Home   Help Search Login Register  

Author Topic: News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)  (Read 4847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Baphomet

  • Guest
News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« 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.

Offline macguba

  • Former Staff
  • ****
    • macguba's operation flashpoint page
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #1 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.
Plenty of reviewed ArmA missions for you to play

Offline Wolfrug

  • Addons Depot
  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • Official OFPEC Old Timer
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #2 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.
"When 900 years YOU reach, look as good you will not!"

Offline Tomb

  • Contributing Member
  • **
  • in2 Metal? Go 2 my sig
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #3 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  ::)



Baphomet

  • Guest
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #4 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.

« Last Edit: 05 Jun 2003, 01:16:03 by Baphomet »

Offline Tomb

  • Contributing Member
  • **
  • in2 Metal? Go 2 my sig
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #5 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

« Last Edit: 05 Jun 2003, 01:40:13 by Tomb »

Offline Noon416

  • Old Bugger
  • Former Staff
  • ****
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #6 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?
"If a man talks in the woods and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"

Offline Tomb

  • Contributing Member
  • **
  • in2 Metal? Go 2 my sig
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #7 on: 05 Jun 2003, 02:21:00 »


*cough*  ::)



...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:



Offline Noon416

  • Old Bugger
  • Former Staff
  • ****
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #8 on: 05 Jun 2003, 02:52:37 »
I suppose you *MIGHT* have a point there, Tomby. :P ;) ;D
"If a man talks in the woods and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"

Eviscerator

  • Guest
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #9 on: 05 Jun 2003, 04:38:31 »
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.

Offline Messiah

  • Honourary OFPEC Patron & Drinking Buddy of Wolfsbane
  • Honoured Contributor
  • ***
  • OFPEC Veteran
    • Project UK Forces
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #10 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
Proud Member of the Volunteer Commando Battalion

Wires

  • Guest
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #11 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 ;)

Arrouan

  • Guest
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #12 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

Offline Sefe

  • OFPEC Patron
  • Former Staff
  • ****
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #13 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.

Arrouan

  • Guest
Re:News comment: New initiative (the M4 thing)
« Reply #14 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...