project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > News / Announcements > Project Reality News
16 Dec 2018, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Project Reality News Project Reality news releases and announcements.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2015-10-10, 10:37   #41
[R-DEV]Mineral
PR:BF2 Lead Designer
Supporting Member
PR Server License Administrator

Mineral's Avatar
Default

Man bluedrake, you are a real waste of time. Everytime you feel obliged on how to tell us to run a 'team'.
Where is the point in defending ourselves against you. You got it all figured out don't you Just accept the fact that we are simply mod teams and that we don't want to be something else. We aren't a brand, we aren't one big team, we are just a bunch of modders. And that's what we like to be.

Nice to see another thread discussing the death of everything. Shame arma didn't work out. But with that scripting language it's indeed almost impossible to get something big going

Mineral is offline
Last edited by [R-DEV]Mineral; 2015-10-10 at 11:48..
Old 2015-10-10, 14:01   #42
Beee8190
Supporting Member

Beee8190's Avatar
Default Re: PR: ARMA 3 Development Update

What I wonder is weather Arma 4 will be fundamentally changed. It is probably unlikely that we'll see a different engine but I personally would have to be impressed with the next iteration for me to consider another Arma. Yes I know its a one of a kind game but I still feel I've been let down on many fronts, especially physx and the thread OP news doesn't make my second thoughts on buying this game go away
Beee8190 is offline
Old 2015-10-10, 19:08   #43
Bluedrake42
Supporting Member

Bluedrake42's Avatar
Default Re: PR: ARMA 3 Development Update

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Deadfast View Post
And that's your mistake. Now I'm not asking for a bi-weekly edition of "Just how amazing Deadfast is" but if every second post is somebody telling you just how wrong and pointless everything you are doing is then you bet it's demoralizing.
I just want to talk about how everyone can make the most of their work. I'm sure you'd be happier if all the effort you put into this project had a bigger impact than it did. Maybe it still can, if we make sure the mistakes that got us here can be avoided in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Mineral View Post
Man bluedrake, you are a real waste of time.
Then you say stuff like this haha like somehow that's gonna make me care any more about your "feelings" than you do lol. The petty insults, ban threats, power plays, and overall poor attitude is not only further alienating your community... but also alienating your development teams (both existing and potential.)

If your argument is "but we like to be flawed and mean" then cool dude more power to you lol then you won't mind if I throw that right back at you. Maybe I like being a brash Youtuber who throws around bold opinions as much as you enjoy being a bickering group of persnickety developers?

However I'm not gonna sit here and take cheap shots to start off every post I make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComedyInK View Post
That 'to what extent' is the single reason that I'm not pursing modding for PR:BF2. That is the single reason that my assets for WW2 have taken months to complete when they should take weeks.
See that's a great answer. Why can't I get more posts like this?

Alright so lets talk about this, I'm genuinely curious. Outside of PR:BF2, what is the most universally accepted "format" of 3D models? I'm coming at this as a newb, so please enlighten me. To build a resource pool of the most compatible asset types seems like a pretty powerful move for future projects.

And Mineral I'm not asking this to tell you all to do it, at this point idgaf wtf you all do. However maybe if we talk about this, someone either on your team or my team will glean some useful ideas to use in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Deadfast View Post
I don't know what Project Reality you are talking about (as I already explained there are entirely different teams under the same brand) but the A3 team was never treated as anything resembling AAA development. And huge chunks at a time? Hardly, look at the original roadmap.
Yeah I'm looking at the roadmap... and I'm also looking at a development update saying that your ambitions were too high and the project failed. So... what do you want me to say? "Yes your roadmap was perfect Deadfast GG 10/10 would develop again"

So here... obviously the roadmap was too ambitious, and the development chunk was too great. Perhaps starting with smaller chunks, and releasing things in smaller bits would have not only maintained developer morale... but ALSO kept PR:ArmA3 in the spotlight more to attract potential help.

For instance, why not just release the AAS map by itself? Why not just release the squad management system by itself? Those are both things that would have been gladly used by the community, the feedback would have been given earlier and at a more critical time, and perhaps more local ArmA3 talent would have contributed.

Look for instance. Two examples.

First off, I work with a lot of bands... so let's draw a comparison there. Bands that attempt to go "quiet" and create an entire 12 track album in secret rarely make it to a release. However, bands that are open about their progress... perhaps release singles on the way, and focus around releasing smaller bits of content usually make it all the way up to their large release.

Another example. A lot of Youtubers who focus on releasing huge (but infrequent) pieces of content often burn out quicker than Youtubers who focus on releasing smaller bits of content more frequently... even when they ultimately create the same amount of quality content.

For a mod team such as yours, I think following in those footsteps are the key to success. Shit honestly... that's what PR:BF2 did. However now that PR:BF2 is so huge, every new project seems intimidated into creating this huge premiere release... when they really should just start with like... weapon tweaks, and super small shit. Just like PR:BF2 did when it started.

The reason you guys didn't have anyone to "step up" to take over after Deadfast is because no one was playing your game. Because there was nothing out there. I swear to god Deadfast probably created like (compared to PR:BF2) 4 generations of content. You need to focus on building the community first, and the product second... otherwise you will burn out, the project will fail, and there will be no one to carry the torch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Deadfast View Post
The reasons for having to rewrite the code were explained in detail in the OP. The code base was on life support, collapsing under the immense weight of technical debt stemming from using shortcuts and less exhaustive paths.
Okay actually look, can we clear something up? Because I don't have a clear picture about this, all I know is that there are a lot of bitter devs that have complained to me when I ask them.

Tactical Battlefield is using the same technology, the same scripts, and the same work built for PR:ArmA2. Like you all can deny that all you want, but help me cut through the bullshit here. Does that mod stem from the same project? And I don't care if it's like "oh yeah but they were working on that before they were a part of PR:ArmA2" I'm asking, did that mod at any time flow through PR:ArmA2. And was there ever an active decision to cut out that development team in order to build this new iteration?

And I ask this because, Tactical Battlefield in ArmA 3 is working fine. They adapted everything used in PR:ArmA2 over to ArmA3. Its still going strong. Granted it has like... no playerbase, because it doesn't have the Project Reality name anymore. But to say that the old system was "under life support" is kindof ridiculous... because at this point its doing better than what you ditched to create.

When I say taking shortcuts and less exhaustive options... what I'm talking about is that. I'm talking about not burning bridges with the ArmA development community by cutting people out, and not ditching systems that (while imperfect) perform adequately enough to maintain the community until alternatives are developed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Deadfast View Post
For some people making their hobby commercial is not something they are interested in. For some it's exactly what they want. Luckily there are choices!
Yeah cool, I mean that's fine. However I think its still reasonable to talk about what went wrong here, and how to keep it from happening again. Unless you all are like "yeah but we don't care if things fail" in which case alright cool, guess that's a lost cause. I can tell you though, I'm not particularly happy with that... especially if there are just better ways to do things. But okay...

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Deadfast View Post
For PR:A3 that was the original goal. Put together a stable foundation and build upon that in increments. It was a perfectly reasonable goal at that point in time. Later my availability has changed and we made the mistake of not realizing just how much.
I mean this just goes towards what I said before. I understand your circumstances changed, however that should be taken into consideration as a pretty predictable factor in hobbyist development. If there was a community still built around smaller public builds you may have had the assistance you needed to complete your work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Deadfast View Post
For gameplay scripts there is absolutely no overlap whatsoever between BF2 and Arma. BF2 uses Python, Arma uses SQF. The difference in language isn't the biggest problem either, you could easily rewrite a script from one language to the other but the way the script "plugs into" the game will be different too.

For vehicle and weapon models it's comparatively simple. But you have to have a high-detail model to start from. That's a problem with many of the older BF2 assets - they were made specifically for the requirements of the BF2 engine. They simply will not look good in a newer engine. Furthermore each engine will require the model to be set up differently. This is a lot of work.
Alright yes, that's the answer I was looking for. I totally understand the gameplay scripts are incompatible, however that second answer is exactly what I was looking for. It is possible to build a library of assets which can be used cross platform. High poly is difficult sure, but I can't imagine building a model from a low poly version would take more time than building a model from scratch. Hell even keeping around highly organized and easily accessible reference material for each asset would be worth it.

Hell even if you built a game in ArmA using lower detailed assets... I think you could still pull that off until the assets are updated. No one is going to rage over a few low poly models in an ArmA 3 game.

Bluedrake42 is offline
Last edited by Bluedrake42; 2015-10-10 at 22:06..
Old 2015-10-10, 21:15   #44
PricelineNegotiator
Banned
Default Re: PR: ARMA 3 Development Update

Oh hey what's going on this thread? OH MY GOD.

Bluedrake, I think you should really just take a hint. Your crowd and it's outlook doesn't really fit in too well with the base of Project Reality. I don't think it was meant to be for you to do modding / be in control of any development of the Project Reality mods.
PricelineNegotiator is offline
Old 2015-10-10, 21:34   #45
[R-DEV]​AfterDune
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member
PR Server License Administrator

AfterDune's Avatar
Default

Keep it civil, guys. We're on the edge of a flame war and a somewhat proper discussion.

Keep it civil and this thread will stay open .

AfterDune is offline
Old 2015-10-10, 21:58   #46
Bluedrake42
Supporting Member

Bluedrake42's Avatar
Default Re: PR: ARMA 3 Development Update

Quote:
Originally Posted by PricelineNegotiator View Post
Oh hey what's going on this thread? OH MY GOD.

Bluedrake, I think you should really just take a hint. Your crowd and it's outlook doesn't really fit in too well with the base of Project Reality. I don't think it was meant to be for you to do modding / be in control of any development of the Project Reality mods.
You say that like I'm vying for control of anything, or that I'm not aware that the developers don't want to hear any of this lol

I'm here because I'm responsible for one of the larger player communities in Project Reality, and I feel obligated to voicing my concerns and feedback over the failures and future of the mod.

Outside of that I'm frustrated with the PR team's terrible attitude, especially in the treatment of community members who voice their concerns... even when those concerns prove to be legitimate.

I'm not even saying you should do what I'm suggesting, but having some open talks about it probably wouldn't hurt. Otherwise you all can go back to the dev forums and keep letting yourself go.

At this point our community makes up 35% or more of Project Reality's active player base, and that's not through the love and support of the remaining Project Reality community. So you can argue that there are people here who dislike me, and I'd agree. No shit. But don't act like I don't have a reason to be here.

Bluedrake42 is offline
Old 2015-10-10, 21:59   #47
James2464

James2464's Avatar
Default Re: PR: ARMA 3 Development Update

I would like to say publicly Deasfast worked extremely hard and built a very solid code base. He is very talented with sqf logic and thus is employed because of it

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

James2464 is offline
Old 2015-10-10, 22:17   #48
Bluedrake42
Supporting Member

Bluedrake42's Avatar
Default Re: PR: ARMA 3 Development Update

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-CON]James2464 View Post
I would like to say publicly Deasfast worked extremely hard and built a very solid code base. He is very talented with sqf logic and thus is employed because of it
Hey woah I want to make sure everyone knows Deadfast pulled this entire project. Don't misinterpret me as saying Deadfast didn't do an obscene amount of quality work.

However everyone needs to be aware that banking on a single developer is both unfair to the developer, and also unrealistic for the project.

This is an issue with upper project management, not the developers themselves who pulled the weight.

Its more a tragedy for Deadfast that this project broke down in a way that didn't make the most of his hard work. I'm not even sympathetic for the community, they can get whatever they get.

However to do that much work, and have it all break down merely due to some management issues and poor administrative decisions... is heartbreaking.

Bluedrake42 is offline
Old 2015-10-10, 22:43   #49
[R-DEV]​Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: PR: ARMA 3 Development Update

There is seriously no point in pointing fingers to why PR:AMRA3 failed in hindsight. I could list 100 things if I really wanted to but it wouldn't change or achieve anything, many of them I even pointed out when PR:ARMA2 started, one of the key ones which I was highly opposed to was the total separate teams between mods which Deadfast already has acknowledged here was a mistake in hindsight, and was even more of a problem for PR2 than it was for PR:ARMA3. But like I said, there is no point going over all these little things and if you want to change something, you now have the opportunity with the source code made public, to do so. So you can either bitch and whine about how PR:ARMA3 failed, which isn't going to achieve anything, or you can take their work and finish it off as how you see it should have been done in the first place.

At the end of the day, PR:BF2 is still going strong and intends to continue for some time and if you wish to help out with PR:BF2s development, you can as well in the community modding / community tasks forums. Other than that there is really nothing more to talk about...

Rhino is offline
Old 2015-10-10, 23:41   #50
Fabio Chavez
Default Re: PR: ARMA 3 Development Update

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabio Chavez View Post
Do you maybe still have pra2 custom vehicle models flying around that you might like to donate to CUP?
what happened to the pra2 models that where made for BAF?
maybe they can have a second life, as should Deadfasts mission have, i want to slap together some basic aas/conquest missions for the CUP Terrain pack, if it works just halfways playable in practice, they might be handed out with CUP Terrains by default, which could supply a potential playerbase.
Fabio Chavez is offline
Closed Thread


Tags
arma, development, update
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:34.