Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:02 am Post subject:
Carryall Request
I know that in some pre-release experimental versions, carryalls had a "bug" that allowed them to pick up enemy vehicles.
I say, why not allow this as an optional feature for the plane? It would be loads of fun and has usability as a combat carryall, etc. Some sort of magnetron-like plane...
The flag would be something like:
[aircrafttype]
allow.carry.any=(boolean)
That would enable using it on any "allowed" unit, friend or foe, on the battlefield.
What do you think?
I am not a coder but would imagine it is doable... _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Well a tag more like the SW targetting might be better with the options for "any", "ally" "own" or something. So you can choose to allow either all units, allied (and owned) units or just the players own. QUICK_EDIT
Well, that is your "blueprint" and I'm okay with it, but it implies it would work on all carryalls instead of being customized. it does have nice ideas though, as current carryalls are not that different from just transports...
But I look for, and I propose, because it is way more flexible (and it is modding possibilities that we are looking for) more like what OmegaBolt says, the possibility of customization for different owners of units, with a tag on the unittype. This of course is compatible with your proyect but not specified or otherwise mentioned in there.
(also, civilian should be used as a tag house? I wanted superweapons that could only target neutral units and structures but don't know how to do it, since only none|owner|allies|team|enemies|all exist...) _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Nov 2010 Location: Iszkaszentgyorgy, Hungary
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:46 am Post subject:
It implies to allow the possibility.
You imply to be nuts. _________________ "If you didn't get angry and mad and frustrated, that means you don't care about the end result, and are doing something wrong." - Greg Kroah-Hartman
=======================
Past C&C projects: Attacque Supérior (2010-2019); Valiant Shades (2019-2021)
=======================
WeiDU mods: Random Graion Tweaks | Graion's Soundsets
Maintainance: Extra Expanded Enhanced Encounters! | BGEESpawn
Contributions: EE Fixpack | Enhanced Edition Trilogy | DSotSC (Trilogy) | UB_IWD | SotSC & a lot more... QUICK_EDIT
Graion, it does not imply so; one can choose to "assume" it, which is not the same.
I know, and I had done it it in the 0.2 testing stage, but it is hard to navigate Ares forums and to find the right threads.
Even the documentation page has a bad search engine and is somewhat chaotic...
This is not to complain but it seems easier to post here; also, that is why this forum was created, no? My laziness won't damage anyone _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Since the entire point of the Blueprints system is to provide an entry point for the entire course of a feature's creation, including a proposal's drafting process, you are both wrong.¹ At least in terms of Blueprints usage. It's entirely possible Alex doesn't care about what's being thought where and just wants to hear the final idea. That would be a waste of Blueprints, but his choice.
NimoStar wrote:
[...]
I know, and I had done it it in the 0.2 testing stage, but it is hard to navigate Ares forums and to find the right threads.
That might be because neither bug reports nor feature requests were supposed to end up in forums, and that policy is still being upheld over at RenProj.
Just a thought.
NimoStar wrote:
Even the documentation page has a bad search engine and is somewhat chaotic...
[...]
Or maybe it's just you?
For me, at least, the search engine always found what I was looking for...
Joined: 22 Nov 2010 Location: Iszkaszentgyorgy, Hungary
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:21 pm Post subject:
Well, blueprints can link to forums for discussion, so I don't see a problem with that Ren. In fact, it's might just better if the bluerint links to a post in a topic, alowing a more suitable place for a discussion, than an overedited wiki page for example. _________________ "If you didn't get angry and mad and frustrated, that means you don't care about the end result, and are doing something wrong." - Greg Kroah-Hartman
=======================
Past C&C projects: Attacque Supérior (2010-2019); Valiant Shades (2019-2021)
=======================
WeiDU mods: Random Graion Tweaks | Graion's Soundsets
Maintainance: Extra Expanded Enhanced Encounters! | BGEESpawn
Contributions: EE Fixpack | Enhanced Edition Trilogy | DSotSC (Trilogy) | UB_IWD | SotSC & a lot more... QUICK_EDIT
@Renegade
Surely as long as the correct details regarding the blueprint makes its way to the blueprint page, it doesn't matter whether the discussion is here or there?
I think if you are too regimental towards endusers it may put people off this type of discussion completely _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You know, you are not going to encourage more people to get (back) into Ares coding, if you continue to demonstrate that you don't read a single thing of official Ares correspondence.
So, again, for what feels like the hundredth time: The entire point of Blueprints is that the creation of the feature specification can happen elsewhere, in its entirety, no matter the software or kind of software it happens in, as long as the Blueprint is updated with the current status of development and link to the full specification.
So the entire distinction between "discuss it here vs. discuss it on the Blueprint" or "update the Blueprint with details immediately vs. discuss it to the end and then put the details on the Blueprint" is utter bullshit.
The Blueprint is a link. A meta-object for the purpose of specification tracking. Blueprints for specification tracking are the least regimental thing for feature creation and discussion you could possibly do without abandoning organization altogether.
All that's being asked of you is "link where the feature development happens, and update the status of your considerations".
So, you are wrong if you think that "things should be discussed before being being put up as a suggestion".
You are wrong if you think that a single post is inherently better than a wiki page. It's up to the individual user's and group's preferences, and depends on the state of the specification.
You are wrong if you think anything more than a broad outline of and a link to the specification should or must ever end up on the Blueprint page.
You are wrong if you think that insisting that people people discuss features ideas wherever the ztype they want, in whatever way they want, puts people off discussions.
What's really the issue here is not that anybody is being "too regimental". What's the issue here is that, no matter how often I say "the point is that you do whatever the ztype you want, and just update us on the status every now and then", people just plain refuse to read it.
Seriously.
I explained this when we originally switched systems.
I explained this a while after, again.
I explained it in a forum thread over at RenProj.
I explained it on IRC.
I'm pretty sure I explained it in at least one thread on PPM as well.
I keep explaining that the entire point of this system is that there are basically no regulations, as long as the link to the full specification is current and you keep the status updated, so the developers can work with the data object.
And people just plain refuse to acknowledge that.
So, one last time: I don't give a shit whether you discuss carryalls here, on the wiki, at RenProj or using goddamn cans connected by strings.
But the idea presented here is not new. There is an existing feature specification for it, marked as being in discussion.
So if you do want to discuss a specification for a feature based on this idea, base your discussion on the existing specification draft, instead of starting a whole new discussion, ignoring everything that's happened before.
That's not even a matter of pride (I don't give a shit whether I posted that spec or anybody else), it's a simple question of efficiency: There is no point in having multiple discussions and multiple approaches to achieve the same ztyping thing.
The community needs to realize that every bit of bloat and unnecessary extra work it creates directly translates into less work being done.
Remember how RockPatch's wishlist kept growing to the point where pd essentially didn't even look at it anymore.
Remember us having to do DFDs, automatic suspension and the likes to stay on top of the request flood.
Every minute a developer spends on searching, interpreting, deciphering and translating your ideas is a minute not spent on developing said idea.
So instead of insisting on ignoring the system best integrated for specification tracking, starting an independent discussion, developing the same feature idea, but slightly different, on a different basis, independently, parallely to other feature ideas, in a random thread in one of multiple forums, how about you just make it easy for the one who'll ultimately implement this shit and just discuss what was already proposed, write a clear, concise feature specification, and update the Blueprint with the status of your deliberations? _________________ #renproj:renegadeprojects.com via Matrix - direct link QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:07 am Post subject:
OmegaBolt wrote:
Oh ztype off.
I concur. Renegade, no matter how much good stuff you've done for Ares and C&C modding in general, these large posts in which you berate people for not knowing stuff you think everyone should know are getting annoying. If you are so annoyed by it, why bother replying with a post of a kilometre then? QUICK_EDIT
Customization of Unit Targeting would be wonderful for all Units regardless anyway so just getting this to work also means you can quite possibly restore the Mechanics from RA1. _________________ ~ Excelsior ~ QUICK_EDIT
Atomic_Noodles, I requested removing restriction to Organic and Mechanical warheads, so infantry types may use Mechanical warheads (mechanic infantry) and vehicles can use Organic warheads (ambulances).
But I got answer from AlexB that as usual for feature requests, I should wait. it is somewhere here.
OmegaBolt wrote:
Oh ztype off.
Hahahaha! OmegaBolt, What a reply on huge wall of text. _________________ PPM Halloween Season 2021 QUICK_EDIT
Yes, that about sums up the general attitude around here. No wonder none of these projects satisfy the community.
Dutchygamer wrote:
OmegaBolt wrote:
Oh ztype off.
I concur. Renegade, no matter how much good stuff you've done for Ares and C&C modding in general, these large posts in which you berate people for not knowing stuff you think everyone should know are getting annoying. If you are so annoyed by it, why bother replying with a post of a kilometre then?
Because the alternative would be willfully ignorant people like Omega spreading evidently false information, leading to underutilization of tools and preventable disorganization, inefficiency and time waste, in turn leading to longer development times and fewer features developed, in turn leading to the same morons starting to bitch about said long development times.
I informed Omega that he was wrong, and how the situation actually was. His response was "ztype off", and you concur with that.
So if the both of you are willfully, knowingly and purposely trying to make the Ares Developers' life harder...why should I give a ztype that I annoy you?
(All of this independent from the fact that my post was actually on topic and correcting a misconception, so it was, objectively, a valuable addition to the thread...so ztype off yourself.) _________________ #renproj:renegadeprojects.com via Matrix - direct link QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Nov 2010 Location: Iszkaszentgyorgy, Hungary
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject:
Ren.
First excuse me for not visiting the IRC recently, I got overcrowded with the uni.
This isn't a community of geeks, nerds and programmers. You can throw in specifications, the waterfall-model and such other serious software development phrases into your thinking.... but the community just won't understand it and can't use it. You can't demand MrOldModder to learn software-development. They are casuals.
That's why RA2 modding is still popular, it's not XML or LUA or something which could be a programming language on it's own.
And that's where the Blueprint section of Launchpad ain't optimal for them. Back at the time, on Mantis, we could have the ability to comment on the plan as well. The discussion happened in the same place the request came up. It didn't needed anyone to search for a place to discuss.
Blueprints are good for professionals, since they are heavily aim-oriented, but they are also demanding. These guys ain't profs. That doesn't mean they don't read your stuff, that means they can't understand why you force something which is just complicated, more complicated for them than the previous one. Since as being aim-oriented, it throws request maintaince to the users. Who might not be suited for that.
Because the blueprints does not support a place for commenting directly and you must manually link a place to discuss it. Yes, blueprints are for specifications. But heck, the 90% of this community can't write one. We are not Ubuntu devs. And not even close to that level. Most of the guys can't even differ a binary number from a hex one, maybe.
And yes, if I link a post where the main idea is written down with some solid points and let anyone post their opinions into the followup, then it's also as efficient as the other options. And it's even casual-friendly.
This community doesn't act like your workplace, there are no people here who can design such clearly as you'd like to. You just demand too much. Sometimes I feel I demand too much of knowledge when it comes to Ares but heck, I'm far away to surpass you.
Heck, where did the guy who could talk with the simple mortals went from DeeZire? That one knew what to expect from the community. Now you totally sounds like someone who to use an optical mouse expects the user to have a full understanding on lasers and such. QUICK_EDIT
On topic. It would be nice to have weapon armed Carry-All some how. Like RA3 Twinblade or RA2 Scraped Hind. Curent Carry-All (as well as usuall air transport is harcoded to paradrop it's passangers).
There is another thing I'd like to mention. Not sure if it is worth fixing, but:
Having Aircraft Types to work with passangers is probably most wanted thing for every TS moder. In YR it finaly get fixed and works well with infatry, but for vehicles only particaly. SHP vehicles refuse to enter transport even if it allowed by SizeLimit. And Hover units ignore Sizelimit completely, they just enter to transport no mater how much of free space inside. _________________ Gangster is a Project Perfect Wuj (c)Aro Last edited by Gangster on Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:57 pm; edited 3 times in total QUICK_EDIT
Renegade, yes, I read your text, I have to say that I agree with you regarding that its better to have discussion about certain feature in one place rather than in few threads, because its much easier for developer to read and assume all things related to certain feature, rather than search for all related stuff around.
In this case its much better to have discussion about carryals here rather than few people create few their own threads about carryals.
However, I think that if majority wants, it can be done here, no need for blueprints. Personally, I do not like it and find useful too, but its just myself. I have to admit that if I do not like something it does not mean that its bad or not useful.
But as far I can see majority did not find it useful, mostly for reason which Graion Dilach explained.
I think (I can be wrong) that people mostly wants simple things as much are simplier possible. Make feature request, and expect answer: yes or no, for implementation. Okay, small conversation about feature, if needed. No need for registering there, filling blueprints, setting priorities or such.
I am not saying that you are wrong. You are right about what did you wrote, you have points, but you are wrong because you are constantly trying to convince people at something which they do not want to be convinced. You bash at people for something which they are not interested to do. You cannot learn that here its not matter if you are right or not, its just matter if community would accept that or refuse. It will always end like this, same scenario, you vs many people, and no progress at all. _________________ PPM Halloween Season 2021 QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject:
Graion Dilach wrote:
Ren.
First excuse me for not visiting the IRC recently, I got overcrowded with the uni.
This isn't a community of geeks, nerds and programmers. You can throw in specifications, the waterfall-model and such other serious software development phrases into your thinking.... but the community just won't understand it and can't use it. You can't demand MrOldModder to learn software-development. They are casuals.
That's why RA2 modding is still popular, it's not XML or LUA or something which could be a programming language on it's own.
And that's where the Blueprint section of Launchpad ain't optimal for them. Back at the time, on Mantis, we could have the ability to comment on the plan as well. The discussion happened in the same place the request came up. It didn't needed anyone to search for a place to discuss.
Blueprints are good for professionals, since they are heavily aim-oriented, but they are also demanding. These guys ain't profs. That doesn't mean they don't read your stuff, that means they can't understand why you force something which is just complicated, more complicated for them than the previous one. Since as being aim-oriented, it throws request maintaince to the users. Who might not be suited for that.
Because the blueprints does not support a place for commenting directly and you must manually link a place to discuss it. Yes, blueprints are for specifications. But heck, the 90% of this community can't write one. We are not Ubuntu devs. And not even close to that level. Most of the guys can't even differ a binary number from a hex one, maybe.
And yes, if I link a post where the main idea is written down with some solid points and let anyone post their opinions into the followup, then it's also as efficient as the other options. And it's even casual-friendly.
This community doesn't act like your workplace, there are no people here who can design such clearly as you'd like to. You just demand too much. Sometimes I feel I demand too much of knowledge when it comes to Ares but heck, I'm far away to surpass you.
Heck, where did the guy who could talk with the simple mortals went from DeeZire? That one knew what to expect from the community. Now you totally sounds like someone who to use an optical mouse expects the user to have a full understanding on lasers and such.
This, this oh so much. Especially the part that PPM isn't like your workplace where everyone knows what you are talking about (although I have to admit that I do know some developing-related stuff) and that you seem to have changed a hell lot over the last couple of years. But fine Ren, if this is your way of thinking, have fun with it: you won't make much friends here (not that I expect you to care, but wth).
My apologies to the original poster for going off-topic so much. QUICK_EDIT
Because such discussion wears me out quite quickly, I'll make it short. For me a blueprint is a token, an object I can assign to a version like 0.2 or 0.3. It can be used for tracking the progress of a feature. For you modders, it is something that doesn't matter because it's usually not part of your world.
You can all do what you want, and I'll pick what I want. The closer something is to me, the more likely I will see it.
Thus if you discuss stuff here and create a blueprint at Launchpad (pointing to the thread here), it will be ok. If discussion adds or changes the topic slightly, that's ok, too. If I see something that interests me, I might even add a blueprint myself, but do not take that for granted.
So, it would be nice if you would search for an existing blueprint and update it if it exists or add a new one with a descriptive name.
And please one blueprint per distinct feature only. Do not tie unrelated things together, because then I'll just pick the fun thing and ignore the other. For example, there was a grouping feature request that intends to make type selection easier, and wants to use the same value for BuildLimit grouping. Too bad. A thead at PPM can of course have multiple topics at the same time, see the TS feature topic.
@MasterHaosis: Regarding what features did I say something like "wait" or "just wait"? Did I say this to every new feature request? Could there there a pattern?
@Topic: I didn't know passengers on aircraft behaves like this. I can take a look at it. Especially the hover locomotor part is strange. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
@MasterHaosis: Regarding what features did I say something like "wait" or "just wait"? Did I say this to every new feature request? Could there there a pattern?
AlexB,
AlexB wrote:
MasterHaosis: I don't think it's a bug. it might be a feature... As always (related to this warhead hardcoding): just wait.
Yeah you said ,,just wait". Whats difference between wait and just wait anyway? its same to me, maybe you have special treatment to those two words
I had to note him that I already mentioned that, otherwise he would request that (again). And you would reply him such (again). _________________ PPM Halloween Season 2021 QUICK_EDIT
@MasterHaosis: You pretty much explained the entire purpose of Blueprints: "I think [...] that people mostly wants simple things as much are simplier possible." The very fact that modders don't want to deal with development-related things and would rather stay on their own turf and talk about it there instead of ending up in some weird-ass development system with rules, form fields, etc. is why Blueprints are preferable to the plain bug tracker.
You can open up a thread, a wiki page, anything you want, wherever you're comfortable, and structure the discussion any way you like.
You're completely free in developing your idea. All that's expected is that you create a Blueprint, place the link to your thread/page/whatever, and update the status every now and then, so the developers know what state your idea is in. ("I had this thought in the shower this morning..." vs. "alright, now all we need is someone to code this...")
You can have the exact discussion you're having right now, with the difference that anyone coming from the Ares side of things can actually find it, and that the developers can use the Blueprint to plan.
Maximum freedom for you, the necessary tools for the devs, and easy access for people coming through Launchpad rather than PPM.
And all it takes is submitting the thread link once at the start, and updating the status if anything changes.
(In fact, in return, you get the clear implementation information you implied as desired: You see exactly whether a feature idea was approved, and it what state of development it currently is. You can even subscribe to the Blueprint to be informed if its status changes.)
@Graion: There's really not much to say here...you're comparing a system where modders can do whatever the ztype they want, wherever the ztype they want, in whatever way they ztyping want, and a rigid system in one place, with pre-defined form fields to fill and specific rules of what to do how.
...and you declare the former one the complicated, user-unfriendly one.
Quite frankly, I don't think you understood the point of Blueprints any better than the rest of the people here.
I mean, seriously: How much simpler than "tell us where you're talking about this, and how far along you are" can it conceivably be?
It's the bare minimum of information: The mere existence of a feature idea, and its current state of discussion.
Anything less, and you cannot properly plan with it anymore.
Anything more, and you're starting to restrict how the feature's design is done.
So really: How much more freedom do you need to feel free?
Would you like me to install a web crawler on the server, which searches the Internet for new Ares feature ideas, so they don't have to be brought to the developers' attention by the users anymore?
Would you like the developers to forego actual development in favor of reading every single post in a dozen threads, just to figure out whether an idea has properly materialized yet or not?
How much more freedom than complete freedom do you need to be happy?
As for your claim there's not even a way to comment on any given Blueprint: Is one click on the edit button too complicated for you to use the Whiteboard?
Is one click on the "Read full specification" link too complicated to move to any given feature discussion, if it does happen in a forum thread?
@Dutchygamer: I acknowledge your repetition and emphasis of a post consisting entirely of misconceptions, irrelevance and falsehoods.
I wish you had the same amount of vigor and passion when it came to actually helping and supporting Ares and its developers.
@Gangster: I can see the armament spawning special cases fast. Once a target was successfully destroyed, the aircraft would default to stopping/idling/waiting, and land...dropping the cargo.
You'd also end up having to either make it a boolean "has arms" vs. "can paradrop" decision, or adding even more special cases and contextual decisions.
And once you actually have it working, you start a fun game of "how should weapons system X work with carryalls?".
Abductors, for example. Sure, fly-by-abduction-to-carryall sounds fun. But you end up with another half dozen special cases of what unit can be carryall-abducted how, when and why. (e.g. carryall-abducted infantry, carryall-abducted Naturals, etc.) In what order do you apply the abort-conditions? Do you prevent the abduction of non-carryable units? Or do you allow the abduction, realize the unit cannot be carried, and just swallow the unit? Do you prevent the usage of abductors on carryalls as a whole?
I'm not saying it's not possible, and I'm not saying it's not a valid suggestion. I'm just saying it's not as simple as just flipping a switch and suddenly they can have guns. These kind of changes can produce a whole lot of subtle bugs and unexpected behaviors, and all of them need code to fix or work around them.
(Just wait for the AI to start producing armed carryalls and using them as attack fighters instead of carrying units...) _________________ #renproj:renegadeprojects.com via Matrix - direct link QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:34 pm Post subject:
Renegade wrote:
@Dutchygamer: I acknowledge your repetition and emphasis of a post consisting entirely of misconceptions, irrelevance and falsehoods.
I wish you had the same amount of vigor and passion when it came to actually helping and supporting Ares and its developers.
I actually informed how I should be able to help (as in: code stuff), as I want to help if possible. Unfortunately, current lack of interest in RA2, and more importantly, trying to find a RL job take priority now. Also, last time I informed Ares was more in need of testers then coders, so I let the idea float for a while (as I'm more focussed on Generals then RA2). QUICK_EDIT
@MasterHaosis: You pretty much explained the entire purpose of Blueprints
Ah, well I did not know much about it because I am not requesting stuff. I only requested two things here about flying aircraft carriers and increasing color selection and thats it. I only supported and wish TS features and Organic/Mechanical warheads to be fixed (I would for sure use that), but that was just wish, those two requests are my priorities, so I did not came to new requests. Thats enough for me. So I did not know really much about blueprints, thats why I stated already that I may be wrong regarding this.
But then I do not understand why people refuse blueprint and why are/were you arguing with them if Blueprints are easy and nothing complicated.
Renegade wrote:
You can open up a thread, a wiki page, anything you want, wherever you're comfortable, and structure the discussion any way you like.
You're completely free in developing your idea. All that's expected is that you create a Blueprint, place the link to your thread/page/whatever, and update the status every now and then, so the developers know what state your idea is in.
Aha, yes, so basically when I create blueprint there, in description all what I need to do is to put link from thread located here and whole discussion regarding this goes here?
But where AlexB or you are going to give information about status (progress of feature), here in post or there in Blueprint or in both places? _________________ PPM Halloween Season 2021 QUICK_EDIT
The blueprints can be attached to a future version. When the feature is done, the blueprint is updated. If I need feedback, I'd most likely ask here. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
@MasterHaosis: On the Blueprint page, there's a section called "Blueprint information", that's where all the stuff resides that's interesting to the developers.
In there, it's the "Definition" field.
(Since we're interested in the current state of the definition of this feature, iow, how well is this feature defined at this point?)
Updating it is a two-click affair: Click once on the yellow "edit" button, and then once on the new status. The rest happens automagically.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Carryall Request
