[Mongoose]

Giving things a second thought, I will grant that a mod team should be able to control certain visual aspects that they deem vital to the experience.  If there's a mod out there that views 3D radar as a must, even if I myself dislike that option, I probably shouldn't be able to override it with a simple launcher flag.  However, the situations I was thinking of when I made my original post don't really fall into that category.  The FS1 and FS2 retail campaigns, or even Blue Planet, don't really care either way whether or not I'm using radar icons or cockpit views, since they're not really critical aspects of the gameplay experience.  I'd love to see that "Let the user decide" table option that karajorma mentioned, since that would still allow us as end-users to control nonessential graphical elements like that.

[chief1983]

At the moment, it's either one way or the other.  We don't have a way to let some mods require it, but other mods make it optional, short of putting optional items in separate VP files.  But then you end up with TBMs floating around everywhere.

[karajorma]

Yeah but it is pretty easy to do it the way I suggested.

[Shivan Hunter]

I'd just like to interject that if a mod forced something like the 3D radar (which is extremely awkward for me to use and therefore won't be tolerated), I will personally release a patched TBL or mod.ini or whatever returning control of the feature to the user. I will call it a "bugfix".

Developers who try to control how users play their games (note the ambiguous "their"- that's intentional) seem to me to be kindergartners throwing tantrums.

So really, it's up to you guys to do whatever you want with your mod. Just remember you're not the only modders here.

[The E]

And yet, there's a desire on the part of the developer to customize the look and feel of their game, like for example Diaspora and their DRADIS type radar. Altering that look and feel is certainly possible in an open engine like FSO, but that doesn't change the fact that a mod developer should have control over the "default" look of the game.

[chief1983]

I still say that in the very specific case of 3d radar, it's horrible to consider something that presents less information an 'enhancement'.

[Shivan Hunter]

Well, it's not an enhancement. It's a preference. It presents more information, but it's frakking hard to use if you've been using the 2D radar for 12 years. Same for radar icons: from what I've seen, they're huge, due in part to the HUD being stuck at 1024x768. Once we get a HUD that fits the screen (mine's 1080p) and thus smaller-yet-still-recognizably-detailed radar icons, I'll be using the regular dots.

I'm not saying anyone's wrong to use 3D radar or icons; I'm just saying that a user isn't wrong to prefer something the devs are trying to force him not to use.

[chief1983]

If a mod thought the 3d radar best fit their universe, I'd support their desire to enforce its use.  It's not supposed to be the same game, so if you have to get used to a new interface element, that's up to them.  You don't have to play it.  It may seem annoying that the option is there to have an alternative system, but that's not the player's decision.

[Shivan Hunter]

You don't have to play it.

By the same token, you wouldn't have to install my "fix".

A lot more is the player's decision in FS than in most games, and I feel it's up to me as a player and modder to exploit that. I'm not saying devs should change their mods, here; I'd just provide an alternative version for people so inclined.

[chief1983]

You do realize that in the case it breaks tables, you'd immediately be encouraging people to break their multiplayer capability.

You can do whatever you want, yes, it's an open system, but that could very quickly cause a lot of headache.  I used to play Counter-Strike using low-poly player models to help my FPS but I couldn't blame them for making those illegal in competitive play, as it does change the experience from what was intended.

So again, as a modder and player both, I support a mod's right to request certain restriction abilities on the experience a player will have when playing the mod.

[Shivan Hunter]

If I edited a table, I would explicitly state that it would break multi capability. I wish I could do more for the multi community in a hypothetical situation like this, but I do admit that singleplayer experience is more important for me, since I don't play multi.

I do believe that a mod team should have more control over the multi experience- for instance, I could hack my tables in the FS2 campaign or BP, either for graphical tweaks or personal taste (for instance, upgrading the Prom R or the TC-TRI's HP)- but I recognize that these changes don't have any place in multiplayer, since they change the balance of gameplay (I'm hesitant to specifically say "break"). The singleplayer experience, however, is up to the player.

[karajorma]

There is a point you are missing here. The current 3D radar is horrible and most people hate using it. So what if someone used scripting in order to make it work and then made it an integral part of their mod. Maybe you'd then have a system which resulted in a great 3D radar which everyone who tried it liked. And then half the people who played the game wouldn't see it because they'd not turned on the launcher flag.

So they'd post complaining that the mod was broken.

I'd just like to interject that if a mod forced something like the 3D radar (which is extremely awkward for me to use and therefore won't be tolerated), I will personally release a patched TBL or mod.ini or whatever returning control of the feature to the user. I will call it a "bugfix".

And I'd edit the post so that it wasn't called that.

It's not your place to release "bugfixes" for a campaign where the original developer is still active. Doing so would only confuse the end users, break multiplayer and force them to support your so-called bugfix. 

You're welcome to release it as a mod if you want of course. With the appropriate warnings over the dangers of installing it.

[Goober5000]

There is a point you are missing here. The current 3D radar is horrible and most people hate using it. So what if someone used scripting in order to make it work and then made it an integral part of their mod. Maybe you'd then have a system which resulted in a great 3D radar which everyone who tried it liked. And then half the people who played the game wouldn't see it because they'd not turned on the launcher flag.

So they'd post complaining that the mod was broken.

No they wouldn't.  They'd be satisfied with the 2D radar.  Then, when they see all the feedback on the forum about the awesome 3D radar, they'd turn off the launcher flag to see for themselves.

People don't like facing an Interface Screw without a way to turn it off.  Take the movie Avatar for example.  Like many people, I saw it in the theater in 3D and it was awesome.  However, the 3D effect gave me motion sickness, so I had to take the glasses off every once in a while to acclimatize myself.

It's not your place to release "bugfixes" for a campaign where the original developer is still active. Doing so would only confuse the end users, break multiplayer and force them to support your so-called bugfix.

Careful, you sound suspiciously like IPAndrews here.

[chief1983]

And as awesome as Avatar might be, I refuse to see it because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to want to watch an entire movie in 3d.  That's that choice I was talking about, you can either put up with Cameron's bull**** or just not waste your time on it.  Sure if someone 'hacked' Avatar so I could watch it easily without 3d glasses I might go see it, but I'm certainly not asking someone to do that.  It was his choice to be retarded.

It's not your place to release "bugfixes" for a campaign where the original developer is still active. Doing so would only confuse the end users, break multiplayer and force them to support your so-called bugfix.

Careful, you sound suspiciously like IPAndrews here.

Oddly, that did cross my mind as I almost wrote something like that myself.

[Iss Mneur]

There is a point you are missing here. The current 3D radar is horrible and most people hate using it. So what if someone used scripting in order to make it work and then made it an integral part of their mod. Maybe you'd then have a system which resulted in a great 3D radar which everyone who tried it liked. And then half the people who played the game wouldn't see it because they'd not turned on the launcher flag.

So they'd post complaining that the mod was broken.

No they wouldn't.  They'd be satisfied with the 2D radar.  Then, when they see all the feedback on the forum about the awesome 3D radar, they'd turn off the launcher flag to see for themselves.

People don't like facing an Interface Screw without a way to turn it off.  Take the movie Avatar for example.  Like many people, I saw it in the theater in 3D and it was awesome.  However, the 3D effect gave me motion sickness, so I had to take the glasses off every once in a while to acclimatize myself.

You have still missed the point.  The point is that the mod developer does not have control of the feature.  Would a mod developer force 3D radar on if they had the choice? Probably not, based on the argument that is going on in this thread.  This usability problem is likely why no one has ever asked the SCP to implement a way for the developer to force 3D radar on.

Also, why are we focusing on 2D/3D radar in a thread about radar icons for the 2D radar? I would also, like to add that there are other flags that would benefit from this proposed "implementation" for the features that have flags, namely 3d_ship_choice and 3d_weapon_choice.

I am pretty sure that most of the "features" that get added to FSO are actually there to allow a developer to change something that was previously hard coded in the UI.

It's not your place to release "bugfixes" for a campaign where the original developer is still active. Doing so would only confuse the end users, break multiplayer and force them to support your so-called bugfix.

Careful, you sound suspiciously like IPAndrews here.

IPAndrews? Really?  Didn't IPAndrews say that he had released the final version?  That he would not develop the TC anymore? That would certainly qualify as an abandoned campaign.  Not one where the "developer is still active".

And as awesome as Avatar might be, I refuse to see it because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to want to watch an entire movie in 3d.  That's that choice I was talking about, you can either put up with Cameron's bull**** or just not waste your time on it.  Sure if someone 'hacked' Avatar so I could watch it easily without 3d glasses I might go see it, but I'm certainly not asking someone to do that.  It was his choice to be retarded.

And yet, Cameron released Avatar on DVD, in 2D! and only in Standard Def! for the shame!

[karajorma]

No they wouldn't.  They'd be satisfied with the 2D radar.  Then, when they see all the feedback on the forum about the awesome 3D radar, they'd turn off the launcher flag to see for themselves.

You've ignored the point I made about making it an integral part of the gameplay. With the 3D radar off, a script that altered it could cause all kinds of bugs and crashes.

People don't like facing an Interface Screw without a way to turn it off.

Again you're missing the point about it being an integral part of the game. While forcing players to use the 3D radar in and of itself might be an interface screw, turning it into an important part of the game isn't.

Take the movie Avatar for example.  Like many people, I saw it in the theater in 3D and it was awesome.  However, the 3D effect gave me motion sickness, so I had to take the glasses off every once in a while to acclimatize myself.

And what you're saying is that the cinema shouldn't have said that the movie was in 3D. What should have happened is that people were offered 3D glasses somewhere in the small print on the ticket stub, gone to see the movie and then later heard reviews state that it was so much better in 3D.

If you want to turn off the new features you can simply mod the tables to turn them off. But suggesting that people should only find out that a game is meant to be played a certain way when they hear that they ****ed up is nonsense.  But the only way to prevent that is to make it so that the developer can demand certain features be switched on.

Careful, you sound suspiciously like IPAndrews here.

So if I were to fix a bunch of problems I personally had with one of your campaigns and then post it without consulting you, calling it a bugfix you'd have no issue with it?

[Aardwolf]

*ahem*

Novel idea here: instead of a launcher flag (since people seem to hate that), and instead of an optional (or multi-breaking) tbm, how about adding an option in the hud config (or something similar)?

Or a control to toggle it (like how there's already a control to set radar range)?

Or any number of things that wouldn't be multi-breaking and would allow the campaign designer to suggest something, and the player to say decline that suggestion...

[chief1983]

All the stuff you suggested, is something we don't have a framework in place to support yet.  That's why.  Of course those would all be better options.  If you want to write a new extended options menu, please do

[karajorma]

Launcher flags are merely a stopgap for an options menu anyway. But that still misses the point I was making about increasing the workload for the developers. People seem to be hung up on 3D radar and radar icons. Those are just the thin end of a very big wedge. So let's go back to cockpits.

We're starting to get working cockpits for FS2 ships now. And it's only a matter of time before people start wanting to put those in the mediaVPs. And then we'll have this issue all over again. You'll have people who don't like cockpits and want to play the game exactly as it was in retail and other people who want to play with them turned on. So someone will suggest having a launcher flag, keypress or menu option to turn cockpits on and off. Which will work just fine until some mod, be it Blue Planet, BWO, or whoever takes the cockpits and makes them a part of the game which isn't optional.

Now we have a problem. Since cockpits aren't optional for this mod the developers haven't bothered testing the mod to see what happens if you turn them off. But a significant percentage of the userbase have already activated the -no_cockpits launcher flag. So now what? Either you force the developers to support having no cockpits even though they may have designed scripts, missions and effects with them in mind or you make them release the campaign and somehow tell the users that they must turn on cockpits. We all should be well aware of how successful we have been in the past when we've told people that they must do something in order to have a mod work.


And cockpits almost certainly won't be the last of these issues. As the game continues to develop we'll see more and more of these things appearing in the media VPs. And I'm still of the opinion that the developer not the user has the right to decide which features they'll be using in their games. If they are too draconian people will vote with their feet anyway so it's not like people are going to turn on features as a whim or because they like them better. They'll be turned on because the game would suffer without them.

[Galemp]

Is there any way we can have forced launcher flags in the mod.ini?