No.Are there any mods that would utilize radar icons as some sort of make-or-break attribute, as opposed to the dots we've been using for a decade? The only released things I'm aware of that have them are the MediaVPs, FSPort, and Blue Planet, and in each of those cases they're a completely-optional minor graphical tweak. Unless I'm just not grasping some theoretical complex purpose they could be used for, I feel like they're in the exact same vein as the 3D radar or extra scanning line, both of which have had launcher flags for years. Should they be treated differently than those?
If a mod has included radar icons they should definitely be used. I definitely don't want to see the inclusion of yet another flag we have to tell people to switch on to make certain mods work.
Now if you want to have a table setting to turn them on or off that would be a different matter.
Neither of those should have been a launcher flag in the first place anyway. :p They certainly wouldn't be if they were added today.
Secondly there are mods like Diaspora which do need radar icons. Dots would not look like DRADIS.
But more importantly this is one of those "The campaign should play the way the campaign designer intended" issues. Not to mention that it would be a PITA in multi if people used different systems in order to get an advantage.
And I would say that even the radar icons should be a user-changeable selection. Dots may not look like DRADIS, but a user may prefer them anyway.
There are certain things the mod designer should be able to choose to be forced on regardless of the users preferences. Cockpits are a big example of this. You don't want some multiplayer pilots having to turn them off because others have and gained a huge advantage as a result.So if some mod out there wants to force that ugly-as-hell 3D radar on me, I'll just have to bend over and take it? :p
If one person can tell where a bomber is vs a fighter for instance, that's a big difference right there. Or, I want to fly towards the fighters but away from the capital ship with beams of death. Icons make that possible without any hesitation.
And why not? Other space flight simulators offer that as a user-interface option, for the very reason that it makes things easier in a dogfight. In TIE Fighter and X-Wing, you just need to press one key to toggle it off and on.
I have a hard time seeing how what kinds of dots you use on your radar (or whether or not you can see the cockpit) is going to make a bigger "competetive advantage" difference than the size of your graphics card or the speed of your internet connection, but nobody is proposing we lock screen resolutions or have a minimum ping... the thing is, *everything* user-configurable is arguably a balance issue. You can't lock them all down, and IMHO locking down something like the appearance of your radar is going too far.
So if some mod out there wants to force that ugly-as-hell 3D radar on me, I'll just have to bend over and take it? :p
Some sims do offer it as an option, but others have realized that it _does_ present a balance issue, like IL-2. IL-2 offers it as an option, but offers servers the ability to lock down that option, eliminating user control over that. _That_ would be the ideal solution, but barring that, I'm fine leaving that control fully in the mod's hands if it has been there from the start.
You don't have to play it.By the same token, you wouldn't have to install my "fix".
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".
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.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.
So they'd post complaining that the mod was broken.
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. :p
QuoteIt'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. :p
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.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.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.
So they'd post complaining that the mod was broken.
People don't like facing an Interface Screw (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InterfaceScrew) 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.
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".QuoteIt'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. :p
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.
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 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InterfaceScrew) 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.
Careful, you sound suspiciously like IPAndrews here. :p
Table flags consisting of "Use Feature", "Don't Use Feature" or "User Choice"Ya it would be a good idea to make it explicit, that way, when someone copies the entire example table from the wiki (that lists all of the options) they won't break something they didn't plan on.
To be honest we can probably ditch the 3rd one and just have that as the default but it doesn't hurt to make it explicit. :)
Is there any way we can have forced launcher flags in the mod.ini?
[extremeforce]
[extremeforce]
forcedflagson = -tbp -ship_choice_3d
forcedflagsoff = -3dradar -infotext
Now we're getting technical. In this section you can specifically name some flags that must be always enabled or always disabled for the users of your MOD.
* Use extreme caution when adding flags to this section. Be very sure that your mod needs those particular flags to be always enabled or disabled, or you might end up with an avalanche of hate mail in your inbox. Worst case scenario, we'll get them too for allowing you to force some flags.
Be careful with the flags set in this sections. Even better, try to have no flags in there if possible. And keep in mind all the user has to do is open your mod.ini file to remove this.
Note: forcedflagson takes precedence over forcedflagsoff. That is, if you specify a flag on both lists the flag will be forced on. This allows the default forcedflagsoff flags to be enabled for the mods that use those flags. See forceflagsoff for details.
Also Note: If you find it necessary to use these options, you should also bring it up with the SCP as it is likely something that should be moved into the tables.forcedflagson
A list of flags that are a must for your mod to work. The format is very simple. List flags one after another (including the "-" character) and separated with one empty space. Take a look at the sample above for an example.forcedflagsoff
This section does the opposite of the one above. It disallows the user to activate some flags that you know it will break your MOD or will add gameplay-altering elements to it.
Note: -tbp and -wcsaga are always on this list.
The ship lab gui doesn't have any 'graphics'. You'd update the code that draws the option elements at the same time you update the code to support the new option. No scripting changes needed, only code, and builds only show the options they support. Scripted menus are just too inflexible for a dynamic system like that I think, unless the scripting is truly used to draw it, but told what to draw by the engine itself.
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.Substitute "mediavps_3612" for "3D cockpits" and you have exactly the problem that's going on now with the FSUP. Regardless of user preference, mods have the responsibility to accommodate both the presence and absence of an optional feature.
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.