FG v3.3 data structures

[Trenloe]

Be realistic guys - you're never going to get development documentation that details in-depth nuances of individual rulesets. FG community developers are probably less than 1% of FG users (I imaging that's being quite generous). In-depth technical documentation takes a lot (and I mean a lot) of time. There would be a massive outcry from the normal users if updates, bug-fixes, new products, etc. were delayed a few months a year because of FG core developers having to write in-depth documentation. Additionally, a key thing to note here: it has never been advertised that you get "[development] documentation for the ruleset [you purchase] with FG..."

Sorry, I know it's not not ideal... But I really don't think your expectations have been set any differently.

In this example (getting documentation for the FG database structure for a few abilities) it is fairly straightforward to get the information from the database of a FG campaign. As Callum was wanting to know FG DB structures for some specific entities, we can assume that he's familiar with the basics of FG databases. So, based off that assumption, we can assume that it is fairly straightforward for him to look at the FG DB structure in a sample campaign after creating a few example records through the FG interface.

This is actually the most reliable way to get this structure. It's up-to-date, allows you to play around with various what if's (what if this field is empty, is it required? etc.) and see the exact structure with the data that you're interested in.

If the FG core developers spent lots of time creating in-depth documentation, then they would also have to spend lots of time in the future updating that documentation. Remember that out of date information can be worse than no information! As you can waste a lot of time trying to make things work with out-of-date information...

I understand where people are coming from. But SmiteWorks do not have the resources to document (and update) to the level that is being requested in this thread - unless you all want functionality development to slow down to a crawl. It has always been "look at the ruleset code and the campaign database for examples. Then ask on the forums if you need more information." The majority of what you need is available to you - open access to the campaign database and the ruleset code.

It was great that Talyn provided the info that was asked for in post #5. But, to do this, Talyn basically did what was suggested - put the info in a campaign and extracted that data. That's why it was suggested by a couple of community members in the first place - it's quick, gives you the exact structure for the data you want to enter, and you can play around with seeing how different data is stored.

@Callum - the above is no way me singling out out. As this thread has started to discuss levels of documentation, I am simply using this specific example to illustrate my point. You came to the forums asking for more info, you were given the means to find that info. OK, it wasn't detailed development documentation, but judging by your response to Talyn's post, you got the info you needed. Which is great!

[Nylanfs]

It took the PCGen project more than 8 years to build our documentation. And it's still not up to date.

[Ken L]

PCGen is volunteer driven compared to a purchased product.

Either way, it wouldn't kill to have a comment for each function for the future. I'm sure there's some internal documentation which is stripped prior to release, else it would be hell to on-board new developers whom are expected to develop their own complete understanding. Whenever I'm dropped into a project like that, I'm left grepping around and using a note-pad to denote areas of interest and jot down connections as I see them. Thankfully those have been rare.

[Bidmaron]

We will respectfully disagree. I am with Trenloe on this (now). WE need them focusing on new capabilities. There was about 8 years ago a detailed ruleset documentation but it was impractical to update. It languished and became increasingly irrelevant. It eventually got taken down. Useful documentation is as hard as the code itself

[Andraax]

PCGen is volunteer driven compared to a purchased product.

Either way, it wouldn't kill to have a comment for each function for the future. I'm sure there's some internal documentation which is stripped prior to release, else it would be hell to on-board new developers whom are expected to develop their own complete understanding. Whenever I'm dropped into a project like that, I'm left grepping around and using a note-pad to denote areas of interest and jot down connections as I see them. Thankfully those have been rare.

SmiteWorks has 2 developers on payroll. One that works on the existing code and one that is developing the Unity version. Everyone else is a volunteer.

[Ken L]

I'm not really suggesting for detailed documentation. a sentence of handful of words above each function/xml windowclass for the future would be sufficient. Self documenting code suffices as well but much isn't. It will also help when smite works gets another developer, and helps more people get into the modding arena as opposed to a handful who wish to navigate it.

Also Andraax, the others are commissioned, they aren't developing these supported rule-sets purely for free here. I don't own any of them as the PF and core rule-set are sufficient for my needs and I don't really know if their internals are as exposed as the base rule-sets are.

[Andraax]

Also Andraax, the others are commissioned, they aren't developing these supported rule-sets purely for free here.

I'm currently the developer for the C&C ruleset; trust me, it's a volunteer position. :-) No one is making a living on the commissions...

[Talyn]

You are? Jeez, good thing I didn't go spamming JPG with email then... =) Hey, PM me if you get a chance.

[Ken L]

C&C is listed for sale? I guess most of that goes to the game maker then and FG. Sure commissions are paltry things but I'm allergic to 'crowd-sourcing' things that eventually drive another's profit so it's more a matter of principle unless it's pure FOSS.

[Talyn]

Yep, C&C is one of the retail rulesets, just like Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, etc. Out of all the DLC Developer type, the ruleset devs earn the least for their time involved, so it's difficult to get anyone to step up in the first place, much less stick around.