In other news- BoS is to have more advanced QM with mission save feature.

[89-]

This came out last week in a discussion of a more user friendly Full Editor than is currently available in RoF. Towards the end of discussion, Han and Loft both stated that a "more advanced Quick Mission"  feature is planned for BoS, and that it will include "an ability to save missions that were generated in it". Han also said that discussion about what should be done with QM may well result in implementations that we will see on BoS release (and not some undefined time in the future).

 

Devs original posts (use google translate if needed):

http://forum.il2sturmovik.su/topic/234-%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%B7%D1%81/page-4?do=findComment&comment=13035

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.su/topic/234-%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%B7%D1%81/page-4?do=findComment&comment=13043

 

 

What would we like to see in this "more advanced QM"? Discuss

Edited February 4, 2013 by 89-

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Good news!

[Bearcat]

There is a similar thread to this one out there but since this one has some new info I'll roll with it..

 

I'd like to see a QMB that is at least as powerful as the current QMB in IL2 or as versatile as Mission Mate was. I think tha that is the key to this sim's success.. or one of them... the more engaged the community can become in the sim the  and the sooner they can become engaged.. the stronger it will be.

[FlatSpinMan]

Good QMB adds sooooo much playability. It's great for practicing too. I like RoF's current one, especially the interface, but more features could only be a good thing.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Having a flexible QMB is great for practice, as FSM said,  It's really the only offline flying I do in IL2/46, except for testing missions I make offline.

 

I just hope that some thought is given to making the full mission editor as flexible and easy as the one in '46, at least as an option.

If it is exactly like the one in RoF, I'll be out of the mission making area of the sim.  It's simply too difficult, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

I'm not an IT person, I'm just an old guy that likes aeroplanes and wants to share my passion with my friends by making missions for us to use.

[89-]

In my mind the big question is: should they mess with RoF's QM? It is now a very well made feature of RoF with a simple objective - quickly fly against a variety of targets or by yourself. It's pretty much exactly the same as QMB in IL2, but with more modern design.

 

The "new extended QM+ with ability to save missions" can REPLACE the current QM or it can be an EXTRA mode. Imho, the latter is better, as mixing missions making/saving and quick flight modes can lead to overly complex QM which would no longer be fast and easy to use, or very underpowered "Mission Maker" whose missions would be to generic/simplistic.

 

Imho the "new QM+" needs to be the missing link of RoF- the easy to use Mission Generator for people who can not use the overly complex Mission Editor but want to create missions/campaigns. QM+ may have full equivalent functionality and ease of use of IL2's FMB with extra features like triggers. Its missions may also be edited in full ME for further tweaking, but its ultimate goal would be to fill the gap that is present in RoF.

Edited February 5, 2013 by 89-

[Freycinet]

How can anyone say that the qmb in RoF is too difficult? Don't you mean the fmb ElAurens?

[BlitzPig_EL]

How can anyone say that the qmb in RoF is too difficult? Don't you mean the fmb ElAurens?

 

Check my second paragraph, I do say the full mission editor.  The QMB in RoF is OK.

 

But that FMB has eluded me since the launch of the sim.  And yes, I've seen the video tutorials.

 

Like I said, I'm no programmer.

[Bearcat]

Having a flexible QMB is great for practice, as FSM said,  It's really the only offline flying I do in IL2/46, except for testing missions I make offline.

 

I just hope that some thought is given to making the full mission editor as flexible and easy as the one in '46, at least as an option.

If it is exactly like the one in RoF, I'll be out of the mission making area of the sim.  It's simply too difficult, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

I'm not an IT person, I'm just an old guy that likes aeroplanes and wants to share my passion with my friends by making missions for us to use.

 

I agree .. in fact I believe that .. especially since this sim is the one to carry on the IL2 legacy .. that IL2 should be the minimal benchmark in most of it's features.. meaning it should do them minimally as good as IL2 .. preferably better.

[Feathered_IV]

This is welcome news. Not really a revelation though. If BoS allowed us to save in mid flight, that'd be really something.

[Zmaj76]

Its nice too see they are now fully commited to BOS...something that I expected...

 

@Bearcat - looking at what CLOD modders are doing and what CLOD has (dx11, advanced CEM, FM, DM, etc...) its already ages in front of BOS......not to mention MP which will be much better and more crowded with CLOD (BOS will use ROF engine limits with very limited NO of units (which can exist) on server, 777 not fixing FMs and charging for everything else, planes falling apart like RC planes etc etc)....All this will, in most part, apply to BOS...I just regret spending hundreds of dollars on ROF and having a dream which LOFT falsly proclaimed as his dream too...and only dream there is to build as many planes as they can not caring about relative performances between planes, DM etc....not a single hardcore sim survived (atl east in MP) without FM tunings...a sim of 21st century with super simplified CEM, with awfull innacuracies in FMs which results in huge errors in relative perfomances between planes, with limited usage of ground units on servers, engine using dx9 graphics - simple isnt a sim of 21st century. And for sure isnt a true IL2 46 successor.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Tvrdi

[Bearcat]

Its nice too see they are now fully commited to BOS...something that I expected...

 

@Bearcat - looking at what CLOD modders are doing and what CLOD has (dx11, advanced CEM, FM, DM, etc...) its already ages in front of BOS......not to mention MP which will be much better and more crowded with CLOD (BOS will use ROF engine limits with very limited NO of units (which can exist) on server, 777 not fixing FMs and charging for everything else, planes falling apart like RC planes etc etc)....All this will, in most part, apply to BOS...I just regret spending hundreds of dollars on ROF and having a dream which LOFT falsly proclaimed as his dream too...and only dream there is to build as many planes as they can not caring about relative performances between planes, DM etc....not a single hardcore sim survived (atl east in MP) without FM tunings...a sim of 21st century with super simplified CEM, with awfull innacuracies in FMs which results in huge errors in relative perfomances between planes, with limited usage of ground units on servers, engine using dx9 graphics - simple isnt a sim of 21st century. And for sure isnt a true IL2 46 successor.

 Tvrdi you have no idea what BoS will be like .. none of us do.. but I am getting tired of your constant negativity ad incessant criticisms of the developers of this product. If you spent hundreds of dollars on RoF .... considering how bad you seem to think it is with all of it's flaws.. <_<  .. then shame on you. Your posts constantly stoke the fires of a discussion that will not be had on these boards. If you prefer CoD to anything from 777 .. then I am happy for you ... and I wish you all the best and years of enjoyment but this is going to end.. this constant slamming of 777 and oh by the way CoD is so much better.. It is what it is man .. and BoS will be what it will be.. but until it is released neither you, myself nor any other member of this community .. not even the developers .. know what the final product will be.. so until then.. get over it.

[AA_Engadin]

 Tvrdi you have no idea what BoS will be like .. none of us do.. but I am getting tired of your constant negativity ad incessant criticisms of the developers of this product. If you spent hundreds of dollars on RoF .... considering how bad you seem to think it is with all of it's flaws.. <_<  .. then shame on you. Your posts constantly stoke the fires of a discussion tat will not be had on these boards. If you prefer CoD to anything from 777 .. then I am happy for you ... and I wish yopu all the best and years of enjoyment but this is going to end.. this constant slamming of 777 and oh by the way CoD is so much better.. It is what it is man .. and BoS will be what it will be.. but until it is released neither you, myself nor any other member of this comunity .. not even the developers .. know what the final product will be.. so until then.. get over it.

 

+ 1 here, Bear. I guess Tvrdi, you had had a hard day when you posted above. Negativity flowing, OK. But if you read your words again, they are 100% based on your feelings, not on real facts, as Bearcat says.

 

Take it easier  ^_^  and give good goblins a chance.

 

AA_Engadin.

[VeryOldMan]

I think  anyone has the right to be worried or to be with anxiety over something of  unknown certainty in future. But there is a line between  that and being strongy depressive and offensive of others work.

 

I do not like RoF myself, but as a former game developer I know that front he statements you post as reason for the DOOOM of BOS, only a few  have  some fundamentation. The non usage of DX11 may  yes affect  the graphic card load negatively.  But  that is far from being doombringer.    FM and engine mechanics  can   and probably will be completely  different.  ww1 planes behave very differently from WW2 planes and the  relative differences of flight model are less relevant in ww1 scenario than in ww2.  A 5% speed difference in a ww1 planes is  something as small as  you could revert by straping a pigeon flaping its wings on each wing of the plane  We will need to wait and see how seriously the approach the FM thing before making judgements. 

 

 

The limit of object are usually not  something  of a hard limit on any engine.  The  instancing capability of repeated geometry is  something that may  be felts pretty  hard if you  use only DX9 instead of DX11 (or OpenGL, like  the games are returning to due to  Apple computers massive market advance).  And the lack of geometry instancing is the only subject that  if absent could be inherited from one game to the other and hit somewhat the final result.

 

The only other thing  you might  have a reason to get worried is on the business model, but  that is out of our reach, as you  said we are in 21st century and   to survive  they need to find a way to make more money.

[89-]

Tvrdi, could you take your grieveances with ROF elsewhere please? This thread has a particular purpose- discuss future advanced QM generator functions. It would be unfortunate to see the thread locked just becasue an argument starts about something not even topic realted.

Edited February 11, 2013 by 89-

[IbisWTE_Ibis]

Having a flexible QMB is great for practice, as FSM said,  It's really the only offline flying I do in IL2/46, except for testing missions I make offline.

 

I just hope that some thought is given to making the full mission editor as flexible and easy as the one in '46, at least as an option.

If it is exactly like the one in RoF, I'll be out of the mission making area of the sim.  It's simply too difficult, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

I'm not an IT person, I'm just an old guy that likes aeroplanes and wants to share my passion with my friends by making missions for us to use.

 

 Exactly, that's where I get a major part of my enjoyment of the game and in IL2 it's powerfull and simple to use. All it needs is a little tidy up around the edges. For the love of mike don't make the mission builder anything like COD.

 If it aint broke don't try to reinvent it as CLOD did.

 cheers

  Ibis.

[DD_fruitbat]

 For the love of mike don't make the mission builder anything like COD.

 If it aint broke don't try to reinvent it as CLOD did.

 cheers

  Ibis.

 

lol, you haven't used the RoF one have you........

 

Having used both myself, CloDs is infinitely easier. In fact i struggle to think how they could deliberately make the RoF FMB any more complicated, to the extent that i can't be bothered with it anymore.

Edited February 12, 2013 by fruitbat

[89-]

The new QM+ is not meant to replace full ME, full ME will still be there. QM+ will thus be simpler and more limited than CLoD ME.

 

I think IL2:1946 full ME is a good comparison however, I think if ne QM+ will be like IL2:46 full ME, but with added triggers function, it will be perfect.

Edited February 12, 2013 by 89-

[IbisWTE_Ibis]

lol, you haven't used the RoF one have you........

 

Having used both myself, CloDs is infinitely easier. In fact i struggle to think how they could deliberately make the RoF FMB any more complicated, to the extent that i can't be bothered with it anymore.

 

Oh no, please no,

   I tried RoF but not its FMB. I just couldn't take to it though, RoF that is,  though I know many love it. 

  It was about as appealing to me as using muskets from hot air balloons.

Developers please,please use the il2 tried and proven formular for the FMB with improvements such as triggers etc.

 thanks,

  Ibis.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Oh no, please no,

  

  Ibis.

 

Oh yes, yes, yes...

 

It's utterly incomprehensible.  

 

I'm hoping that the fact that the airfields in the Stalingrad area are all known entities, and have fixed locations and layouts, will simplify the whole thing a lot.  

 

It has to be simpler, it certainly could be no more difficult than the RoF FMB, which I suspect is really just a repackaged game developer's map tool kit minus the ability to make new geographic meshes, and not a player level mission making tool, which is what our old friend, the IL2/46 FMB is.

[Caudron431]

Anti tank QMB options should be made better than what we had in 1946.

 

One should be able to select any sort of tank, vehicle or train from a list in the quick missions builder. This would make ground attack training much more easy IMO.

[heinkill]

Qmb that you can generate and save a mission from, then edit, would be great.

 

Then a QCB (quick campaign builder) that lets you string those missions into a simple or branching campaign, would be The Business.

 

And FWIW I have built missions in BoB2, IL2, CoD, DCS World and RoF and of all of those, RoF full mission builder is the most difficult to use.

 

H

[Bearcat]

Qmb that you can generate and save a mission from, then edit, would be great. Then a QCB (quick campaign builder) that lets you string those missions into a simple or branching campaign, would be The Business. And FWIW I have built missions in BoB2, IL2, CoD, DCS World and RoF and of all of those, RoF full mission builder is the most difficult to use. H

Hmm intesting.

[heinkill]

Qmb wishlist: ability to set

- aircraft type

- 1 vs 1 or up to at least a full squadron vs a full squadron

- map location

- finite or unlimited ammo

- enemy skill

- altitude

- weather

- time of day

- position (advantage, disadvantage, head on merge)

- aaa on or off

Nice to have: ground attack targets, random enemies in waves, loadouts other than default

 

 

Fmb wishlist

 

 

- simple gui based event scripting, no coding needed except for very complex mission parameters

- easy to set up triggers using gui: such as proximity based spawns, timed events, targets and units appearing or disappearing

- good briefings editor allowing mission builder to include graphics in the briefing eg map or recon shots

- easy to string missions into a campaign and add the campaign to the in game menu

- easy to create 'branching' campaigns so that eg success in a mission triggers mission X next time while failure triggers mission Y.

- easy to set mission success criteria eg target must be destroyed, target must survive, player must get x kills, player must survive, x% aircraft from squadron must be destroyed or survive.

Nice to have: ability to add cut scene videos between missions or to briefings.

 

 

That's it, I'm easy to please!

Edited March 9, 2013 by heinkill

[Bearcat]

I hope that the QMB is close to the one now in stock IL2 with the addition of being able to set individual AC pilot skills and at the very least 4 flight vs 4 flight fights..  Mission Mate was IMO still a better alternative to the QMB.. it was a bridge between the QMB and the FMB.. with a lot of FMB functionality built in.

[JtD]

I think IL2:1946 full ME is a good comparison however, I think if ne QM+ will be like IL2:46 full ME, but with added triggers function, it will be perfect.

Making a QMB as complex as the FMB in Il2:1946 kind of defeats the purpose, as there's nothing Q about it any more.

[FlatSpinMan]

Making a QMB as complex as the FMB in Il2:1946 kind of defeats the purpose, as there's nothing Q about it any more.

Love it. Exactly.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Fmb wishlist

 

Very good list shortlist there! The only thing I would like to ad is having a file tree that is accessible outside of the program, to ad and delete folders, move home made missions around to new folders etc. I found that very useful in old IL2.

[89-]

Making a QMB as complex as the FMB in Il2:1946 kind of defeats the purpose, as there's nothing Q about it any more.

 

QMB is perfect as it is in RoF already. What RoF lacks is a "mission generator/maker" that is accessible to all- hence the "mission save feature". Whats the point of mission save in current IL2:46 or RoF QMB? Mission save only makes sense for a tool which is more complex than QMB but less complex than ROF's current (and very likely BOS) FMB.

[SYN_Vander]

I still love the simple, but very effective, mission builder from red Baron!

 

 

 

Something like this with some more options (location) and a save option and I think most players will be happy

Edited March 13, 2013 by SYN_Vander

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I'm afraid I only see a snippy picture with the text "Please, buy your own bandwidth!"

[JtD]

I'm using the QM save feature of Il-2:1946 frequently. Point is it saves me time to set the same or a similar mission up again and again, in particularly if you're doing some bigger 32 vs. 32 engagements, specific to time and place, possibly around a mission target, it is more than welcome. Two minutes or two seconds, I take the two seconds.

[StG2_Manfred]

Having a flexible QMB is great for practice, as FSM said,  It's really the only offline flying I do in IL2/46, except for testing missions I make offline.

 

I just hope that some thought is given to making the full mission editor as flexible and easy as the one in '46, at least as an option.

If it is exactly like the one in RoF, I'll be out of the mission making area of the sim.  It's simply too difficult, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

I'm not an IT person, I'm just an old guy that likes aeroplanes and wants to share my passion with my friends by making missions for us to use.

 

Tried to understand the concept of FMB in RoF today, and have to agree unfortunately It seems to be a bit difficult to set-up a proper mission. Additionally there is no central thread which leads you through the setup. Yes, I found a couple of manuals and youtube videos, but not at all comprehensive in terms of instructing the mission builder. For example, in the Wiki help is ONE tutorial which explaines how to create a team deathmatch mission, nothing about CTF, singleplayer, etc.

 

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!

[Panzerlang]

Its nice too see they are now fully commited to BOS...something that I expected...

 

@Bearcat - looking at what CLOD modders are doing and what CLOD has (dx11, advanced CEM, FM, DM, etc...) its already ages in front of BOS......not to mention MP which will be much better and more crowded with CLOD (BOS will use ROF engine limits with very limited NO of units (which can exist) on server, 777 not fixing FMs and charging for everything else, planes falling apart like RC planes etc etc)....All this will, in most part, apply to BOS...I just regret spending hundreds of dollars on ROF and having a dream which LOFT falsly proclaimed as his dream too...and only dream there is to build as many planes as they can not caring about relative performances between planes, DM etc....not a single hardcore sim survived (atl east in MP) without FM tunings...a sim of 21st century with super simplified CEM, with awfull innacuracies in FMs which results in huge errors in relative perfomances between planes, with limited usage of ground units on servers, engine using dx9 graphics - simple isnt a sim of 21st century. And for sure isnt a true IL2 46 successor.

 

I've said this elsewhere...without a CRAY there is no developer who is going to achieve 100% accurate FMs. Even if there is such a thing, given that every pilot's input is 'subjective'.

 

Trying to tally plane A with plane B is like shortening the legs on a table.

[J4SCrisZeri]

The FMb inROF.... I've never even guessed where it is located. Seriously, I have no idea about how the damn thing launches.

And I DO love editors (GRAW, ArmA 2, Sturmovik...) and no, I don't usually read manuals. There's no fun.

[StG2_Manfred]

The FMb inROF.... I've never even guessed where it is located. Seriously, I have no idea about how the damn thing launches.

And I DO love editors (GRAW, ArmA 2, Sturmovik...) and no, I don't usually read manuals. There's no fun.

Yes, another thing I realized today, there is even no shortcut in the programs menu, you have to find it on your own in the program folder. Honestly, it seems to me like the whole subject is treated like an orphan. I guess one important reason there's so little online activity.

[FuriousMeow]

Most likely the decrease online is due to it being summer. Have all winter to be couped up and bask in the artificial light of a monitor.

[No601_Prangster]

The FMb inROF.... I've never even guessed where it is located. Seriously, I have no idea about how the damn thing launches.

And I DO love editors (GRAW, ArmA 2, Sturmovik...) and no, I don't usually read manuals. There's no fun.

 The thing is in the time it took you to write this you could have found it (it's in your Rise of Flight game folder look for bin_editor)! 

 

Actually I do know your comment wasn't meant to be taken entirely seriously but it's worth checking out Vanders tutorial videos if you want to get started: http://www.youtube.com/user/bvanderstok/videos

[Crow]

I would be totally happy to see the return of the IL-2: 1946 QMB and FMB. They were both robust and yet user friendly enough for their purposes. I thought they were quite ideal. I flew some really great missions made in the FMB and the QMB was exactly what I needed to help train my gunnery skills.

[Matt]

One thing of the QMB in IL-2 which annoys me quite a bit, is being unable to setup the spawning location of the planes. That's actually better in the RoF QMB. There you atleast have multiple areas to choose from (not nearly enough though). But in IL-2 you can quickly set ground targets or the objective of that QM (airfield bombing or whatever). So that's a plus.

 

Big downside for me of the RoF FMB is how tiresome it is to test a mission. You have to close the game, boot up the FMB (which takes a while), then setup the mission and hope your triggers are alright (no way to check), then boot the game (takes another while...) and launch the mission. Overall the RoF FMB is quite capable, but it's just very time consuming.