[Request] Multiple .fxap file mounter within one resource

As stated in the following github issue: Ability to pack multiple escrowed assets. · Issue #1886 · citizenfx/fivem · GitHub , we have a problem with the modders selling us 100 cars and asking us to start them separately.

We’ve got a response from technetium stating that we should create a topic here.

# Problem

Asset developers not thinking about resource numbers and not willing to help the customers in order to reduce the number of resources into the server.

As you may know, multiple servers like to have their assets packed into one resource, but when it comes to escrowed cars/mlos you cannot do that. Every resource comes with its unique .fxap file.

We would like to be able to join multiple different escrowed assets together.

# Suggestion

A way to load multiple .fxap files within one resource.
Instead of loading only the .fxap file to load *.fxap, like in the example below:

It would be very useful. Thank you in advance!

11 Likes

Great idea, upvote for you!

3 Likes

Very good idea, you have an upvote from me!

I consider that it will be an enormous update for the servers and also for the players because it will not load resources or stream that you won’t use on your server(that aren’t necessary).

In my case, if you want my response for this suggestion, it’s big ++;

local your_suggestion = 0
Citizen.CreateThread(function()
    while true do
        Citizen.Wait(0)
        your_suggestion = your_suggestion + 1
    end
end)
1 Like

Great idea!

1 Like

Sound like a great idea, they really should add this because it would be easier for you and the players on the server to load in faster.

1 Like

Great Idea, this suggestion it s going to help the server and the player to have a great game!

1 Like

It could be very usefull, great idea!

1 Like

Looking through the history of all the users here, none of them have released any resources for FiveM, and none of them seem to have a server from a quick glance.

This was the first time a lot of them even made a post:

wastedgmt has never used the forums until now, they only have 5 minutes of view time.
msk77777 seems to have actually used the forums but mainly as a spectator.
candrei_0 has actually used the forums and bought a script judging from his reply to a thread.
CipiRares has rarely used the forums
EazyARL also mainly seems to be a spectator on the forums not actively participating until now (also providing false information, it won’t result in any significantly faster load time).
Markus_15 doesn’t seem to have used the forums until now, only 4 minutes of view time.

As it was said on GitHub, having a community vote brigade your idea is frowned upon, and gives you a horrible chance of your suggestion being implemented.

1 Like

the brigading happening here does not bring positive attention to your request and does not look good on you.

Thank god you all decided to brigade and spam, the 20 posts within 10 minutes really added so much to the discussion (saying “wow good idea” and “thumbs up” etc). You’re all a bunch of degenerates.

Quoting from the spam “issue” you posted on GitHub.

pack multiple escrowed assets as ONE RESOURCE because it’s a little bit frustrating to ensure every escrowed resource.

Put the resources into a category like resources/[assets]/, now you just need to ensure [assets]. As pointed out you can also do packages like that on tebex,

multiple servers like to have their assets packed into one resource, but when it comes to escrowed cars/mlos you cannot do that.

Downloading a “resource pack” containing 50GB of vehicles (I wish I was exaggerating about having done so) is absolutely awful for users. Isn’t there also resource caching to try and prevent downloading the exact same resource more than once? Obviously that isn’t going to work if everything is in a single and unique pack.

ciobanica do not forget that ,this idea comes with a good optimization and stability as well

How, exactly, does it optimise and improve stability…

1 Like

Very good idea !

great idea , up !

I’d love to fix this

Asking people to spam is not going to get your feature request be looked at