What two additions to the BoX franchise do you want the most? (select only two)

[Sky_Wolf]

Select two choices. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Pericles

[SAG]

I selected Gameplay features but neither clickpits nor walking are omongst the ones that id like to see

[Sky_Wolf]

What gameplay features are you interested in seeing? 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Improved Weather, Flight and Damage Modelling (Thermal Updrafts/General Flight Dynamics/More Complex Fuel, Hydraulics etc. Damage)

[J2_Trupobaw]

RoF bug fixes and porting of BoX features.

 

 

Plus additional BoX planes .

[JimTM]

From "Announcing Battle of Kuban and Development Plan!":

 

- CO-OP Multiplayer Game Mode (ROF-like to start)

 

- Air Marshall and Field Marshall modes for MP. (i.e. HQ-ATC-GCI type screen to manage a battle with realistic limited info)

 

...and from my own personal "blue-sky" list: built-in voice comms

Edited July 28, 2017 by JimTM

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

RoF bug fixes and porting of BoX features.

 

Oh yes. 

[CanadaOne]

An actual working mission editor as opposed to the anachronistic and painfully algebraic developer's tool masquerading as a mission editor.

 

That's what I want.

[Gambit21]

An actual working mission editor as opposed to the anachronistic and painfully algebraic developer's tool masquerading as a mission editor.

 

That's what I want.

 

With all the time you've spent posting about how hard it is to us, you could have built your first mission by now.

[19//Moach]

multiplayer features such as rearm+refuel,  "air marshall" or some form of tactical air control for guiding players around the battlefield (even the earlier soviet planes had receiver radios)

 

also, a revised scoring system that accounts for safe landings and partial victories, optionally denying score for victories on unsuccessful sorties (killed or captured), would go a long way in promoting more authentic behavior in online games.

 

the current "kills only" scoring system has the adverse effect of promoting disposable-aggressive conduct on many players, since it fails to reward such other equally valuable achievements

 

 

functionally, however, a proper engine limits and temperatures simulation is a topmost item on the wish-list - the current "timer based model" is vastly sub-par with expectations set by all other aspects of this simulator, and leaves much to be desired.  

 

an ideal system would simulate things such as oil viscosity and metal toughness over temperature, such that engine operation and reliability would be affected with correct regards to instrument readings in the cockpit...

 

a perhaps more practical compromise setup could symptomatically approach these same effects, via simpler parameters of engine condition and operation roughness - these governed by power output and temperatures over time,  then inflicting PARTIAL damage in increasing levels according to abuse

 

 

small, but highly practical features would be:  

 

- a "check fuel" key binding, for planes like the spitfire which require a button pressed for gauge reading (this could double as a tank indicator selector on planes like the 110)

 

- removal of the hud compass in expert mode, as that provides an unrealistic amount of directional awareness in combat

 

- a "check where you are" function that locates your approximate position on map with a small delay, circumventing the need for unrealistic real-time full-precision GPS, while still providing much desired positional awareness (this would be similar to the "vectors to home/target" features in older IL2 titles)

[HenHawk]

I'd like to see new planes, because who wouldn't in a flight sim??

 

The main thing, though, which I voted "other" for, was just to see a lot of various miscellaneous fixes/additions. Basically, I'd just like to see everything we already have improved and then we'd probably have the best flight sim ever created.

 

The in-game chat system is horrendous, voip would be great. FM's are not as realistic as they should be (flaps/rudder drag is particularly way off), but I'm optimistic this might be about to be improved in the next update. DM of planes, especially vvs, seem off and so does CEM. Over cooling of engines seems undermodeled in particular.

 

The biggest misc. fix I think is vital for BoX is rendering range needs to be increased. It's so silly to be able to makeout individual homes in a city or other landscape features sometimes minutes before target factories/train stations/vehicles/etc appear. Planes rendering at <10km is also a problem, but I understand the limitations in regards to pixels in that respect.

 

Beyond that, weather system could use some tuning, turbulence is over exaggerated and the Sun should be more blinding.

Edited July 28, 2017 by HenHawk

[CanadaOne]

With all the time you've spent posting about how hard it is to us, you could have built your first mission by now.

 

And ruin the curmudgeonly charm of my posts?

 

Even if I had built one, the mission editor would remain anachronistic. painfully algebraic, and poorly executed. If they built a proper mission editor, the kind that has already existed in the flightsim world for, oh, maybe 20 years, I'd be happy to pay for it.

 

This is just my opinion. I was asked and I offered. ✌

[THERION]

- possibility to rearm and refuel your plane

- NO! I said NO f***ing clicks in MY cockpit!

- No walking around or of your plane (or do we need also a rucksack with sandwiches, a bottle of tea, camera for sight seeing/wandering after a crash landing?)

- Tanks, please, tanks. The technique is built in, historically it makes sense, it matches up with the simulation character. And it has a great potential.

[xvii-Dietrich]

Others...

• Seaplanes, please. New ones and sea-plane options for existing ones... e.g. floats on the Ju52.
• Forget human-controlled tanks... I want human controlled boats (REF).
• Better mission scripting and server logging, so servers can create persistent dynamic campaigns.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

With all the time you've spent posting about how hard it is to us, you could have built your first mission by now.

 

I've opened ME before...

 

I closed it just as quickly...

 

To be fair, it isn't exactly (even remotely) intuitive to get started with regardless of guides, premade groups, etc.

[Gambit21]

And ruin the curmudgeonly charm of my posts?

Even if I had built one, the mission editor would remain anachronistic. painfully algebraic, and poorly executed. If they built a proper mission editor, the kind that has already existed in the flightsim world for, oh, maybe 20 years, I'd be happy to pay for it.

This is just my opinion. I was asked and I offered. ✌

I was teasing - but "algebraic" probably isn't the correct characterization.

If it were so, my brain wouldn't mesh with it.

 

99.9% of the logic is very straightforward.

[sniperton]

Well, Gambit, we've discussed it before, I've got quite an 'algebraic' mindset, and I know I could learn the ME within a week, but dammit, I feel the pain is not proportional to the gain. I'm lazy. At least you/we/the developers should admit that the ME is not, errr, encouraging. And this is, after all, not a good thing. I would even say it's counter-productive. It either should be made more user-friendly (intuitive), or a very good and detailed tutorial 'how to make groups work' should be published about it ('idiots' guide to how to make the first mission work'). Nothing personal, just an opinion out of from my ignorance.

Edited July 28, 2017 by sniperton

[Gambit21]

No you and SG are correct...no argument there. The pain is definitely worth the gain though if you enjoy mission building.

 

It's not intuitive in the slightest and like many who were accustomed to the old editor, I opened it, became discouraged and gave up initially. For a few years.

There really should be a basic "here is how the editor thinks" tutorial, and if I had movie editing skills I'd do it myself.

With all the 3D programs taking up space in my head, (Modo, Cinema 4D, Zbrush) along with Photoshop, Illustrator and the Editor...I have to time or patience to learn video at this point.

 

Honestly though the basic logic is simple enough - about the furthest thing from an algebraic equation that makes no sense unless you memorize some seemingly arbitrary rules. I HATE algebra...getting hives just thinking of it.

The editor is nothing like this...there's a reason why you do everything, and those reasons makes sense once you realize the basic logic.

 

I put together a basic "fly about" mission for my wife so that she could fly for the first time (in the Spit), with a convoy of vehicles driving by her as she starts up, and 2 ships out on the water - 3 minutes maybe total.

I could have added an enemy for friendly flight on the ground or in the air for another 90 second to 2 minute investment.

 

It's when you add element after element after element, and need those things to interact with each other and the player in a specific way, with specific timing and ambiance, and all the testing and adjusting that leads to 15 hour per mission build times.

That's more analogous to writing a chapter in a book. Typing and spelling and grammar are not difficult, it's the accumulation of elements arranging them/ the creative process that takes the time.

Not the logic usually.

 

Yes it's daunting to get started though.

[CanadaOne]

I was teasing - but "algebraic" probably isn't the correct characterization.

If it were so, my brain wouldn't mesh with it.

99.9% of the logic is very straightforward.

I'm just a worker bee, my brother, and I'm certain you are far more adept with the logic required to use the "mission editor". My point, as has been stated ad nauseum, is that in-game, easy, and fun to use mission editors have been around for years and years. Yet BOX has taken a huge leap backwards by including an out of game, hard to use, and no fun at all developers tool masquerading as a mission editor.

 

And as stated before, I've made countless hundreds of missions in several different flightsims, in RoF and BOX, I have not made one and it is possible I will never make one. Is that because I am intellectually lazy? Perhaps. But it's also because the " mission editor " in BOX, as far as it being a fun and intuitive past of a game goes, is a complete failure.

 

If they ever make a good one, I will be happy to pay for it.

[Gambit21]

I'm just a worker bee, my brother, and I'm certain you are far more adept with the logic required to use the "mission editor". My point, as has been stated ad nauseum, is that in-game, easy, and fun to use mission editors have been around for years and years. Yet BOX has taken a huge leap backwards by including an out of game, hard to use, and no fun at all developers tool masquerading as a mission editor.

 

And as stated before, I've made countless hundreds of missions in several different flightsims, in RoF and BOX, I have not made one and it is possible I will never make one. Is that because I am intellectually lazy? Perhaps. But it's also because the " mission editor " in BOX, as far as it being a fun and intuitive past of a game goes, is a complete failure.

 

If they ever make a good one, I will be happy to pay for it.

 

No worries, I know and have always known where you're coming from...I get it and empathize.

The fact also remains that this editor is MUCH more capable than the previous 'easy' editors that I've used in Falcon 4.0 and IL2 46.

I can make anything happen based on just about anything else happening...that's power I just wouldn't give up. 

I

Edited July 30, 2017 by Gambit21

[sniperton]

There really should be a basic "here is how the editor thinks" tutorial, and if I had movie editing skills I'd do it myself.

...

It's when you add element after element after element, and need those things to interact with each other and the player in a specific way, with specific timing and ambiance, and all the testing and adjusting that leads to 15 hour per mission build times.

That's more analogous to writing a chapter in a book. Typing and spelling and grammar are not difficult, it's the accumulation of elements arranging them/ the creative process that takes the time.

 

What if you made a 10 minutes video walkthrough? I mean just the initial few steps or 'phrases from the beginning of the chapter'. You could simply record it as if you recorded an online mission with TS. I mean something very simple like what you created for your wife, but this time step by step and with voice commentary. I'm sure there are many of us who only need to be hinted in the right direction; the rest is self-learning and perseverance.   

[CanadaOne]

In any case, I'd be happy to pay for a working mission editor in BOX, that would be one of my choices.

[Gambit21]

What if you made a 10 minutes video walkthrough? I mean just the initial few steps or 'phrases from the beginning of the chapter'. You could simply record it as if you recorded an online mission with TS. I mean something very simple like what you created for your wife, but this time step by step and with voice commentary. I'm sure there are many of us who only need to be hinted in the right direction; the rest is self-learning and perseverance.   

 

I'm just not equipped, I don't use TS or even own a microphone or I'd probably put something like that together.

[JimTM]

What if you made a 10 minutes video walkthrough? I mean just the initial few steps or 'phrases from the beginning of the chapter'. You could simply record it as if you recorded an online mission with TS. I mean something very simple like what you created for your wife, but this time step by step and with voice commentary. I'm sure there are many of us who only need to be hinted in the right direction; the rest is self-learning and perseverance.   

 

Have you seen these?:

 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 

- 

 (the BoS editor is based on the RoF editor)

[SCG_Hobo]

Wake turbulence
Thermals
Mission Planner
Scouting aircraft

Edited July 29, 2017 by 2./JG51_Hobo

[sniperton]

Thank you JimTM, unfortunately I skipped ROF on my way from 1946, and probably it's my biggest problem with the ME that I lack the knowledge of some basic concepts of ROF mission creation. Anyway, thank you for the links. 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

New features like course setter, radio navigation, contact altimeter, selectable fuel tanks and stuff.

 

[Gambit21]

We have radio beacons...just need the ability to change channels.

I've simulated channel changing by activating/deactivating beacons for SP missions.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

We have radio beacons...just need the ability to change channels.

That's what I meant.

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by FlyingShark

[SYN_Speck]

I voted for "new theaters" (and improved AI) but really what I'd like to see is just a wider variety of historical/semi-historical MAPS. You don't have to build a whole new game release with campaigns, aircraft etc, although that's great too. Just a wider variety of maps to fly over, and we can use the existing plane set to make semi-historical scenarios to add variety to the routine, would be great to keep things fresh. For example Crimea, Leningrad, etc. 

[Gambit21]

I'm hoping for that too Speck.

A lot of bang for the buck with a new map.

 

I'd like to get a look at the map making tools.

[xvii-Dietrich]

I voted for "new theaters" (and improved AI) but really what I'd like to see is just a wider variety of historical/semi-historical MAPS. You don't have to build a whole new game release with campaigns, aircraft etc, although that's great too. Just a wider variety of maps to fly over, and we can use the existing plane set to make semi-historical scenarios to add variety to the routine, would be great to keep things fresh. For example Crimea, Leningrad, etc. 

 

Agreed.

 

Even with the existing planeset, there are so many new campaigns and scenarios which could be done just with different areas. In addition to Crimea and Leningrad (which might be difficult due to the big cities), even regions like Kirkenes/Petsamo, Lebanon, Romania, Murmansk, Arch'angelsk, Baltic-states, or Karelia/Lagoda would be amazing.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Wake turbulence

Thermals

Mission Planner

Scouting aircraft

Exactly. 

 

Mission Builder improvements would go a long as well. 

[Feathered_IV]

I selected Other.

 

New and immersive AI speech is a must for a decent SP experience.  When it is well done it creates an ambient narrative that can boost any mission.  The current placeholder voices, scripting and timings are wholly inadequate.

[CanadaOne]

Exactly. 

 

Mission Builder improvements would go a long as well.

 

Amen!

 

Like actually having one for starters.

[Gambit21]

Amen!

 

Like actually having one for starters.

 

Now now...you can ask for improvements, but we do have one.

You can choose not to learn it for reasons you've stated and I understand... but we have a fantastic if someone daunting editor.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Now now...you can ask for improvements, but we do have one.

You can choose not to learn it for reasons you've stated and I understand... but we have a fantastic if someone daunting editor.

 

Expanded options for setting up flights/simple objectives in QMB would go a long way for guys who just want to set up a quick nitty-gritty without having to learn the art of the FMB.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Like actually having one for starters.

 

Like actually a very powerfull Full Mission Builder we already have. Which of course can be improved, no denail there but still a very powerfull one.

 

In another hand, if you mean more options for the Quick Mission Builder as Space_Ghost says, well that would be nice for those of us that spend most their time with the FMB and dont have much time to fly. Testing my own work doesnt count and aint fun, I already know whats going to happen!!

 

Haash

 

Edited: Just readed the whole topic. Some insight about the ME. RoF was release without one, none, ninguno. Community "demanded" some kind of mission editor to build missions for MP, their response was to release the dev tool they use, maybe it was changed some how but basically it was the tool the devs used and this was never denied by the team. It has come a long way since then, lots of changes/additions/fixes, still it can be better as I said above.

 

To all of you that ask for a very basic guide, besides all links Jim gave you, here is with what I learned the ME like 7 years ago or so, no manual back then:

First video (I think there are 10) from a tutorial with the very basic of the RoF ME (very similar if not the same than BoX) made by my squad mate SYN_Vander. Ohh and I do not have any IT background and never used another ME besides RoF and BoS, looked at Arma3 editor one time but close it very fast hehehe.

[Gambit21]

Expanded options for setting up flights/simple objectives in QMB would go a long way for guys who just want to set up a quick nitty-gritty without having to learn the art of the FMB.

 

Yep.

A slightly more powerful QMB would be a huge benefit to many.

[CanadaOne]

Like actually a very powerfull Full Mission Builder we already have. Which of course can be improved, no denail there but still a very powerfull one.

 

In another hand, if you mean more options for the Quick Mission Builder as Space_Ghost says, well that would be nice for those of us that spend most their time with the FMB and dont have much time to fly. Testing my own work doesnt count and aint fun, I already know whats going to happen!!

 

Haash

 

Edited: Just readed the whole topic. Some insight about the ME. RoF was release without one, none, ninguno. Community "demanded" some kind of mission editor to build missions for MP, their response was to release the dev tool they use, maybe it was changed some how but basically it was the tool the devs used and this was never denied by the team. It has come a long way since then, lots of changes/additions/fixes, still it can be better as I said above.

 

To all of you that ask for a very basic guide, besides all links Jim gave you, here is with what I learned the ME like 7 years ago or so, no manual back then:

First video (I think there are 10) from a tutorial with the very basic of the RoF ME (very similar if not the same than BoX) made by my squad mate SYN_Vander. Ohh and I do not have any IT background and never used another ME besides RoF and BoS, looked at Arma3 editor one time but close it very fast hehehe.

 

Howdy,

 

Look, I realize I am a PITA with my curmudgeonly kvetching, but the ME in this sim falls so far short of the cat's whiskers status of the rest of the sim it's hard not to take notice.

 

The sim and module installation in BOX is near buttery smooth, the planes are top shelf excellent, the graphics are delicious, the sound is boner-afying, and the atmospherics are sublime. And then there is the ME... A Rube Goldberg device so devoid of enjoyment it is akin to the homework that made you cancel the hot date with a cheerleader. I don't doubt the ME is powerful in many ways, but it is also, quite simply, no fun. It is too complicated, it is outside the sim, and it is no fun. And yes, the QMB could use some meat on its bones as well.

 

I installed DCS and a few pay planes the other day and within minutes I was hopping in and out of the ME, placing some AAA here and moving a tank there. I was back and forth from sim to ME in seconds and it was fun. Build a bit, fly a bit, build some more, fly some more. I was having a good time. Unfortunately, the BOX ME requires you stop the game, jump into a bit of a slogging process, stop the process, start the sim, notice you did something wrong, so you have to stop the game, restart the ME, slog some more, stop the process, start the game again and on and on. It's not fun.

 

That said, I am a great fan of the sim and of the community. Really top shelf game and people.