Post patch 1.4 idea for modders - Page 2

tater · 11-07-07, 05:49 PM

It's tough since so much is interrelated.

tater

MONOLITH · 11-07-07, 06:01 PM

I was 2 seconds away from typing, in big capital letters, "Count me in for whatever you want to do Ducimus".

Then I remembered what I said to myself the other night; it's time for me to step back a bit and just relax and play some other games again. Take a break from sub mod testing, forum arguing, etc etc.

I just bought Valve's HL2 Orange Box. What a blast. "Portal" is simply gaming brilliance.

Bunch of other new games out or about to come out. Company of Heroes expansion. C&C3 expansion. COD4: Modern Warfare. The Witcher. Lots of games to just relax and enjoy.

Plus I'm heavily involved in the development studio in my sig. I run my own business. Wife and kids. I train twice a day like a pro bodybuilder.

I don't even know when I sleep anymore.

But, I caught the modding bug 8 years ago and it never goes away. Let's play it by ear. I'm more inclined to get excited about the add on next spring, than the soon_to_arrive patch.

But we'll see.

If it starts to happen Duci, you can probably count me in. I can do anything; sounds, skinning, campaign layer/cfg edits. Etc.

Ducimus · 11-07-07, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MONOLITH

Then I remembered what I said to myself the other night; it's time for me to step back a bit and just relax and play some other games again. Take a break from sub mod testing, forum arguing, etc etc.

Ive told myself that three times or so. I need to follow through on it. I really do want to quit. Id be much happer posting patrol logs then mod revisions. Trouble is, if the game bugs me somehow, i know ill rip into the guts of it so it doesnt, simply because i can. Once you do that, it starts a spiraling trend thats hard to get away from.

tater · 11-07-07, 06:29 PM

I'm actually fine with the idea, though, I think it's sound as an alternate "supermod" framework, I didn't mean to be discouraging.

A long time ago, I made an suggested IJN ship substitution list.

RSRD (as the only other campaign) expands on it by adding some ships from various SH3 ship mods (many of which are not IJN, so not on my list).

I can see certain frameworks ensuring that all such mods are compatible. Have a master list of ships and what they should sub for. An agreed list of new ships to fill needed roles (things like Kaibokans, etc, til we get "real" ones to use).

If such a master ship/aircraft/sub list was kept as a unique mod, for example, then maintaining it would be easier. A single ROW compatible version to keep track of, for example. I've been thinking of a "Combined Fleet" mod for all the japanese shipping. An agreed framework might be something like:

Ship Mod 1 IJN (all warships in here, even if IJA, etc)
Ship Mod 2 Japanese Merchants
Ship Mod 3 USN
Ship Mod 4 RN and Commonwealth
Ship Mod 5 All other shipping

Aircraft Mod 1 IJNAF/IJAAF
Aircraft Mod 2 USN/USAAF
Aircraft Mod 3 RAF/RAAF/RNAF/RIAF/FAA/KNIL/MLD
Aircraft Mod 4 Other AFs

The mod numbers above would be the required install order. Each install would use the Names.cfg from the previous # mod as a baseline. The order I picked was not random, the japanese as #s 1 and 2 means that you could just install them for a campaign that might not alter the allied roster. My campaign doesn't alter it simply because I never expect to see any battles as a sub---having tried to make some, they are not accurate enough for my taste, I don't want to see bad surface battles. I figure if the IJN ships aren't shooting Long Lance torpedoes at Savo in SH4, I really don't care if the USS Quincy is not the right type of CA in game, the fact that the battle is prosecuted utterly wrong by the AI trumps the ship types, IMO. I usually don;t start in port because I actually find the ports anti-immersive since they tend to be overbuilt, or in the case of PH, just plain wrong in ways I instantly recognize when I see it. As a result I never see USN ships.

So having a modular system is possible, and mods can go up the realism scale as needed. If a campaign doesn't use extra allied ships to reduce load times, it only need use the base parts. Meanwhile, the campaign makers don't have to constantly reinvent the wheel regarding bashed ships. By sharing the same ship names, a based substitute can later be replaced without mucking up the campaign.

Take a Kaibokan C, for example. I might make it and call it Kaibokan_C, but lurker might have it NCD_TypeC. Later, if the new ship works start churning out Kaibokans, it would be extra work if they were labeled by me as Kaibokan_C, and lurker wanted to use it and had to change all the #$@%#@ names. Better to have a standard there. That sort of thing.

The aircraft are trickier since they also use the Names.cfg. A stand alone order is posted above, but the japanese could really be set to Mod 2b, then the US planes to 3b, etc. Same logic applies, you actually see japanese planes, they seek you out. The only time you see allied planes is usually lifeguard missions.

tater

donut · 11-07-07, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Well, it was an idea.

I have allot of ideas.

IMO.

Trouble is, most of em suck.

Your idea is thoughtful,& needed,it will earn you adulation Thu commitment.we retired from the idea of marriage because someone must have veto power,men can only give.Now thats commitment:rotfl:

11-07-07, 06:01 PM	#17
MONOLITH Grey Wolf Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 997 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I was 2 seconds away from typing, in big capital letters, "Count me in for whatever you want to do Ducimus". Then I remembered what I said to myself the other night; it's time for me to step back a bit and just relax and play some other games again. Take a break from sub mod testing, forum arguing, etc etc. I just bought Valve's HL2 Orange Box. What a blast. "Portal" is simply gaming brilliance. Bunch of other new games out or about to come out. Company of Heroes expansion. C&C3 expansion. COD4: Modern Warfare. The Witcher. Lots of games to just relax and enjoy. Plus I'm heavily involved in the development studio in my sig. I run my own business. Wife and kids. I train twice a day like a pro bodybuilder. I don't even know when I sleep anymore. But, I caught the modding bug 8 years ago and it never goes away. Let's play it by ear. I'm more inclined to get excited about the add on next spring, than the soon_to_arrive patch. But we'll see. If it starts to happen Duci, you can probably count me in. I can do anything; sounds, skinning, campaign layer/cfg edits. Etc. __________________

11-07-07, 06:29 PM	#19
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	I'm actually fine with the idea, though, I think it's sound as an alternate "supermod" framework, I didn't mean to be discouraging. A long time ago, I made an suggested IJN ship substitution list. RSRD (as the only other campaign) expands on it by adding some ships from various SH3 ship mods (many of which are not IJN, so not on my list). I can see certain frameworks ensuring that all such mods are compatible. Have a master list of ships and what they should sub for. An agreed list of new ships to fill needed roles (things like Kaibokans, etc, til we get "real" ones to use). If such a master ship/aircraft/sub list was kept as a unique mod, for example, then maintaining it would be easier. A single ROW compatible version to keep track of, for example. I've been thinking of a "Combined Fleet" mod for all the japanese shipping. An agreed framework might be something like: Ship Mod 1 IJN (all warships in here, even if IJA, etc) Ship Mod 2 Japanese Merchants Ship Mod 3 USN Ship Mod 4 RN and Commonwealth Ship Mod 5 All other shipping Aircraft Mod 1 IJNAF/IJAAF Aircraft Mod 2 USN/USAAF Aircraft Mod 3 RAF/RAAF/RNAF/RIAF/FAA/KNIL/MLD Aircraft Mod 4 Other AFs The mod numbers above would be the required install order. Each install would use the Names.cfg from the previous # mod as a baseline. The order I picked was not random, the japanese as #s 1 and 2 means that you could just install them for a campaign that might not alter the allied roster. My campaign doesn't alter it simply because I never expect to see any battles as a sub---having tried to make some, they are not accurate enough for my taste, I don't want to see bad surface battles. I figure if the IJN ships aren't shooting Long Lance torpedoes at Savo in SH4, I really don't care if the USS Quincy is not the right type of CA in game, the fact that the battle is prosecuted utterly wrong by the AI trumps the ship types, IMO. I usually don;t start in port because I actually find the ports anti-immersive since they tend to be overbuilt, or in the case of PH, just plain wrong in ways I instantly recognize when I see it. As a result I never see USN ships. So having a modular system is possible, and mods can go up the realism scale as needed. If a campaign doesn't use extra allied ships to reduce load times, it only need use the base parts. Meanwhile, the campaign makers don't have to constantly reinvent the wheel regarding bashed ships. By sharing the same ship names, a based substitute can later be replaced without mucking up the campaign. Take a Kaibokan C, for example. I might make it and call it Kaibokan_C, but lurker might have it NCD_TypeC. Later, if the new ship works start churning out Kaibokans, it would be extra work if they were labeled by me as Kaibokan_C, and lurker wanted to use it and had to change all the #$@%#@ names. Better to have a standard there. That sort of thing. The aircraft are trickier since they also use the Names.cfg. A stand alone order is posted above, but the japanese could really be set to Mod 2b, then the US planes to 3b, etc. Same logic applies, you actually see japanese planes, they seek you out. The only time you see allied planes is usually lifeguard missions. tater Last edited by tater; 11-07-07 at 06:42 PM.

11-07-07, 05:49 PM	#16
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	It's tough since so much is interrelated. tater