BOS/BOM/BOK......Mission building very difficult?

September 12, 2017

I think we will all agree that compared to the old days of IL2 1946 and even Cliffs of Dover the mission building is far more difficult than before.

I struggle also with ROF as its the same system.

Is their any chance that one day mission building can be as easy as the older versions?

Also, like Rise Of Flight it would be great if you could make available a career mode in BOS or BOM?

Here's hoping!!

Planesy.

September 12, 2017

Have you checked out the resources listed here and here?

September 12, 2017

Salutations,

I felt totally overwhelmed when I attempted mission building. Impatience had a lot to do with my feeling overwhelmed. As JimTM stated. Check out and get the editor resources he directed you to.

In the end... one must learn by doing. After a while some of it becomes understandable and therefore easier to do.

I highly recommend going through - Prangster's IL-2 BoS Mission Building Guide - and its missions.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Thad

September 12, 2017

Planesy - the developers are making a career mode like RoF's, which should be complete sometime this year.

I agree that mission building is hard, made worse by the editor being unstable. It does however allow for much more sophisticated results for the elite who can master the system - which, unfortunately does not include me.

As Thad says you have to learn by doing, preferably something incredibly simple like making a single plane fly from A to B. (Took me about a week, because I had not then found JimTM's excellent reference guide).

September 12, 2017

Try to remember the first time you opened Excel, or Photoshop, or a CAD program. Mind boggling. I still stick with MS Paint.

Mission Editor allows a mission builder to have incredible control over every aspect of the mission. And in order to do that, it has to be just as daunting as Photoshop, or a CAD program.

I will promise you one thing. The learning curve for ME will be very flat for a while. Then it will start to rise up, and next thing you know, a lot of little pieces will fall into place, and the curve will shoot up like a rocket. It's not so much that it is hard, the problem is that it is new.

Take all the advice from everyone else, and stick with it.

September 13, 2017

I speak English and can barely get by with some German... so I can not even understand what this guy is saying. However visual learning is very helpful to me. Aside from checking out the manuals, I also watched these videos every day while eating lunch.

It helped me jump into the editor. I basically reproduced what he did in each video to get started. I really recommend just making little test missions of every possible thing, or scene that you imagine you might use in the future. It's easier to just work with a small amount of things when trouble shooting why something doesn't work properly.

If you happen to speak French, you are lucky

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCWLLa_oyv_FO3t9tWH8Oxg/videos

September 13, 2017

Try to remember the first time you opened Excel, or Photoshop, or a CAD program. Mind boggling. I still stick with MS Paint.

Mission Editor allows a mission builder to have incredible control over every aspect of the mission. And in order to do that, it has to be just as daunting as Photoshop, or a CAD program.

I will promise you one thing. The learning curve for ME will be very flat for a while. Then it will start to rise up, and next thing you know, a lot of little pieces will fall into place, and the curve will shoot up like a rocket. It's not so much that it is hard, the problem is that it is new.

Take all the advice from everyone else, and stick with it.

This ^

I wouldn't trade this editor for the weak 1946 editor for anything.

Everything that I thought of back in the day that I wished I could do, I can do easily with the BoS editor and then some.

Yes it's a learning curve, most worthwhile pieces of software are.

Just last night I rigged a group whereby a replacement air cover flight is spawned and vectored to your location if your current air cover leader becomes critically damaged. Try that in 1946.

Duck nailed it with the learning curve.

It pays off.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Gambit21

September 13, 2017

Hi Plansey,

The trick is to have a collection of groups for aircraft, tanks and trains etc. Once you have those things come together fairly quickly. You can snaffle working examples from missions that you connect to.

Cheers

Jacko

September 13, 2017

I think we will all agree that compared to the old days of IL2 1946 and even Cliffs of Dover the mission building is far more difficult than before.

I struggle also with ROF as its the same system.

Is their any chance that one day mission building can be as easy as the older versions?

Also, like Rise Of Flight it would be great if you could make available a career mode in BOS or BOM?

Here's hoping!!

Planesy.

One may hope that the Missing Editor is found and returned home safely one day. There is always hope.

Until then...

September 13, 2017

The irony there is that the mechanics are linear and self evident if you take the time to study it for a minute. Not unlike the editor.

September 13, 2017

I have gotten into it a bit, and I've managed, somewhat successfully, to place a few items here and there and get a plane in the air, often only to get out of the editor and into the game and see the mission doesn't work. But the whole endeavour is as much fun as doing my taxes and there is precious little endearing to it. Which means I am less and less likely to use the included developer's tool simply because it is no fun at all.

I know the Missing Editor can be managed successfully, and it is powerful, and it can build a mission with all kind of things going on... but it's still a developer's tool masquerading as a Mission Editor, and it's not in the game, and it's not fun, and it is not intuitive. Nor does it, in any conceivable way, entice someone new to the game - or even us old flyers - to jump into it and fart around and have a good time building missions and experimenting with the sim. Something that, in many other sims over the last few decades, has been almost as much fun as flying the missions themselves.

The truth of the matter is there is no Mission Editor in BOX. I hope the sim is patched one day and the situation remedied. As it stands now, though BOX is just flat out fantastic, it is missing one of the main components fundamental to a combat flightsim. And for the life of me I cannot understand why.

September 13, 2017

The truth of the matter is there is no Mission Editor in BOX.

I strongly disagree. My opinion is that what we have available to us is one of the best and most powerful mission editor I've ever seen in a game. I love the fact that it's not holding my hand.

Many of the traditional-style mission editors are exactly that - editors for simple plug and play robot-like units to be spawned and despawned. What we have here with BoX is a tool that enables mission designers to come up with much, much more than simply fly here, shoot stuff down, fly there and strafe, fly home and land. I for one really appreciate all of the nuances that I can build into a mission from morale logic through to deciding exactly how long I want a fly to hang about over a target area before pressing on.

I admit that this tool isn't for the faint-hearted and will be especially annoying to anyone that doesn't want to or can't put in the effort to learn it, but I still find it an extremely rewarding experience to finish crafting a mission for my squadron-mates then fret about whether I have all the triggers and events right then hear people's appreciation during and after a mission when they come across something unexpected or presented in a new way.

Bravo to the development team for giving us this wonderful tool!

September 13, 2017

The truth of the matter is there is no Mission Editor in BOX..

To the extent that there's no photo editing capabilities in Photoshop.

...and what Silk said.

September 13, 2017

I strongly disagree. My opinion is that what we have available to us is one of the best and most powerful mission editor I've ever seen in a game. I love the fact that it's not holding my hand.

Many of the traditional-style mission editors are exactly that - editors for simple plug and play robot-like units to be spawned and despawned. What we have here with BoX is a tool that enables mission designers to come up with much, much more than simply fly here, shoot stuff down, fly there and strafe, fly home and land. I for one really appreciate all of the nuances that I can build into a mission from morale logic through to deciding exactly how long I want a fly to hang about over a target area before pressing on.

I admit that this tool isn't for the faint-hearted and will be especially annoying to anyone that doesn't want to or can't put in the effort to learn it, but I still find it an extremely rewarding experience to finish crafting a mission for my squadron-mates then fret about whether I have all the triggers and events right then hear people's appreciation during and after a mission when they come across something unexpected or presented in a new way.

Bravo to the development team for giving us this wonderful tool!

I'm glad you strongly disagree. Life demands vibrant debates.

I do not question the "power" of the included developer's tool; I have no doubt it can slice, toast, and butter the bread if the proper keystrokes are made. I question whether it qualifies as a "mission editor". For my part - and more than a few others if I may assume to speak for others - it is an over complicated, non-intuitive, and inconvenient component that is a mission editor in name only, because it was convenient to call the existing developer's tool that and include it as a matter of course.

Obviously the matter is subjective, otherwise you and I would not be speaking about it, but having built a crapton of missions in all kinds of flightsims over the last 20 years, this one, like the one in RoF, wins the award as being the least fun and the least used.

To the extent that there's no photo editing capabilities in Photoshop.

...and what Silk said.

I wouldn't know about Photoshop, that stuff is way past my pay grade.

What I do know if that for 20 years I've been able to jump into mission editors and have good fun building flightsim missions. But not in BOX.

I'm not convinced that is all my fault. I think the "ME" is absolutely at fault as well.

Edited September 13, 2017 by CanadaOne

September 13, 2017

It demands a little blood - but it's not so bad after you commit and put a few nights in.

You just have to get over the hump.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Gambit21

September 13, 2017

I admit to always appreciating your good nature. You show grace in the face of much bitching and whining.

As I've stated often, I'm just here for the fun of it. I tend to come home tired after work and I just want to fly a bit and have some fun, and the thought of slogging through an inconvenient and joyless developer's tool instead of just being able to jump into a fun mission editor, build something interesting, fly right away, fix it up and fly some more, well, there's no joy in what is offered in BOX.

As powerful and wondrous and righteous as the developer's tool is in BOX, if it is to be called a Mission Editor, then it is a frustrating, tedious, and inconvenient mission editor. As far as it being a fun part of the game, it's a total failure.

But that's just my opinion.

September 14, 2017

It demands a little blood - but it's not so bad after you commit and put a few nights in.

You just have to get over the hump.

Basically this.

One part of getting over the hump is the possibility of saving things as a group you can reuse later. Say you've made a German base with buildings, vehicles, AAA etc. You can save that and reuse it later. Speeds up things quite a bit not having to do these kinds of things from scratch every time.

September 14, 2017

It would be even easier if it was more obvious where to find groups that you can inject and modify. I know there is a group sharing thread, but navigating forum threads is about the least efficient way of finding information know to man. There are groups out there, but it is not a trivial task to find them and work out what to do with them.

I think this is a general problem with BoS resources, not just the ME. Leads to a great deal of frustrating searches, and wheel reinvention. I know people are incredibly helpful, on the whole, but I keep coming up with questions for which I cannot find the answers even in JimTM's manual and I get embarrassed about imposing on peoples' time.

The reply some people are making - man up and get over the hump - completely misses the point IMHO, and to an extent seems to be to have an element of "virtue signaling". People who have mastered the ME probably underestimate the amount of time it took them to do that. I know that if I was not retired, I would simply not bother with it at all.

At a very minimum the ME should come with a number of pre-configured groups for example: a take off circuit and landing, two fighter formations meet in midair, bomber formation hits ground target, etc. ie the basic scenarios that cover 90% of air combat should already be in the ME as groups - and/or in QMB. If the QMB was not rubbish we would not be having this discussion at all. It is absurd that standard scenarios have to be built from scratch by every person who wants them.

I am surprised no-one is yet offering a paid mission generation service.

September 14, 2017

I don't agree.

Group is very usefull, but groups are done a specific situation. So if you don't know how to build a group, you don't what there is inside, and you can't modify it to your need.

For exemple :

I provide you an AI air patrol. For my need i set the waypoint at 1500m. Everything work. You use my group, but you want a patrol at 2000m. If you don't have the basis, my group will be useless for you if you don't know how to adapt to your need. You'll gain some time, because you don't have to build from scratch. But you lost many more to try to understand the group because you don't know the basis.

So, groups are very usefull, but if you don't know the basis, it's nothing.

Providing groups won't help because you can't provide groups to all the situation.

September 14, 2017

I know the basics, and I am quite capable of changing the properties of waypoints or aircraft to alter altitude, aircraft type and so on. Indeed I have done just that using groups painfully extracted from other missions.

What confuses me is the plethora of triggers, timers and so on that are needed to make anything work.

JimTM's manual, for instance, contains instructions on how to use a group to make persistent smoke. I have used it successfully to make a mission that has persistent smoke. It uses about a dozen MCU's. Without it, the only way I could have got persistent smoke is by setting fire to my PC.

If I had the basic groups as I outlined, I would be able to construct the 10 or so missions I need to make my current film project in a day's work. (Some of which only need to provide 15 seconds of usable footage). Without them, it is taking me about a day per mission before I even start flying them.

I do not need "every situation".

September 14, 2017

What confuses me is the plethora of triggers, timers and so on that are needed to make anything work.

If you had the basis, you shouldn't wrotte that.

Before using groups from other, learn to build your own. In buildings your own group, you learn what you need to build "complex" group. At that time, you want to use "complex" group that you can't understand, because you don't have the basis. You think you have the basis, but you can't understand a complex group. A "complex" group is like a book, you have to read it to understand it.

If you want to build "complex" thing without understanding the basis, and why you have to use one element instead another, you will never understand the editor. And it's the same for every editor.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Habu

September 14, 2017

...or perhaps the sim could have a working mission editor and not an out-of-game developers tool masquerading as a mission editor.

That would be nice, and I'd be delighted to cough up some cash for it. I'd also be willing to pay for a QMB with some meat on its bones.

This is a five-star flightsim with a stunningly weak system for player design input. It's very odd.

September 14, 2017

I don't agree.

Group is very usefull, but groups are done a specific situation. So if you don't know how to build a group, you don't what there is inside, and you can't modify it to your need.

For exemple :

I provide you an AI air patrol. For my need i set the waypoint at 1500m. Everything work. You use my group, but you want a patrol at 2000m. If you don't have the basis, my group will be useless for you if you don't know how to adapt to your need. You'll gain some time, because you don't have to build from scratch. But you lost many more to try to understand the group because you don't know the basis.

So, groups are very usefull, but if you don't know the basis, it's nothing.

Providing groups won't help because you can't provide groups to all the situation.

I agree the point. However there is a problem for the new starters who are completely lost when they open the editor. In our squadron we were fortunate to have Prangster to help us get to know what to do. If the Devs included a set of basic groups, there is a starting point to start to understand how things work in the editor. A new Mission builder can have fun to Plug in a few ground targets or enemy AI aircraft to produce something quickly. I think that was the purpose of the Groups section in the forum.

September 14, 2017

...or perhaps the sim could have a working mission editor and not an out-of-game developers tool masquerading as a mission editor.

That would be nice, and I'd be delighted to cough up some cash for it. I'd also be willing to pay for a QMB with some meat on its bones.

This is a five-star flightsim with a stunningly weak system for player design input. It's very odd.

Excuse me to be rude, but instead of repeating that it's a dev editor, or expecting to have the copy of the old IL2 editor, why don't you read the documentation about the editor, or watch video. Translation : Instead of crying about new tool, accept the change, and move your ass to learn a new tool.

It's a mission editor and what you can say would change nothing. You have 3 choices : One is still crying hoping that dev give you what you expect (i hope they never give you what you expect because i fear to loose the powerfull tool we have), second, let the editor for other, and third, you can deal with it and learn it as all other editor.

The first time i opened the editor (it was for RoF), i want to try on my own without reading anything, and i failed. I stop and do not touch it until a friend does some short tutorial. One day, i said ok, let's go, and i read his first ttorial and repeat it in the editor, then, i do the second, etc... With these tutorials, i learn the basis, then after, even if i never use, or never read something about a new element, i can use it, and understand it (and if not, i can ask some help, as i do). If you try to build a complex mission because you was a great builder in the old IL2, sorry, but you'll do nothing, because it would be too complex for you.

Every editor has his own logic, so take the time to understand it. Many tell that the old il2 has a easier editor, maybe, but i never build any mission on the old IL2, because i never took the time to learn its logic. When i open it, i tried some trick, but i stopped quickly.

The building of the element in that editor suit me better than the old IL2 or DCS editor. Why, because, i understand the logic of that editor. All the other editor do not show you the different elements you use in a mission. And that's a problem for me. On BoS editor, you see all the elements, which is better for me. I can understand that there are much more information display (not to learn) in the editor, but with that it's easier for me to debug my mission.

Ask yourself why most of the mission builder don't want another tools, after learning it (some had the same state of mind of you at the begining, but now, they change their state of mind about the editor). There should be a reason.

I agree the point. However there is a problem for the new starters who are completely lost when they open the editor. In our squadron we were fortunate to have Prangster to help us get to know what to do. If the Devs included a set of basic groups, there is a starting point to start to understand how things work in the editor. A new Mission builder can have fun to Plug in a few ground targets or enemy AI aircraft to produce something quickly. I think that was the purpose of the Groups section in the forum.

As you wrotte, the group section is to share groups, but as i wrotte, it won't help the neewbe, if he doesn't understand the group and can't adapt it for what he wants.

The group is like you are hunger. Would you prefer i give you a fish, or learn you to fish. If you take the fish, it will be faster but you'll never understand how to fish, and when i stopped to give you fish (group), what would you do ?

That's why i said that groups are not good for the beginner. They have to build their own group before taking group from other. Group is one of the most important things to understand with that editor. Groups can provide many help to mission builder.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Habu

September 14, 2017

Agreed Habu.

One simply must learn and understand the editor by doing.

September 14, 2017

@Habu, the problem is simple. If it is too hard and time consuming to do it, fewer people will use the editor to construct scenarios they want. This is a problem for the game. Whether you are happy to spend hours in the ME or not.

Perhaps we should all be programming missions in machine language. I am sure there is someone who could do it, and would be happy telling everyone else they have to "learn to fish".

BTW you are in no position to tell me what I do or do not find helpful.

September 14, 2017

Just one question, how did you learn the old il2 editor ? How many time did you take to understand the old IL2 editor. The problem is that most of you forget the time you spend to learn it.

And there is no programming in the BoS editor, but if you tried, you will know that. Only mouse click.

And if you really use any mission editor, you'll know that every editor is time consuming (it's time consuming to build and it's time consuming to test).

September 14, 2017

Hi all,

Let me answer the OP question first.

Its very difficult?? It may seems like that. Difficult?? for sure it is, but the reward you get and the powerfull it is makes the effort to learn it more than affortable.

...or perhaps the sim could have a working mission editor and not an out-of-game developers tool masquerading as a mission editor.

You have been saying this all over the place now for couple of months every time the ME (or FMB like I call it, Full Mission Builder) is named or a topic is open about it.

The definition of Mission Editor is clear: A piece of software that let you build your missions. Doesnt speak about how user friendly has to be or if it has to be in game or not. It doesnt matter the past or other games way of doing it.

That said, the actual ME can be made more user friendly??, of course, I wont disagree with that. At the expense of its actual power?? No thanks. Actually if that happens, I most probably will stop using it. Why I would like to use a less powerfull one?? Thanks but no thanks.

As i read all your statements about the ME to me they are now like you are spreading false information and can be harmful. We all know you dont like it, stop with those comments or I will apply the rule:

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

Haash

September 14, 2017

Oh for God's sake...

Not a word from you about the hundreds of dollars I spent on this sim, or the items I have gifted, or the fact that I repeatedly cite BOX as the finest flightsim around... just threats.

I will not speak of it again. Bravo, sir, you win.

September 14, 2017

Oh for God's sake...

Exactly my thought hundreds of times...

I will not speak of it again. Bravo, sir, you win.

You can speak all you want, I do not see a problem there. We are here for that. What you cant say (anymore) is that there is no working ME, since there is one. Or any statement actually saying that with different words.

... just threats.

Not threats at all since I told you several times already about those comments, its only application of the rules.

Not a word from you about the hundreds of dollars I spent on this sim, or the items I have gifted, or the fact that I repeatedly cite BOX as the finest flightsim around...

Wanna talk about the same money I spent, my gifts or the thousands of hours I spent building missions and campaigns for free for this community??..

If so, send me a PM cus if this conversation has to be continued It will be on PM.

Haash

September 14, 2017

PM sent.

September 15, 2017

The reply some people are making - man up and get over the hump - completely misses the point IMHO, and to an extent seems to be to have an element of "virtue signaling". People who have mastered the ME probably underestimate the amount of time it took them to do that. )

With respect - not at all. I get that it takes time, but I was productive in my first few hours even though I was just feeling my way along with Prangster's guide.

I still hadn't "mastered" the editor after my first two Ju-52 missions, but they nevertheless do everything I'd conceived of.

The point being, you don't have to know everything to be productive and have fun. ( it's fun for me anyway)

To this day, after hundreds of hours in the editor I still can't invent some of the more complex groups that Coconut builds, but I understand the logic enough to borrow a group and modify it, simplify it, or even expand it to suit my needs. Just by having spent the time I'm surprised at the groups that I do put together on my own.

I'm also not retired. I have a full time job, and a wife that I actually spend time with, and spend a good deal of time outdoors.

So learning the editor isn't some slog of a hopeless endeavor that only a retired recluse can manage. (and I'm not saying you made that claim) I'm just saying it's doable just like becoming skilled at anything else - it simply takes some interest.

Less flying - for me almost no flying for the past year except testing missions. (The A-20 will get me flying again)

With regard to triggers and timers - they're where the real power comes from.

Once you get the hang of it you'll be surprised at what you can do - and how quickly...and as for imposing on time, don't give it a thought.

This forum is here for a reason and I've certainly benefitted from the kind help here.

Any typos are courtesy of tiny letters, no glasses and typing on my IPad.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Gambit21

September 15, 2017

@Gambit - you are certainly right that people are helpful, it is a great community, apart from the usual testosterone headbutting, (yes I know, me too. ).

Just this morning I managed to make a little mission with myself taking off, followed in close pursuit by three other aircraft with a car frantically sending up coloured flares, plus another pursuit group launched from another airfield. ME cannot have crashed more than a dozen times in the couple of hours it took to build and test. Now I have to get them all to chase me. And a siren. My task for tomorrow.

I could tell you why I need that particular mission, but then I would have to kill you!

I look forwards to reaching Journeyman Level, so that I too can patronize the Apprentices.

September 15, 2017

@unreasonable - If you need help with any particular mission just let me know, happy to help out.

And you dont have to kill me

September 15, 2017

@unreasonable - If you need help with any particular mission just let me know, happy to help out.

And you dont have to kill me

I am in effect building movie sets rather than missions that have to make sense from beginning to end, so they do not need a lot of what-ifs: more the illusion of parts of a mission rather than the real thing.

I have a few scenes more or less sorted out that are now in the flying/filming stage, but if I want to produce some effect and cannot work it out I will take you up on your offer.

Many thanks.

September 15, 2017

If I may...

That I find the mission editor in BOX to be inconvenient, unintutive, and as much fun as a tax audit is obvious. I stand by those statements because I think they are true.

That said, I do apologize to SYN-Haashashin for my behavior and language towards him. I was wrong in the way I spoke to him and I will not speak to him in that fashion again.

Thus my post.

September 15, 2017

If I may...

That I find the mission editor in BOX to be inconvenient, unintutive, and as much fun as a tax audit is obvious. I stand by those statements because I think they are true.

That said, I do apologize to SYN-Haashashin for my behavior and language towards him. I was wrong in the way I spoke to him and I will not speak to him in that fashion again.

Thus my post.

I think you're an exceedingly nice fella, and I appreciate that.

However in the case of the editor I think it's "say it once, move on" kind of thing...and especially maybe not keep stating the same thing over and over

again down here - a place populated by people that for the most part make fine use of the editor and wouldn't make it any simpler if they could.

Undo function? Sure. Layer functionality? Bring it on. More stable? PLEASE.

More simple and 'intuitive' like 1946? Not for anything.

September 16, 2017

More simple and 'intuitive' like 1946? Not for anything.

I'd drop $20 in-a-heartbeat for exactly that.

Between the admittedly complicated nature of the FMB and the anemic QMB, it is difficult to get the best out of the SP experience in this sim. Whether achieving that "ease of fun" is by offering a more robust QMB or some kind of option in the FMB that brings it down a notch and allows for quick mission design and play if one chooses, all I can say is one or the other would be reeeeally nice to have. Even if it has to be paid for. And I am absolutely willing to pay for it. What I am less than enthusiastic about, is the idea that one should go online and download "groups", and whatever else, to use in the FMB. That would seem to indicate a level of complexity inherent to the editor that some/many may find less than welcoming. And since this is a game and one may have a reasonable expectation that games should be fun, why not bring the fun and make it more welcoming. One way or another, whether through an improvement in accessibility in the FMB or an improvement in the depth of the QMB, the SP experience part of this obviously excellent flightsim could stand, well, an improvement.

Yes, I will learn, to some degree, to use the FMB. But it is obvious by the very design of the FMB that using it will be out of necessity to improve the SP experience, and not because the FMB is, by design, a fun part of the game. My opinion is that that is a shame.

And if you found all that painfully polite, you may blame your own good nature for setting a bad example.

September 16, 2017

The thread's title is "mission building very difficult". That is true, only the most hardened ME user could deny it.

The ME meisters have made the case that simplification of the ME would be a "bad thing", and I accept that and understand their stated reasons. I enjoy the sophistication they are able to bring to missions using the complex tool.

For me the problem is really the QMB. What I would like to see is a QMB where you can plonk down a formation in the air and give it a simple command and a target - attack air, escort, attack ground pretty much covers it for aircraft. You can plonk down a ground attack target - eg populated airfield, tank battalion in battle formation, vehicle convoy, ship flotilla probably all that is needed.

No-one doubts that the ME created missions in the scripted campaigns and elsewhere are not brilliant. But sometimes all you want is a burger, rather than haute cuisine. (Currently, the QMB is a "nothing burger" ).

Edited September 16, 2017 by unreasonable

September 16, 2017

What I am less than enthusiastic about, is the idea that one should go online and download "groups", and whatever else, to use in the FMB. That would seem to indicate a level of complexity inherent to the editor that some/many may find less than welcoming.

I think you misunderstood what is groups. What is groups for you ? Then after, your answer i'll explain you what is group.

The thread's title is "mission building very difficult". That is true, only the most hardened ME user could deny it.

You can put any title, it's not because you writte a title for a thread that what you read in the thread is right.

No the editor is not dificult, the appearance seems dificult (and i agree). The editor is more dependant from basic knowledge than other (and i think that's why most of you say it's difficult, because without that, you'll do nothing). You have to understand 3 concepts (Entity, Add target, Add object, that's all). All other thing is logic. I want my AI take off, i must use a command take off, i want they land, i use a command land,...).

The editor is like a Tetris, where you add blocks to compose your mission. It's more visual than other editor. But the dificulty is to link the blocks (Add Target, or/and Add Object). If you understand how to link blocks, you understand the editor.

I teach the editor to a few people since the release of the game. And in 4 hours, you have the basis and the logic from the editor. After, as every editor, you have to experiment by yourselves.

About the QMB, i agree it could be upgrade.

Do you know the programm from Lupson, i think it's what you are looking for. Here is the thread :

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14672-release-simple-3rd-party-mission-builder-bos/

BOS/BOM/BOK......Mission building very difficult?

Recommended Posts

planesyplanesy

JimTM

Thad

unreasonable

WWSitttingDuck

NETSCAPE

Gambit21

TP_Jacko

CanadaOne

Gambit21

CanadaOne

TP_Silk

Gambit21

CanadaOne

Gambit21

CanadaOne

LLv34_Temuri

unreasonable

Habu

unreasonable

Habu

CanadaOne

TP_Jacko

Habu

Thad

unreasonable

Habu

SYN_Haashashin

CanadaOne

SYN_Haashashin

CanadaOne

Gambit21

unreasonable

SYN_Haashashin

unreasonable

CanadaOne

Gambit21

CanadaOne

unreasonable

Habu

Browse All

Activity