[Fury]

I believe this issue should be addressed, the sooner the better.

Right now only total conversions have any real control over default command line settings, but that leaves mods out of the party. Total conversions usually use custom launcher to do that, whereas mods have to use whatever is recommended in FSO and mediavps release topics.

For example, mediavps likely would want to set following defaults
- Resolution is set to 1024x768
- Color depth to 32-bit
- General settings to High and Use large textures
- And finally custom command line: -spec -glow -env -nomotiondebris -missile_lighting -normal -cache_bitmaps -dualscanlines -targetinfo -rearm_timer -ship_choice_3d -weapon_choice_3d -3dwarp -warp_flash -snd_preload -ambient_factor 35 -ogl_spec 20 -spec_exp 15 -spec_point 1.2 -spec_static 1.5 -spec_tube 1.5

And then we have a mod, say something that is gritty and dark and wants to set lighting settings to focus on the atmosphere.
So it would instead use this as command line:
-spec -glow -env -nomotiondebris -missile_lighting -normal -cache_bitmaps -dualscanlines -targetinfo -rearm_timer -ship_choice_3d -weapon_choice_3d -3dwarp -warp_flash -snd_preload -no_emissive_light -ambient_factor 120 -ogl_spec 32 -spec_exp 16 -spec_point 1.5 -spec_static 1.25 -spec_tube 1.5

What if a mod would rely on a custom 3D radar, like what Diaspora uses? Well obviously the command line would have to include -orbradar by default.

And what if someone freds a campaign that makes heavy use of post processing? Like a homage to Sin City style and such. Or maybe pp is used in campaign cutscenes? The mod would have to enable -post_processing by default and perhaps -bloom_intensity with other value than default (75).

Right now this can be done, but it's all behind a wall of text. Not to mention that editing launcher settings after changing to another mod is tedious and most people probably won't bother with constantly changing their launcher settings after changing from one mod to another.

Hence, the only reasonable solution to this would be that there would be either extended support in mod.ini for launcher settings or another file entirely. Which launcher then reads and upon selecting a mod, asks user whether he/she wants to load default settings for the mod.

In a nutshell:
- Upon selecting a mod user would be prompted with yes/no to load default settings for the mod.
- User can load default settings for the mod and freely change whatever afterwards.
- When user selects another mod, (s)he is prompted again but can answer no and settings will be left alone.

A good launcher might even be able to save user's settings for each mod, assuming user wants to make same alterations to default settings every time.

[Angelus]

I strongly support this.

[General Battuta]

This please!

[karajorma]

If a mod requires settings it should be addressed in a table NOT in the launcher.

[Fury]

Regardless of whether settings are stored in mod.ini or another file entirely, launcher needs to be able to interact with said settings to allow users to change them when user preference doesn't match recommended defaults or due to troubleshooting reasons.

However, a method in which launcher may be completely optional is preferable. In other words, a method where running
"fs2_open_3_6_12r.exe -mod mediavps_3612" would parse a file (if it exists) to enable recommended settings for said mod, in this case mediavps.

Like you said, a tbl file might be what's needed to run a mod with mod specific defaults at run-time of executable, without needing to use launcher at any time.

[chief1983]

Yeah I'd much rather see mods/TCs have the ability at a table level to force overrides or restrictions on various command line options (or, fine, defaults that get loaded but can be changed later for that mod).  Many command line options simply expose data that should have been controllable by other means anyway, and is generally not controllable by an end user.

[Goober5000]

Um, settings.ini has been around for ages, and it pretty much does exactly this.  You just put it in the mod folder instead of the top-level FS2 folder.

[karajorma]

I was under the understanding that settings.ini didn't work.

I was further under the understanding that Taylor hated the idea of settings.ini and that's the major reason no one bothered to work on it after Random Tiger left.

[kkmic]

A good launcher might even be able to save user's settings for each mod, assuming user wants to make same alterations to default settings every time.

wxLauncher has this capability implemented with a twist. It can save launcher profiles profiles which include all the "advanced" settings and the mod too.

This means you can have multiple profiles for each mod, if desired.

[Fury]

Well, that addresses my concerns except that wxlauncher isn't yet recommended in release topics. Are there any plans to make wxlauncher the recommended launcher in the near future? Also, what file does wxlauncher read settings from that we can bundle with mods?

karajorma at least insists on having this implemented independent of launchers. Can't argue that it wouldn't be nice to have.

[Nuke]

i wouldn't mind seeing all non-user-preference settings moved to a locked down location that can be cheat proofed. this does not mean every option in the launcher. pretty much just hud and gameplay settings. and a select few other commnad line options not easily selectable in the launcher. like -clipdist (which is required to make certain cockpit models look right) and lighting settings. performance related settings like screen resolution should be user selectable. gameplay related settings shouldnt even be command line options, but settings in some table somewhere. for example custom radars should be set up in hud-gauges.tbl (or whatever its called these days), and not the command line.

i dont like the idea of certain resolutions being forced. this sounds like a cheap shortcut to creating content for all resolutions. different users have different quality hardware, and forcing a low end user to use post processing may very well lock that user out of playing the mod, and forcing a high end user to low detail settings will only piss them off. now i wouldnt mind if a mod had a suggested set of defaults, but users should be able to tune those preferences to their system for optimal performance-quality balance.

in a perfect world all user preferences would be set ingame, all mod-specific gameplay preferences would be set in table files and the need for a launcher would be minimalized or even eliminated.

[Fury]

Um, settings.ini has been around for ages, and it pretty much does exactly this.  You just put it in the mod folder instead of the top-level FS2 folder.

As soon as user selects a mod, the settings.ini file in there is overwritten with whatever settings the user has in the launcher. So for this purpose settings.ini is useless.

[Goober5000]

Not completely useless -- you can skip the launcher and use -mod [whatever].  But yeah, if the launcher does that, that's a problem.

[karajorma]

Not completely useless -- you can skip the launcher and use -mod [whatever].  But yeah, if the launcher does that, that's a problem.

Er. What good would that do? You'd be forced to install the settings.ini to root in order to have it do anything.

That goes past useless and into actively destabilising the game.

[Fury]

You'd be forced to install the settings.ini to root in order to have it do anything.

Actually no. The launcher creates settings.ini file for any mod you've selected and saved to the mod's own dir. It just doesn't do whole lot of good because it gets overwritten every time.

In addition, it only saves flags. So that reduces its usefulness further. Ideally you'd want to set default resolution to 1024x768, color depth to 32-bit, general settings to high and enable use large textures as well. These are things that newbies always trip on. Not a week goes by that someone new has trouble because he uses 640x480 or 16-bit color depth.

[karajorma]

I think you miss my point. If the settings.ini has to be in the mod folder, only affects the launcher and is overwritten the second you choose a mod it's (currently) completely useless despite what Goober said.

Once the bug is fixed it might be useful but right now it's as useful as a chocolate teapot at a diabetics tea party.

[Iss Mneur]

Well, that addresses my concerns except that wxlauncher isn't yet recommended in release topics. Are there any plans to make wxlauncher the recommended launcher in the near future? Also, what file does wxlauncher read settings from that we can bundle with mods?

karajorma at least insists on having this implemented independent of launchers. Can't argue that it wouldn't be nice to have.

wxLauncher is mentioned in the release post of 3.6.12. Version 0.8.0 sees about 20 unique downloads per day.

Admittedly, it is not quite a pretty as the windows launcher, but it is entirely feature compatible with it, except it ignore the previously configured settings, which is on the todo list.

An extended mod.ini under sections [extremeforce] and [flagsetideal]/[flagset#]. Unfortunately, they are parsed but not enforced or offered at this point.

That being said, I agree with Karajorma on that this should be independent of the launcher (ie, in a table).  On that topic, I have thought about just exposing all the cmdline options in a table so that a mod author can just list the options they want in the table and be done with it.

Regarding settings.ini.  It has one use, for the win32 launcher to store its settings between runs.  It is not suitable for what you guys are looking to do.

Regarding resolution and colour depth, wxLauncher should (as a standard feature) be picking the users native screen resolution by default and also defaulting to 32 bit colour.

[Fury]

That being said, I agree with Karajorma on that this should be independent of the launcher (ie, in a table).  On that topic, I have thought about just exposing all the cmdline options in a table so that a mod author can just list the options they want in the table and be done with it.

Yes, a launcher independent solution would be for the best. Since linux users in particular may not use any launchers out of habit.

Regarding resolution and colour depth, wxLauncher should (as a standard feature) be picking the users native screen resolution by default and also defaulting to 32 bit colour.

If I may boldly suggest, how about making resolution, color depth, general settings and the large textures setting the new defaults in FSO executable itself? That would address the most common launcher related newbie issues in all platforms.

Have we gotten rid of Windows registry yet?

[Iss Mneur]

Have we gotten rid of Windows registry yet?

No...

Regarding resolution and colour depth, wxLauncher should (as a standard feature) be picking the users native screen resolution by default and also defaulting to 32 bit colour.

If I may boldly suggest, how about making resolution, color depth, general settings and the large textures setting the new defaults in FSO executable itself? That would address the most common launcher related newbie issues in all platforms.

A great idea, but there are three tightly related problems. 

First is that FSO uses the registry (or the SCP_UNIX equivalents) for all settings, it doesn't have defaults for these things (this is why you have to run a launcher at least once so that everything gets put into the registry as it needs to be).

Second, you would be changing FSO dogma, ie. 10+ years of the same rules, (run launcher first, etc).

Third, it would be changing the design of the engine itself.  The engine would shift from being the dumb "do what I am told" engine it is now, into its own launcher, which is not necessarily a bad thing (see, source engine and Civilization 5 (which actually has a launcher that chooses the DirectX api to use)), but is a fundamental shift of the design goals of the engine.  While adding auto-detect of the resolution, etc. wouldn't be too hard, the problem is because it would mean bluring the lines between the engine and the launcher, at some point someone will come along and ask why doesn't the engine do <something the launcher currently handles>. Now, don't get my wrong, I am not opposed to a system like but it will be a lot of work and see point 2 above.

[General Battuta]

Points two and three you raise sound like good things to me!