3rd party support - How would you like to support and be supported in the development of BoS

[Zorin]

Ok, so this is supposed to give the BoS team a general idea of how WE want to see them work with the community to enhance THEIR product and therefor OUR gaming experience.

 

So far, we have been told that the tools are there, from ROF, they welcome content input and would even make particularly well made submissions official content. All nice and dandy, but apart from "tools", this also was what Oleg, Ilya and Co told us for IL-2 and CloD, so I strongly believe there is HUGE room for improvement here.

 

Especially in the way the devs communitciate with and appreciate the hobbyist labourers who spent time and money to enrich the community experience, some of hem for years now. That is not a given, but devs tend to treat these contributions that way and the fact that in 2013 there still exists a language barrier due to insufficient skills of the English language on part of the employees who should give guidance and provide coordination of 3rd party efforts is alarming.

 

Lets focus on a prominent example from the German community, namely Foobar.

 

He has done a tremendous job building content, railway objects and infrastructure objects, for CloD and almost nothing made it into the game or even worse, for people who actually appreciate their own work, only in a faulty manner. That clear lack of appreciation on account of the devs makes it hard to keep the spirits up and from a recent post on his own board we have been informed that the 1C/777 teams is on the best way of being no better than Oleg/Ilya's crew.

 

I know that some will now argue that this is not a ground unit sim, but that is utterly beyond the point as only very little dev time is required to bring this kind of community supplied content into the game, if they will commit to a 3rd party friendly approach. So please, refrain from leading this discussion in to that direction. Instead, try to voice how you want to see the whole 3rd party interaction to be developed and maintained.

[heinkill]

If they make a game called IL2 Stalingrad, I assume they are going to have some ground units for the Il2s to attack. With the timeframe they have set themselves there can hardly be time to bring in 3rd parties, hand hold them, and keep them fed and happy. That can always come later.

Edited January 13, 2013 by heinkill

[Zorin]

If they make a game called IL2 Stalingrad, I assume they are going to have some ground units for the Il2s to attack. With the timeframe they have set themselves there can hardly be time to bring in 3rd parties, hand hold them, and keep them fed and happy. That can always come later.

 

Here I disagree, no one is asking for hand holding, just a professional way of providing guidelines and a fair treatment, that has ZERO relation to any timelines if the devs would get their head around the fact that they need 3rd party input to take care of all the areas they are unwilling or unable to take care of. They are just game developers, but if I have a railway expert and most competent modeller at hand who is willing to work for me, I should crawl over broken glass to welcome him with open arms and not leave his mails unanswered for weeks. This applies to anyone who has expertise in a field they can not cover, for obvious reasons.

 

So we must demand that this "That can always come later" attitude is not fostered but banished, completely.

[dburne]

Here I disagree, no one is asking for hand holding, just a professional way of providing guidelines and a fair treatment, that has ZERO relation to any timelines if the devs would get their head around the fact that they need 3rd party input to take care of all the areas they are unwilling or unable to take care of. They are just game developers, but if I have a railway expert and most competent modeller at hand who is willing to work for me, I should crawl over broken glass to welcome him with open arms and not leave his mails unanswered for weeks. This applies to anyone who has expertise in a field they can not cover, for obvious reasons.

 

So we must demand that this "That can always come later" attitude is not fostered but banished, completely.

 

Well I would think this is all depending on the developer's business plan and model, whether they allow 3rd parties to be involved or not.

Certainly there are some developers that do and encourage it, and others that prefer it remain closed in house development.

 

What is 777's policy on this in regards to ROF?

[AndyJWest]

No, Zorin, we can't 'demand' anything. 

[Zorin]

No, Zorin, we can't 'demand' anything. 

 

Aren't we mature customers? Doesn't the demand shape and create the supply? If we don't demand, we will be served something we did not order.

[AndyJWest]

Aren't we mature customers? Doesn't the demand shape and create the supply? If we don't demand, we will be served something we did not order.

 

The demand for WW2 air combat sims doesn't come from the small community of 3d modellers willing to add 3rd party content. And please stop referring to yourself as 'we'. 

[Zorin]

The demand for WW2 air combat sims doesn't come from the small community of 3d modellers willing to add 3rd party content. And please stop referring to yourself as 'we'. 

 

I have used the 3d modellers exemplarily, as you should have realized, and all I hear all the time is the plea for more immersion. Well, how do you suppose the immersion is going to be created if not by enthusiasts who provide the necessary knowledge? The devs will provide the backbone, which will certainly keep them occupied, but all the details that create the whole picture will have to come from 3rd parties in the future, simply because of the manhours necessary to provide a standard high enough for our time and age. There is no way around it, therefor devs should create strong bonds to them instead of lackluster maybes.

 

Besides, WE as we the COMMUNITY. Or do you not want this BoS enterrpise to be succesful?

[DD_fruitbat]

Apparently Andy seems to think he speaks for the 'we'......

[AndyJWest]

Do I want the BoS enterprise to be successful? Yes, of course. Do I think that prospective customers making 'demands' is the way to ensure it? No.

 

You are right about one thing, though. The devs provide the backbone - and without that, there will be no BoS worth modelling for. They have limited facilities, and a limited timescale to deliver on, and if their work isn't up to the job, nothing anyone else can do will make any difference. They have their priorities, and as Jason has already made clear, they don't at this point in time intend to provide more help for 3rd-party modellers than is already available with RoF. Diverting resources to something that at this stage is unlikely to have any effect on the initial reception of the sim is simply not tenable. BoS has got to deliver from the start - because if it fails to be profitable, nobody in their right mind is going to be producing another one in the forseeable future. Modellers, like anyone else have choices. They can buy the sim, or no. They can model for it, or not. But they can't 'demand' that the devs divert resources that are better employed elsewhere - and when it comes to allocation of resources, I'm sure the developers have a better idea than the rest of us what is needed.

[wiseblood]

I think this is one of those things where the question has already been addressed a number of times in the developer diaries -

2) What about mods? Do I understand correctly that it will be about the same level as now in the ROF?

 

Will you be able to create and add mods (maps, aircraft, and machinery) without developers? If so - whether the game built tools to enable / disable mods and the ability to create servers with mods?

 

 

 

We never hindered creativity, contrary we support any initiative. Technically, such a system is ready, simply create your own objects and put them in the game folder. Top models can become official and will be added to the basic set. Of course we are always keeping a close eye for talented people to maybe invite them to our team of developers.

2) Do you plan to make a map editor? The fact is that in the presence of a set of the average aircraft in theory you can do a variety of scenarios for theater within the Eastern Front. There are enthusiasts certainly willing to make maps and static campaigns for them. In "IL-2" there was no map editor, at least for mere mortals. Can we hope for it to BoS?

 

 

 

No. There will not be a map building editor from us in the release. You already have the tools and available information on how to create a map with our DN technology today. If enthusiasts are interested, then everything will be just fine. The game has a special mode that allows you to easily run custom modifications and thus has no effect on the official game. Also, such modifications may affect multiplayer, such as maps.

or just another question where Loft will repeat 'look how we do it in RoF already'.

 

 

[Zorin]

Do I want the BoS enterprise to be successful? Yes, of course. Do I think that prospective customers making 'demands' is the way to ensure it? No.

 

You are right about one thing, though. The devs provide the backbone - and without that, there will be no BoS worth modelling for. They have limited facilities, and a limited timescale to deliver on, and if their work isn't up to the job, nothing anyone else can do will make any difference. They have their priorities, and as Jason has already made clear, they don't at this point in time intend to provide more help for 3rd-party modellers than is already available with RoF. Diverting resources to something that at this stage is unlikely to have any effect on the initial reception of the sim is simply not tenable. BoS has got to deliver from the start - because if it fails to be profitable, nobody in their right mind is going to be producing another one in the forseeable future. Modellers, like anyone else have choices. They can buy the sim, or no. They can model for it, or not. But they can't 'demand' that the devs divert resources that are better employed elsewhere - and when it comes to allocation of resources, I'm sure the developers have a better idea than the rest of us what is needed.

 

Will they suffer physical pain by reaching out a hand? Or by providing an assurance, in their software building process an public relation, to be open to 3rd party developers? I don't think so.

 

Sure, they need to deliver the backbone that will carry the whole thing, but do you honestly believe they can catch up with content on their own? Let alone any faster than the process took with IL-2? Lets be realisitc, if they want to raise the bar and eventually provide all the content that is in 1946, they won't be done in 2025 if they want to do it on their own.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Zorin

[Zorin]

I think this is one of those things where the question has already been addressed a number of times in the developer diaries -

 

or just another question where Loft will repeat 'look how we do it in RoF already'.

 

 

You fail to see the basic problem here.

 

"We never hindered creativity..." That is like NASA saying they will not stop anyone conquering space, but heaven forbid anyone asks them to share their knowledge on space flight.

 

So someone talented and passionate sits down and builds the most amazing map or objects and in the end finds out that it is not compatible or doesn't fit the devs idea of how they want the stuff to be in their game, then that good fellow is screwed. Even though he built the map with their editor, etc. There is a ton of things that still can go very wrong, just because the devs refuse to offer insight in how stuff is supposed to work.

 

Therefor the question has not be answered sufficiently yet, which is what this whole thread is about.

[AndyJWest]

The question has been answered to the extent that the developers wish to at this time - and anyone expecting to be able to develop a map for BoS now is in cloud-cuckoo land. Assistance for 3rd parties, SDKs etc can only come when the product is mature enough, and actually shows signs of being profitable. We've already had one WW2 air combat sim fail to make a profit at least partly because the developers tried to add 'everything'. This one will hopefully be different - which means the developers developing a core capable of later expansion which may include 3rd party material. 

[wiseblood]

I guess the question is then 'do you really want to be that third party where third party means you have to tell them everything three times'?

 

[Revvin]

Right now I'd like to see all 777's attention spent on developing the sim, third party support should wait until after the final product in my opinion.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Revvin

[Jason_Williams]

We've already provided MANY opportunities for ROF users to mod, create and participate in interesting and helpful 3rd party projects. I've spent thousands of dollars working with talented 3rd party people to make content users want and Loft and the boys have worked with some Russian based 3rd parties to make cool stuff such as Difis's map etc. We've already gone above and beyond anything offered during CLOD's life and may other popular combat flight sim titles.

 

3rd parties will have some freedom from the start based on our architecture and existing information, but first we will need to make a well-functioning and solid product to lay the foundation for a healthy future. This is Job #1. Then we can see what should happen with 3rd parties. Working with 3rd parties is a mixed bag and VERY time consuming for the team and can distract from other vital work. Also, the content created varies greatly in quality and training people and creating SDK documents is a difficult task for us, especially due to the language barrier that exists. Additionally, some 3rd party folks are difficult to deal with and are not professional and act very diva-ish. We have wasted much time trying to work with some who are not professional minded people. Such difficulties can quickly snowball into a gigantic headache for us and delay the overall project. Over time we hope to have good 3rd Party participation, but staking our entire future on it is not what we are going to do. It's an element to a healthy simulation, but not the most important element.

 

As far as the original post which mentions Foobar's building models not being accepted into CLOD etc. If it was our engine he can put them into the game already with no help from us. As also mentioned, some in the ROF community have figured out how to create and import maps and animated objects. Some of that is with help form us and some of it is them figuring it out on their own. Right now we are evaluating how to best handle such information and help focus the work of such talented individuals to best benefit the project.

 

Aside from adding planes, I think their will be plenty of 3rd party participation in BOS and beyond. Everyone should keep an open mind and be a little patient.

 

Jason

[Zorin]

I appreciate your taking time to write a personal answer, Jason.

 

We've already provided MANY opportunities for ROF users to mod, create and participate in interesting and helpful 3rd party projects. I've spent thousands of dollars working with talented 3rd party people to make content users want and Loft and the boys have worked with some Russian based 3rd parties to make cool stuff such as Difis's map etc. We've already gone above and beyond anything offered during CLOD's life and may other popular combat flight sim titles.

 

This sounds certainly encouraging and should, in my opinion, be made public in a way that would reach most potential future customers as to encourage the creation of 3rd party teams and in general showing the dedication of the developers to this kind of cooperative effort.

 

3rd parties will have some freedom from the start based on our architecture and existing information, but first we will need to make a well-functioning and solid product to lay the foundation for a healthy future. This is Job #1. Then we can see what should happen with 3rd parties. Working with 3rd parties is a mixed bag and VERY time consuming for the team and can distract from other vital work. Also, the content created varies greatly in quality and training people and creating SDK documents is a difficult task for us, especially due to the language barrier that exists. Additionally, some 3rd party folks are difficult to deal with and are not professional and act very diva-ish. We have wasted much time trying to work with some who are not professional minded people. Such difficulties can quickly snowball into a gigantic headache for us and delay the overall project. Over time we hope to have good 3rd Party participation, but staking our entire future on it is not what we are going to do. It's an element to a healthy simulation, but not the most important element.

 

I believe it has never been denied that the barebone simulation is the prime element of the devs attention, yet what I was hinting at was the need, in my opinion, to always keep 3rd party accessibility in mind while in the development process. So even if you can't write comprehensive SDK documents in English, write them In Russian, as I am sure a superb translation can be provided by a 3rd party.

 

As far as the original post which mentions Foobar's building models not being accepted into CLOD etc. If it was our engine he can put them into the game already with no help from us. As also mentioned, some in the ROF community have figured out how to create and import maps and animated objects. Some of that is with help form us and some of it is them figuring it out on their own. Right now we are evaluating how to best handle such information and help focus the work of such talented individuals to best benefit the project.

 

Aside from adding planes, I think their will be plenty of 3rd party participation in BOS and beyond. Everyone should keep an open mind and be a little patient.

 

Jason

 

Well, all I can ask for, I guess, is that communication is up held. Even a very short email is enough to give comfort, unlike utter silence. Just a form of courtesy we all should feel obliged to.

 

Oh and patience must be the prime taboo word for this community, cause the one half has provided that abundantly while the other half has given up on the concept all together. So I would use it sparingly, if at all

 

For my part, I am glad to see you at the helm of this endeavour and shall remain open minded and in anticipation of future developments.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

From memory a very good user guide was created by a community member for Rise of Flight.

 

Maybe those in the know could create something similar and compile a "how-to" (or even a series of them) for the community created content procedure. This way they could take a bit of pressure off the developers and imortalise their names in the annals of the series!

 

After looking about the ROF forum there are lots of little bits of information here or there but nothing that would take a Newbie like myself through the process.

 

(Of course I am getting abit ahead of myself and assuming the process for BoS will be similar to RoF)

 

Cheers!

Edited January 14, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[Bearcat]

You mean sort of like a Nugget's Guide for RoF? Yeah tat would be great.. I wish I had more time to dive in.. I'd do it myself as it s now it would be the blind leading the blind..