[Xelion]

I wasn't questioning whether the section is up to date. What I was questioning is the format its available in and what problems and confusion are associated with the WIKI currently. See when 3.6 was released a while back the page was thus updated, and I assume when and if a 3.7 is released the page will also be updated. At that time either some features will be changed or new ones added. What does dissappear is the old information for that official version.

My point is the WIKI is an up to date source and the SCP needs some basic user documentation that is version-specific and is available somewhere that it can be download. I see the WIKI as more of a recommendation then a requirement, its something users will goto when they need 'specific information' rather than required information.

[kasperl]

Not really. Specific docs are a ***** to make, especially because it changes so often. The old version are still available through page history, but no-one should be using an old build anyway.

[Xelion]

Old builds are somewhat substantially free of bugs, for example I'm running the 3.6 build right now and every time I close Freespace2 my computer lags for a minute or two, occasionally it'll only happen for a few seconds afterwards and in some circumstances I've got to restart the computer. As much as I like what’s happening around here, especially with the SCP I still don't see many users playing the game due to the lack of documentation and I fail to believe thats its

[list=1]

• A ***** to make documentation
• or old builds are bad
[/list=1]

Look its just a suggestion, I just think that adapting better practices now rather than later would be advantageous. Plus you'd be getting in more of the lower end of users who make up the majority of gamers.

[kasperl]

Xelion, with the memory leak dumped, and the lite build by Taylor on the way, minimum spec users should be looking forward, not back. Old builds are generally unssuported, because bugs get fixed.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Xelion
As much as I like what’s happening around here, especially with the SCP I still don't see many users playing the game due to the lack of documentation and I fail to believe thats its

• A ***** to make documentation [/B]

Tell you what. See the Installing FS2_Open link in my Sig? Try keeping it perfectly up to date so that it shows how to install both 3.6 and the most recent build (i.e the two questions everyone asks about).

We'll see if in a month you aren't complaining about what a ***** it is to keep documentation up to date

Believe me it really is. The first time I updated that page it took me 2-3  HOURS to chase up all the information, write it down and get it all prettied up so that it was completely understandable. Within a month the entire page was obsolete. So again. Another 2-3 hours repairing, revising and making it more general so that it wouldn't go obsolete so quickly. This time it lasted a couple of months.

Documenting new features isn't so bad cause once they've been made they tend to stay the same but believe me it can be a real ***** to make docs for FS2_Open cause you're up against a very fast moving target.

If you want to try though go ahead

[Lonestar]

I can see the problems with keeping things up to date, and really, unless we have a user willing to ensure its always up to date there is no way for us to keep up.

Ill do my best to find and enter all the info after ive completed the update to the wiki.

[Xelion]

karajorma read what I said earlier

I wasn't questioning whether the section is up to date.

Instead of further deliberation by me I'll have a go at it. You'll have to give me a few weeks because I have only so much spare time. It'll either be in xhtml or pdf format which can accompany the SCP or be downloaded separately. It's unlikely to be build specific but it'll contain basics and some advanced stuff. Really though, build specific documentation should be done by the people who create the builds and then that could be integrated with the rest of the documentation and revised if necessary. No-one can better document the product (eg. SCP, builds, etc) then the person who created or modified it.

[karajorma]

The problem is that it takes time to make documentation. That time is better spent by the programmers actually programming.

Xelion I wasn't talking about being build specific either. The changes between the pre 3.6 builds and the current ones are so large that the document I wrote ended up becoming either hard to read or incorrect.

The problem isn't so much staying up to date as future-proofing the document so that the person using it can deal with any changes. That is actually pretty hard cause instead of giving the user instructions they can follow step by step you instead have to give them a grounding in how FS2_Open works so that they can anticipate changes. Doing that without ending up with a document that is very hard or fustrating to follow is actually seriously difficult.

You've also got to remember that you have several different audiences. People using the HotU download will have different problems from those using retail. People who only want to play mulitplayer will have different requirements from people who only want to go through the main campaign again. And then you have people installing mods which if not done correctly can screw everything up.

Feel free to try though. Maybe you can do a better job than I did.

[Lonestar]

The Wiki will be updated within 24 hours guys, sorry for delay.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Xelion
SCP: However much I like the idea of the WIKI, its a total disaster with the SCP documentation and any related updates (eg. Media VP) or enhancements (nebulas, thrusters, etc) that change constantly. I think it would be in the best interest of all parties involved that the version-specific and basic user documentation is provided in another format such as rtf/pdf/htm. This could be provided with the SCP downloads and perhaps have minor updates along the way. Not only will this solve much confusion on the SCP but it would also solve other issues such as not having to be online to view documentation.

I have more but I thought I'd posted later once I've seen some updates. [/B]

I take full responsibility for the lack of updates. Updates will be forthcoming.

Lonestar:
1. can we get rid of these that are next to every single out side link. They are annoying and take up space.

2. can we get redirects to work properly in tables. If we set them up as a link they goof up the table.

3. Do you have server info inorder to upload images?

4. Is there sum way that we can override all autoformatting rules?

[Sandwich]

Unfortunately, Lonestar's had some RL issues that have taken priority, and he won't be able to help out like he thought he would. So I guess things are back in my lap for the Wiki.

In response to your questions... phpWiki isn't very flexible or user-friendly, and to be blunt, I don't like it. The general consensus around the net is that phpWiki is going nowhere, and that the MediaWiki is The Big Player™ (the Wikipedia runs on the MediaWiki). I'd love to move over to the MediaWIki, but there's a big problem: there's no data import from one to the other.

Do you (and by "you" I mean all FSDoc contributors) think it would be realistic to manually import from one to the other?

[karajorma]

How hard would the editing be?

[redmenace]

I and the SCP support this change. Since we have to revamp the wiki anyway, this would be positive change. Also I hate the some the wiki's auto formatting feature or i should say drawbacks. Regaurdless of the problems, the Wiki in general is useful.

When you do move. keep the existing links to the old WIKI while we transfer everything(all info, not just the SCP) over. When every things done then replace all the link to the new Wikpedia.

[Sandwich]

The editing is fairly easy to pick up, but it's also pretty powerful. You can try out and see what it's like with the Wikipedia - maybe add tons of content to the FS page or something.

[karajorma]

Actually I meant how hard would it be to edit the existing Wiki Code to make it into Wikipedia style code. Would we have to change all the tags or just a couple?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by karajorma
Actually I meant how hard would it be to edit the existing Wiki Code to make it into Wikipedia style code. Would we have to change all the tags or just a couple?

Well, when all is said and done, it's pretty much Impossible. I'd rather copy-paste all the content from one system to the other than try and modify such things - I hate regexps with far-reaching repercussions.

[kasperl]

OK.

I have been begging for mediaWiki for quite some time, and I feel I should be doing at least some of the transferring. But  unless I become ill of health again, I'll be studying an awfull lot. Unless I can get some miracle of free time, I can't help with any more projects then I'm doing now. Mind, if someone could rig a system to output all the raw wikicode of the content pages into text files, and show me how to mass import wiki-code text pages into the mediawiki base, I could rig a wikicode converter. Mind it'd  either be in C or QB, so I couldn't integrate it, but it'd work.

[WMCoolmon]

I have a request - can tables be made less ugly, and/or the big table at the top of the 'Command-line reference' be removed? If people want a list of flags they can always check the launcher.

Duplicate information should be kept as minimal as possible, so that coders or whoever can easily update things in *one* spot without having to run around and update other parts of the wiki. I edited the Download Tools and Modelling pages so they weren't 90% identical information.

Also, style should be paid attention to. Pages should use header tags and such more like this:

Code: [Select]

!!!Page name
Maybe introduction text?
!!Section
Could be more introduction text
!A sub-section
Look, I'm talking about a specific subject!
!!Another section
!Item
*Description
!Item
*Description
!!Yet another section
!Item
  An indent because it just looks so good
!Item 2
  Look, ma, more indenting!
----
Some comments about how the information is out of date, the author was drunk while writing it, etc.

This example sponsored by WMCoolmon

Rather than this:

Code: [Select]

*The page header
!A section
!!!An individual item
descriptive text
!!!Another item
more descriptive text

This is where the credits go, but it's confusing at first whether they're credits or not because there's long, descriptive text on the same level as the last item and no divider.

Not only is it good and proper, it looks good and organized too. To be blunt and honest, go look at the pages I've done, I've always tried to make them organized and clear, because my writing usually isn't. For the command line reference, I spent more than a half-hour trying out different ways to show the information to figure out what way would be best.

And just to be an arse, would it be possible to have an expandable list to the left of the page? This would make it incredibly easier to navigate the wiki.

[MatthewPapa]

I have now written a new complete multiplayer guide. I hope this helps those of you that have been wanting to play FS2netD but havent been able to because you dont know how.

http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/fsdoc/index.php?pagename=Getting%20Started%20with%20FS2netD

[NGTM-1R]

Is there any possible way to recover/reset a password for a Wiki user? For reasons I cannot determine, I can't seem to access my account (Night Mare).

I went in there to do the last few Terran FS2 fighters and got trapped at the login page. It doesn't seem to be accepting the password I originally set, despite my having attempted to log in with it upwards of twenty times.