Jump to content


Photo

BoS Mission Editor... any news?


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 SYN_Requiem

SYN_Requiem
  • Founder
  • Posts: 573
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 25 August 2013 - 15:57

Thanks for the info, Jason. I guess we'd best start getting to grips with it then.

 

@All - check out the links to SYN_Vander's videos in JG52 Karaya's link above. I only watched a few but they make a tricky process a lot less tricky, it seemed to me.

And requiem - if you have any tips or materials you'd like to share, perhaps we could set up a Mission Editor training thread so we can hit the ground running when we get our hands on Stalingrad.

 

Without the ability to edit old posts/threads compiling things collectively in a first post is impossible right now on this forum. While I can use the ME I'm not as much of an expert at someone like Vander is on it. However, if Vander, Hashashin, Stenka, and others who know their way around the ME can send me via PM groups (that fill gaps in ones I've made) they have made then I can edit them to be a consistent format for release in one big go to help people get to terms with how the mission logic works for BoS.


Edited by Requiem, 25 August 2013 - 15:58.

  • 0

#42 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer
  • Founder
  • Posts: 674
  • Location:Oslo, Norway

Posted 26 August 2013 - 08:26

The way I read Jason (so I may be off), is that they are fully aware of the value of a more intuitive mission builder, but that the time constraints mean there's no room to work on the ME. If sales are good and they can continue work on the series, I believe they will work in the ME.

 

A streamlined tutorial like Requiem suggests would go a long way towards ameliorate the problem.


Edited by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer, 26 August 2013 - 08:31.

  • 0

#43 Matt

Matt
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location:Lower Saxony

Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:12

I also have a bit of knowledge of the RoF ME, so assuming i have a bit of spare time, i'm willing to help out a bit aswell. Overall i would assume it to be a bit easier in BoS, because it should feature less airfields and possibly overall individual buildings than RoF and with the (hopefully) higher possible amount of ground-units, there might be less complex trigger work necessary to spawn/despawn ground-objects. Also we can now use planes as ground-objects aswell, without giving them AI, so that's easier aswell.

 

Overall, i'm definately looking foward to working with the ME in BoS.


  • 0

i5-4670k - GTX 660 Ti - 8GB DDR3-1600 - TM Warthog - MFG Crosswind - PC360 - TrackIR5


#44 StG2_Manfred

StG2_Manfred
  • Founder
  • Posts: 584
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:18

As I already posted earlier here: http://forum.il2stur...eature/?p=18453

 

"I appeal to the devs to pay special attention to the FMB and it's documentation as well as to create a comprehensive and useful forum with plenty of tutorials and a (competent) contact person in order to help all the willing mission builders out there to create desperately needed content! Very important to breathe life into it!  :salute:"

 

 

 

I appreciate the honesty of the devs when they say there is not enough time to do more for the ME at the moment. What I wanted to suggest with my earlier post is, as soon as BoS is available, 777 should ask the community to develop missions and therefore create a special section within the forum. And the first time there should be a moderator (mission builder) from 777 to help the motivated mission builders to get a start, or to answer questions if something is not clear. As soon as a couple of mission builders learned how the things work, they can make tutorials, videos, etc.and everybody will be happy. This should not be to much effort and would help both sides, the devs and the community!


Edited by StG2_Manfred, 26 August 2013 - 09:20.

  • 0

#45 Laser

Laser
  • Founder
  • Posts: 40

Posted 26 August 2013 - 10:04

If it's not convenient to add tutorials in a thread, perhaps one can easily setup a blog account, it can be more suitable for such help resources.

 

E.g. this is a nice first RoF ME tutorial by Prangster:

 

http://prangstersaer...tutorial-1.html

 

The nice part is, if you set up a blog, you can allow other specific blogger accounts to add their posts (tips, tutorials etc.) - i.e. collaborative effort, while the post comments still give feedback like in a forum thread.


  • 0

#46 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 220
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:02

There is also the RoF Wiki, a good place to put manuals and tutorials?

 

http://en.wiki.riseo...title=Main_Page


  • 0

#47 stiboo

stiboo
  • Founder
  • Posts: 51
  • Location:Torquay, Devon, UK

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:00

Now we know... and I agree on previous posts. With IL2 it was pretty simple to knock up co-ops for your squad, plus, the prolific amounts of user campaigns and missions was a great reason to continue playing, as there were many new offline campaigns etc to immerse yourself in on a regular basis (it's not all about online).

There were many who loved flying the user made stuff offline.

Compare that with the very small amount of campaigns that surface with RoF. Regardless of the reasons, yes, we all know that the ME was not supposed to be released to us minions in the first place, but I would have thought that the demand, (and it has been asked for many times) for a more user friendly version, with a really detailed set of instructions on how to use the thing, would have been seriously considered for BoS.

It has been said by the dev's themselves that future expansions and add ons would come only as a direct result of sales from the BoS product.

One way of helping that would have been an IL2 type ME at launch, so that the mission makers amongst us could further the interest and enthusiasm of all by producing many excellent campaigns and missions from the get go!

There will be a few reading this thread that will just not understand why many keep going on aboutl IL2/Forgotten Battles, but it is because of that game and its innovation that quite a few of us are still flying it today.

That should be more than enough reasons for future Dev's to look at the many good ideas it had and try if possible to incorporate some of them into their products... (just my modest and humble ramblings at work here :))

 

I agree with this.... what helped IL2 last so long was the HUGE amount of user made campaigns and missions made for it  - Why? - because the Full Mission Builder was easy to understand...even I could use it!!

 

Lots of simmers have a great flair for design and planning and research but not the I.T. skills ( we all have different skills in life!)

 

I think an easy to use and powerful FMB is intrinsic to making a long lasting flightsim, but does mean a loss of control ( and revenue ) for any company making a flightsim.

 

What's good for us end users in not necessarily good for 1C Game Studios and reading between the lines from what Jason says I don't think they want to loose any control of the product. I'm sure I would feel the same if running my own business, was Microsoft Flightsim saved by the myriad of add-ons and companies supporting it?.....

 

So... we'll continue to get a small amount of campaigns and add-ons by users, but will have to rely on official (paid) add-ons and new theatres to keep the Sim alive...I course will buy them all !

 

Regards

 

Simon


  • 0

My IL2 Historical Campaigns at M4T -         'Enter The Eighth'       'Reach For The Sky'       'Checkertails Across The Med'        'Hells Angels'           'Mosquito Legends'


#48 StG2_Manfred

StG2_Manfred
  • Founder
  • Posts: 584
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:23

If it's not convenient to add tutorials in a thread, perhaps one can easily setup a blog account, it can be more suitable for such help resources.

 

 

In whatever way they are presented then, probably a thread is not the best way...

 

My point is, that  for example 777 should ideally train a smaller group, maybe with a stream, some start-up tutorials, a comprehensive manual and additional offer help and advice at the beginning for, let's say, a couple of weeks. So it's not neccessary to revise the ME right now but also the people get a real chance to learn the possibilities of the MB. As soon as the necessary skills are achieved by them the whole subject can run on it's own...


  • 0

#49 leitmotiv

leitmotiv
  • Founder
  • Posts: 308

Posted 26 August 2013 - 14:03

I found the videos made by Syn_Vander incredibly helpful

 

 

What I think is not very well thought through is the fact that the ME is seperate from the game... and you cannot run both at the same time. Which means that in order to test a mission you have to close the ME and go into RoF. Then you stumble over something that isnt right, you close down RoF and start the ME again (which actually takes a bit of time). That is one point that IL-2 and even Cliffs have on RoF, you can access the ME in the sim and test a mission with one click of a button!

 

Good videos, have RoF boxed edition from the start, but never played much with FMB (to lazy to read manuals :)  ), this will help a loot to get things working correctly in RoF FMB faster


  • 0

#50 Laser

Laser
  • Founder
  • Posts: 40

Posted 26 August 2013 - 14:11

While we're still at it - pointing to ME resources -  the reference document to read should still be the official "ROF Mission Editor User Manual 1.0", a 148 page pdf file which IIRC should be included into your main RoF installation folder (if not, it can be downloaded from http://www.777studio..._Manual_eng.pdf). It is an older resource, but the main information is valid and it includes a description of the whole ME interface, plus some mission examples at the end.

 

So, there is a manual, there are some tutorials, written or in video format, and you'll get from the start what the RoF'ers will only get after the next patch - a fast time to load missions into the editor, or in game. IMHO the biggest problem with the ME was not the difficulty of it - it is very powerful, if you use a good mission as template it is fast to adjust time, weather, locations, plane types etc. and, as said above, you can reuse groups very well - the nasty part was switching between the ME and RoF, waiting each time for the mission to load, in order to test it or modify it.


Edited by Laser, 26 August 2013 - 14:23.

  • 0

#51 Laser

Laser
  • Founder
  • Posts: 40

Posted 26 August 2013 - 14:28

BTW

 

It isn't at all necessary that everyone who opens the ME knows how to fully use it. For example, an advanced ME user could make a "super mission", overloaded with too many flights, many targets and so on. Other everyday sim users could open this heavy mission in the ME and remove some targets, some planes (which automatically deletes their waypoints etc.), change some plane types, and drag some of the remaining objects to other locations (for example, change an intermediate and a final waypoint position). Voila, a new mission. This is VERY EASY to do.


  • 0

#52 =BKHZ=Furbs

=BKHZ=Furbs
  • Founder
  • Posts: 971

Posted 26 August 2013 - 15:53

This is what i was just thinking Laser, maybe some kind soul who has a good grasp of the ME could make up some mission templates that us lesser mortals could fiddle with.


  • 0

I'd rather have Sandra Bullock than live streams...

 


#53 MackStones

MackStones
  • Founder
  • Posts: 11

Posted 26 August 2013 - 16:02

Under the MackStones name, I've made hundreds of Il-2 missions for Warbirds of Prey servers (Spits v. 109s, Zekes v. Wildcats, etc.) and, under the JackStones name, I've made almost 20 single-player campaigns (available on Mission4Today).  I'm glad to see this thread and realize that I was not, by any means, the only Il-2 mission-maker who had trouble with the Rise of Flight Mission Editor.  I'm not a techie, and I've struggled to make usable ROF missions, although I did succeed in making a series of Bomber Practice Missions (see thread on ROF forum) for Rise of Flight (since I was surprised that none had existed beforehand - but, after spending the time and effort to create them, I had a better idea why - ha ha).

 

I also want to thank Jason for chiming on the type of mission editor to be used for Battle of Stalingrad.   His comment that the ROF ME wasn't intended for the public helped me understand why it was not very user-friendly; however, I do thank him and the rest of 777 for making it available to the public (even a difficult ME is better than none at all).  

 

Like some of the others, I'm disappointed that the ROF ME will be utilized in Battle of Stalingrad.  I understand 777's reasons for making such a decision.  Although disappointed, there's no use "bitching and moaning".  The mission-makers (whether for online or single-player) need to see if we can try to work collaboratively on helping us (and the rest of the community) in learning to make BoS missions using the ME.  Such collaboration might lead, in the long run, to some sharing of "groups" (see posts above) and some mission templates (see the super-mission thread for an example).   We're not going to have an abundance of maps at the outset (from what I can tell), and it doesn't seem fruitful for every single mission-maker to try to "re-create the wheel".  Of course, we can all hold back a few secrets (ha ha), but a collaborative effort should be a goal.

 

Jason, with the early release version (yes, I pre-purchased the premium - if you love realistic flight sims, we have to support them), will the mission editor be available as well?  I could see it not being available then, but it might be at least useful for even a beta ME to be made available before the general release. That will give some of us time to try to create missions before the game goes live.  I know that Warbirds of Prey is very interested in running a Battle of Stalingrad server and as much lead-time as possible to create, and thoroughly test, missions would be welcomed.


  • 2

#54 Zorin

Zorin
  • Member
  • Posts: 167

Posted 26 August 2013 - 16:29

But why would one make an editor that is not user friendly? Even or especially when it is meant for the dev team only? Do they have too much time at hand or why waste it with a badly accessable tool?


  • 0

#55 VeryOldMan

VeryOldMan
  • Founder
  • Posts: 361

Posted 26 August 2013 - 16:48

But why would one make an editor that is not user friendly? Even or especially when it is meant for the dev team only? Do they have too much time at hand or why waste it with a badly accessable tool?

 

Because trained programmers  are used to  things vastly  less user friendly than any editor could ever hope to be. The ammount fo time to make something user friendly  is HUGE compared to the time takes to trian 3-4 peopel to use it  even in an unfriendly way


  • 2

#56 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Founder
  • Posts: 744

Posted 26 August 2013 - 19:19

But why would one make an editor that is not user friendly? Even or especially when it is meant for the dev team only? Do they have too much time at hand or why waste it with a badly accessable tool?

 

It's not user friendly because it enables users to do very complex mission design.  It's extremely difficult to design a simple interface capable of complex functionality.


  • 0

#57 Rama

Rama
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1731
  • Location:Creil - Oise - France

Posted 26 August 2013 - 22:03

But why would one make an editor that is not user friendly? Even or especially when it is meant for the dev team only? Do they have too much time at hand or why waste it with a badly accessable tool?

What seems to you "badly accessable" could be in fact "efficient".

It's not intuitive, but user-friendly tool are not allways efficient tools, especially for professionals.

In my company we have two home-made tool sets to work. One is very user-friendly with a well designed Wysiwig interface, and allows us to employ people with almost no qualification, to train them quickly and to make them able to produce stuff. It's also a tool we can provide to partners or sub-contractors to produce with minimum training..... and we also have a tool library with command-line interface, to perform the same actions and some other very elaborate by chaining the commands in scripts. This second tool set is not intuitive, requires a lot of training and documentation reading to master and use it.... but once you're used to, you're 10 to 20 times more efficient than with the first tool set. Of course it take some time (and een a lot of) to learn it and get used to it, but it's not "wasted" time, because it allows to gain a lot of time afterward.

Gess what? Soon after new people enter the company, they all want to use the user unfriedly, complicate to understand and to use tool set...


  • 0
"When you didn't get the chance to have alcoholic parents, you must intoxicate yourself all your life in order to cope with the heavy inheritance of their virtues." E. Cioran

#58 Freycinet

Freycinet
  • Founder
  • Posts: 688
  • Location:Europe

Posted 26 August 2013 - 23:05

Well, they do talk about an improved QMB where you can save missions and do more things than with the one in RoF, so maybe that will satisfy most of the need for a quick and easy way to make missions.

If there is a concerted comunity effort, when BoS comes out, to get those FMB tutorials done and collected in a central location, and to make 'groups' for others to use like mission building blocks then it should still be possible to get a good amount of community-made content out quickly.
  • 0

#59 ShamrockOneFive

ShamrockOneFive
  • Founder
  • Posts: 506

Posted 27 August 2013 - 00:26

Accessibility is the hardest thing to design for so I don't blame the 777 guys for focusing on other stuff. Clearly the RoF mission builder works. It does what it needs to do.

 

What worries me is that I've read the tutorials and it looks substantially more complex than the IL-2 one meaning that it will take me longer to get into and we'll see less user generated content. What I'd like them to do at some point after the initial release is have a solid look at the builder and how it can be made more accessible and more streamlined without undermining what it can do. That's a tall order but maybe not an impossible one.


  • 0

ShamrockOneFive (formerly IceFire)


#60 AX2

AX2
  • Member
  • Posts: 889

Posted 27 August 2013 - 00:32

Because trained programmers  are used to  things vastly  less user friendly than any editor could ever hope to be. The ammount fo time to make something user friendly  is HUGE compared to the time takes to trian 3-4 peopel to use it  even in an unfriendly way

+1


  • 0

.


#61 FuriousMeow

FuriousMeow
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2173
  • Location:Right meow?

Posted 27 August 2013 - 00:50

Fewer individuals bothered with RoF's FMB. It's WWI so there are less players, less interest in the genre, and so fewer to delve into the FMB.

 

With BoS there is potential for far more players, interest, and mission builders that are willing to learn the complexities to create missions that the previous series could only dream of. I can't imagine there being a shortage of templates either.


Edited by FuriousMeow, 27 August 2013 - 00:50.

  • 0

Spoiler

 

Refraction: http://forums.eagle....9&postcount=348


#62 Trooper117

Trooper117
  • Founder
  • Posts: 539

Posted 27 August 2013 - 07:40

Accessibility is the hardest thing to design for so I don't blame the 777 guys for focusing on other stuff. Clearly the RoF mission builder works. It does what it needs to do.

 

What worries me is that I've read the tutorials and it looks substantially more complex than the IL-2 one meaning that it will take me longer to get into and we'll see less user generated content. What I'd like them to do at some point after the initial release is have a solid look at the builder and how it can be made more accessible and more streamlined without undermining what it can do. That's a tall order but maybe not an impossible one.

 

Don't hold your breath mate... that has been asked for on the RoF forums for years, lol!


  • 0

#63 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 220
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:06

My take on this:

 

To change the current (RoF/BoS) FMB into something very user friendly is probably very hard if not impossible, since you would have to change the underlying mission structure as well. So then you would have to start from scratch and we all know that now is not the moment because the team has to focus hard on content to release in time and entirely new features have lower priority.

 

I see another possible approach:

Change the current Quick Mission Builder and add more scenario's and maybe the possibility to add/change waypoints. In the RoF Career mode this is already possible. So if the mission types from Career (intercept, patrol, escort, recon, bombing etc.) can be selected in the QMB and you have the ability to choose/change some waypoints and or targets you will already have a very powerful, but still simple editor (not unlike the UQMB of IL2). It will allow you to recreate many mission scenarios under different conditions (number of enemy flights, aircraft types, location, weather etc).

If the user wants more, it can always load the generated mission (in RoF, this is now the _gen.mission) in the Full Mission Builder and tweak it further using the manuals/ tutorials.


Edited by SYN_Vander, 27 August 2013 - 08:09.

  • 1

#64 Klaue

Klaue
  • Founder
  • Posts: 115

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:09

My take on this:

 

To change the current (RoF/BoS) FMB into something very user friendly is probably very hard if not impossible, since you would have to change the underlying mission structure as well. So then you would have to start from scratch and we all know that now is not the moment because the team has to focus hard on content to release in time and entirely new features have lower priority.

 

I see another possible approach:

Change the current Quick Mission Builder and add more scenario's and maybe the possibility to add/change waypoints. In the RoF Career mode this is already possible. So if the mission types from Career (intercept, patrol, escort, recon, bombing etc.) can be selected in the QMB and you have the ability to choose/change some waypoints and or targets you will already have a very powerful, but still simple editor (not unlike the UQMB of IL2). It will allow you to recreate many mission scenarios under different conditions (number of enemy flights, aircraft types, location, weather etc).

If the user wants more, it can always load the generated mission (in RoF, this is now the _gen.mission) in the Full Mission Builder and tweak it further using the manuals/ tutorials.

+1 Good Idea


  • 0

Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman.

— Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, GAF.


#65 =69.GIAP=STENKA69GIAP

=69.GIAP=STENKA69GIAP
  • Founder
  • Posts: 57

Posted 27 August 2013 - 11:24

Now there is a reference manual and mission editor lessons in the riseofflight site, community, useful materials section but even those are more complex than a typical IL2 mission builder needs to begin with, get results and get himself and his squad flying.

 

Now at the moment I don't have the time to produce training videos (and there are other people that do it better than me) as I am preparing the "Biggle Flies undone" 1916 campaign which starts on the 16/9/13. That means generating 24 missions in less days and in parralel I have started the basic design work on a collaborative multi player campaign generator for ROF/BOS which will make campaign generation far easier and faster in the future. 

 

However, there is one little trick to ROF mission building that I don't think has been mentionned. If you go online in ROF and fly a mission, afterwards look in the Riseofflight/data/Multiplayer/Dogfights or Cooperative directory and you will discover the mission files of the mission you have just flown. This means that very quickly you can collect a set of missions, open them up and start changing them. If you get 3 or 4 good mission builders started it can snowball very quickly as everybody steals their work.

 

Next I normaly spend about 60-90 minutes to train an IL2 mission builder on teamspeak to build a multi player ROF mission. To do this everything is kept very simple but it covers 80% of what most people did in IL2.

 

Start with a preprepared mission that can be "aquired" as described above.

 

Activate an airfield and allocate several planes that can be flown from it

 

Add a flak position

 

Add a couple of stationary trucks on a road

 

Add a truck, mission begin timer, timer for when I want truck to start moving, waypoint to tell it where it is going

 

Add an AI plane in airstart mission begin timer, waypoint to tell it where it is going

 

Save mission, fly mission

 

Once someone can do this they have the basic elements needed for most stuff. Now any competent IL2 mission builder can handle that with a brief introduction - it is familiar but not identical. Can't you remember how much time and fiddling it took to get a flight of planes off a moving carrier do a circuit then land in Pacific Fighters? This isn't that difficult. 

 

Save the complex stuff for when the basics are mastered.


  • 2

#66 Gustang

Gustang
  • Founder
  • Posts: 29

Posted 27 August 2013 - 13:26

I'm very glad to learn that time invested in the RoF editor will apply to BoS.

   
I do understand the initial feeling that initial feeling of dread when opening the RoF ME.    There are lots of buttons, icons, windows and settings to keep track of.   Once you get familiar with the most-useful of these and start to move beyond that confusion, you can start to see that your options for building missions have never been greater.    There are so many cool and innovative things you can do with it, and that it helps to set aside the frustrating things about it. 

 

Well, I think the most frustrating thing about using the RoF ME isn't the editor itself.   The loading times turn the testing process into an exercise.    So, it's now important to double-check work prior to testing and that's also where groups become especially useful.   The ability to group functions and entities into working pieces that you can import or borrow from previous examples and save for later use is a great time-saver.   Groups are usually pieces that you've already found to work well and no longer require testing on their own.

 

If there was an easy way to share groups, beyond doing so directly on a forum for instance, something like a repository, I think that would help to ease some new mission builders into the process.    It'd allow a new study to focus on a particular subject, quickly reverse-engineer it and increase their understanding of the way things fit together.    That would allow someone to grab the pieces (functions) they want, get them in place, fill in the gaps and then add some polish.


Edited by Gustang, 27 August 2013 - 13:26.

  • 0

#67 WTornado

WTornado
  • Founder
  • Posts: 89
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 September 2013 - 12:56

Anything yet on a mission builder to make coops?

 

Or will they not release it and it will never become an end-user tool.


  • 0

Success flourishes only in perseverance — ceaseless, restless perseverance.

 

 Baron Manfred von Richthofen


#68 JagdNeun

JagdNeun
  • Founder
  • Posts: 576
  • Location:Shenandoah Valley, Virginia

Posted 07 September 2013 - 13:46

My take on this:

 

To change the current (RoF/BoS) FMB into something very user friendly is probably very hard if not impossible, since you would have to change the underlying mission structure as well. So then you would have to start from scratch and we all know that now is not the moment because the team has to focus hard on content to release in time and entirely new features have lower priority.

 

I see another possible approach:

Change the current Quick Mission Builder and add more scenario's and maybe the possibility to add/change waypoints. In the RoF Career mode this is already possible. So if the mission types from Career (intercept, patrol, escort, recon, bombing etc.) can be selected in the QMB and you have the ability to choose/change some waypoints and or targets you will already have a very powerful, but still simple editor (not unlike the UQMB of IL2). It will allow you to recreate many mission scenarios under different conditions (number of enemy flights, aircraft types, location, weather etc).

If the user wants more, it can always load the generated mission (in RoF, this is now the _gen.mission) in the Full Mission Builder and tweak it further using the manuals/ tutorials.

I think this is an excellent idea, if it's possible it would give some needed flexibility to offliners like myself who love creating a wide range of missions and mixing things up a bit.


  • 0

#69 Matt

Matt
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location:Lower Saxony

Posted 07 September 2013 - 14:10

Anything yet on a mission builder to make coops?

 

Or will they not release it and it will never become an end-user tool.

I don't think the devs have stated anywhere that they'll release the mission editor before the actual game.

 

Earliest you can test that out will (most likely) be the early access. But you can also download RoF for free and start practicing with that one


  • 0

i5-4670k - GTX 660 Ti - 8GB DDR3-1600 - TM Warthog - MFG Crosswind - PC360 - TrackIR5


#70 WTornado

WTornado
  • Founder
  • Posts: 89
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 September 2013 - 04:30

I don't think the devs have stated anywhere that they'll release the mission editor before the actual game.

 

Earliest you can test that out will (most likely) be the early access. But you can also download RoF for free and start practicing with that one

Shame I would of liked to have fiddled with it.It looks good.


  • 0

Success flourishes only in perseverance — ceaseless, restless perseverance.

 

 Baron Manfred von Richthofen


#71 =BKHZ=Furbs

=BKHZ=Furbs
  • Founder
  • Posts: 971

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:17

Shame I would of liked to have fiddled with it.It looks good.

 

 

As matt said, download ROF for free...start fiddling away!


  • 0

I'd rather have Sandra Bullock than live streams...

 


#72 WTornado

WTornado
  • Founder
  • Posts: 89
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:37

No its ok I will wait for the finished product this winter

when it goes gold.

 

Still have the bitter taste of Clod in my mouth buying it the

first week it came out and shelving it for a year and a half

this time everyone else can try it first lol.

 

UP final and HSFX latest version is just around the corner.


Edited by WTornado, 09 September 2013 - 12:41.

  • 0

Success flourishes only in perseverance — ceaseless, restless perseverance.

 

 Baron Manfred von Richthofen


#73 Zak

Zak
  • Community manager
  • Posts: 1024

Posted 09 September 2013 - 13:38

I don't think the devs have stated anywhere that they'll release the mission editor before the actual game.

 

Earliest you can test that out will (most likely) be the early access. But you can also download RoF for free and start practicing with that one

Yes, we havven't planned to release the mission builder before the game itself.

And yes, ROF mission builder allows to create content for IL2BOS. There at least one project that I'm aware of that's developed by a Russian player DiFiS and his mates. The thread is in Ru but I'll link it to give a proof

http://forum.il2stur...forum/28-karty/


  • 1

#74 WTornado

WTornado
  • Founder
  • Posts: 89
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 September 2013 - 14:18

I in blind faith bought Clod when it was released.The ME is essential to a games survival because like in any

game once you have played the same ones over again you need new content.

 

If they play the snake eating its tail scenario they might make some good money with a half decent product yield.

 

From what I seen over the years,flight simmers are few and far between.You have to get them all on your side lol. 


  • 0

Success flourishes only in perseverance — ceaseless, restless perseverance.

 

 Baron Manfred von Richthofen


#75 Trooper117

Trooper117
  • Founder
  • Posts: 539

Posted 09 September 2013 - 17:33

It's not about sides mate... they are going to leave the ME the same as the RoF one... make of that what you will :)


  • 0

#76 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer
  • Founder
  • Posts: 674
  • Location:Oslo, Norway

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:34

One little thing that might help the mission builder get into swing of things, is putting default values on all the little variables, e.g. all planes will be active at mission start and all will fly at 3 000 ft altitude initially, unless you activly go in a change those values. That way you don't have to fiddle with all kinds of parameters just to get a plane in the air.


  • 0

#77 WTornado

WTornado
  • Founder
  • Posts: 89
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 September 2013 - 13:07


It's not about sides mate... they are going to leave the ME the same as the RoF one... make of that what you will :)

 

Then its all about money and not sides and this time I can patiently wait before I spend mine.


  • 0

Success flourishes only in perseverance — ceaseless, restless perseverance.

 

 Baron Manfred von Richthofen


#78 Matt

Matt
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location:Lower Saxony

Posted 10 September 2013 - 13:31

One little thing that might help the mission builder get into swing of things, is putting default values on all the little variables, e.g. all planes will be active at mission start and all will fly at 3 000 ft altitude initially, unless you activly go in a change those values. That way you don't have to fiddle with all kinds of parameters just to get a plane in the air.

That's a very good idea. For istance In RoF, you first have to place the plane, which is then sitting on the ground and then first add the entity, so that this plane actually means something and so that you can give it waypoints, orders etc.

 

I think just giving planes and units a neutral AI entity would help, or perhaps the fitting AI depending on unit type (German plan -> Axis AI etc.).

 

This should help new guys setting missions up and it would also safe a few steps for more experienced users.


  • 0

i5-4670k - GTX 660 Ti - 8GB DDR3-1600 - TM Warthog - MFG Crosswind - PC360 - TrackIR5


#79 Zak

Zak
  • Community manager
  • Posts: 1024

Posted 10 September 2013 - 14:25

BTW the mission editor for IL2BOS will be a bit different. Hopefully. We want to make it easier to use and keep the huge functionality it has now. But it's too early to promise any specific changes.


  • 3

#80 Jaws2002

Jaws2002
  • Founder
  • Posts: 771

Posted 10 September 2013 - 15:11

What seems to you "badly accessable" could be in fact "efficient".
It's not intuitive, but user-friendly tool are not allways efficient tools, especially for professionals.
In my company we have two home-made tool sets to work. One is very user-friendly with a well designed Wysiwig interface, and allows us to employ people with almost no qualification, to train them quickly and to make them able to produce stuff. It's also a tool we can provide to partners or sub-contractors to produce with minimum training..... and we also have a tool library with command-line interface, to perform the same actions and some other very elaborate by chaining the commands in scripts. This second tool set is not intuitive, requires a lot of training and documentation reading to master and use it.... but once you're used to, you're 10 to 20 times more efficient than with the first tool set. Of course it take some time (and een a lot of) to learn it and get used to it, but it's not "wasted" time, because it allows to gain a lot of time afterward.
Gess what? Soon after new people enter the company, they all want to use the user unfriedly, complicate to understand and to use tool set...



The fundamental difference is that your colegs NEED that efficient tool to make a living! They have to do that job, they just have to decide if they want to do it fast and efficient or slow and easy to understand. They have to get the job done one way or another.
A potential mission builder doesn't have to do that. If is easy for him to understand the builder and can easily make missions with it, he'll start making missions. If he doesn't find it fun to learn to code, in order to make that mission, he doesn't have to.
His livehood doesn't depend on making that mission.
in other words, if he doesn't find making missions fun, because the tools are too complicted, he won't make them. It's that simple. This is a game. Not a job.
A lot of talented skiners didn't bother to make skins for ROF because the aproval process was too much of a pain in the backside.
It's going to be a lot worse with the missions.
  • 0

NZXT-Phantom 820 case; Asus Sabertooth Z77; i7 3770k@4.3GHz+ Noctua NH D14 cooler; EVGA GTX 780 Superclocked+ACX cooler; Dell Ultrasharp 2713H @2560x1440; 8GB G.Skill ripjaws DDR3-1600; Crucial M4 128GB SSD+Crucial M4 256GB SSD+2TB HD; Corsair AX860 psu; Corsair vengeance K70 keyboard; Razer Deathadder mouse; CH Fighterstick+CH Pro pedals+Saitek X45





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users