Re: Tg mod pack update

**browna3** · 11-15-2009, 04:21 PM

im going to keep this shot miles teg, not all of the requested mods will be used for numurous reasons.

as for the brit weapons there has been a fix included thanks to inkompetent, and the landrovers i have no idea what your on about as i have yet to see this "glitch"

A proper fix for the brit sounds will be done soon.

finally onto the selection process, every mod was downloaded and tested by myself, socom and marine. its a time consuming process and setting up the yoma tools for distribution, well i'm not even going to go into how i nearly through my monitor out of a window to try adn get it to work. and believe me this is the best way atm to distribute the pack.

**ACOGRecon** · 11-15-2009, 04:31 PM

Can someone please give the n00bs here a step by step installation guide? I don't really understand what I need to do precisely.

**Fincuan** · 11-15-2009, 04:34 PM

See the first post

**browna3** · 11-15-2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ACOGRecon

Can someone please give the n00bs here a step by step installation guide? I don't really understand what I need to do precisely.

there is a pdf that i made, also the how to on the yomatools.be site is very good as well

**ACOGRecon** · 11-15-2009, 04:47 PM

Ok, thanks guys.

**Sc[ + ]pe** · 11-15-2009, 05:27 PM

Browna, Socom re:Testing;

Firstly, do not take this as an attack on the admins or on any of the hours you've spent testing the features of the TG Mod Pack, because I'm quite aware of just how much you've all spent putting it together.

That being said, you make continued claims that all of the mods were tested fully before being included to check for obvious errors, lack of quality, etc., specifically when dealing with TG members that questioned why certain addons weren't included. Why, then, were some of the initial addon packs included (SA80, Landrover) when it was quite obvious with only a modicum of testing that they were not up to the standards of quality you've set for the mods you were talking about in your posts above?

You say that the only way to test these properly is in an open, real-time, multiplayer environment, to the effect that we should only feel vindicated in complaining that the pack wasn't tested before release if we have the manpower and server capability to test them ourselves, but these were obvious problems in a buggy release that should have been apparent immediately. Specifically, I'd like to recall the recent Sunday TG Mod Pack event, wherein there was an immediate source of confusion and frustration due almost exclusively to the poor quality of the British equipment.

I don't plan on using Yoma, and my frustration with the current state of affairs regarding this mod pack has me, like Miles, thinking of slowing it down until ACE2 hits the server and the need for these mods (and constant updates to them) is erased. I don't mean to play the blame game -- I love you guys! -- but this has become slightly ridiculous on my end.

**ForGlory&Pain** · 11-15-2009, 06:15 PM

I think Yoma is a good step regardless of what direction the mods take. But a little more user-friendly GUI (and steam-directory auto-searching) would go a long way to ease these growing pains.

I've used modlaunchers with a LOT of online communities, and it is a neccessary evil if we want the play the game better than the original game is, so you just have to deal with it. It isn't personal, hell; running mod folders with ArmA is a pain enough to your average gamer, I don't see how a mod launcher (with autopatching!) is a worse situation at all.

Browna, shoot me a PM. I have some skills in writing documentation and mabye I can help write up some how-to's.

**TacticalJim** · 11-15-2009, 06:39 PM

Ok got it working...really like new island...two problems so far:

get message "Addon 'inko_disposable' requires addon 'extended_eventhandlers'
during game startup.

and I don't seem to have the island of Everon anymore.....

**OzyTheSage** · 11-15-2009, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by TGZNOL

get message "Addon 'inko_disposable' requires addon 'extended_eventhandlers'
during game startup.

This is the error I get. I assume it's because the mod pack isn't using the latest version of CBA. It won't break your game but it might break the disposable launchers... haven't tested it yet...

**Fincuan** · 11-15-2009, 06:57 PM

Extended eventhandlers is already included in the version of CBA that is in the modpack and Inko's addon is probably built on it too, so that message most likely means you don't have CBA at all.

I just played with the pack a little, and no matter what anyone says on the size or quality at least the content fits my "Gangs" mission damn well. Gangstas ftw

**LowSpeedHighDrag** · 11-15-2009, 07:02 PM

Just my thoughts on this process
[rantModeON]
I have noticed that the new addons selected by the ArmAII admins were mostly catered to the "high end" PC users. Some of these addons are NOT catered to the sub-highend PC users.

Why do I mention this? Couple of reasons;
Firstly, good addons are made to be compatible with minimum recommended specification of the game and recommeneded. Meaning, they have proper LODs and textures to suit the ranges.
Secondly, must I remind you all that most ArmA (pre-ArmAII) players left early on during the game due to the lack of compatibility issues of the game with their PC rig.
Yes, you can blame them for not coughing up the moola to upgrade their kits. But, not everyone in TG can afford to do such. Not everyone here has parents with expendable income nor free rent/mortgage/utilities/tuition/medical/add real life $hit here.

On a different note. Yes, I can see and agree with the visual aspects of some of the addons. However, unless they are absolutely needed and can't be substituted without an addon then by all means procure it. Keep it to a minimum anyone?

"Functionality over texture upgrade", "Functionality over eye candy", "Functionality", "Functionality" and wait for it.... "Functionality!" Where have I read this before?
Give me an example?
Here is one: Zeus AI Combat Skills - http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=89970

Current TGModpack is mostly BLUFOR oriented. Where is the obvious equivolent to the F16 adoption? Where is the equivolent to the M4/M16 addon for the OPFORs?
Shouldn't the mod pack BALANCE the addons more towards the center of the field?
If such addons do not exist currently, solution is simple. Don't use them until we do.

Also, by updating addons in a regular basis. I can come to this conclusion due to the adoption of the Yoma tools, its main purpose. In 6 months time, the addons will at this rate will be equal to the actual game size. Is this for real? Keep it to a minimum? I've read this before somewhere.

Finally, I would like to know if there was/is any categories the ArmAII admins have in checking the addons. What do you actually check for? I would like to be enlighted to the proceedure itself. I'm sure others would agree.
[rantModeOFF]

Despite the rant above or constructive criticism as I know it. The addons are pretty and others are useful. I have even made a new mission using them. So enjoy and fire some heat this direction if you hate the mission.

My suggestions to ease of future addon proofing.

Solution A (Yoma issues):
1) How about amending the original pdf readme with a direct link to each of addons required.
Reason: giving people the freedom of choice. This also might help the current/old arma members to install the new addons without learning yet another "productivity" product.
Steam members included.

2) Please also include a basic .txt format of the readme also.
Obvious: There is a valid reason why ALL well polished addons have a basic ReadMe.txt in their zip/rar/7zip files. Also, it keeps the files slim(mer) and not everyone wants to use Adobe Acrobats.

Solution B (General Issues):
1) Keep a separate thread for the update with no access/reply option.
Reason: Less confusion, clutter, jibber jabber, don't-waste-my-effing-time posts.

2) Create a post regarding such thread open for critique.
Reason: Some of us don't want to wade through 6 pages of irrelavant posts to get to the point. An actual place for constructive criticisms and suggestions without clogging up the "TG mod pack" post.

**socomseal93** · 11-15-2009, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by LowSpeedHighDrag

Current TGModpack is mostly BLUFOR oriented. Where is the obvious equivolent to the F16 adoption? Where is the equivolent to the M4/M16 addon for the OPFORs?
Shouldn't the mod pack BALANCE the addons more towards the center of the field?
If such addons do not exist currently, solution is simple. Don't use them until we do.

You bring up an interesting point. We would like to add more opfor content but there is none available. However, even if there was we would be a little hesitant because most people make BLUFOR missions and adding more content would possibly seem like a waste since it would not be fully utilized.

**tralicrifleman** · 11-15-2009, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sc[ + ]pe

Browna, Socom re:Testing;

Firstly, do not take this as an attack on the admins or on any of the hours you've spent testing the features of the TG Mod Pack, because I'm quite aware of just how much you've all spent putting it together.

That being said, you make continued claims that all of the mods were tested fully before being included to check for obvious errors, lack of quality, etc., specifically when dealing with TG members that questioned why certain addons weren't included. Why, then, were some of the initial addon packs included (SA80, Landrover) when it was quite obvious with only a modicum of testing that they were not up to the standards of quality you've set for the mods you were talking about in your posts above?

You say that the only way to test these properly is in an open, real-time, multiplayer environment, to the effect that we should only feel vindicated in complaining that the pack wasn't tested before release if we have the manpower and server capability to test them ourselves, but these were obvious problems in a buggy release that should have been apparent immediately. Specifically, I'd like to recall the recent Sunday TG Mod Pack event, wherein there was an immediate source of confusion and frustration due almost exclusively to the poor quality of the British equipment.

I don't plan on using Yoma, and my frustration with the current state of affairs regarding this mod pack has me, like Miles, thinking of slowing it down until ACE2 hits the server and the need for these mods (and constant updates to them) is erased. I don't mean to play the blame game -- I love you guys! -- but this has become slightly ridiculous on my end.

I cannot agree more scope. I don't know or care what yoma is and i don't get why we change something that didn't need fixing, but whatever as long as I can use that old way ill be happy enough. Also being a huge fan of OPFOR stuff i am disappointed alot of the opfor stuff that was recommended was ignored and would be curious as to the reason it was not added?

Also I am worried about you mentioning a "Real Fix" for the brit weapons. While i cant download the mod pack update until tomm because im at a MUN(Model United Nations conference) I certainly hope that the current fix actually fixes the problem.

**browna3** · 11-15-2009, 09:16 PM

the current fix replaces the sounds with the M16/M4 sounds.

the fix that hopefully is coming soon will fix the brit sounds

**HOTMACHINA** · 11-15-2009, 09:56 PM

It would be polite to at least use the tool and make an informed appraisal before deciding if it was fit for purpose.

Taking a position of "its not broken so why try to fix it" kind of misses the point.....

Thread Tools

Display