OFPEC Forum

OFPEC The Editing Center => Comments & Suggestions => Topic started by: Baphomet on 04 Jun 2003, 00:59:52

Title: News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Baphomet on 04 Jun 2003, 00:59:52: One thing I'm starting to get annoyed about in the ofp community is the emergence of too many damn addons that are pretty much the same. I really don't understand why every mod or pack must create the exact same weapon when the community should be open enough that a mod team could ask someone who's made a decent version of the gun already to use that.

Now you can upgrade your memory. I intend to slap a gig of RDRAM on my mainboard before long but god dammit. It's an irresponsible waste of resources to have that level of redundancy. I already have trouble keeping a bare minimum of addons in my folder for fear of running out of ram or degrading peformance if there are too many.

I have no goddamned clue why those earl and suchey guys are making new m16s. I think the default one is fine. My focus is primarily on weapon packs that are virtually the same as the ones already supplied. You can't disable the ones that come with the game and I think it's just stupid to make more of the same things.

I've never had performance problems with ofp, I have a fairly decent system. However I am aware of the recklessness of mod groups and the level of graphical intensity that is wholly disproportionate to the progression and availability of higher end systems. OFP was always about quantity rather than focusing on trite details. When I get my next PC I want to run ofp with all the options cranked... have hundreds of guys on screen with a 15 mile draw distance (or whichever is the furthest you can see), with the same framerate I get now. I don't want to see ultra high def models that basically allow the same comprimise of draw distance, unit count and detail level, on a more powerful machine.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: macguba on 04 Jun 2003, 01:42:11: lol I have much sympathy with this ...... OFP was the first time I really got deeply involved with the internet community of a game and I have to say I was totally gobsmacked when I first discovered somebody making an addon that was a different version of a weapon/vehicle that was already in the game. It just never occurred to me that anybody would think that was either a useful way to spend their time or a contribution to the community. Obviously I was wrong.

I write as a mission designer/player who ADORES good addons .... new vehicles, weapons, new skins like desert, jungle or snow ..... I love 'em .... but the world is such a big place, with so many wonderful things in it ... why would somebody make a "new" Blackhawk when there is no Sea King, Huey, Lynx, Puma, Squirrel, Wessex, Whirlwind, Merlin - well I hope you get my drift. I'm not making a debating point, this is a genuine question. Why? I have to say it makes me wail with frustration when I see seriously talented people doing stuff like that. There is so much they could be doing.

And Baphomet, you have another point, which is at last being addressed - if you are going to create another M4, at least make your mags usable with all the existing [good] M4s already out there.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Wolfrug on 05 Jun 2003, 00:41:15: Couldn't agree more. Although I do support the idea of making "better" versions of already existing weapons. To an extent, that is. Not every single new special forces skin has to have it's own M4 :P But it's nice to have some variation - especially in the vehicles department. Maybe we should make a distinction between "re-skinning" and actually changing the properties of a unit. Up 'til Resistance my AKs sounded like pea-shooters :-[ But now they sound alright again. They're still ugly though. ;D

Bright idea of the moment: Someone make standardized ammo types; I mean, different weapons can use the same magazines, right? What's the bloody point of having a separate ammo name for each vehicle (take the ZuniLauncher's for instance, meh, stupid BIS) when they use the exact same kind of rockets and so forthwith! ::)
How hard can it be: "7.62 mm WP", "5.56 mm NATO", "5.45 mm", "9 mm Parafuckingbellum" ;D Then just make all those millions of new skins and sheit use the same ammo. Eh? Eh? :toocool:

/rant

Wolfrug out.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Tomb on 05 Jun 2003, 01:09:27: This is the WEST, wolfy ::) year is 2003: we are materialists now, sire ::) the days of sabers are no more, master yodle. ;D If someone make a gun, others will make a variant of it with a differently shaped trigger. And that will be enough for the masses to think that we have a new revolution ::)
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Baphomet on 05 Jun 2003, 01:13:59: It's no doubt that some of these mod teams making new variants have the skills. I'd mean no disrespect to that. However to illustrate a point. A friend of mine loves the m14 and the m21. He has now grown sick of the countless m21/14 packs out there... there's like four of them for christ sakes. While I'm not at all averse to nicer looking models, I would say that I am very performance conscious in general when playing ofp. While the system still loads the default and unused weaponry for most mods it's still taking up system resources and that just chokes me.

Furthermore. While I like aesthetics as much as the next man. I find I'm almost obsessive compulsive when it comes to things being wasted... especially performance. Honestly what kind of guy is going to sit there admiring the superior quality of a weapon in the heat of a gunfight... a dead player that's what. I'm of the mind that so long as the model is decent I don't mind using it. If it looks so bad it's distracting thats entirely another story.

Still, I really think in some ways efforts to make full blown games out of addon packs usually end up undermining the flexibility of the game itself. What happened to the good old days when you could use anything with anything else? Now there's 30meg addon packs most of which having things I probably won't use.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Tomb on 05 Jun 2003, 01:26:41: I'd still stick to my sayings (and even extend them) ::) ;D

See, Im a real super-duper-mumbo-mega-monster-muthafrikkin-materialist, which basically means that I just can't get enough of them GUNS (*devil's grin*) ;D

But i would SURLY support it 100% if the community agrees on making ShareWareAmmo (SWA) 8)
as most mag's are "invisible" anyway.

[mod]:

:D I just stumbled across another thread on one of the "config boards" right here in this beautiful place, and it made me think: it's not that difficult to create shared ammo, even IF you are one of those stubborn d00ds whome think that exactly YOUR ammo is better/more realistic etc. than any other guys work!

here's the mag-def. in the cpp :

magazines[]={"MyMag"};

:) and if ppl "just" added more ammo types here, the prob would be solved! :thumbsup:

Example:

magazines[]={"MyMag", "yerMag", TheirMag", "BigMac" etc. }; ;D
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Noon416 on 05 Jun 2003, 01:59:48: What baffles me is why addon makers use their own custom ammo, instead of *only* using the standard BIS ingame ammo instead... ???

M4, M16, AK47, etc, its all there already...

Any thoughts?
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Tomb on 05 Jun 2003, 02:21:00: *cough* ::)

Quote from: Tomb on 05 Jun 2003, 01:26:41
...even IF you are one of those stubborn d00ds whom think that exactly YOUR ammo is better/more realistic etc. than any other guys work! ....

:hmm:
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Noon416 on 05 Jun 2003, 02:52:37: I suppose you *MIGHT* have a point there, Tomby. :P ;) ;D
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Eviscerator on 05 Jun 2003, 04:38:31: Quote from: Noon416 on 05 Jun 2003, 01:59:48
What baffles me is why addon makers use their own custom ammo, instead of *only* using the standard BIS ingame ammo instead... ???

M4, M16, AK47, etc, its all there already...

Any thoughts?

For one, BIS' damage system is utter shite, and probably the guys releasing it want to make a marginal improvement with their own ammo, and secondly if they used the BIS magazines they would be stuck with the BIS Sounds, not good if you happen to have a much better sound you wanted to use.

Anyhoo, BAS and Earl/Suchey are starting an initiative to standardize addon magazines, more details here:

http://www.ballistic-studios.com/

Also, to the person wondering why Earl/Suchey are making new M16's, its because the versions they need have not been made yet, they are making near-future marines, who will be equipped with M16A4's, so using the BIS M16A2 doesnt make sense at all as they have quite a few visual differences.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Messiah on 05 Jun 2003, 12:15:43: hmmmm, so ok... the BIS ammo isnt spot on, and the sounds might not be great... but using their ammo would have prevented the need for this initiative... as old grandad noony said, it does baffle me a little...

but hey, its too late to use BIS ammo, so its good to see this idea being implemented for better ease of addons... I find myself using addons from the same people in one mission to allow for integration... its good to see that soon, addons should work well with each other :D
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Wires on 06 Jun 2003, 03:49:26: The ammo initiative is a very good one and the ADF mod will also be part of it. I was pushing for a universal M4 pack that would cover a number of countries variants (US, Aust. NZ ect) and be used by mods along with their soldier / vehicle packs ect. this would solve a lot of conflicts and problems with multiple addons of the exact same type with only slight variation in quality. However most beleive theirs' are the best and / or can do better and want to make their own packs in any case. We're a fair way off streamlining addon creation for the community but this initiative is a good start ;)
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Arrouan on 06 Jun 2003, 04:35:42: I posted it in the forum before i read this thread: i think there are arguments for
designing an API:

reason 1: you can find scripts easier + argument parameters + documentation
reason 2: extension can be monitored by board
reason 3: inefficient, memory-consuming, massively cubic scripts can be marked as
deprecated (or just plain stupid)
reason 4: the whole ofpec community will benefit from it: less time needed to script means
more time to slaughter your favorite targets
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Sefe on 06 Jun 2003, 12:00:51: Arrouan, I can't see a connection of your post to this thread, especially since you already started a thread about your point. This redundancy is nor nescessary neither allowed in the OFPEC forums.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Arrouan on 06 Jun 2003, 13:53:05: There actually is a connection, I'll explain:

Baphomet complained about scripts doing the same things, scripts devouring valuable resources.

This is an inefficiency that could be solved by standardizing the way in which scripts are conceived, designed, written and documented.

I saw there already is an initiative to bundle library functions, in order to prevent people wasting their time on trivial (but necessary) functions. Why not extend this work, and start from the beginning with a well-designed API?

The result would be some kind of API tree in which editors can look up functions,
reuse the code described in it and extend or modify functions or scripts. It would be
something like the command reference for ofp editing, but then on a level of implemented scripts.

Example: suppose you want to script a parachute drop (or a weapon like mentioned above).
The first thing you would have to do is look up in the API tree wether a similar script already exists. If so, you could check out all parameters and return types for the functions used in the script - the prerequisite is that all scripts are documented in a uniform way - and extend the script by adding some code.

If the extension is good, it can be added to the API tree, so other people can reuse the code
and make another extension and so on. If the script happens to be better than the original one,
the old script can be marked as deprecated, so people stop relying on it and start using the new script as a base for their extensions. If the script is full of flaws - eg. cubic loops - it can be rejected, or published for peole to improve it, In this way inefficiencies in scripts are eliminated and kept track of easier and a certain level of quality in the scripts is guaranteed ... Plus: you can code easier.

The next step would be to create a script-processor, accepting real-life code blocks (for and while loops, synchronization blocks, etc.) and outputting ofp-script. But I think this is not so desirable for all the people out there using the ofp scripting language...
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: LCD on 06 Jun 2003, 16:05:12: didnt he talk bout addons ???

Quote
in the ofp community is the emergence of too many d**n addons that are pretty much the same

LCD OUT
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Sefe on 07 Jun 2003, 02:55:05: Arrouan, do you think when I ask you not to abuse other threads for your discussions, the adequate reaction is to go even deeper into that discussion? It's not you who defines what a topic is about but the one who started the thread. This thread isn not about efficiency, not about scripting, it's about addons. Plain and simple.

I suggest that you heed to a moderator's decision in the future. We're approachble, so if you have questions, feel free to ask. But there is a reasoning behind our actions and you shouldn't ignore them lightly.

Thank you.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Baphomet on 11 Jun 2003, 05:19:09: (...regarding various ammo types)
Well... hm. Honestly. I am of the mind that so long as I can take something and make my own adjustments to it without laying claim to it as my own or distributing it without permission. I'll go ahead and do that.

If you want something done the right way. You best do it yourself as I always say. Hell. I'll integrate a common ammo sharing system for all the addons that I play that might need it. So long as I can get my evil mitts on their .cpp.

If I can't then I might just make my own cpp and use the resources. I see nothing wrong with that so long as I don't distribute. OFP is all about me having fun playing the game the way -I- want to. The day that becomes impossible is the day I stop playing ofp.

That's another thing... Goddamned now there are at least three: to my knowledge, Mig 29 addons. One recently released by Vit. Now I don't begrudge Vit the commendation for such a nice looking addon with interesting features... but. Dammit. It's just a runaway train this addon redundancy thing is.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Wolfrug on 11 Jun 2003, 12:47:06: Exhibit A: The BAS Ranger/Delta addon, otherwise in all manners of speaking an excellently well done piece of work. But the unsilenced M4's and the silenced M4's have different magazines (M4 Mag and M4S Mag). ??? Considering there already IS an M4 mag available in the original game... *sigh*

Seriously, these kinds of things are starting to grow on me. The AK47 CZ and the AK47 use the same mag, the AK74 and the AK74SU use the same mag. The M16/M203 and the bloody AK74 grenade launchers use the same grenades!

Exhibit B: UCE's superior Russian Federation troops. Their weapons are re-skinned, and I can cope with that. IMHO the original AK's were fugly anyway. They use the same sound as the original guns (probably to save space). But they've got their own unique magazines, the only difference when you look at them in-game is that the original magazines are AK74 Mags while UCE's are AK-74 Mags.

::) Oh well. I'm just thinking aloud here. All I'm saying is that it'd simply be easier for us to actually use these addons in missions (as they should be) if we could for instance add a fancy new weapon to a Resistance soldier without having to unPBO the addon and go digging in some .cpp files to find the name of the gun. :P

/Rant :toocool:

Wolfrug out.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Messiah on 11 Jun 2003, 13:32:58: rant do he alot. unhappy be he magazines with.

:D
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Eviscerator on 11 Jun 2003, 13:48:50: Quote from: Wolfrug on 11 Jun 2003, 12:47:06
Exhibit A: The BAS Ranger/Delta addon, otherwise in all manners of speaking an excellently well done piece of work. But the unsilenced M4's and the silenced M4's have different magazines (M4 Mag and M4S Mag). ??? Considering there already IS an M4 mag available in the original game... *sigh*

There is not already an M4 mag ingame, there is an XM-177E2 magazine, if we had used that magazine it would say "XM-177E2 Single" or "XM-177E2 Auto" when using an M4A1 (Despite looking similar they are different weapons), you also can not fit a silenced weapon with a normal magazine because it wont be silenced, the ammuniton and sound information are in the magazine, so not only would it sound like a normal weapon, the ai wouldnt regard it as silenced either, also, most ammuntion used in silenced weapons is subsonic ammunition, otherwise it is not silenced, just muffled, as the bullet will still have the supersonic 'Crack' as it leaves the barrel. So realisticly you wouldnt use unsilenced ammunition in a silenced rifle, or silenced ammunition in a normal rifle.

What JAM is doing is creating magazines that have better sounds, and are suitable for any weapon of the same caliber, that uses the same ammunition (ie non silenced), we will also be creating high dispersion versions (as seen in the nam pack) of every magazine included, the one problem we have faced however is that there will no longer be "M4 Single" or "M4 Auto", as this information is in the magazine, not the weapon itself, so we will either have to change it to "Rifle Single" or "5.56x45mm Single" so that it will be able to be used in all the weapons that realisticly can use that magazine without having "M4 Auto" in the top left corner when firing an SA-80. It will however still say, for example, "Pick up SA-80", or "Weapon SA-80"

There are many flaws with the way BIS made the ammunition and magazine/weapons cpp's, the way JAM will do it is the easiest way to deal with them, also, with a hell of a lot of addon makers ready to be JAM compliant you wont have to dig through pbo's looking for various classnames for magazines, you will only need to have the JAM readme/ammunition list that will come with the addon.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Sefe on 11 Jun 2003, 14:42:26: Quote from: Baphomet on 11 Jun 2003, 05:19:09
Dammit. It's just a runaway train this addon redundancy thing is.

What do you want to do? Tell the addon makes which addons they should produce? He, everyone is free to do the addons he wants and I'll be the last one to tell anyone not to produce the 150th version of a Blackhawk, Mig 29 or whatever. Let the people make the addons they feel like and you decide which ones are worth being put in your addons directiory.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Tomb on 11 Jun 2003, 15:53:23: Quote from: Sefe on 11 Jun 2003, 14:42:26
...Let the people make the addons they feel like and you decide which ones are worth being put in your addons directiory.

.... :D the BIS trabi?! ??? (http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/cwm/rcain.gif) ;D

j/k. A good thing about discussing all this is that we get to know what ppl want.
What folks do back home is their own thing; I have balanced several weapons to fit my fave mags, and this is prolly the best compromise ppl like old ran(t/d)y wolfrug wanna see: updates of addons (or at least future addons) with shared mags/original BIS mags! :)

I support this idea but not at all costs; sometimes, some addon makers really manage to put together a really well tweaked "ammo" which is so good that you can actually notice the difference ingame. 8)
And then we have the archie-bartchie about who make the best 'cfgAmmo' for this & that weapon :P ::) ;D

I dare not think about it, but its a nice dream to imagine such new 'standard ammo' stuff.

As for reskinned-only weapons, that period is over I think, now that we have O2.
And thus: no need to discuss UCE ammo or similar old stuff (age matters).

(http://mindscraps.com/s/otn/blobs/red.gif)
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Skaven on 11 Jun 2003, 16:18:21: Guys I really see no point in this discussion, the JAM project is being made thinking on the gameplay and on the mission makers.
To me it makes no sense in for example using our Rangers in a mission with another addon maker's Seals and if I need ammo and I find some from a dead Seal I won't be able to catch it cause they are different, the only option is swapping weapons. :-\
Our intentions as usual are to make our game as real as possible, to me it's real to have all M4s using the same Mags for all addons isn't it for you ???

Ofcourse and as stated we can't tell everyone hey the M4 mags are here so you must use them, no no , no way, people are free to choose we never ever intendend to take freedom of choice but instead we give an alternative a new choice, wich basically represents to have all of our West and East addons sharing the same mags, how can this be bad? This can't be bad, it's purely simple an option, or you take it or you don't, if you ask me I take it ;)
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Tomb on 11 Jun 2003, 16:33:27: [size=12]Denmark - Luxembourg : 2-0[/size]

(so far, 8:15 GMT)

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Good point about the realism. sounds fair to fundamentalists like me 8) ;D
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Wolfrug on 13 Jun 2003, 19:47:15: Eviscerator - I stand corrected, as usual. :toocool: Damn I gotta try some addon-editing one of these days, just to see what the fuss is all about. Even ol' bmoT there had a go at it. Maybe I'd see your pain better then. So the sound and name info is all in the magazine? Right. JAM seems like the real deal then, I'll be damned sure to get it when it's ready. In the meantime I'll see what this "Addon" thing is all about...

Bah. Enough trouble trying to catch up with this whole "Resistance" bullcrap... :beat:

... ::)

Wolfrug out.
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Artak on 13 Jun 2003, 20:29:30: Quote
I gotta try some addon-editing one of these days, just to see what the fuss is all about.
Bro, that makes two of us, but I've adapted the old saying "you can't teach old dog new tricks" and so I've made a deal with myself to learn as much about version 1.0 and forget this addon bullshit and resistancecrap ;D
Title: Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
Post by: Tomb on 13 Jun 2003, 23:20:08: lol, wolfrugster: "BMOT" :o ;D you recall that!

well, to stay on top'
Quote
One thing I'm starting to get annoyed about in the ofp community is the emergence of too many d**n addons that are pretty much the same. I really don't understand why every mod or pack must create the exact same weapon when the community should be open enough that a mod team could ask someone who's made a decent version of the gun already to use that...

:thumbsup: I think this pretty much sums up the 'wassups' in this tread. And rumor goes that BAS and similar leading addon-teams will make some sort of deal about sharing mags/weapons in future addons. :D And if it sticks, if this deal is on, then mission making will be alot easier very soon! 8)

I can only support this idea 100% - provided the "new order" -weapons are that cool. :toocool: