Mission Editor Request/Suggestions Thread.

[Gambit21]

I activate formations all the time...this is for SP missions mind you, not multiplayer.

On 2/17/2019 at 10:07 PM, LLv34_Temuri said:

Yes. And also doing away with the functionality that if two objects have been spawned from the same spawner, destroying one object will destroy the other too.

 

?

I've never seen this behavior.

[LLv34_Temuri]

14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I've never seen this behavior.

At least that’s how it was when I tested it. It was quite a while ago though.

[Thad]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 6:57 PM, CanadaOne said:

 

I kind of understand, not being a VR type myself, but it is debatable if key game features should be made/kept inconvenient in order to let the VR users keep their headsets on or activated or whatever it is you people do.

 

Besides, as it is now, you have to "disable" the game itself to use the editor. That's less than optimal.

 

Totally agree.

 

"less than optimal"? that's being too polite about it. ?

[Jaegermeister]

On 11/8/2017 at 6:57 PM, CanadaOne said:

 

I kind of understand, not being a VR type myself, but it is debatable if key game features should be made/kept inconvenient in order to let the VR users keep their headsets on or activated or whatever it is you people do.

 

Besides, as it is now, you have to "disable" the game itself to use the editor. That's less than optimal.

 

I fail to see the problem. I think it’s great to design missions in VR.

 

 

You get 2 missions for 1. ?

[WWSitttingDuck]

 

On 3/23/2019 at 11:51 AM, Jade_Monkey said:

You can do that by "activating" instead of using the spawn MCU.

 

Is there a performance penalty for using activate?

but, that still just gives you one formation.  If after the formation gets killed,  or a linked convoy gets destroyed,  you can not have it respawn.   

 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by WWSitttingDuck

[Gambit21]

So place more than one formation and activate the second/third etc after the first gets destroyed.

 

There’s always a way.

[JG1_Wittmann]

On 7/22/2015 at 8:32 AM, JimTM said:

Here's a few suggestions:

 

1. Add the ability to drag entries in the mission tree. This would allow you to:

    - Place related entries close to one another

    - Move entries between groups and out of groups

 

2. Highlight the entry in the mission tree corresponding to the currently selected icon. Make the highlight different than the bold highlight used for the working group.

 

3. Add a toolbar button to see only the input links of a selected icon. Currently, button MCU SEL lets you see only the output links of a selected icon. The new button would make it a lot easier to trace the inputs back to their source. Perhaps rename MCU SEL to MCU OP and add MCU IP.

 

4. Add a toolbar button to hide area circles (e.g., waypoint area). This would make it easier to figure out complex missions.

 

5. In the Plane Advanced Properties and Plane Settings dialogs, the initial location values "On Runway" and "On Parking" are confusing because they relate to engine on or engine off, not the location. Can you change these to "Ground-On" and "Ground-Off"?

 

Thanks!

 

Jim

All of these  would be great.   Mission tree object highlighted when map object is highlighted would be great.  Input and output links for selected obj  nice.  Maybe have the input a different color, when all you want to see is  that object or mcu by filtering.  I would add it would be nice to be able to drag and drop items in the mission tree  to organize them how you like.  Would be nice to be able to put all the tanks in a row, etc.  Also, if an mcu targets another one,  these would be good to have in a descending order in the tree.   If an item is selected in the tree,  make it flash on the map for spotting easier, or highlight.

 

An arrow on objects like tanks vehicles, planes,  projecting from or through their box on the map, zoomed out, showing facing without having to zoom in, or click on each object individually to determine.

 

If a vehicle or plane is given a waypoint, or a target to attack,   have that vehicles facing change towards that target as soon as the command is placed.

[Jade_Monkey]

A few features I felt are missing from the ME after a heavy week of mission editing. Sorry if they have been requested before.

1. Ability to create explosion effects just by creating an effect MCU similar to smoke effects.
2. Ability to create specific types of damage to the plane/tank by selecting from a subtype dropdown menu in the damage MCU. For example:
   1. Landing gear malfunction
   2. Flaps malfunction (jam)
   3. Engine damage
   4. Fuel leak
   5. Fire
   6. ...
3. Ability to create more events in the ME: For example:
   1. OnFuelLeak
   2. OnEngineStarted
   3. On[any of the damages listed above]
   4. OnRunwayClear

[Gambit21]

On 7/5/2019 at 11:04 PM, Jade_Monkey said:

A few features I felt are missing from the ME after a heavy week of mission editing. Sorry if they have been requested before.

1. Ability to create explosion effects just by creating an effect MCU similar to smoke effects.
2. Ability to create specific types of damage to the plane/tank by selecting from a subtype dropdown menu in the damage MCU. For example:
   1. Landing gear malfunction
   2. Flaps malfunction (jam)
   3. Engine damage
   4. Fuel leak
   5. Fire
   6. ...
3. Ability to create more events in the ME: For example:
   1. OnFuelLeak
   2. OnEngineStarted
   3. On[any of the damages listed above]
   4. OnRunwayClear

 

I have requested the explosion directly with Han - we’ll see.

 

They came through with the colored smoke that I requested.

 

I’ve also asked for a player controlled trigger event/key strike.

 

This way the player can radio for additional air support, call in strikes etc.

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Gambit21

[Jade_Monkey]

Yeah, the player controlled trigger would be HUGE. It would open up so many possibilities for SP (and probably MP) missions.

 

I have a feeling that many of the OnEvents exist in the back end in one form or another. They would simply have to be surfaced to the editor level.

[Flashy]

I would really like a placeable landing strip or something similar. Being restricted to the existing airfields on the map is not great, especially for a plane like the U-2. In RoF, this wasnt a problem because all fields could be landed in (depending on the unevenness of the terrain), but this is no longer the case. Ideally, it would be an invisible "object" that we can put down in any field that would make the game treat that area like a dirt runway or road, and get rid of the high resistance of the default terrain. This would seem to me like a must-have for the U-2 which was primarily operated from improvised landing fields, but yet was omitted when the U-2 was added..

[Jade_Monkey]

@Gambit21, now i remember why i wanted user triggered events, to do photo recon missions.

[SCG_Neun]

I'd like the ability to hold artillery/AT weapons to specific fields of fire, in terms of degrees.  This way we could prevent the LOS issues which take away from the realism within our tank missions.  Something as simple as a box check that limits fire to 45 & 90 degrees.  A simple change like this would make gun placement a snap and really customize fields of fire with the topography of the battlefield.  This is especially important for AT type weapons which require a LOS for accurate fire.

[Thad]

I totally agree with SCG_Neun. 

[Alonzo]

As a multiplayer server admin, I’d really love to be able to know/trigger based on number of non-spectator players currently on the server. For example some kind of threshold trigger — if more than X players join and fly, trigger fires. If server players goes down below Y players, fire a different trigger. Currently I am faking this behaviour by tracking players spawned at airfields, but it doesn’t take into account deaths or disconnects. Direct support via an MCU would be really useful.

 

I would use this for a number of things. For example on limited maps where the 262 is available, it only unlocks once enough Allied players are flying to oppose it. Some maps have AI—I would like to disable AI spawns once enough real players are flying. I have both these effects sort of working by counting spawns and takeoffs but it’s a bit of a hack and quite unreliable.

[FAFG_Ogier]

I'll take my turn ?

I would like very much an option to limit the altitude (top and bottom) of the detection zone for a  trigger "checkzone". it would allow a variety of cool possibilities:

• low flying to avoid detection
• using this limited cylinder to send messages about enemy airplanes detection, including approximate altitude.

Currently, you can probably try to approximate this through the use of spherical zones. But it's somehow less practical.

 

[Gambit21]

On 7/8/2019 at 6:49 AM, SCG_Neun said:

I'd like the ability to hold artillery/AT weapons to specific fields of fire, in terms of degrees.  This way we could prevent the LOS issues which take away from the realism within our tank missions.  Something as simple as a box check that limits fire to 45 & 90 degrees.  A simple change like this would make gun placement a snap and really customize fields of fire with the topography of the battlefield.  This is especially important for AT type weapons which require a LOS for accurate fire.

 

You can already do this via an 'attack area' command.

[SCG_Neun]

I didn't know that Gambit21....So I can limit the circle of "attack area" to specific degree vectors?

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, SCG_Neun said:

I didn't know that Gambit21....So I can limit the circle of "attack area" to specific degree vectors?

 

Absolutely.

There's no "degrees" setting, you simply size the attack area according to the width (degrees) that you want the gun to attack.

[aidanw2000]

I'm not too worried about the full mission builder, i'd just love more options added to the QMB. Il2 1946 style "armour, bridge, airbase" attack missions would be so cool, and up to 64 planes 

[IckyATLAS]

First sorry if my post below sounds a little cynical and please prove me wrong:

 

This thread is nice to have. But after having seen how much it impacts the evolution of the ME I wonder if the devs or Jason really reads it. Maybe it is here just for “psychological” reasons and that is for us to have a place where we can hope and dream, and say also maybe feel less frustrated when we just can’t do that thing that is so « essential » ? for our carefully designed mission or campaign.

 

[JG1_Butzzell]

S!

 

It would be very helpful If Entente coalition linked entities were Blue and Central linked entities were Red when viewed in the mission editor.  Just like they do Axis and Russian.

[Gambit21]

17 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

First sorry if my post below sounds a little cynical and please prove me wrong:

 

This thread is nice to have. But after having seen how much it impacts the evolution of the ME I wonder if the devs or Jason really reads it. Maybe it is here just for “psychological” reasons and that is for us to have a place where we can hope and dream, and say also maybe feel less frustrated when we just can’t do that thing that is so « essential » ? for our carefully designed mission or campaign.

 

 

Jason is not going to devote valuable resources to developing the editor further. He just doesn’t have the luxury, and we’re getting things done so it doesn’t pencil out.

 

I know he wants it stable though - and I hope he can get those guys to make it so.

It’s driving me nuts. 

 

So in short - yes this thread is functionally useless.

[jollyjack]

On 1/3/2017 at 3:10 AM, Thad said:

Please... the Editor needs a UNDO command!

 

Just saw this, i mentioned it before too, but a multi UNDO a few steps back or forwards would be even better.

 

And yes, like in Cliffs the mission editor NEEDS a test mode while running the game at the same time.

i really get fed up with this exit and restart business for both programs over and over again just to test some little changes.

Edited December 7, 2019 by jollyjack

[Beebop]

Gambit21 said..

."Jason is not going to devote valuable resources to developing the editor further...So in short - yes this thread is functionally useless."

 

A real shame.  As I see it a flexible, varied and understandable editor is vital to the longevity of a simulation.  7 years down the road and the ME is still a  conundrum wrapped in an enigma. 

[JimTM]

3 minutes ago, Beebop said:

Gambit21 said..

."Jason is not going to devote valuable resources to developing the editor further...So in short - yes this thread is functionally useless."

 

A real shame.  As I see it a flexible, varied and understandable editor is vital to the longevity of a simulation.  7 years down the road and the ME is still a  conundrum wrapped in an enigma. 

 

Perhaps the solution lies in many new people visiting all the links on this page.  

[saldy]

Airplanes cannot be born at the airfield, displayed message "spawned error" .  Everything worked well but suddenly it doesn't work ?

[Gambit21]

7 hours ago, Beebop said:

Gambit21 said..

."Jason is not going to devote valuable resources to developing the editor further...So in short - yes this thread is functionally useless."

 

A real shame.  As I see it a flexible, varied and understandable editor is vital to the longevity of a simulation.  7 years down the road and the ME is still a  conundrum wrapped in an enigma. 

 

It's actually great - it just needs to stop crashing.

[IckyATLAS]

Jason, time to close this topic. It will avoid generating frustrations. ? 

[Cynic_Al]

On 2/18/2019 at 6:07 AM, LLv34_Temuri said:

And also doing away with the functionality that if two objects have been spawned from the same spawner, destroying one object will destroy the other too.

 

If objects don't exist initially, how would you specify which one to delete?

[Cynic_Al]

10 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

Jason, time to close this topic. It will avoid generating frustrations. ? 

 

Are you sure you meant to say 'topic' there?

[Cynic_Al]

Quite simply, there needs to be a way to cancel a pending timer.

[Cynic_Al]

On 6/20/2015 at 11:04 PM, No601_Swallow said:

A simple GUI thing - double-click on a "group" to make it "working". 

 

(Every single time I double-click on a group and then remember I have to dance the right-click-context-menu fandango. Grrr.)

 

That action could occur accidentally, which could be confusing/unnerving to inexperienced users. I would suggest something more deliberate, like LCTRL + LClick

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Cynic_Al

[Cynic_Al]

On 2/6/2017 at 8:08 PM, No601_Swallow said:

 

This! AI will refuse to take off if there is anything at all on any part of the runway, it seems.

 

AI behaviour is not a mission editor issue.

[LLv34_Temuri]

9 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

If objects don't exist initially, how would you specify which one to delete?

I didn't mean delete. The objects would be separate instances. You shoot and kill one instance, and the other instance will keep on living.

7 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

Quite simply, there needs to be a way to cancel a pending timer.

Doesn't the deactivate MCU handle this already?

[Cynic_Al]

4 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

I didn't mean delete. The objects would be separate instances. You shoot and kill one instance, and the other instance will keep on living.

 

I wasn't aware that happens. I'll have to test it.

 

4 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

12 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

Quite simply, there needs to be a way to cancel a pending timer.

Doesn't the deactivate MCU handle this already?

 

Deactivate only pauses a timer.

[LLv34_Temuri]

53 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

Deactivate only pauses a timer.

So when you activate it, it'll continue from where it left off? Can you use the Modifier: Set Value MCU when it's disabled to set some value to the timer? Also, triggering the timer when it's counting will reset the timer. I think there are enough building blocks to work around, or have I understood "cancel" somehow differently than you?

[Cynic_Al]

 

2 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

So when you activate it, it'll continue from where it left off?

 

That's my experience. There are hideous ways of mitigating the problem, but they shouldn't be needed.

[photog95661]

As a means to expedite mission building, ensuring that each object has a representative image would be a great help.  It is somewhat frustrating to attempt to select a Vehicle and not see an image.  The only alternative at this point is to add the unknown object to the mission map and zoom in to X magnification.  I realize this is not an earth shaking suggestion, but I suppose it would everyone's use of the editor.   

[LLv32_vvaris]

Undo and redo buttons would be nice.
To make testing faster It would be good to integrate the editor to the game or otherwise allow them to run simultaneously.
It would be nice to be able to control somehow those AI calls. Most of the time they are not useful.
It would be nice to be able to add custom radio calls in the radio menu like in DCS.