentioned earlier about sending off SEB's Nam Pack 2 to one of the computer game magazines. What a great idea! If BIS is willing to front the money for such a promotion, I think that the investment will pay off greatly. If all those guys out there saw what OFP was capable of today, like how they could finally drive a Tiger tank or fly air support in the Ia Drang Valley or laze targets for Hudson's F/A-18s, I think you'd find a lot of people willing to upgrade.
So, cheers and kudos. I'm looking forward to seeing what we can flesh out of this, even if I'm not an addon maker.
I think that mod makers should make their mods more
internationally compatible, by that I mean the languages
they use in the mod. Most are English only, and some are
in English and another language, but the two languages are
displayed at the same time separated by a /. It would nice
to see this replaced by the stringtable.csv file so that
anyone can play these great mods. I can only speak and
understand English, but I think that everyone should get
to play games without having to deal with a different
language. I wouldn't want to use a mod with only German
commands in it, so why should a German have to play with
English only commands? And it must look out of place as
the rest of the original game is in one language. What we
need though is some place that we could get good
ranslations, as I think a lack of translation is what is preventing multilanguage mods from getting released. Major translation sites could be helpful, but we are talking about
military equipment here, so often a vehicle's name will have a
completely different meaning in another language. Anyways,
thats my opinion
OxPecker
Apr 11 2003, 02:43
OK, my questions (sorry if they seem silly, but I'm not as well versed in the mechanics of how OFP handles addons as some) -
1. I mightn't be reading this correctly, but are you suggesting 1 installer/exe for each individual addon? Thats sounds like a LOT of downloading, which will put off the casual gamer just as much as the way things are now. It will also mean severs will have to give a list of each individual AAE exe file you will need to download.
2. Will there be compatability issues with existing addons - am I going to have to clear out my addon folders so as to install them?
3. The demo missions - just how basic or complicated will these demo missions be, or be expected to be. Will it be a simple "here is a mission with the new tank - go and blow up some enemy" or will they be 2mb epics featuring latest scripts, custom music and images etc. If they include fancy scripting and such, they might not give a true indication of the addons worth - i.e. scripts might be used to make the addon seem more fucntional than it actually is.
All in all though, I think this sounds like an excellent idea. Some sort of addon standardisation is long overdue. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hellfish6
Apr 11 2003, 03:10
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @<hidden> April 10 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. The demo missions - just how basic or complicated will these demo missions be, or be expected to be. Will it be a simple "here is a mission with the new tank - go and blow up some enemy" or will they be 2mb epics featuring latest scripts, custom music and images etc. If they include fancy scripting and such, they might not give a true indication of the addons worth - i.e. scripts might be used to make the addon seem more fucntional than it actually is.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My understanding is that it can be as basic or as complicated as the addon maker wishes. I mean, any of us could make a mission for an addon - it's a simple matter of one or two triggers and some waypoints at the most simple level. And I'm sure if the addon maker prefers not to make a mission that he's got a friend or someone else willing to make a demo mission for him.
OxPecker
Apr 11 2003, 04:36
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> April 11 2003,05:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @<hidden> April 10 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. The demo missions - just how basic or complicated will these demo missions be, or be expected to be. Will it be a simple "here is a mission with the new tank - go and blow up some enemy" or will they be 2mb epics featuring latest scripts, custom music and images etc. If they include fancy scripting and such, they might not give a true indication of the addons worth - i.e. scripts might be used to make the addon seem more fucntional than it actually is.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My understanding is that it can be as basic or as complicated as the addon maker wishes. I mean, any of us could make a mission for an addon - it's a simple matter of one or two triggers and some waypoints at the most simple level. And I'm sure if the addon maker prefers not to make a mission that he's got a friend or someone else willing to make a demo mission for him.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, I guess what I was getting at is what happens if someone makes a mission with a lot a fancy scripts that make the addon do all kinds of neat stuff, and the person who downloaded it thinks these are standard features of the addon. They may be in for a big letdown when using the addon in other missions.
Good thing or bad thing - I guess it depends on your point of view.
redface
Apr 11 2003, 05:51
a request to the developers:
i'm in favour of the demo mission idea, though it can get impractical as well as it overloads your user/missions folder even more
my suggestion would be to add a small preview option in the editor so that you can see the addon before inserting it (also displaying the name of the file being used)
this would make it so much easier to select the appropriate addons for your mission
now I see a nice new Amazon addon, i put it in my addons folder, but in the editor I can't possibly guess where the addon is to be found
it would also help us in the effort to clean up our addons folder, as it would show that this or that bad addon is in that file (rather than having to download them all again, now with proper tags, which I think would be unfair to the lots of us with dialup connections)
a search option would come in handy as well, or just a central website that lists all quality addons and tells where to find them exactly
theavonlady
Apr 11 2003, 07:02
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (redface @<hidden> April 11 2003,08:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'm in favour of the demo mission idea, though it can get impractical as well as it overloads your user/missions folder even more.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In case you're not aware of it, search The FAQ (http://www.theavonlady.org/theofpfaq/) for "mission subdirectories".
Powerslide
Apr 11 2003, 07:03
I think it's a great idea unfortunately it may be too little too late. I had hoped BIS would get behind the addon makers early on and weed out the good stuff and release it in patches (with the full "if it breaks your game don't come crying to us" disclaimer of course). I would also like to see approved addons released in patches, it's a big step by BIS to even suggest what they have so far and perhaps they can assign people to look at addons and rate the quality prior to approval as they are busily working away on OFP2 (perhaps code for wheeled APC's http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif ) and just don't have the spare time. I don't know, with the right organization something like this would greatly simplify things and promote the really good stuff out there. It would also create a standard.
Colonel_Klink
Apr 11 2003, 07:26
I think the idea of standardising addon installation is a good idea. Auran, the makers of Trainz issued a Despatcher program which allowed the easy installation of addon content. This I felt was good for their community, just as I see this initiative from BIS as a step ahead.
I support the idea of adding a demo mission that shows off the new addons features. Perhaps in the installation the user could have the option to install the demo mission.
As for required addons, I personally don't create addons that are dependant upon non BIS addons, however I can see that bundling the required ones with the new ones would have its pros and cons. Nothing worse than trying to use a new addon if you don't have the others the new addon needs. On the other hand some addons are fairly hefty to download as it is for 56k'ers.
Standardising through OFPEC addon suffix naming is a good idea which works very well in 99% cases.
A means of uninstalling addons is a good idea and one that most OFPers would appreciate. I do concur that any installer would add to the user's registry.. very little programs don't.
Clickteam's installer works well, and any MSI installer could do the same job.
There has been debate in th past that some OFPers won't download addons that have their own installer. Personally having an installer that searches the registry for the addon folder and proceeds to install directly, in my mind is better than having to navigate to the addons folder manually.
This installer could be used for mission installations too, for both PBOed and user demo missions.
Great initiative guys from BIS. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
[CCCP]Stalker
Apr 11 2003, 07:53
I have absolutly new and I think great idea. Let's say that installers are already inplemented, they have a patch feature etc. But what's with readme ? It will be installed in addon folder. User then must to go there, find it, copy it somewhere, read it, delete it http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif LOL That's a lot of work. I think that OFPAM (Operation Flashpoint Addon Manager by DKM) file shoul be distributed among with the addon. It'll go to addon folder than and people don't need to delete it. Just DL small and useful prog and have all their addons full of info about 'em etc. Also DKM need to modify their OFPAM to have and entry called "Mission" to show if there is a test mission or no.
As Soul_Assasin already said we here in RSS fully support the idea. And please make the installer quicker 'cos we have one small thing closing to release...
theavonlady
Apr 11 2003, 07:57
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Colonel_Klink @<hidden> April 11 2003,10:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There has been debate in th past that some OFPers won't download addons that have their own installer. Personally having an installer that searches the registry for the addon folder and proceeds to install directly, in my mind is better than having to navigate to the addons folder manually.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The difference is that now we're talking about a global installer standard. That's a bit more comforting than the dozens of home-brewed methods used until now.
Standardization is indeed consolation.
Colonel_Klink
Apr 11 2003, 08:24
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @<hidden> April 11 2003,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Colonel_Klink @<hidden> April 11 2003,10:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There has been debate in th past that some OFPers won't download addons that have their own installer. Personally having an installer that searches the registry for the addon folder and proceeds to install directly, in my mind is better than having to navigate to the addons folder manually.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The difference is that now we're talking about a global installer standard. That's a bit more comforting than the dozens of home-brewed methods used until now.
Standardization is indeed consolation.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's true. With the new initiative standardisation may become a reality.
The trouble is there are some people who will repackage the addons to add to their own installation. Here is where problems could arise.
theavonlady
Apr 11 2003, 08:47
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Colonel_Klink @<hidden> April 11 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The trouble is there are some people who will repackage the addons to add to their own installation. Here is where problems could arise.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hey! It's a free world! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
ale2999
Apr 11 2003, 10:27
Ya there is notin wrong if after u take the addon and put it in a mod folder. better thing is that if the installer would give the recommended place to install the stuff, but allow change in location if the user is an advanced one
This seems like a great idea to me, as it will not only increase the addon's quality standarts as it will be a good chance for we addon makers to work a little bit closer to BIS.
Also the interest Maruk is demonstrating really makes me happy, we addon makers would never be able to do anything without your continous support, thank you. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I think I'm talking for all the BAS team,we already have the system sugested implemented, and we'll be more than happy to help all addon makers and MODs that will need us not only in this topic but in all topics.
I think it's time for we all to cooperate, together we can make our game 10 times better,and after all tat as always been our goal, I'm sure that a lot of addon makers don't know how to make missions, but there are a lof of mission makers that also don't know how to make addons, it's just a question of cooperating as I've said before,it's nice having addons, but if we can't use them properly than what's the point in making them ?
It's true that Maruk as only sugested but if a big percentage of we addon makers follow this sugestions, than I'm sure that the rest will come after us. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I'm IN http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @<hidden> April 10 2003,17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at one of the greatest (IMO) addon packages (Seb Nam Pack), it is such a pain in the back to install for even very experienced computer users because of the lack of an installer. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Get the installer from http://www.suicidesquad.co.uk http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
As we are using a lot of Addons on our server we started using Installers quite some time ago. That way we can ensure that everything is installed to the correct locations and that people don't start showing errors when playing. We use NSI (from the guys that made WinAmp) to create the installers. Very simple to use and it's free.
I think the general introduction of installers to the addons community would be great - but mod folders should be supported (especially for big addons like the 'Nam pack), as many people tend to install a lot of addons and then wonder why they're short of memory. Using mod folders OFPR gives us the great chance to load these addons only when we want to.
I don't see what all the fuss about packs is about... afterall its gonna be the same overall file size in a big pack as it would be in lots of different individual addons...
Also, big packs, normally ones made by gamers, who are not related to the addons in any way (see Peanuckles' Desert Pack) can become out-dated as new versions of the addons are released... If they were mod serviced, i.e. updated every time a new addon/addon version was released, then it would offer increased support to the end user.
I do however agree with making "server packs", for example, once our special ops project is done, we [BAS] will also be releasing a "server pack" which will contian all of the special ops helicopters, soldiers, vehicles etc...
That way, the servers can say "you need the BAS Spec Ops Pack", this would mean 1 click for the download (for cable users it would be a quick download), and you're ready to play...
Then, on the site there can be a listing of what is in the "server pack" so that the 56k'ers have the choice of either grabbing the whole pack, or downloading the addons on an idividual basis.
I think keeping all the addons seperate if great, as it allows the 56k'ers to download in chunks, rather than having to download a 100+ Mb pack with a load of addons that they will never use...
I am on 56k, and to be perfectly honest with you... if all the current addons we re-standardised, I would download them again...
As regards to installers, the only feature I would want would be an upgrade/patch facility, that way, when something is updated, all you have to do is download a patch, rather than the whole addon again...
This would be better for the 56k'ers, as downloading say the SEB Nam Pack (40 megs) is a big commitment... If when the modules are released, or any of the pack was updated it could be done with an exe patch program, that would be much better than having to re-download the whole 40 meg file (I know the modules will be seperate, and have their own cpp's, i was simply using this as a basis for an example)
To sum up, in my opinion the "Addons At Ease" initiative I see it as this:
The Addons should be standardised (using the OFPEC TAG system) to eliminate any addon clashes.
The installer should feature versioning, and an upgrade/patch capability. This will allow users to keep up to date, and not have to repeatedly download the same files.
The installer should also feature a window for the readme, similar to the licence agreement window in O2 that HAS to be read beforeinstallation can continue.
There should be a REFERENCE Data Base, that stores all of the URL's for the addons, where it is the Addon makers responsibility to update if urls are changed. Also, OFPEC could become offical offiliates of BIS, so that their "Addon Depot" can become an "Offical Repository" for addons.
Multi-language support should be featured... Who/What did BIS use to translate for the final game? We [BAS] are making an effort with the MH-47E update to feature multi-language support, and to that extent we are lookinh for some way of translating the commands/text into the different languages. So far we have relied on native speakers of the language to do this.
Standardisation of models and textures (picking up on SelectThis' point) addons should go through a "screening" to ensure they adheer to the standards. Models should have set limits of polys, and textures should be in either *.paa or *.pac format (I know these do not give as good a result as *.jpeg, but the game engine is designed to run optimally when using these texture formats.
Demo missions. The demo mission we (Nagual) produce at BAS are often quite complex and show the addon to its full potential. Maybe a demo mission to be included in the installer would have to be a certain size (the mission folder) and would be a basic mission that highlights the features of the addon.
Addon advertising... Once a selection of top quality addons are assembled they could be submitted to the PC Games magazines out there for inclusion on the free discs. This would not only increase advertising for the game (and boost resistance sales) but it would also bolster the community, as they would be tempted to get involved by some clever wording in the readme i.e. "Check out the forums at www.flashpoint1985.com for more information and updates to these and many other addons"
phew... long list there, but in the long run I fell that a project like this, if run properly could breathe new life into Operation Flashpoint, and start a whole new "generation" of OpFlasher's.
Feel free to pic out any points in my post, and improve or change them http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Rastavovich
Apr 11 2003, 11:07
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I think that OFPAM (Operation Flashpoint Addon Manager by DKM) file shoul be distributed among with the addon. It'll go to addon folder than and people don't need to delete it. Just DL small and useful prog and have all their addons full of info about 'em etc. Also DKM need to modify their OFPAM to have and entry called "Mission" to show if there is a test mission or no.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Changing OFPAM and OFP_IFC (the info file creator tool) is no big deal. And the info file used by those tool was developed with the target to make it easier to find what pbo is what addon and which classes and dependencies are there.
Baron silas Greenback
Apr 11 2003, 11:13
YAY
Will this Installer program list all the addons that the user has installed?
Readme Idea...
If addon makers renamed there readme files to there addon name, it would be so much easyer to Find the codes needed when using these addons for our own missions. Also it would eliminate the need to extract the readme and rename it...there could be a readme file folder for all the readme's?
Also I thought ofp manager was a good idea you could install and uninstall addons as you see fit just by having the program rename the files you didnt want to a different file extension.
very simple and affective. only down fall was trying to work out what the odd named addons were.
http://ofp.axlegames.com/~ww2ec/headerl.jpg
theavonlady
Apr 11 2003, 11:36
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Baron silas Greenback @<hidden> April 11 2003,14:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Readme Idea...
If addon makers renamed there readme files to there addon name, it would be so much easyer to Find the codes needed when using these addons for our own missions. Also it would eliminate the need to extract the readme and rename it...there could be a readme file folder for all the readme's?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
BIS' MSI builder automatically prefixes the ReadMe.txt file with the name of the addon and places the readme in a new OFP\Addons At Ease\ folder for future reference.
The readme text is also optionally displayed at the end of the MSI install process.
I think the idea itself is very very good. However I have my doubts about realisation.
A few weeks ago, there was a discussion about including certain addons in missions used in the 'Electronic Sports League'. The result was that no addons should be included, as the current presence of the league maps on public-servers is one of the reason, the league has so many clans joining. It is a common fact that maps with addons are almost never played online, as there are way too less people playing which have them installed. So basically for the ESL, this would mean that the league maps would rarely be played public, resulting in the loss of a good way to recruit new players and clans for the sports league.
Now with certain top-notch addons being advertised directly from www.flashpoint1985.com, chances are increasing that more and more people will be playing online that have at least some of these 3rd party addons installed, making it possible to use them in ESL-specific missions.
The problem i see though is about the standard of these AAE classified addons. There are many very excellent addons out there; many of them having a much more polished look than BIS' own models that shipped with the game. However, in my oppinion AAE addons should follow a certain guideline. They should be balanced with the rest of the game units and also there should be an even distribution of West- and East-based models.
In the ESL, there was one thing avoided by not agreeing on the usage of addons: The question which addons should get in, and which not? The problem simply is that this community spawned a shitload of addons, so to say. There are so many talented modellers, skinners and coders here, that we can for sure list ourselves on one of the top ranks on a ranking based on the quantity of custom addons. It will be a hard decission to decide on only a few of them to enter the special new inner circle of AAE addons.
I'm also with Suchey here, I personally would like to see things focused on mulitplayer compatibility, as well. Some addons are great for singleplayer, but can hardly be balanced in multiplayer. Because of this, I fear that it will be a tough thing to decide on which addons being pimped and which not.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Soldier8Boy
Apr 11 2003, 11:52
Well, I myself do not like the thing about having a mission with each addon. At WW2EC we have an Addon Department and a Mission Department that work seperately. We put out as many quality addons as we can and then later our mission department builds the missions which then go up on the site.
Addon Installers is nice for newbies, but please: Make an option for "advanced" users to manually install the pbo files, maybe a button on the front of the installer that says "Manual install (Advanced) " that puts the pbos in an temporary folder, leaving the registery unharmed.
Also, some installers do use the registery, some dont it seems. A warning on the installer window saying if it is to change the registery or not would be nice.
On the matters of the 1.91/1.9 and the OFPEC Tagging system is all good. Also, for debugging issues or something, all the custom classnames you used should be listed somewhere in the readme file.
Btw, also, some weapon makers dont make a standard soldier equipped with the weapon, like "WEST->Man->Soldier ("The weapon")". Thats irritating, and newbies not into the "this Addweapn...etc" stuff will be a bit lost.
Having a mission shouldnt be mandatory, because it depents on what type of addon it is. It should be encourraged, sure, but not mandatory.
Yes, and please, dont call your readme-files "readme.txt", if your pbo is called ABC_Gunship.pbo, name your readme: "ABC_GunShipReadme.txt", and a jpg pic: "ABC_GunShipPic.jpg", so that the files sort themselves in the addon folder. VERY important, especially when your broken the addon limit and you need to clean up, deleting/updating addons and stuff.
BRSSEB
BRSSEB
Johann "onn" Bitsoenn
Apr 11 2003, 12:05
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @<hidden> April 10 2003,12http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dear Addon makers,
we believe it's time to try to change the way how are the addons distributed if we want them to be more accessible to every user of Operation Flashpoint.
In order to achieve this, we want to introduce an initiative "Addons at ease" in near future.
We want to adress following issues:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Very good idea, but... 1st, it is strange that it has been introduced so late..., 2nd - it has some problems...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Probably that's the biggest one. While monkey-at-keyboard-type users will benefit a lot from AAE standard, more advanced users will became somehow limited. But...
AAE standard with Installer would be somehow acceptable if the Installer file would be able to be accesed by a compression system (as some zip-exe files, autoextr. archives, are accesable without running the exe file). Then, less advanced users will just click the button, while more advanced ones will extract the files and do what is needed to...
And from other point of view, the whole idea with installer is just... somehow a crap, because well... If somebody want's to use certain beautiful addon, he WILL do it, at any cost. So - he will learn how to :]
It is then better to teach peoples, than to make other people dumb.
Important thing is also the linux-problem mentioned before...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Most addons currently come without any mission. We believe any addon for general public should come at least with one simple demo mission.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Absolutely true. Even if the addonmaker itself would not be able to make any mission, he will for shure find someone who will do it happily :]
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3) Many addons and mission require some other addons etc. so it's sometimes very hard to get it all working in the game. Ideally, we would like to see single files containing logical collection of addons and missions and have gamers to get just the single file to play with it in the game (without having to open the mission editor etc.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think that the idea will sound better if we describe it somehow like here:
1) No single tank/gun/whatever releases. That complies of course only to some specific addons group - mods. If someone makes i.e. German, Canadian, British, or Whatever mod, it would be really better if he will release a whole pack update once a two months than unlinked addons more often.
2) No using other-people-addonparts in separate releases. Instead - if you made any addon using someone else addon, then it it a modification - and very probably it will be better to release them both in one pack. What would it give? Firstly, the pack itself will then contain more varieties of the same thing (so for example - modifications of the chopper with different loadouts, modification of tanks by differing the turret). Secondly, it will able both addonmakers (original author and modifier) to check each other's work for any mistakes, and for any issues of quality. Then - it will bring us better quality addons.
If that description is ok with AAE - I buy it :]
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4) We want the OFPEC TAG system become standard in the addon making community as it seems the only reasonable way how to keep addons compatible.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No point to argue. Absolutely right.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) We consider version 1.90 / 1.91 as the only one supported platform for this initiative.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Right. Unfortunately, these words in your post mean that there is no more patch planned for the game than 1,90/1,91. :'(
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At the end, we would like to advertize selected best quality addons compliant with our initiative at www.flashpoint1985.com which we hope will bring more fun to all of us and more recogntition to you, creators of great new content for the game.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That is one of the most important points. These addons - addons of best quality - will be then on something like "must-have-list", and then - it will be a message for mission makers that they can use these addons freely in their missions. It is as for me the main point of AAE standard...
Some more issues for the AAE standard not mentioned in your post are:
- no need for extra scripting by final user. He just puts the addon into editor and plays. Of course it shouldn't limit more advanced user to modify or enable some extra functions via the initfield/whatever.
- scripts bundled with addon, not in separate script file avaiable in mission folder only.
- as mentioned before - weapon needs the guy which carries it. (but that is already an old issue)...
- some naming standard needed in custom weapon folders in editor. Let the final user not to be forced to search half an our for the addon. standard sides - to be put under standard sides, other - as required, but... ie. "/West/French - Armoured" instead of "/West/somefrigginname - Armoured". Also, there should be some standarisation in the side's of certain nations, to avoid situation in which some of selected country addons are on East, some on West, and some on Resisstance. One exception is while the country has changed it's place in history map, like middle-eastern countries, which were (and older items should be put) on East side, and now they are (and current weaponry should be put) on West side.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know there's a lot of eventual controversy and issues in this effort. I recommend you to use this thread to general comments to the initiative and tu start new threads if you would like to discuss any specific point into deeper detail.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thank you for enabling us to comment,
Greetings :]
MadDogX
Apr 11 2003, 12:10
I think AAE is a great idea and I totally support it, as long as the MSI installer will allow addon makers some flexibility concerning install paths (mod folders, etc.).
There's just one issue I'm concerned with:
Will there be limitations for addons like on OFPEC, such as realism? There are many high quality sci-fi mod and addon makers out there that create their own weapons and vehicles. Will these addons be excluded from AAE?
MDX
Lee_H._Oswald
Apr 11 2003, 12:27
What I would like to see:
When a new addon comes out, you can choose between 3 Files:
1.) Addon+Mission.exe
2.) AddonOnly.exe
3.) MissionOnly.exe
----
When installing I want to choose between THIS:
1.) Install to "C:\Programs\Codemasters\OFP\..."
2.) Extract files to ... [Browse]
---
This would be great! think about it.
MfG Lee http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
BigWolf
Apr 11 2003, 12:30
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tactician @<hidden> April 10 2003,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm glad BIS is taking initiative towards addons, and if anyone wants a sample mission made for their addon, I think there should be a pool of mission editors to volunteer and make something for those who don't have the means to do it themselves. I, for one, will volunteer.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I too volunteer http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
One point tho, if this does suceed, I do hope a similar initiative is brought in for BIS's next game (just maybe a little earlier http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )
LizardX
Apr 11 2003, 15:33
I'm against the OFPec-tag in single player mode. OK, everyone's proud of his hi-quality addons, but it's a real frustrating thing to see "LZX_MOD_BLABLA_F-105 Thunderchief with Bullpup missiles and ECM-pods" for me. But thats true, I can't suggest a better way in MP. Thanx, please don't shoot! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
CrunchyFrog
Apr 11 2003, 15:36
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LizardX @<hidden> April 11 2003,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm against the OFPec-tag in single player mode. OK, everyone's proud of his hi-quality addons, but it's a real frustrating thing to see "LZX_MOD_BLABLA_F-105 Thunderchief with Bullpup missiles and ECM-pods" for me. But thats true, I can't suggest a better way in MP. Thanx, please don't shoot! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
He doesnt have to display the OFPEC Tag, just use it on the classnames...
These are the features of the installer i want:
- One exe file
- First you can choose to see readme or install
- When installing you can choose advange (choose directory) mode or typical (addon folder)
- Then you choose some same about where to install the mission
And when it has been installed and you open the exe you should be able to read the reame or uninstall
DracoPaladore
Apr 11 2003, 16:25
I was wondering, will BIS also allow users to make sub-directories for addons? It is quite annoying that I have to scan through over 400 units in West/Soldiers to find the single one I want. I was thinking maybe making it easier than looking the .cpp or what it's called. While most mod teams do this now, the individual mods I would like to be seen seperated from official ones. Mostly because from the amount of addons I have, there are at least 4 different "Soldiers" in my West/Soldier or my East/Soldier directory. So most of the time I have to go...Inny...minny...miney...moe. And since I wish to make missions because I have no other skill, it's hard to find out which one is which AND I have no more room on my computer to have 2 copies of OpFlash on it at the same time.
I didnt read every post but I have some small concerns....
Make an option for the installer to read the read.me or whatever while installing and in the same sense I don't need a bunch of read mes in my addon folder
Maybe make an option for addon makers to specify the addon folder it will be installed? That way I could install all my addon to a WW2 addon folder and user can move wherever necessary after?
Ofpec tag is ok even tho I registered my own but work for someone else.
Making even a simple mission with the unit in the editor is ok, but I only really plan on making decent missions with a combination of addons
How about the option for the addon maker to have his new addon overwrite an old one,even if its named different?
Thats tricky as someone may make something to delete all of someones addons.
Another large concern that may affect my motivation level.
....OFP2 (lol) obviously this is incentive for future, are my addons gonna be useless after. But mainly I'd hate to keep building WW2 fighter planes and have OFP2 be WW2 with new planes. Only 23,000 forum users, can you let us know anything? How about another modmaker forum and I promise I wont say anything from there.
I think there sould be a small selection of Essential addons such as bas rangers ect. Maybe people could vote as to which should be on this list http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
andersgrim
Apr 11 2003, 17:50
you can always take the initiative to start one "essential addon list" yourself http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
as i have 58emails to read, i did not take the time to read every post in this thread closely, but any addonmaker can make one addon, and can publish two versions - zip or this installer. Only diffrence would be that the one with installer follows AAE, is easy to use for everyone and may (sometimes) be packed better then zip files (excuse me, but i haven't tried the installer yet, so im not sure about the compressing). the other file would be more "friendly" so you are sure of no "hidden" files to be installed, and you can be the install supervisor - place the addon whereever you want. And the zip might work with other OS'es than windows only (for Linux servers++)
Clifford
Apr 11 2003, 19:16
One thing that hasn´t been discussed that much yet is the endless supply of BETA addons out there. Many of them seem finished, some of them lack textures, others yet are called things like "final beta 1.1".
This is something that should be corrected. With the OFPEC TAG system and AAE, could you not add a system for defining final products?
How about letting all addons be released as they are released today, and only get the AAE "treatment" when tested by us, the part that actually bother to test EVERYTHING no matter if it looks like a vector based tank from the Amiga days.
What I mean is that it is very tiring with all the 1.1 upgrades, final "final" releases, update packs and so on. I´ll still download them, but the majority of players want to know that when they get an addon from the net, they can expect a working, fully developed addon, and not having to download it again a week later.
Therefore, AAE could also be used as a way of saying "this ones done, finito, and I´m not upgrading it again. Ever"
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Clifford @<hidden> April 11 2003,21:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing that hasn´t been discussed that much yet is the endless supply of BETA addons out there.
Therefore, AAE could also be used as a way of saying "this ones done, finito, and I´m not upgrading it again. Ever"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So that would leave about 80% of the addons wouldnt be using the installer and doesnt help the problem they are trying to fix
KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid! Addons should be the following:
-Zipped file format
-Readme should be a .txt format not MS Word or any other garbage format.
-The readme should have listed how to install, known bugs, development history etc etc.
I absolutely refuse to use auto installers for addons, the possibility of embedded viruses is too high.
Great inititative!!! Its really needed for those who dont come to the forums and not use addons either because they dont know about em or dont know how to install them. eg. i burned some addons on a cd and gave em to a friend. he didnt manage to install em himself (just put the zip files in the addons folder) so i had to fix it for him. with a installer even he can manage to install it without help!!! oh and please make the installer locate the addons folder and so on itself, much easaier for guys like him. And its guys like him THIS installer is meant for!
I dunno if this has been said but it would be nice if addons could be added while your still running OFP, like OFP would check the directories for any newly added addons, this would solve allot of restarting OFP and loosing of slots etc etc in-game, it would also pave the way for addons in missions or addons being downloaded on demand from a specified source by the server.
(OGN server uses a addon autoupdater tool, something like this could be made to function within the game if the user does not have the required addons INSTED of kicking the user?)
blackdog~
Apr 11 2003, 21:41
I volunteer to make missions...
If you [BIS] aren't taking this one step further and are not planning to have a website dedicated to 'addons at ease'... I would be glad to make one that servers can link to in their MOTD in order to make this as easy as possible
toadeater
Apr 11 2003, 22:50
I vote no installer (is there a vote?). An improperly-made .msi can destroy your registry and all .msi installs add alot of useless junk entries to your registry. Micro$oft strikes again.
A self-extracting .zip would be better. Why? Well the interesting thing about self-extracting .zips is that you can rename the .exe to .zip and use it like a standard .zip file without any risk.
I don't think people have had alot of trouble installing files, I think the trouble has been actually getting a hold of them in the first place. There is no central place to get OFP addons that are guaranteed to work ok, or large multi-meg addons that don't interfere with other addons. Such as one guy making Spec Ops units with one weapon pack and another guy making Spec Ops units with two other weapon packs and then two mission makers using the two different addons. The result? Someone who wants to play both missions has to get two unit packs and three weapon packs which duplicate the same !(*%#(%!! thing!!!!!! How many retextured AK-47 variants of the same AK-47 model do we need?
Oh yes, the other part of the equation... the mission turns out to be junk anyway, so you just wasted all that time getting all this stuff only to have to delete it. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
So if we had some standards, we could know that if we download a 10meg addon, it will be used many times. We don't need an .msi installer for that.
An addon browser built around the Oxygen viewer that can open up .pbos and parse addon readme files or cpp's might be nice though? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Soul_Assassin
Apr 11 2003, 22:52
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @<hidden> April 11 2003,23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I volunteer to make missions...
If you [BIS] aren't taking this one step further and are not planning to have a website dedicated to 'addons at ease'... I would be glad to make one that servers can link to in their MOTD in order to make this as easy as possible[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think running a small dedicated website is a good idea, nothing complicated just a news page and a downloads section http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
wodnerduck
Apr 11 2003, 23:22
PLEASE STOP HAVING THE ZIPS EXTRACT TO DIRECTORY. I HATE HATE HATE THAT.
rufusmac
Apr 12 2003, 00:05
I like this discussion,I will chime in one thing about demo missions...
When addon makers make guns, they usually add a soldier to a side with the gun, but this is pointless (i.e. Soldier -Thompso
n) because I will never use a NATO soldier running around with a thompson or BAR... But not including a person in the menu would make it hard for newbies to see the gun because not everyone knows the "removeallweapons this; this add..."
A demo mission will let someone "see" what the weapon is like without cluttering the soldier menu with useless soldiers. In addition, a TEMPLATE weapon mission would let users try out different weapons IN THE SAME SITUATION, which would be an amazing tool for weapon balancing.
On a side note, I think it is really important to put the basic weapon commands in every readme or installer so any user can swap the weapons around.
To add to the above post if you are going to make a weapon addon of say a Thompson, have a resistance or civilian unit be armed with it. They are more likely to use it in a modern situation.
Major Fubar
Apr 12 2003, 02:25
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CrunchyFrog @<hidden> April 11 2003,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LizardX @<hidden> April 11 2003,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm against the OFPec-tag in single player mode. OK, everyone's proud of his hi-quality addons, but it's a real frustrating thing to see "LZX_MOD_BLABLA_F-105 Thunderchief with Bullpup missiles and ECM-pods" for me. But thats true, I can't suggest a better way in MP. Thanx, please don't shoot! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
He doesnt have to display the OFPEC Tag, just use it on the classnames...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In fact, it should not be shown in the on-screen addon name. It makes the game look tacky IMHO.
I wopuld rather my soldier call "Winter Spetsnatz, 12 O'Clock" then "XYZ_Winter Spetsnatz, 12 O'Clock". Or see a weapon name as "M76 Sniper Rifle" than "YGZ M76 Sniper Rifle".
Major Fubar
Apr 12 2003, 02:32
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (gore @<hidden> April 11 2003,19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think there sould be a small selection of Essential addons such as bas rangers ect. Maybe people could vote as to which should be on this list http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The best addons sticky thread should be a good source of inspiration.
toadeater
Apr 12 2003, 04:38
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wodnerduck @<hidden> April 12 2003,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PLEASE STOP HAVING THE ZIPS EXTRACT TO DIRECTORY. I HATE HATE HATE THAT.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
As I already said in this thread, rename your self-extracting zip from somefile.exe to somefile.zip and you can open it as a regular zip with whatever zip program you might happen have.
What is this Rocket Science? Since WHEN did D/Ling an addon become so difficult?! Are people so stupid that they can't figure out what goes where?! Jeez Louis people WHY fix something that ISN'T broken?! D/L the addon and manually install it into whichever directory it belongs!!! NO AUTO INSTALLERS!!!
WHY would we possibly want to make it more difficult for an addon maker to distribute his creation?! Shoot, it's difficult enough to get good addon makers to make stuff!!!
PS-I agree with Major Fubar too!
[CCCP]Stalker
Apr 12 2003, 07:16
We forgot about on small thing - SIZE !!! IF this AAE exe will be bigger or not much smaller than normal rar or zip nobodu DL it. So make a VERY high compression rate.
Hellfish6
Apr 12 2003, 07:43
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (syco @<hidden> April 12 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is this Rocket Science? Since WHEN did D/Ling an addon become so difficult?! Are people so stupid that they can't figure out what goes where?! Jeez Louis people WHY fix something that ISN'T broken?! D/L the addon and manually install it into whichever directory it belongs!!! NO AUTO INSTALLERS!!!
WHY would we possibly want to make it more difficult for an addon maker to distribute his creation?! Shoot, it's difficult enough to get good addon makers to make stuff!!!
PS-I agree with Major Fubar too![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Some people don't want to bother with manually putting this thing there or that thing there. They may be lazy, but they're still gamers.
And remember guys, if an addon is deemed appropriate for AAE, it's still possible for the addon maker to host a regular RAR or ZIP file on one of the news sites for us old guard. AAE, I think, is primarily oriented to ease of use for the casual OFP player.
der bastler
Apr 12 2003, 09:38
I refuse to use installers.
It's not the addon-installation-procedure that scares away players. OFP is not a kill-everybody-pick-up-health-kit-and-carry-dozens-of-weapons-unrealistic-FPS, it's a "serious" game. You have to plan what you do, you cannot join in-game, no Rambo-gets-'em-all, no kiddies. People who are too lazy to copy one or two files and to read the manual are not the type of players who play OFP because they'd get bored waiting for other players and/or the enemy...
Bundling several addons in a single file is a good idea and I'll continue making weapon packs. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Stringtable: Perhaps we could create a small "translation"-corner in this forum? Since the M41a a stringtable is standard for my addons, but it's sometimes very time-consuming until you find the right translation for terms like "Mündungsfeuerdämpfer" ("muzzle flash suppressor", ...?). Not to mention mission translations...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([CCCP]Stalker @<hidden> April 12 2003,08:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We forgot about on small thing - SIZE !!! IF this AAE exe will be bigger or not much smaller than normal rar or zip nobodu DL it. So make a VERY high compression rate.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, a very good idea, if you [BIS] can make the AAE installer have a much higher compression rate, I think that the majority (if not all... but then there are the die hard haters) of users will use the AAE installer, as it will offer quicker downloads, and less waiting around... one thing I hate is wasteing time whilst some addon downloads...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Stringtable: Perhaps we could create a small "translation"-corner in this forum? Since the M41a a stringtable is standard for my addons, but it's sometimes very time-consuming until you find the right translation for terms like "Mündungsfeuerdämpfer" ("muzzle flash suppressor", ...?). Not to mention mission translations...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Indeed... another great idea, would definately increase the popularity of the AAE system, as it would mean that everyone could play ofp in their native language without having random bits of english (or any other language) poping up in the game...
Gen.Carnage
Apr 12 2003, 15:18
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, a very good idea, if you [BIS] can make the AAE installer have a much higher compression rate[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
better compressionrate than zip or rar? good luck! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I have thought more on this and it probably should only include complete mods.Leaves out my mods as mine will stay beta until I stop playing OFP. So this topic doesnt relate to me.
[CCCP]Stalker
Apr 12 2003, 16:44
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @<hidden> April 12 2003,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, a very good idea, if you [BIS] can make the AAE installer have a much higher compression rate[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
better compressionrate than zip or rar? good luck! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why not ? Rar 3 is much better than RAR 2 so why can't BIS make something even better ?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([CCCP]Stalker @<hidden> April 12 2003,12:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @<hidden> April 12 2003,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, a very good idea, if you [BIS] can make the AAE installer have a much higher compression rate[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
better compressionrate than zip or rar? good luck! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why not ? Rar 3 is much better than RAR 2 so why can't BIS make something even better ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Who will pay them for the time http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
as for someone complaining about installers above, I know where you are coming from, but you are missing the point that an installer will overall make life easier and save time for most players. As I said before, some addons are a pain in the butt to install for even EXPERIENCED computer users. You have to be a hardcore OFP gamer to install all addons without any time wasted.
[CCCP]Stalker
Apr 12 2003, 18:54
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @<hidden> April 12 2003,20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([CCCP]Stalker @<hidden> April 12 2003,12:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @<hidden> April 12 2003,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, a very good idea, if you [BIS] can make the AAE installer have a much higher compression rate[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
better compressionrate than zip or rar? good luck! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why not ? Rar 3 is much better than RAR 2 so why can't BIS make something even better ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Who will pay them for the time http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
as for someone complaining about installers above, I know where you are coming from, but you are missing the point that an installer will overall make life easier and save time for most players. As I said before, some addons are a pain in the butt to install for even EXPERIENCED computer users. You have to be a hardcore OFP gamer to install all addons without any time wasted.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Who will pay for the time ? Gamers who will buy OFP 'cos it's really fun and easy now ! If we will send AAE packages to PC gamer magazines I think it will boost OFP:R Personally I will try to send RSS addons to Russian magazines
PicVert
Apr 13 2003, 04:32
Yes the tag system is the best way to debuging.
Yes an installer would be great. But with some custom action for Modmaker like icon and txt.
No mission with the addon take some time more http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif They come when no idea for addon came too.
Yes an URL description in MP for missed addon would be great. or a button near the Name of Server who describe the addon needed and URL to it.
in fact I agree to the AAE before it's born http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Oh just a work about OFP 2 I hope the compatibilty stay for addons we making ? Just for buying the game http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Nice submission BIS.
andersgrim
Apr 13 2003, 08:50
people say they refuse to use installers. But at the same time a lot of gamers have downloaded mod demos which actually uses an installer themself.;)
But why dont just make one AAE installer and one zip?
Thats what i will do.
cant be too hard... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
mads bahrt
Apr 13 2003, 12:34
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @<hidden> April 10 2003,14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also remember that people who make addons don't necessarily make missions. Or that isn't how they choose to spend their time.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I could imagine a missionmaking-for-beta-testing market. What i mean by that:
There are a lot of people out there who would like to get their hands on the not yet released Harrier/Carrier/island or anyother new addon. I would expect that they would be willing to make missions as a "payment" for being able to get the latest addons before anyone else.
I think there should be a AAE corner in the forum where addon makers and mission makers work together. Addon makers post up they want a mission to be done for a addon, and mission makers come and choose a nice addon to make mission for.
And also it should be possible at the same time to translate the addons to more languages.
Personally I think if they are going to waste the time making an auto installer for addons they should make another patch that addresses the wheeled vehicle issue instead. Then we can have hummers w/ Tow launchers and LAV's galore.
rbeni12
Apr 13 2003, 12:55
When it's going to be released http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
I think this is a good idea BIS:). but it have some problems .....
Installer? <sigh> yeah I remember us ASKING for that.
OPEC-TAG system, you know, not to bash OPEC or any other addon maker, but I do recall in my experience with the Flightsim mod community, that anything that segregates the community is bad for the community.
I think this would be a mistake, and I also think that restructing the mod community should be up to the mod community, not the game devs, no offense, but what's in it for you?
<yes I'm suspicious, if you had paid for a commercial aircraft addon in the past only to find it contained one of your mods, you would be too>
andersgrim
Apr 13 2003, 13:00
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pzvg @<hidden> April 13 2003,14:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think this would be a mistake, and I also think that restructing the mod community should be up to the mod community, not the game devs, no offense, but what's in it for you?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
how do you restruct a mod community??
I thought i knew the community pretty well, but after exploring there was atleast 20 sites id never seen b4, I found out ive only known MY corner of the community.
Skier55d
Apr 13 2003, 20:10
im thinkin somethin like this...
instead of a bunch of small EXE installers that install only some addons, have a program that works like an updater that can connect to a database of addon files on the internet, let you select which ones you want, download and automatically install... its a pretty simple idea... that way you avoid registry cluttering and other problems encountered, only problem is the space these addons may take up, collecting and upkeeping a public database of addons and so on... but that's what i think. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
andersgrim
Apr 13 2003, 20:13
would be pretty smart. but who would host that giant database?
anyway - the prog could download a file directly to the addon folder... and missions could be programmed to get copied to the campaign,mission or mpmission folders..
Dwarden
Apr 13 2003, 20:59
Hopefully BIS not stops only on selecting addons and maintain link database, i suggest ALL files should be hosted by CodeMasters, also site should allows addon maker to update new builds and descriptions THEMSELF (of course need be aproved by BIS to be published). Why? Website and file hosting can change, server structure can change, download limits can rans out etc etc.
I also fully agreed what said DeathMeat (Standardisation of models and textures(i add sounds too)) and others (about e.g. differ byte paching), naming scheme like OFPEC TAG is must. Also options before install should include normal and expert mode (ability to select which files to install and directory WHERE to install), alternative ZIP must exist for server use. I agree these "aproved" addons should be compilations of whole packs (no single units).
Ideally AAE initiative needs e.g. ability server to trigger client to download addon package from official BIS server and install in background (or exit OFPR and restart) while waiting on join
I finds this initiative great, especially to bring more people to buy OFPR/GOTY !
MOD and ADDON comunity will only gain by this cause standalone makers will joins each other to be able release compiled pack for major use (not everyone is capable go thru 20 sites to find addon xy, and after download 30MB and reading .nfo and visiting author's site to discover there is already new build http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif.).
--------
but ... what i find strange ... it seems BIS decided 1.91 is last update (someone from BIS correct me when i'm wrong). And it looks like for relative long time no OFP product for PC.
When we look at EPIC, they supported old UT game even they already were finishing reworked engine for UT2003. And on end they signed pact with group of programmers (covered by NDA or contract) to continue work on updates (optimalizations, security fixes and such (not major code changes). SO in fact customers ARE still getting theirs product updated and cash "value" of product is maxed out.
So what hell i want say with this?
There are some issues with OFPR like missile cant be fired from wheel vehicle and some others WHICH affecting existance of better addons.I'm sure all it needs are "small" code tweaks and changes.
There are also small network sync (timeouts) issues, when they stays unfixed, it lowers number of players in MP heavy.
List of major issues is bit longer but not so long to give up on updating (hopefully).
These details decrease VALUE of such initative as "quality addons mark".
-------
P.S.
Now something not about addons but it can huge changes quality of how OFPR "look" - especially very detailed models.
VideoCards supporting npatches can reach improvements in quality of models - especially for soldiers and rounded parts.
In fact i speak about DX8 ATI R200/250 and derivates (8500/9000/9100/9200), and DX9 R300(9500/9700), RV350 (9600/Mobility9600), R350 (9800)).
I'm sure everyone heard about TrueForm (Rv2xx) and TrueForm 2.0 (R3xx)),adding support for THIS feature is question of hours, full implementation including testing of max 1 week (official comment from skilled developer(s)).
No need for changing models or drastic engine changes, it's VERY SIMPLE to use. And performance drop is small!
In fact whole principe is simple, it just split triangle into smaller (e.g. 4) triangles (using vertices and normals at vertice).
ATI techdoc: http://mirror.ati.com/technology/hardware/pdf/truform.pdf
Please don't argue about TrueForm™ thats just ATI's name for this, but nPatches are part of DX8 (as HoS - Higher Order Surfaces)
or that ATI don't support developers well (thats not truth minimally for some years), in fact they support them very well.
Because words are not capable to describe see Results: http://www.morrowind.nm.ru/Morrowi....#npatch (http://www.morrowind.nm.ru/Morrowind%20FPS%20Optimizer/pics.html#npatch)
Some info to explain for normal user: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1476&p=2
.... just try ONLY imagine look of e.g. BAS's addons with this {drool} ....
I believe that good developer not leave his product IF he can gain more cash and loyal users from it.
Each sold OFPR / GOTY box means more cash for developing new OFP2 and also each happy user mean bigger chance he buy next generation game from BIS.
And i'm sure millions of owners of DX9 R3xxx chips and (tens)millions of these who own R2xx chips are enough to consider this.
And i not want see OFPR community comminuted and leaving after release of next gen FPS in Q2-Q4 this year ...
-----------
P.P.S. btw OFP:CWC ends at 1.46 so OFP:R/GOTY should ends MINIMALLY at 1.92 !!! HEHEHE
... now ALL please support me and not stab ... i'm with BIS, all i want is we get more people to buy it, play it and more for this excelent game.
andersgrim
Apr 13 2003, 21:15
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dwarden @<hidden> April 13 2003,22:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">P.P.S. btw OFP:CWC ends at 1.46 so OFP:R/GOTY should ends MINIMALLY at 1.92 !!! HEHEHE[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
long book youve written there. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I made it through it!! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif
well, sure, but what happens when you get to patch 1.99??
then you would be (almost) forced to buy the OFP2 version (which i persume will be version 2.00 or higher) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
But this addon online DBase thingy sounds great. mabye someone would like to open a big site and start organize this things. Like make a connection between the addon database, addonmakers, mod teams, the ofpec tag system and so...
Kind of "THE addon publishment site"...
Dwarden
Apr 13 2003, 21:40
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (andersgrim @<hidden> April 13 2003,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dwarden @<hidden> April 13 2003,22:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">P.P.S. btw OFP:CWC ends at 1.46 so OFP:R/GOTY should ends MINIMALLY at 1.92 !!! HEHEHE[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
long book youve written there. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I made it through it!! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif
well, sure, but what happens when you get to patch 1.99??
then you would be (almost) forced to buy the OFP2 version (which i persume will be version 2.00 or higher) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
But this addon online DBase thingy sounds great. mabye someone would like to open a big site and start organize this things. Like make a connection between the addon database, addonmakers, mod teams, the ofpec tag system and so...
Kind of "THE addon publishment site"...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
when BIS continues with updates (92 and so on to 99) i'm sure chance that You, me and many others buy 2.xx increase x times ...
P.S. well, who said BIS must use only 2 digits after . , like 1.921 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hellfish6
Apr 13 2003, 21:46
I'm pretty sure that Marek or Suma said that 1.91 was the final patch.
...That's why the modding community would appreciate receiving decrypted v1.91 config source files from BIS so total conversion mods would be possible. Total conversion mods are the direction which OFP is going. Combining single addons for big packs would be best, single addons are a bit annoying to download and install. Nam Pack 2 and BAS delta rangers are good example of addons forming into something bigger and better.
Dwarden
Apr 13 2003, 22:22
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> April 13 2003,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm pretty sure that Marek or Suma said that 1.91 was the final patch.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That will be sad, cause i can garant to u that setting High and Very High surface details + hi resolution + AA + AF make OFPR unstable and jerky.
nor GeforceFX 5200/5600 nor Radeon 9500/9700/9800 (both checked myself).
nor speed of CPU (XP 2400+ or p4 2.53 and higher)
nor size&speed of memory (1GB DDR400)
AND i find that REALLY strange cause i remember when was told me from BIS staff, You will be able use excelent visual details and number of units with next generation of VideoCards and CPUs. Now when that time comes i discovering truth isn't so nice.
Lt_Damage
Apr 14 2003, 04:02
I would like to voice my support of this initiative. I think it is a great idea.
Addons have been around for a long time, but as a server administrator I have had many headaches using them.
Players simply have problems installing them, or even knowing a server uses them. You can write all the instructions in the world, you can create automatic installer packages but players still have problems and the unfriendlyness for simple players means they go play something easier.
When we setup the OGN server I wanted this problem eliminated so we did something very simple.
We use many great addons on the server. We do not provide any links to where to download the individual addons, we don't need to, we have 1 simple file that takes care of all of it.
We made an automatic update tool which simply is run by the player whenever they are about to play on the server, it checks our ftp server for a filelist and compares whats in the player's OFP dir with what is on the server. If the player is missing addons it automatically downloads them and installs them into the correct area of the OFP directory.
It could not be more simple.
For a look at how it works you can download the installer here (http://files.ogn.com.au/ftp1/ofp/update/OFP_DL.exe)
http://wolf.ogn.com.au/images/update.jpg
If more servers used this method it doesn't matter how computer illiterate a player is, anyone can run this tool.
Of course this is quite apart from the actually TAGing of addons for compliance, I think this is a great step forward.
Regards,
Skier55d
Apr 14 2003, 04:05
continuing on thoughts on the "updater" program...
in more detail i think it could work like this...
1. Establish a page or small site that is hosted by Codemasters or BIS, that way everything is done officially and can be reviewed and rated according to one official grading system. This site would be dynamic (similar to OFPEC's addon system), if you wanted to submit an addon, go to the submission page, submit the file add a description, picture, and other necessary info (for the OFPEC tag system for AAE) to be reviewed by BIS, Codemasters or whoever hosts the site. When it has been reviewed and accepted, it would be uploaded to the site, then a link along with the description and so on would be added to the database i mentioned earlier, that way files aren't spread between a variety of sites and narrows the field of error.
2. At the site, you can download an official "AAE" updater program made by BIS or Codemasters. The interface should be simple, straight-forward and easy to understand (similar to something you might see on the Windows Updater web page). You can check for updates which would retrieve the current list of files then check it against the OFP Addons folder (or in this case ofp/res/addons folder since it is primarily made to support 1.91) to see which addons are currently installed. Ones that are not installed can simply be downloaded and automatically installed for the user so there is no copying of files to any OFP folders therefore no confusion among simple computer users. Inside the updater could be an addon manager that allows you to easily get information about currently installed addons, and allow the user to automatically un-install the file if necessary, with once again, no messy file sifting.
but with every idea there are problems, some of which could be keeping databases up to date, the time-comitment for reviewing files, or the amount of official sponsorship from BIS (hopefully this won't be a problem).
This is what i have in mind... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Skier55d
Apr 14 2003, 04:07
dang, lt_dammage got his reply out before me (3 mins before me cause i was typin) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif , but its nice to see we both have similar ideas.
BY the way lt_damage, your addon/installer program is almost the perect example of what i want, only its missing more detail and info on each addon and lacking my idea for a addonmanager too, but i think BIS should use his installer as a template for the AAE. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Lt_Damage
Apr 14 2003, 13:32
We are still working on those features.
It is custom designed for the OGN server, we don't really need descriptions of each addon. Nor an addon manager. But those things are easily done.
Its the core use of the tool that keeps EVERY ofp player on ogn, from the guru's to the fresh players, up to date with the server addons.
Its just a way to overcome the problem where servers that use addons have players that cannot connect. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Lt_Damage
Apr 14 2003, 13:36
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Skier55d @<hidden> April 14 2003,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">continuing on thoughts on the "updater" program...
in more detail i think it could work like this...
1. Establish a page or small site that is hosted by Codemasters or BIS, that way everything is done officially and can be reviewed and rated according to one official grading system. This site would be dynamic (similar to OFPEC's addon system), if you wanted to submit an addon, go to the submission page, submit the file add a description, picture, and other necessary info (for the OFPEC tag system for AAE) to be reviewed by BIS, Codemasters or whoever hosts the site. When it has been reviewed and accepted, it would be uploaded to the site, then a link along with the description and so on would be added to the database i mentioned earlier, that way files aren't spread between a variety of sites and narrows the field of error.
2. At the site, you can download an official "AAE" updater program made by BIS or Codemasters. The interface should be simple, straight-forward and easy to understand (similar to something you might see on the Windows Updater web page). You can check for updates which would retrieve the current list of files then check it against the OFP Addons folder (or in this case ofp/res/addons folder since it is primarily made to support 1.91) to see which addons are currently installed. Ones that are not installed can simply be downloaded and automatically installed for the user so there is no copying of files to any OFP folders therefore no confusion among simple computer users. Inside the updater could be an addon manager that allows you to easily get information about currently installed addons, and allow the user to automatically un-install the file if necessary, with once again, no messy file sifting.
but with every idea there are problems, some of which could be keeping databases up to date, the time-comitment for reviewing files, or the amount of official sponsorship from BIS (hopefully this won't be a problem).
This is what i have in mind... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well I keep the file list for OGN addons up to date quite easily, only takes 15 minutes out of my day.
As it stands the tool does everything you ask except the addon management and descriptions of addons.
[CCCP]Stalker
Apr 14 2003, 18:34
You now that the same file compressed with clickteams installer is 15Mb large and using WinRAR 3 only 13Mb. So what is the compression rate of AAE ?
Fiestel
Apr 14 2003, 23:55
I would like to put my 2 cents in regarding installers. In one word: NO!
The reason, as I saw in at least one other post, is simple. It's spelled V-I-R-U-S. Sure installers make it easy to install an addon, but I personally do not see the difficulty in unzipping an addon into your addon directory. It is very simple and anyone can learn how to do it. The same would be said for unzipping missions.
Sure an installer will install the .pbo into your addon directory, or the mission in the appropriate place, but my primary concern is "what else" it may install without my knowledge. Now, I'm NOT saying that OFP addon makers are virus writers, but at the same time I have no way to verify that they are not. I know I can scan an .exe file the same as I can a .zip file, but at least with a .zip file I can see all the files and if I want to, I can unzip only the .pbo and scan it again if I so desire. With an installer, who knows how many files are in there? I would definitely classify myself as an advanced user and I do insist on knowing what is happening on my system at all times. Perhaps I am just a little paranoid, but don't they say that to stay relatively safe from viruses and such that you should only surf or download from reputable sites? It all comes down to trust and I do not know any of these addon makers personally. But running an installer puts you in the addon makers hands and, I believe, pretty much leaves you out of the loop while the installer runs. Hopefully anti-virus software would catch anything suspicious, but why risk it?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against easy installation, but I don't see unzipping files as difficult. All I can say is that if installers become the norm and as I saw in a few other posts, I will not be downloading any addons that are not simple .zip files. Perhaps as a solution, that if the addon maker chooses to use an installer, maybe they will also have a version of their addon/mission in a .zip file for those of us who are against installers.
I'd like to comment on one other related item even though it is not really part of this particular forum. I like downloading addons in .zip files - not .rar or any other format. I do not want to have to install X number of different zip utilities just so I can unzip all the different file formats. This particular forum is about setting standards, so being that .zip is the most common, why use something else? Again, as a solution, rather than using one format only, maybe have your addon available in an multiple formats, ie. .zip, .rar, .exe as BAS did for their Delta/Ranger addon which I appreciated very much.
I didn't mean to write a novel here, but I just thought I'd pass along my thoughts.
Fiestel
OxPecker
Apr 15 2003, 00:04
If the installers are endorsed and distributed by BIS, I think the chance of virus is almost 0%.
I mean, you run the exe files that BIS distribute their patches in, right? And I bet most of you installed the BIS Camel addon?
Lt_Damage
Apr 15 2003, 00:07
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Fiestel @<hidden> April 15 2003,11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would like to put my 2 cents in regarding installers. In one word: NO!
The reason, as I saw in at least one other post, is simple. It's spelled V-I-R-U-S. Sure installers make it easy to install an addon, but I personally do not see the difficulty in unzipping an addon into your addon directory. It is very simple and anyone can learn how to do it. The same would be said for unzipping missions.
Sure an installer will install the .pbo into your addon directory, or the mission in the appropriate place, but my primary concern is "what else" it may install without my knowledge. Now, I'm NOT saying that OFP addon makers are virus writers, but at the same time I have no way to verify that they are not. I know I can scan an .exe file the same as I can a .zip file, but at least with a .zip file I can see all the files and if I want to, I can unzip only the .pbo and scan it again if I so desire. With an installer, who knows how many files are in there? I would definitely classify myself as an advanced user and I do insist on knowing what is happening on my system at all times. Perhaps I am just a little paranoid, but don't they say that to stay relatively safe from viruses and such that you should only surf or download from reputable sites? It all comes down to trust and I do not know any of these addon makers personally. But running an installer puts you in the addon makers hands and, I believe, pretty much leaves you out of the loop while the installer runs. Hopefully anti-virus software would catch anything suspicious, but why risk it?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against easy installation, but I don't see unzipping files as difficult. All I can say is that if installers become the norm and as I saw in a few other posts, I will not be downloading any addons that are not simple .zip files. Perhaps as a solution, that if the addon maker chooses to use an installer, maybe they will also have a version of their addon/mission in a .zip file for those of us who are against installers.
I'd like to comment on one other related item even though it is not really part of this particular forum. I like downloading addons in .zip files - not .rar or any other format. I do not want to have to install X number of different zip utilities just so I can unzip all the different file formats. This particular forum is about setting standards, so being that .zip is the most common, why use something else? Again, as a solution, rather than using one format only, maybe have your addon available in an multiple formats, ie. .zip, .rar, .exe as BAS did for their Delta/Ranger addon which I appreciated very much.
I didn't mean to write a novel here, but I just thought I'd pass along my thoughts.
Fiestel[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
As I'm sure an advanced user like yourself knows, if you have a virus scanner installed, or in your case, seven virus scanners installed http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif then anything being uncompressed by the installer onto your desk will be scanner by file system realtime protection.
There is no security that a zip file can provide from viruses that compressed cab files or other archives cannot.
Besides, you are being a bit paranoid, nobody wants to install viruses to your computer cunningly disguised as fun addons. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Tigershark_BAS
Apr 15 2003, 01:10
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!!!http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif 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.
Fiestel
Apr 15 2003, 01:10
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lt_Damage @<hidden> April 15 2003,02http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I'm sure an advanced user like yourself knows, if you have a virus scanner installed, or in your case, seven virus scanners installed http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif then anything being uncompressed by the installer onto your desk will be scanner by file system realtime protection.
There is no security that a zip file can provide from viruses that compressed cab files or other archives cannot.
Besides, you are being a bit paranoid, nobody wants to install viruses to your computer cunningly disguised as fun addons. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, I am aware that virus scanners scan in real time (and I only have one virus scanner http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) What I was trying to say is, unless I'm mistaken, you cannot see the files inside the installer, correct? If you could, then that would be different.
Even with a BIS approved installer, someone could "theoretically" still install, say, a .txt file in my windows/system directory without my knowledge. Now I know you're going to say, "Why would someone do that?". And you're right, why would they? But that is my point, it is possible. Perhaps the BIS installer could accomodate everyone at all levels by having one click installation for those who want that, and let us paranoid guys/gals see the files and choose to extract each file ourselves if we wanted. I could go along with that http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Fiestel The Paranoid
OxPecker
Apr 15 2003, 02:13
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.
Lt_Damage
Apr 15 2003, 02:27
Ok well thats fair enough, the update tool we use shows what its about to install, and the next version will allow you to deselect things you don't want (although for OGN players we don't advise this, as it will not guarantee you are up to date with addons the server is using)
Hugo the Clown
Apr 15 2003, 02:37
The addon installer is a great idea.
With including a mission for weapon addons or small addons all you need to do is place your weapons or vehicles ect in a map, easy no need to make a huge mission and just name the mission "addonname_test" or some thing similar. seems alot of people worrying about putting missions in when it realy is so simple. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Tigershark_BAS
Apr 15 2003, 02:40
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @<hidden> 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.[/QUOTE]<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 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
OxPecker
Apr 15 2003, 02:55
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark_BAS @<hidden> April 15 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @<hidden> 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.[/QUOTE]<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 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Agreed, the emphasis should be on easier integration of addons for OFP2. I understand your point better now.
But also, regardless of the format or timing, it is good to see BIS giving a stamp of approval to good addons. This is something seperate from the implementation of how addons are installed, and definitely a step in the right direction.
Tigershark_BAS
Apr 15 2003, 03:04
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. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hugo the Clown
Apr 15 2003, 03:11
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes I see your point. Im sure BIS have the best intentions even though this could be one of the reason they have decided to release this addon Installer.
In my Opinion if it benefits the community its all good, but if its used for comercial gain then it is truly sad.
Lt_Damage
Apr 15 2003, 03:50
I don't think BIS have even mentioned an installer at all. I think they were intending to establish a standard for addons that wish to be compliant with AAE. I believe they want to standardize what level of quality an AAE addon should be, what it includes with the package and the stamp also requires it to be easy to install.
They did not give specifics about the installation method.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lt_Damage @<hidden> April 15 2003,05:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think BIS have even mentioned an installer at all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission."
Lt_Damage
Apr 15 2003, 04:04
Ah yes, they did too, that MSI thing.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The MSI takes care of players who are not competent to use zip archives and copy files into the right directory. However if a server decides to use addons they players still simply get disconnected until players on the server tell them what they need to do.
I wish that part of it could be taken care of.
Dwarden
Apr 15 2003, 05:07
For security :
MD5 checksum of files must be shown on site and in readme (or in filename.md5)
When any installer included then after execution it should calc own integrity and addon's file integrity (again e.g. via MD5 or SHA-1)
{so this probably stops paranoia}
P.S. game which stops to be updated dies out (imagine e.g. old HL-CS w/o updates) ... it's sad rule http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SFG @<hidden> April 15 2003,05:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lt_Damage @<hidden> April 15 2003,05:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think BIS have even mentioned an installer at all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
When the idea of single-click addon installation first came out, there was quite a lot of people who were against this because thay did not want to execute 3rd party exe files on their computer from security reason (exe file can easily contain a lot of harmfull things).
Therefore we have decided to use Windows built-in installation capabilities and to require Addons At Ease to use it. We have also created an utility (which will be published after this discussion will help us to fine tune it) that makes creating .MSI file very easy - you place several folders, run our utility and addon is ready to be distributed.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Interesting speculation - but it shows a lack of Xbox undestanding. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Msi addons can in no way be installed on Xbox. If there will be any Xbox addons, they will need to be packaged in a very different way, following many Xbox specific guidelines, including some Xbox specific content security handling.
The whole AAE idea is a result of carefull observation how people use addons (and why many of them do not use any). What we want to do with AAE is to make addon audience broader - for OFP PC benefit (and this way for BIS company as well - which is where the self-interest mentioned is), and for the benefit of those addon makers, who are interested in it.
As someone also noted correctly, we also hope to learn some lessons that will help us to make addon management in our future products much easier - we all agree a lot should be done in this area, including many changes in the way addons are handled in the game. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lt_Damage @<hidden> April 15 2003,06:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However if a server decides to use addons they players still simply get disconnected until players on the server tell them what they need to do.
I wish that part of it could be taken care of.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think anyone can clearly see that AAE is not something that would solve all possible problems.
On the other hand I think it should be possible easy to create some "meta-installation" tool that would be able to install .msi addons automatically. Actually I think creating such tool is much easier than to create a tool that takes care of every single step of installation. With .msi installer you have clearly defined interface that will enable you to install any AAE compliant addon - including such addons in any custom packages should be pretty easy.
I would of thought the self-interest was obvious. And I think there's a bit of self interest for addon makers too.
Better addon management = More people interested in addons
More people interested in addons = More addons
More addons = Better addons (statistically)
Better addons (statistically) = More people buy OFP
More people buy OFP = More money for BIS
More money for BIS = Better addon management
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Everybody wins! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Lt_Damage
Apr 15 2003, 06:01
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @<hidden> April 15 2003,17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More money for BIS = Better addon management[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
For BIS to get more money a certain company would have to stop taking a majority of the profits from BIS's hard work. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
theavonlady
Apr 15 2003, 06:06
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @<hidden> April 15 2003,08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would of thought the self-interest was obvious. And I think there's a bit of self interest for addon makers too.
Better addon management = More people interested in addons
More people interested in addons = More addons
More addons = Better addons (statistically)
Better addons (statistically) = More people buy OFP
More people buy OFP = More money for BIS
More money for BIS = Better addon management
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Everybody wins! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No missions=No money.
andersgrim
Apr 15 2003, 08:37
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @<hidden> April 15 2003,07:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">that makes creating .MSI file very easy - you place several folders, run our utility and addon is ready to be distributed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is it possible to make kinda extension-guard??
So only flashpoint related files as well as harmless jpg and txt files is the only files to be packed into this installer?
That would remove the risk of ppl packing exe, dll files, registery-files and other files which may be harmful... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
toadlife
Apr 15 2003, 08:44
First of all, I don't want to be installing 100 msi files on my computer. This would clog my registry and my add-remove programs panel.
I am however glad you guys are trying to address the problem.
I'm not a huge consumer of others' missions - I'm more on the editing side of things, so here is an idea for the future:
I'd like to some sort of integrated program (I'll call it the "OFP update Manager") come with the next version of OFP that makes the whole mission/addon thing completely seemless, painless and error free for the many folks who just want to PLAY the game.
Perhaps mission makers could post XML (or some other format) files on their websites that contain all of the info for their missions. Maybe even a browser plug in that integrates with "OFP update Manager" thingy, that would handle special links and load the "OFP update Manager" for them with the appropriate settings.
The user could either click on a link, and have the browser plugin load the "OFP update Manager", or the user could put in the URL for the website where the XML file is. The "OFP update Manager" would then connect, get the XML file, and display a list of missions available. Then the user would click on the mission they want, and OFP would magically download all of the necessary files, and install them automatically.
An "update" feature could automatically go out to the net, and download whatever updates are necessary for the various downloaded missions and addons.
Something like this could even be used to install official patches for OFP.
Along with a BIS supported standard to keep addons from stepping on each other, this could make things 1000% better.
What do you people think?
Just my 2 pennies.
theavonlady
Apr 15 2003, 09:02
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @<hidden> April 15 2003,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd like to some sort of integrated program (I'll call it the "OFP update Manager") come with the next version of OFP[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not me! I just want OFP Addons on the Fly (OAF). http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's simple. OFP should only load and check for addons when a mission runs - not at OFP startup. You could have a million addon files in one single folder and never have memory map or storage shortage errors.
We shouldn't have to manage anything anymore in the future. If it'll take that much longer for each mission to load, so be it.
toadlife
Apr 15 2003, 09:21
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @<hidden> April 12 2003,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">better compressionrate than zip or rar? good luck! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
ever hear of a CAB file?
It doesnt much matter how well it is compressed anyway, servers' hardware compresses data before they send it to you, and your modem uncompresses it when the data reaches you.
If the file is super compressed then it will simply download a bit more slowly than a file that is not as highly compressed.
Ever wonder why you can download large text files at 15kbs on your slow ass 56k modem?
toadlife
Apr 15 2003, 09:36
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @<hidden> April 15 2003,03:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @<hidden> April 15 2003,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd like to some sort of integrated program (I'll call it the "OFP update Manager") come with the next version of OFP[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not me! I just want OFP Addons on the Fly (OAF). http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's simple. OFP should only load and check for addons when a mission runs - not at OFP startup. You could have a million addon files in one single folder and never have memory map or storage shortage errors.
We shouldn't have to manage anything anymore in the future. If it'll take that much longer for each mission to load, so be it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yeah loading addons on the fly would be nice, but what about my other ideas? There needs to be a way for mission makers to distribute their missions to the masses without having to rely on BIS too much.
Another guy had an idea similar to mine, but his had one flaw...BIS is not going to host a site with a massive DB of everyones addons and missions and terrabytes of downloads. This would cost way too much money.
Tigershark_BAS
Apr 15 2003, 13:57
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.
@<hidden> 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.
Skunk Monkey
Apr 15 2003, 16:17
THIS IS THE BEST NEW EVER http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Thanks BIS - "approved" addons are a great Idea http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
With regards to the installer, and having many addons installed, could there be a "PRO" option where users with a little more knowledge can just manually unzip the .pbo's to the mod directories they want to use.
At [SES] we already use installers to install addon "modules" with desktop icons to lauch all or some of the mods.
We have Winter, Nam, BAS and SES collection.
All modules are 20-60mb
I think a good idea.. down the road, would be to have the "Approved addons" from bis, released on xbox via live?
If possible http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
der bastler
Apr 16 2003, 02:20
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @<hidden> April 15 2003,11: 02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's simple. OFP should only load and check for addons when a mission runs - not at OFP startup. You could have a million addon files in one single folder and never have memory map or storage shortage errors.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree --addon hotplugging is a "must-have"!
Addon development can be very frustrating...
save model, save config, pbo, copy pbo, start OFP, not funtioning, exit OFP, change config, pbo, copy pbo, start OFP, ... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
And: addon hotplugging is essential for mission-dependend-live-addon-download-from-within-OFP...
But I want to remind: Operation Flashpoint is not a game for "simple" shooter gamers! Let 'em play on a public server and they'll get either frustrated (too many deaths, no success) or kicked (teamkills, destructive behaviour). Let's face it: OFP is some kind of insider's tip. Real coops need planing, there's no ingame-join (for good reasons), games are "boring" (but realistic). You need to control more than 6 keys and a mouse, there are longer game times; that can be very difficult/boring for people who don't know how to unzip/copy a file or who want a "fast fight".
If you want mainstream audience, you have to make mainstream products --but then it wouldn't be Operation Flashpoint; perhaps Operation Fleshpoint...
ideas for OFP2...
- addon hotplugging
- possibility for ingame-download of addons from certificated servers
- linux version (if you say it's not possible: How can we help? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif)
- at least limited ability to define custom classes
- netcode??? *duckandcover*
- custom island grid sizes (6.25m,12.5m,25m,50m,100m,...)
- to be continued
Hugo the Clown
Apr 16 2003, 07:09
Im not sure if this has been discussed/
What there needs to be, which I wish I could provide my self is a dedicated file data base kind of like quake files if any one has seen that. A data base of which files can be updated that way there could de a update option in the installer program we are discussing, also if some one down loaded a perticular addon that needed other addons to work there could be a some thing built in to ask the user if they wanted to dl the other addon or addons from the file server site.
I know there are sites like http://ofp.gamezone.cz and ofp.ru and others but it would be nice to have one where addon makers could login and update there files as they please.
oh well dreams are free http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Tigershark_BAS
Apr 16 2003, 07:50
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 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Hugo the Clown
Apr 16 2003, 09:14
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These are all big requests...but like Hugo says...dreams are free[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
hahahahahaa very true http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Im sure when the utility comes out it will benefit all addon creators in some way or another. nuff said.
mads bahrt
Apr 17 2003, 04:14
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @<hidden> April 15 2003,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @<hidden> April 12 2003,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">better compressionrate than zip or rar? good luck! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
ever hear of a CAB file?
It doesnt much matter how well it is compressed anyway, servers' hardware compresses data before they send it to you, and your modem uncompresses it when the data reaches you.
If the file is super compressed then it will simply download a bit more slowly than a file that is not as highly compressed.
Ever wonder why you can download large text files at 15kbs on your slow ass 56k modem?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We're getting a little bit off-topic here but:
On normal file transfers across the internet, there are no compression. When you do use analog modems there are compression from the ISP to the customer. You can also use application-layer protocols which compresses the files being transferred, but http and ftp doesn't do that. (And neither does any lower-layer protocol in the ip stack)
There are more reasons this are not done:
1) Compression ads a lot of latency. A large part of the high ping on modems, is because they try to compress the datastream.
2) Compression is CPU-intensive - if you were to run a high-bandwidth fileserver with transfer-time compression, you would need a big-ass CPU to feed it.
Example:
While downloading over a 100 Mbps link from a 350 MHz sftp server (which does transfer-time encryption and compression of the data transferred) i could never get beyond 10 Mbps. When that server were upgraded to 1500 MHz i suddenly experienced the transfer rate rising to 70 Mbps - my own 1300 MHz Machine probably becoming the bottleneck. Before the upgrade this transfer rate could easily be achieved using normal ftp transfer.
In fact you can saturate a 100 Mbps link with a early 100 MHz Pentium with a good disk system, while a 700 MHz machine (with the same disk system) can't do this if it's supposed to do real-time compression at the same time.
But if we should discuss this we should probably find a more suitable forum.
toadlife
Apr 17 2003, 04:54
Yeah, I misspoke when I said "the server's hardware" compresses that data. I was reffering to us 56ker's who wont get any real benefit from the various compression ratios.
I was trying to point out that If you're downloading with an analog modem, diffrerent compression ratios will not make much of a difference, because of the hardware compression happening. If you have a broadband connection, the difference is compression not really relevant either, because you have a broadband connection.
I suppose with an archive that is 40MB when zipped, making it a 30MB RAR file, or 28MB CAB file, would save a bit of time on a slow broadband conection, but having a better compression format is way down on my list of things to improve when it comes to addon/mission management in OFP.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
andersgrim
Apr 17 2003, 08:45
True,true and true.
But let's not forget the addon pbo..
MANY addons are uncompressed.
Many ppl are packing MLOD models with PBO Tool which makes the addon itself pretty big.
So mabye binarizing and compressing an addon with MakePBO (or other good pbo tools) should be a part of AAE...
macguba
Apr 17 2003, 09:03
1. The decision is already made - BIS are going to do this. Our job is to help them do it in the best way possible.
2. Tigershark is right, this is too little too late. But it still an excellent idea and I'd much rather have that than nothing at all.
3. Tigershark is also right about the future: that should be our main focus.
4. Leone is right too. (better addons -> more money -> better addons) It's in our interest for BIS to thrive commercially.
5. Simple example missions MUST be included with AAE. If there is no mission, how can you try out the addon?
6. Remember that AAE is for people who have never clicked on the mysterious words "Mission Editor" and never will. People who hate tinkering. People who don't read threads like this. The whole point is to encourage them to enjoy addons as much as we do.
7 The community should support this initiative as much as possible. It's only going to do us good.
Matthijs
Apr 17 2003, 14:40
Great initiative.
I am a little disappointed by OFPEC requiring a 3 letter tag, in which underscores do not count. All my personal addons carry the KM_ tag... I can imagine I'm not the only one with this problem.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. The decision is already made - BIS are going to do this. Our job is to help them do it in the best way possible.
2. Tigershark is right, this is too little too late. But it still an excellent idea and I'd much rather have that than nothing at all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I don't agree. With OFP2 in the pipeline, NOW is the time.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(...)
7 The community should support this initiative as much as possible. It's only going to do us good. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Totally agree!!!!
[CCCP]Stalker
Apr 17 2003, 16:15
Yeah yeah yeah. But WHEN IT IS GOING TO BE RELEASED http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Maruk posted the topic and gone away... Interesting isn't it ?
Ex-RoNiN
Apr 17 2003, 16:29
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 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @<hidden> April 10 2003,12:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And where are we to go about to aquire this MSN Installer utility?
andersgrim
Apr 17 2003, 19:21
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @<hidden> 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 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Which would also make a standard for addons for ofp2 from the very beginning!!
pretty nice idea!
Then you wouldnt have a discussion like this again...
Tigershark_BAS
Apr 18 2003, 00:29
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @<hidden> 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 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<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 (Matthijs @<hidden> April 17 2003,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Great initiative.
I am a little disappointed by OFPEC requiring a 3 letter tag, in which underscores do not count. All my personal addons carry the KM_ tag... I can imagine I'm not the only one with this problem.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Me too. Try ds_ for OPGWC. It won't register at OFPEC, even though it's three characters. C'mon OFPEC...what's the deal?
The other thing that I would LOVE to see as part of AAE is the ability to patch pbo's. That way you wouldn't have to download all of the 1.1 version of something....just an update that can upgrade the pbo. I remember someone recently tinkering with this.....surely that could be something REALLY useful and not too difficult to put in AAE (since the patches BIS puts out do this anyway)?
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Matthijs
Apr 18 2003, 09:41
I know it's not my job, but I just couldn't resist...
http://mods.kmarns.net/temp/Image1.jpg
If the AAE organisation wants the layered .PSP sourcefile, just drop me an e-mail.
The question remains: Where to get the MSI stuff?
Matthijs
Apr 18 2003, 11:15
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @<hidden> April 18 2003,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question remains: Where to get the MSI stuff?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.
Unless BIS is going to release their own MSI creation app, I think MSI creation is just really simple nor user-friendly, let alone graphically appealing.
It's license even allows commercial use for free.
Clickteam's installmaker might be a nice alternative. It's the most popular installer for Rainbow6/Ghost Recon addons:
http://www.clickteam.com/English/installmaker.php
I wrote a step-by-step tutorial a while ago.
http://www.korpsmariniers.com/download/installmaker-tutorial.pdf
Example installer screen:
http://mods.kmarns.net/temp/cocoss.jpg
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @<hidden> April 18 2003,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @<hidden> April 18 2003,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question remains: Where to get the MSI stuff?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.
Unless BIS is going to release their own MSI creation app, ...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We will release this utility once we incorporate some changes that are based on the feedback in this topic. This willl be hopefully within a few weeks.
Thank you, Suma http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
toadeater
Apr 19 2003, 22:31
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Delete this message please. I saw someone already answered the question after I wrote it. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, I am re-editing this message now because of the controversy it seems to have caused.
I want to say that the only thing about AAE I'm opposed to is if this installer is going put junk into the registry. MSI is known to be bloated and buggy (what do you expect from Microsoft?) and is overkill for installing simple addons. Unless there is a good reason for BIS to need this registry info, another installer or plain old zip files would be much better IMHO.
MSI Errors (http://groups.google.com/groups?num=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=microsoft+installer+error+msi)
Soul_Assassin
Apr 19 2003, 23:40
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @<hidden> April 20 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Delete this message please. I saw someone already answered the question after I wrote it.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
LOL
at least if u asked the queston once again it wouldve been more useful then u just editing it and telling that u already got the answer http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Winters
Apr 20 2003, 02:47
Its the add-on/mod/mission makers that have kept this game so popular for this length of time, many games are extremely popular when released but without the proper tools for the fans to use shortly fade away as gamers move on to the next big thing. It is great to see BIS taking such an interest in the communities tireless efforts to keep this great game alive. I welcome any effort that brings the community together like this and like the idea of a standardization. I like to make missions for everyone to enjoy and i know i am missing out on a lot of good addons by some lesser known makers as i am unsure of how many people may actually have and or want to use them.
toadlife
Apr 20 2003, 21:04
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @<hidden> April 19 2003,16:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I want to say that the only thing about AAE I'm opposed to is if this installer is going put junk into the registry. MSI is known to be bloated and buggy (what do you expect from Microsoft?) and is overkill for installing simple addons. Unless there is a good reason for BIS to need this registry info, another installer or plain old zip files would be much better IMHO.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If written properly, MSI installers are the best way to install software on Windows systems.
Microsoft began pushing MSI awhile back, because of all the other installers out there were constantly stepping on each other.
Yes, at one time I ran into an MSI installation that screwed up my registry, but this was not a random error caused by Microsoft technology, it was a mistake made by the person who compiled the installer.
At my work we use policies to deploy MSI based software accross a domain of over 1200 computers in 5 locations spread out across an area of over 3000 square miles. This includes office software, McAfee Virusscan, and two other custom MSI installer we made ourselves.
We started deploying software this way two years ago and have never had a computer's registry screwed up by any of the software we've deployed.
As long as the MSI maker BIS releases is tested thouroughly, I wouldn't worry about it screwing over anyones machine.
As for the MSI file inserting registry info, the only info it has to insert is the info about which files are installed and how to uninstall it..this is about the same amount (well probably a little more) of registry info as any other installer would have to insert.
As for myself...I'll continue the old method of installing stuff and skip the MSI method, but for the casual player out there, this shouldn't be a harmful thing.
Matthijs
Apr 20 2003, 22:22
MSI packages will definitely add to the value of OFP in general. Especially for newbies. And newbies is what we need, if we want to keep OFP alive. After all, they are the ones that will pay for a copy of OFP, and thus keep Maruk's fridge filled. The rest of us already has a CD or two.
I'm quite sure addon-makers will still distribute ZIP variants for the people that want them.
toadeater
Apr 21 2003, 23:23
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @<hidden> April 20 2003,23:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for myself...I'll continue the old method of installing stuff and skip the MSI method, but for the casual player out there, this shouldn't be a harmful thing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now there's a good point that may have been overlooked. We can still always get the files from the addon makers themselves I suppose and avoid the numerous hidden evils of MSI. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Blender
Apr 22 2003, 14:50
I hope to see some At Easy addons soon. Installing some addons was reall diffucult to me.
Matthijs
Apr 22 2003, 15:26
"Hidden evils of MSI"? I think people that really know how installers work, don't really see a problem. Don't worry, the BIS team will make sure it works fine.
As to if anyone would use it: I will certainly put serious effort into it to make my addons A@<hidden> compliant. Chances are good that the upcoming combat diver (CoC Open Swimming System) addon will be an Addon At Ease. The mission is in the making, and it will be MSI packaged if BIS' MSI tool is available.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Dwarden
Apr 22 2003, 16:06
I think A@<hidden> should go more beyond care about release quality.
What about same initiative for addon development (list of addons which are in work).
Like tank, transporters and other vehicles, airplanes, copters, ships, weapons, infantry models, equipment, buildings, trees etc.
Like these forums, but simpler and more organized.
So someone who want made new mod comes and enter search, let say M21, he can see "already done" "under progress" or just "planned", this give to him chance to see quality of already released mods, who and what is preparing.
It makes also very simple possible to standalone modders to teamup instead of multiple work on "same" object with same "not excelent" result (instead of 3 mediocre addons is one excelent better).
MOdders will be able to set ETA dates on site, pictures, links etc.
I know similar project aproach to this already exist, just my opinion is that supported from BIS results into excelent addons in future (and it give great base for OFP2).
just my 2 cents...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @<hidden> April 18 2003,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I cant find it in XP... where is it?
Matthijs
Apr 24 2003, 09:01
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @<hidden> April 24 2003,08:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @<hidden> April 18 2003,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I cant find it in XP... where is it?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sorry, it's not on the XP cdrom. Win2k distribution only:
<cdrom>:\VALUEADD\3RDPARTY\MGMT\WINSTLE
You can also get a copy of the latest version from:
http://www.ondemandsoftware.com/FREELE2003/
Wininstal LE has been made with network admins in mind, not to make distribution of single files easy. I would advise you to have a bit of patience, and wait for BIS's MSI tool.
Question for Marek and his team:
Will there be a possibility to automatically remove existing files? My tag has always been KM_, which is not allowed by OFPEC. Automatically letting the installer delete older versions of an addon, would make the life of a user much easier.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @<hidden> April 24 2003,11http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cant find it in XP... where is it?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
argh http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif
PitViper
Apr 28 2003, 12:22
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @<hidden> 15 April 2003,05:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadlife @<hidden> April 15 2003,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd like to some sort of integrated program (I'll call it the "OFP update Manager") come with the next version of OFP[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not me! I just want OFP Addons on the Fly (OAF). http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's simple. OFP should only load and check for addons when a mission runs - not at OFP startup. You could have a million addon files in one single folder and never have memory map or storage shortage errors.
We shouldn't have to manage anything anymore in the future. If it'll take that much longer for each mission to load, so be it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree wholeheartedly. It seems that simplifying addon installation will only exasperate the memory problems associated with the way it is handled now. A newbie could click on 4 large addons through AAE and suddenly he is puzzled by "can't memory map o.pbo" errors. That could be real messy. Fix the memory mapping THEN do AAE, imo http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
PitViper
Apr 28 2003, 12:26
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (der bastler @<hidden> 15 April 2003,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- addon hotplugging
- possibility for ingame-download of addons from certificated servers[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yes!
I wish we could set ingame-download of addons through a field in the squad.xml.
PitViper
Apr 28 2003, 12:35
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @<hidden> 13 April 2003,17:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...That's why the modding community would appreciate receiving decrypted v1.91 config source files from BIS so total conversion mods would be possible. Total conversion mods are the direction which OFP is going.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Are you talking about the primary config.bin? I already have that decoded config.cpp. How do you think "Dynamic Range" works? Or are you talking about the individual config.cpps in the addons?
Kegetys
Apr 28 2003, 12:43
Something that I believe would be useful to people playing on public servers would be an ability to search some kind of addon list for certain addon classnames, so for example if a player gets an error saying "Missing addon: KEGnoecain_snow" when joining an MP server he could just go to the AAE website and type "KEGnoecain_snow" into some search field and find out that he needs to download Winter Nogojev and of course links to where to download it from.
PitViper
Apr 28 2003, 13:00
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @<hidden> 28 April 2003,08:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something that I believe would be useful to people playing on public servers would be an ability to search some kind of addon list for certain addon classnames, so for example if a player gets an error saying "Missing addon: KEGnoecain_snow" when joining an MP server he could just go to the AAE website and type "KEGnoecain_snow" into some search field and find out that he needs to download Winter Nogojev and of course links to where to download it from.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think a better way would be to include a field in the config.cpp called "Descriptive name" which it uses when it needs to make that prompt.
For example, a descriptivename entry like "Ballistic Addon Studio's Little Bird Addon version 1.0" would look much better in that prompt window.
Of course, that would require a game patch http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif better yet, make it part of ofp2.
Kegetys
Apr 28 2003, 13:12
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @<hidden> 28 April 2003,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think a better way would be to include a field in the config.cpp called "Descriptive name"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How could you do that with AAE? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Would need a patch in OFP.
MadDogX
Apr 29 2003, 19:15
Exactly and in my opinion that would be unnessessary just for AAE. I thought KEG's idea was alright.
I guess everyone has covered just about every angle of this proposed system. It remains to be seen what will happen officially, but I certainly hope that it some how incorporates easier distribution of multiple addons for the multiplayer front...players are falling off on the dedicated servers at a quick clip and a nice shot in the arm for the multiplayer community would be most welcome.
BIS...any official word on how you have decided to handle this system as a whole?
WhoCares
May 5 2003, 15:38
Does MSI run on Linux machines? Just asking, because Linux-server Admins might want to use AAE Addons as well... Or do we expect, that those Linux nerds are used to non-push button solutions http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
theavonlady
May 5 2003, 15:59
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @<hidden> 05 May 2003,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does MSI run on Linux machines?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I believe MSI stands for MicroSoft Installer, is solely for Windows and neither Bill Gates, Microsoft nor Windows have anything (currently) to do with Linux.
WhoCares
May 6 2003, 07:11
That's why I asked. So, Addonmakers would have to provide two versions, one AAE with MSI support and another version for installation on Linux servers...Wouldn't it be possible to have one solution supporting both platforms?
andersgrim
May 12 2003, 17:34
probably, but as many people say they refuse to use installers, and say addonmakers should make one zipversion of the addon, the linux guys can prolly just use this zip...
[SZ]Vladimir
May 13 2003, 16:07
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @<hidden> 18 April 2003,14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @<hidden> April 18 2003,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @<hidden> April 18 2003,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question remains: Where to get the MSI stuff?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A basic version is shipped with Windows2000/XP.
Unless BIS is going to release their own MSI creation app, ...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We will release this utility once we incorporate some changes that are based on the feedback in this topic. This willl be hopefully within a few weeks.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A release soon ?
Vladimir
theavonlady
May 15 2003, 11:56
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([SZ]Vladimir @<hidden> 13 May 2003,19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A release soon ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
/bump
BIS? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Hello <echo> hello, hello, hello </echo>
CrashDome
May 20 2003, 03:14
I probably jumped in a bit too late, but from someone who does more work w/ missions and scripts versus add-ons:
All I see is a small group of quality add-on makers getting bruised by this. It sounds odd, but I can imagine there will be a FLOOD of applicants this late in the game all trying to jump on the AAE bandwagon. In turn, AAE will become signature add-ons on many servers while some really good add-ons sit on the side waiting to be included. (If I understand everything correctly)
I say the market has done well for good designers so far. Why potentially burn it out. I say focus on the next piece of software (i.e. OFP2) and design an extrodinary system then. Dont get me wrong,... I would have liked to see standards and "ease" but it's getting a bit late here. For example, focus on something similar to the MP mission cache folder and perhaps include add-ons in that area. That way new-comers can dl'd from the servers as they join up (although I can imagine the wait would be long). This would promote add-ons indirectly also. I join a server just to peek in and "hey!" look! two more add-ons I never would have guessed existed. OR "hey!" look an update to that tank I liked so much. This COULD be a storage nightmare for some people, but it would also encourage servers to keep add-ons to a lower amount/higher quality level. Ok.. I'm crossing Inter-topic Boundries here (probably illegally too! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) but ultimately I say "Look to the future! don't try and fix the past!"
**This will come back to haunt CrashDome sometime.... he knows it***
bout "descriptive":
There was a description for all weapons un until 1.20 where we got the first new weapons, and since not even BIS could add descriptions for them, i doubt very much that its possible :\
Builder for Addon At Ease BETA (ftp://www.flashpoint1985.com/breathe/AAE_Builder.zip) is available for testing.
How to use it:
- place your addons, missions and mp missions to folders
- write name of your addon to file name.txt
- run msic.exe from the same directory
- a msi file with your addon is created
- run the msi file to install the addon with all missions and addons included
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This is not final release of the tool and you can use it for testing purposes only!
At Ease! Compliance Requirements - Proposal
========-=========================
An Operation Flashpoint Add-on should respect following requirements to be At Ease! compliant (it's not final version of the requirements but we believe it's very close to it):
I) It is a single MSI file created using the official AtEase tool. Name of the Addon should start with TAG.
II) It includes at least one single player mission in the package. Name of any mission installed should start with TAG.
III) All included addons should be created in compliance with the TAG system.
IV) The included sample mission(s) should not require any other addons beside of the addons being installed as part of the At Ease package and official BIS content included in Operation Flashpoint version 1.91.
V) If the addons itself requires other addons to work properly, it has to:
i) include such addons in requiredAddons[] list
ii) provide exact insructions where to get the addon in the readme file
iii) the addons in question has to be "At Ease" compliant addons as well
VI) all addons and missions should be compatible with Operation Flashpoint version 1.91
[SZ]Vladimir
May 27 2003, 17:41
Thanks for this utility !
Vladimir
I have been testing it and i love it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
CoolCarlos2002
May 27 2003, 18:44
I just want to ask Mod teams if they release a demo or the mod to make a Mod folder ie: Modname\Addons
then its up to us to make the shortcut http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Questions:
Do you need to download the msi-info.bin file?
And can u explane how the features work when installing?
And how are you, BIS, going to make sure people follow the rules about AAE? like the tags and missions included, will we need to send them to you first for review and then you make a list of all AAE reviewed addons? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
I just want to ask Mod teams if they release a demo or the mod to make a Mod folder ie: Modname\Addons
then its up to us to make the shortcut http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Are you talking about when they use AAE or any mod installation?
CoolCarlos2002
May 27 2003, 18:53
I just want to ask Mod teams if they release a demo or the mod to make a Mod folder ie: Modname\Addons
then its up to us to make the shortcut http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Are you talking about when they use AAE or any mod installation?
well both http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
silent_64
May 27 2003, 19:31
Do you need to download the msi-info.bin file?
Yeah I would like to know that to!
We got sooooooo many posts/PMs/Emails about shortcuts that we decided when the full version of our mod comes out that the installer would create a shortcut. Believe it or not there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to make a -mod shortcut for OFP (or any game for that matter). So in the interests of making it easier for people to play, I think a good mod should make it's own shortcut. Afterall, if you know how to make/edit a shortcut, you can just change it if you need to, but if you don't know how to, then you are stuffed.
$0.02 has been credited to your account.
CoolCarlos2002
May 27 2003, 19:33
We got sooooooo many posts/PMs/Emails about shortcuts that we decided when the full version of our mod comes out that the installer would create a shortcut. Believe it or not there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to make a -mod shortcut for OFP (or any game for that matter). So in the interests of making it easier for people to play, I think a good mod should make it's own shortcut. Afterall, if you know how to make/edit a shortcut, you can just change it if you need to, but if you don't know how to, then you are stuffed.
$0.02 has been credited to your account.
not everyone installs ofp in C:\Program Files\Codemasters\Operation Flashpoint
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
my $0.01 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
theavonlady
May 27 2003, 19:38
not everyone installs ofp in C:\Program Files\Codemasters\Operation Flashpoint
Any reasonable installer can extract OFP's install path from the Windows Registry. Key:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Codemasters\Operation Flashpoint\MAIN[/QUOTE]
Major Fubar
May 28 2003, 00:09
The mod that released the rapier missile addon couldn't get it right - my OFP is installed in C:\Games\Operation Flashpoint, and their damn extractor kept putting the addons in C:\Program Files\Codemasters\Operation Flashpoint http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
We got sooooooo many posts/PMs/Emails about shortcuts that we decided when the full version of our mod comes out that the installer would create a shortcut. Believe it or not there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to make a -mod shortcut for OFP (or any game for that matter). So in the interests of making it easier for people to play, I think a good mod should make it's own shortcut. Afterall, if you know how to make/edit a shortcut, you can just change it if you need to, but if you don't know how to, then you are stuffed.
$0.02 has been credited to your account.
not everyone installs ofp in C:\Program Files\Codemasters\Operation Flashpoint
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
my $0.01 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Errr yes, I know that sunshine. I'm talking about a future release, not any previous releases http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Questions:
Do you need to download the msi-info.bin file?
What is this file and why would you download it?
Quote[/b] ]And can u explane how the features work when installing?
Addon is considered to contain one feature and can be therefore installed completely or not at all.
And how are you, BIS, going to make sure people follow the rules about AAE? like the tags and missions included, will we need to send them to you first for review and then you make a list of all AAE reviewed addons? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
We can't make sure that people will do everything properly for every addon released using the installer (we will make the installer limited by the eula that says the conditions of use containing the rules but it doesn't block anyone from not doing it properly). This is a kind of open standard and we believe it's on behalf of the entire community.
What we offer is to promote the best At Ease compliant addons at our official website to give more recognition to such high quality work and it's creators.
We don't aim to try to change the way how are addons released and used in the modding community. Our main goal is to make the best addons much more accessible to general public.
Also, the entire initiative is not only for Operation Flashopint but it is also a test how to do improve it for Operation Flashpoint 2.
The mod that released the rapier missile addon couldn't get it right - my OFP is installed in C:\Games\Operation Flashpoint, and their damn extractor kept putting the addons in C:\Program Files\Codemasters\Operation Flashpoint http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
1) Why don't you have it in registery properly? If you would install the game and set the path to what you want, it will work straight ahead.
2) There's a screen where you can change the directory manually to anything you want in our "damn" installer.
Questions:
Do you need to download the msi-info.bin file?
What is this file and why would you download it?
When i create the msi file the tool also creates a msi-info.bin file with it... just wondering if it does do anything http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
ok thanks for the info http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Matthijs
May 28 2003, 13:45
And how are you, BIS, going to make sure people follow the rules about AAE? like the tags and missions included, will we need to send them to you first for review and then you make a list of all AAE reviewed addons? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
We can't make sure that people will do everything properly for every addon released using the installer (we will make the installer limited by the eula that says the conditions of use containing the rules but it doesn't block anyone from not doing it properly). This is a kind of open standard and we believe it's on behalf of the entire community.
What we offer is to promote the best At Ease compliant addons at our official website to give more recognition to such high quality work and it's creators.
We don't aim to try to change the way how are addons released and used in the modding community. Our main goal is to make the best addons much more accessible to general public.
Also, the entire initiative is not only for Operation Flashopint but it is also a test how to do improve it for Operation Flashpoint 2.
Hi Maruk (or any other BIS guy reading this),
Great work on the installer. I'm pretty sure it will become a succes. I'll do my very best to be one of the biggest supporters for the AAE system.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
A question:
- Where can I find the EULA for the MSI-creator tool?
A request:
- Can you please give a template for the addon-EULA, or a textblock that can be added to the addon-EULA, ensuring the rights of BIS.
FatWombat
May 28 2003, 17:51
I've noticed a bug with the installer:
If you already have one addon installed with the AAE installer you can't install another one. In Add/Remove programs an addon seems to show up as "OFP Addon TAGAddonName" no matter what the addon was actually called.
Great idea this AAE initiative, hopefully this will give the OFP addon community the boost it needs. Good luck with it BIS http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
A question:
- Where can I find the EULA for the MSI-creator tool?
A request:
- Can you please give a template for the addon-EULA, or a textblock that can be added to the addon-EULA, ensuring the rights of BIS.
Please understand this is a betaversion. Generally, the utility is free to use for anything (but we hope it'll help Operation Flashopint).
Yes, there'll be a special part that has to go to the usual EULA for the addons (and we'll give you a good template you may use for your addons).
Thanks for your support!
Questions:
Do you need to download the msi-info.bin file?
What is this file and why would you download it?
When i create the msi file the tool also creates a msi-info.bin file with it... just wondering if it does do anything http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
ok thanks for the info http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
The msi-info.bin is intended for eventual creation of patches. More info will follow soon about making patches (but we don't like patches for the addons too much but we underestand it can be necessary sometimes)
I've noticed a bug with the installer:
If you already have one addon installed with the AAE installer you can't install another one. In Add/Remove programs an addon seems to show up as "OFP Addon TAGAddonName" no matter what the addon was actually called.
I confirm the bug. I reproduced it on my PC easily. Shall be fixed in the final release. Thanks for reporting!
Matthijs
May 28 2003, 22:40
Using the MSI maker, you can only place addons in the <ofp>\Addons directory.
I hope the final version will also support the <ofp>\Res\Addons directory.
Using the MSI maker, you can only place addons in the <ofp>\Addons directory.
I hope the final version will also support the <ofp>\Res\Addons directory.
And a custom for Mods, .../MOD/Addons you know the thing.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
Tigershark_BAS
May 29 2003, 01:27
What we offer is to promote the best At Ease compliant addons at our official website to give more recognition to such high quality work and it's creators.
Cooooool !!
Pennywise
May 29 2003, 07:18
That definitely is cool. The utility seems very practical. Ill use it. However, I got one question regarding past addons. Some of us have had addons out a while that we would like to have compliant. Going back and changing all the texture and model names could be a potential problem. Other than that, making the appropriate script changes for functions, global variables and whatnot should go over fine. Is it necessary for past addons to follow the TAG naming scheme for every texture and model? I hope you guys could give us some leeway for our past addons. Future addons will definitely follow these guidelines. Murak or Suma, is it possible to have a little more freedom with converting our past addons over? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
theavonlady
May 29 2003, 07:32
Using the MSI maker, you can only place addons in the <ofp>\Addons directory.
I hope the final version will also support the <ofp>\Res\Addons directory.
And a custom for Mods, .../MOD/Addons you know the thing.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
This would be perfect. However, the installer would have to check OFP's version.
If 1.46 and below, then only the \Addons\ folder is available.
If 1.75 and above, then there are 3 choices:
1. Folder \Addons\
2. Folder \Res\Addons\
3. A mod folder's \Addons\ subfolder.
Marek, will this be supported by the installer?
NZXSHADOWS
May 30 2003, 05:02
I dont know where else to post this.So here goes my prob.Why is it I git an error every time I use this tool.
Tigershark_BAS
May 30 2003, 07:37
Avon.....stop from replying to that last post......there are just too many lines! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
NZXSHADOWS
May 30 2003, 10:33
Dont wrry about me I found a neat little installer program.Its not as easy to use as AAE.But it gets the job done for now.
theavonlady
May 30 2003, 10:46
Dont wrry about me I found a neat little installer program.Its not as easy to use as AAE.But it gets the job done for now.
Two things:
1. What the other installer?
2. Have you read through the thread regarding BIS' support and promotion only for addons packed as AAE files?
Whatever BIS could release, I hope the final release AAE installer will be available as soon as possible. Any ETA date ?
NZXSHADOWS
May 31 2003, 02:56
Two things:
1. What the other installer?
2. Have you read through the thread regarding BIS' support and promotion only for addons packed as AAE files?
1.Setup Factory 6.0
2.yes
IV) The included sample mission(s) should not require any other addons beside of the addons being installed as part of the At Ease package and official BIS content included in Operation Flashpoint version 1.91.
Again, i have to say, i disagree with that point, or at least think it should be flexible.
What are we meant to do, for example, if a helicopter has a rotorwash script that makes soldiers cough and blink? If we dont use a unit with goggles, and the player is soldier, they could not even stand close the chopper and look at it (due to the blinking). It is just plain practical to use our own units in such a case, most people already have them, and if we did not we would get lots of emails asking "Why didn't you use the delta/ rangers in xx mission?", or have to maintain 2 versions of the same mission (4 actually, due to coop/sp).
Or, for example a delta ranger specific mission, are we meant to insert them with BIS blackhawks, when there are nice littlebirds available? From my perspective, that defeats the greater scope of what BAS make, and doesn't provide BAS fans with what they enjoy.
[SZ]Vladimir
May 31 2003, 15:22
If 1.46 and below, then only the \Addons\ folder is available.
Remember to that :
Quote[/b] ]5) We consider version 1.90 / 1.91 as the only one supported platform for this initiative.
First page for this topic, first message http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Vladimir
NZXSHADOWS
May 31 2003, 19:37
Does AAE
Matthijs
Jun 2 2003, 12:49
Two things:
1. What the other installer?
2. Have you read through the thread regarding BIS' support and promotion only for addons packed as AAE files?
1.Setup Factory 6.0
2.yes
Read this:
Quote[/b] ]SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT AND WARRANTY STATEMENT (TRIAL VERSION)
*** This is a trial version of Setup Factory. It is for testing/evaluation purposes only. You can not distribute any of the applications/runtimes generated by this trial version. ***
(etc. etc.)
Clickteam's installmaker is a nice alternative:
http://www.clickteam.com/English/download_main.php3?PID=4
Installmaker docs for OFP:
http://www.korpsmariniers.com/download/installmaker-tutorial.pdf
Maybe use
NZXSHADOWS
Jun 3 2003, 02:18
Two things:
1. What the other installer?
2. Have you read through the thread regarding BIS' support and promotion only for addons packed as AAE files?
1.Setup Factory 6.0
2.yes
Read this:
Quote[/b] ]SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT AND WARRANTY STATEMENT (TRIAL VERSION)
*** This is a trial version of Setup Factory. It is for testing/evaluation purposes only. You can not distribute any of the applications/runtimes generated by this trial version. ***
(etc. etc.)
Clickteam's installmaker is a nice alternative:
http://www.clickteam.com/English/download_main.php3?PID=4
Installmaker docs for OFP:
http://www.korpsmariniers.com/download/installmaker-tutorial.pdf
Maybe use
Did I say anything about a Trail version.
Matthijs
Jun 3 2003, 20:50
(...)
Did I say anything about a Trail version.
Wow... you spend $395.00 for an installer? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
Or is there a free version I don't know of?
NZXSHADOWS
Jun 4 2003, 03:22
Wow... you spend $395.00 for an installer? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
Or is there a free version I don't know of?
I didnt pay for it,But it is paid for I just borrowed.Anyways this is getting way off the subject.No offense.
Sauragnmon
Jun 5 2003, 04:44
If I may make a simple suggestion... if the BSI team is going to be supporting the mods, why don't they produce an EXE command line switch that opens a pre-game window to select/deselect the mods that the user wants activated, if they're going to put in the whole installer idea. And furthermore, in situations where multiple mods require another mod installed so they have some little tech base to work off of, why doesn't the team derive the tech necessary from the mod in question and make it a standardized feature after some thinkwork... it would remove a lot of legwork of having one mod installed and constantly running in the background, possible other sections of that mod weighing in on the RAM requirements of the game, and thusly make it much much faster for the team to put these mods into an easily accessible area? I am speaking from a simply techie sort of angle, because if we make things more simple for the average newbie and the person who hasn't got a clue where to look, it should likewise be simple to apply the system. What use is a simple to use tool, if it requires twenty other steps before you can use it in the first place? Just a thought. *wanders back to drooling over the BTR-80 and hoping it doesn't require any other mods to run that he'd have to go digging up*
Tigershark_BAS
Jun 6 2003, 01:54
Maruk and BIS team. Looks like Addons at Ease is going to the next level with a beta installer and a final version not far away I hope.
Next thing you could get your graphics boys to do in about 30mins or so is design a logo for us that advertises our addon as a "Addons at Ease" compatible.
I suggest a 90x30 pixel image that somehow conveys a BIS stamp of approval. This size is just a suggestion...your graphics designers might have something else in mind.
Could you please reply to this just to acknowledge you have read and are considering this?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.