it is not true. Some one should create rules, and others should follow them. Why not ISI? Let's imagine you there are choices: - ISI define rules and you follow them - ISI don't, then I do that Which situation gives better chance to be followed by bigger part of community? IMO, it should be in ISI interest too.
"should" does not imply "does", unless enforced you could have the best rules in the world you'd end up with some people not caring, some people not knowing and some people defying "rules" just because. Try and convince people through well-made arguments, not through authority. ISI can mess up too, they're only people. A naming convention doesn't become good because it comes from a certain person, it only becomes a good naming convention because it's clear, unambiguous and understandable. If no such convention is defined a priori, usually you will find modders "agreeing" on a convention that evolves out of a "best practice" process. Most modders aren't blind or willfully ignorant. Maybe I missed it, but has anyone here suggested a naming convention and put forward actual arguments with substance for why it would constitute a good naming convention?
Just start your naming with the ID of your mod. For example if you build track a and your ID is 050, name 050a.
Yes. I agree. but it must be unique names. I though about using some GUID for example. But... Currently proposed system by ISI has started with non-unique names, which is it the point I commented. Another thing which is needed when using symbolic names rather than human readable ones, is some software which makes possible to find content by its attributes. For example by modding group name, continent, country, track name, motor company, team name it's name etc. etc. Without it, people always will want to dig into filesystem which will require more descriptive names rather than OIDs. At the end, I bet you organize your photos into subdirectories naming it by events, maybe using year number or dates. And I bet you will be not satisfied with only unique but symbolic names of directories Am I wrong?
The way I am saying would be unique, because mod ids are unique. If you build a 1966 Spa, your mod id is 093, you name your dir 093spa or 09366spa, etc. Just put your unique thing in there somewhere, and you are then unique.
If were, GUID wouldn't be invented You skip the rest of my post obviously. So in short: people must have human readable directory tree or tool which will make possible to browse content using some criteria. I though that defining some rules about using names of file-system items is easier. I must be wrong
The limit is 259 characters for a full path name. That includes a drive letter, colon, and backslash so the effective limit is 256. There are some exceptions (like unicode names) that can make it longer. You can read more about this here.
I was talking about one single file or folder, if what you're saying is right then 64 character would severely inhibit how deep the folder could be. I think we'll be using this way. sounds like a the best procedure moving forward.
There is no separate limit for a single component of the file name. The only limit is for the full path name. FWIW, ISI has a limit on the length of texture names in .GMT files. I think it is 32 characters but I am not sure. The full name is resolved using the SearchPath and MASfile specs in the .GEN or .SCN file.
If you create rules then you have to enforce and police them. I would rather ISI concentrate on making improvements to their software than policing some random dude ensuring he names his files appropriately. Sounds like a bad way to spend their time for what will be no improvement on the game proper whatsoever. It's like trying to enforce that people make good mods - you can't.
That's exactly right! Naming mods and track that are NOT descriptive of the product is stupidity! Why? Simple! Try googling a track you know as Interlagos when the modders named it without that human readable content in the naming. If you searcher for a track or mod your not going to know it's ID#. Though it's got merit to identify 1 Interlogos from another. As someone has already pointed out, rF1 is a classic example of what NOT to do! Surly we've learn't something over the past 6 year? Many of the mods and track for rF1 don't get used because they can't be found! We rely mostly on rFCentral. If it's not there it doesn't exist! Are we just going to go down the same road again? Not to take away from the great job rFCentral does of cause. I agree mod teams are responsible for the way they present their product and as such they should/need to think about their own naming. The thing in this thread is "Should ISI take a better approach to the naming of THEIR mods?" Tim has made it clear that going on the past community naming it doesn't matter what ISI do. I'd have to disagree Tim. Although ISI has no control over the naming outside your team, I would expect you as a product producer to at least be seen trying to set the precedents. Be seen as the trend setters. Hahaha...... Be seen to give a damn. That's get rare these days.
