Fallout Studios Forums

We normally only allow manuals for hosted projects. As SWR has left Fallout Studios the manuals would be deleted. That being said a large number of members have put a lot of time into the manuals.

On the wiki the text is in shared ownership of everyone who has edited a page. I can't be bothered to check who has edited it so I figure everyone has.

What is your opinion on what we should do with the SWR manuals?

I think we should keep them, as you said alot of people spent alot of time doing those up

Either keep them or copy them to SWR forums (the best would be to do both) but you should'nt delete them as it took a lot of efforts to the members to write these...

After all the hard work put into them? I don't see why. Unless SWR request a transfer of the data, I'd say keep it.

I would personally be very annoyed to see them go to waste and they are an excellent resource in dealing with all the tech support queries that I field for them on a day-to-day basis. Definitely keep them for the moment, and depending on whether or not they plan to host their own manuals in future we may or may not have to make a decision again for the long term.

we should keep em, most of us play SWR games regardless

Even though SWR left, it is still a big part of most people here that still play ZH. SWR is also plays a big role in the FS history and also legacy, so it should be kept.

We have a Team Fortress 2 manual. Hence, keeping the SWR manuals makes complete sense as a lot more people here play SWR mods than TF2.

All that I wanted to say has already been said.
SWR may have left FS, but they have contributed to the forum and are a significant piece in it's history, as are the mods they developed.

I would like to request that these manuals are marked as unofficial however.
Some discriptions of units are missleading to what our actual intentions are or sometimes even discribe features of them beeing able to do things ingame which they in reality can't

The_Hunter, on 12 Jun 2009, 9:33, said:

You still have a wiki account Hunter

Dauth, on 12 Jun 2009, 10:08, said:

Furthermore, I am unawares as to the units that you speak of Hunter, as the wiki was kept completely up to date during your time on FS, and since then there has been no public change that we are aware of. Should a new release/etc come up, then we will change it accordingly.

Dauth, on 12 Jun 2009, 11:08, said:

Haven't used it in ages tho might need a password reset but i'll ask you about that later.

AJ, on 12 Jun 2009, 11:31, said:

That doesn't change the fact that we have no input on these manuals anymore and we will not be supporting them in anyway and there for they should be known as unofficial ones seeing as we do not want to take respondability for missunderstandings or possible confusion coused by them.

The_Hunter, on 12 Jun 2009, 11:12, said:

Clearly you misunderstand the concept of a wiki. Everyone can input stuff, so you ought to be able to add an unofficial label if you so wish.
Edited by Rich19, 12 June 2009 - 10:48.

The_Hunter, on 12 Jun 2009, 11:12, said:

I wasn't indicating that I felt it should remain official - if you wish for it to be noted as Unofficial I have no problems with doing that. All I was asking was where you felt our current inadequacies lie, as I for one don't know of any at all, compared to the current public versions.

Also, as Rich has pointed out, it is a wiki, and is editable by anyone at all. That being said that often doesn't happen with most members of the community and isn't limited to yourself.
Edited by AJ, 12 June 2009 - 10:46.

I will point out that the manuals will soon all be listed as community created and maintained since none of them are official, if a mod leader wants to use a manual as an official document then arrangements can be made.

Rich19, on 12 Jun 2009, 10:39, said:

Clearly you misunderstand the concept of intellectual property. Everyone can input stuff into a wiki, but some things must be regulated by the staff to avoid someone removing stuff (like said note).
Edited by Golan, 12 June 2009 - 11:53.

Golan, on 12 Jun 2009, 12:51, said:

I'm unaware of anyone removing any "this manual is unofficial" notices.

I have added a note regarding the unofficial nature of these manuals to both of the manual front pages. Anything else that you find unfitting I would ask that you do so yourself - this is still a wiki and depends upon user contributions, not on the moderators fixing every item in it.

To be honest I don't think that's obvious at all, not to mention it's only on one page, with no distinguishing features.

I'd recommend a bar thing similar to that of what you'd put on a stub.

The_Hunter, on 12 Jun 2009, 18:33, said:

Can I just ask why you're throwing away weeks - no, months - of hard work by dedicated members of your modification team given the fact that if it's inaccurate all you need to do is let someone know what the problem is so they can change it and it'll be done in a matter of minutes? I'm not arguing your right to call it unofficial but it seems a total waste for you not to support these, which have far more information on your projects than any available alternative.
Edited by CommanderJB, 12 June 2009 - 14:23.

CommanderJB, on 12 Jun 2009, 16:00, said:

becouse alot of those descriptions have changed over time take this for instance http://wiki.cncreneclips.com/wiki/Manual:R...ns/USA/Infantry the missile defender does not have any weapon switch as explained there also the mentioning of tandem warheads ????? how many people actualy know what that is ?

Same is with the ROTR manual about the Hind the mentioning that it was upgraded so that it can hover in mid air things like those are not realy required as most people don't even know that the hind isn't very good at hovering in RL.

If you have any futher questions feel free to ask on msn.
Edited by The_Hunter, 12 June 2009 - 14:30.

The_Hunter, on 12 Jun 2009, 15:29, said:

The way that the ROTR manual was written was so as to create a manual that was not only a basic, boring manual, but included lore and areas of accuracy that the fans would enjoy as much as the lore in some cases. Secondly, the details on the manuals are up-to-date with what is available in the public version of ROTR, and it should remain that way so that people can compare and contrast between the two, and not have to wonder what the hell is wrong with their version, or the manual. When the patches come out, we will probably update, but there is no point in creating a manual for a patch that isn't available to the public.

The problem is the lore is what causes the confusion in the first place.

Alias, on 13 Jun 2009, 0:42, said:

What's Under The Spotlight then?