I hate installers

[Cool_Z 1,547]

I hate installers.

Had to say it.

 

I sincerely hope absolutely NO builder will use an installer again.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

Let me just pretend we're here for a moment.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

[Bombardiere 591]

I have to agree. I want to control my files and the folder where it puts those. Usually after the installation, I remove the files from the destination folder and even delete some of the files.

Oh yes, when the project is huge, such as the NAM or CAM2.0. and involves multiple folders and complex structure, then the installer is must. But I do not see use for it with small individual bats. Sure I think the idea was that it was thought that an average user is inept in installing mods, and this may be very well be true, but personally I prefer open files.

 

In same breath I must say that I do not like large DAT packed files. Again if the project is large as the NAM, the Dat packing serves its purpose, but I have to say that I don't like those BSC prop mega packs. The contents are too random and I wish the creators would have taken the time to sort out their content. For example the cars in one pack and fauna into another. This way I could have choosen what I want and leave the rest out. It is annoying when there is a 10- 20 MB prop pack and I only need one prop from it. That is why I don't pack my work.

All right, the situation 10 years ago was very different than now. SC4 was in it heydays, a lot of eager players and lotters, most propably had a little patience for fine tuning and learning the ropes. So I can understand the decision made that time and why we now have these BSC etc mega packs.

 

[markussaage 762]

Just now, Bombardiere said:

I have to agree. I want to control my files and the folder where it puts those. Usually after the installation, I remove the files from the destination folder and even delete some of the files.

Oh yes, when the project is huge, such as the NAM or CAM2.0. and involves multiple folders and complex structure, then the installer is must. But I do not see use for it with small individual bats. Sure I think the idea was that it was thought that an average user is inept in installing mods, and this may be very well be true, but personally I prefer open files.

 

I feel the same way here. I have my own way to place my files and so I don't need an installer at all. They are time consuming to install anyway... With a good Readme!-file in a zip file everybody is able to put files the right place. But, who rtfm, right?! The old problem...

Kind regards!

[airman15 4,111]

Create a new folder on the desktop, and then when you open the installer send everything to that folder. This way you can rename it and move it to any subfolder you want within your plugins. This is the method I use since I have my own directory setup based on mod types. Are they annoying? I agree, but for those who just want to get new files "out of the box", the installers are often made so that the models made by a certain creator stay together which makes them useful for some.

None of my files use them since my projects aren't big enough to warrant them. Even the 707 pack which had over 12 aircraft models and lots associated with them already were structured in a way to where you could just drag them in and use them.

[MushyMushy 3,617]

I did always find them annoying when I was installing several plugins at once, because I'd have to click through the installers. I always preferred drag-and-drop better.

Of course, I love the NAM installer. What would we do without it?

[Tarkus 6,932]

19 hours ago, Bombardiere said:

In same breath I must say that I do not like large DAT packed files. Again if the project is large as the NAM, the Dat packing serves its purpose, but I have to say that I don't like those BSC prop mega packs. The contents are too random and I wish the creators would have taken the time to sort out their content. For example the cars in one pack and fauna into another. This way I could have choosen what I want and leave the rest out. It is annoying when there is a 10- 20 MB prop pack and I only need one prop from it. That is why I don't pack my work.

All right, the situation 10 years ago was very different than now. SC4 was in it heydays, a lot of eager players and lotters, most propably had a little patience for fine tuning and learning the ropes. So I can understand the decision made that time and why we now have these BSC etc mega packs.

Actually, my experience is that there's actually a pretty substantial group of players presently who are either new to the game, or returning to it after some time, and many of them want to build up a plugin suite in as little time as possible.  I'd argue there's actually fewer patient players around.  The "Monolithic" NAM package was in part a response to the needs of these new and returning players, and to alleviate confusion about all the separate download plugins.

As the SC4D Staff is effectively the custodian for the vast array of BSC content on the LEX now, which includes the majority of the popular dependency packages, we've actually discussed some repackaging efforts to make that content more accessible.   Re-organizing existing MEGA Packs into other MEGA Packs that are more thematically-oriented would have to be done manually in the Reader, which would be a very tedious process that would only be a boon to a very small contingent of users.  I don't see that happening, though I agree that completely fresh packs being created from scratch following that paradigm makes total sense.

Our discussions have instead centered around the possibility of merging the MEGA Packs into even larger ULTRA packs, along with eliminating the ClickTeam installers, either in favor of NSIS installers (capable of being opened as archives with 7-zip), or doing away with the installers altogether, all with the goal of speeding up the installation process.  Making the content accessible to a wider population is a critical goal if we want the community to continue to thrive, and even grow.  Time and manpower have been the main limiting factors in pursuing any of these potential avenues, however.

The two main reasons the installers were used in the first place was to avoid the "where do I put this?" questions, and to present a more professional-looking package.  However, when one is doing "binge downloading", as is especially common nowadays, they definitely get old quick, and most plugins (dependency packs, particularly) don't really require any specific placement in the Plugins folder.  Their installation could be explained with a simple boilerplate file included in the ZIP--even a .txt if desired.

-Tarkus

[APSMS 1,892]

Honestly, my biggest beef with installers isn't how they function; usually I am fine with where they stick stuff, since my plugins folder isn't the neatest anyways.

It's actually the fact that, because 90% of them are outdated, Windows consistently asks me every single darn time I finish installing something whether or not the installer did as expected. I'm pretty sure if I was inept enough to not notice anything wrong during the install process, I would still be completely clueless once it was over...

Thankfully the NAM installer is new enough that I don't get these prompts after installing it.