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

[CanadaOne]

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

 

A group for me? Pink Floyd.

 

Or...

 

A combination of objects already in place, in a preset or link, that can be added to a map as a single entity so as to not have to place each individually each time?

[CanadaOne]

No the editor is not dificult, . . .

 

 

 

I disagree, and I'm not alone. I've been making flightsim missions for 20 years, and though it can be argued that the BOX FMB is the most powerful ever, it is, certainly in my experience, the most uninviting. I've made countless hundreds of missions in all kinds of sims, and I have, after several months with this sim, done little more than put a plane in the air and few AAA on the ground. Am I dimwitted? Quite possibly. But when you have an FMB that takes an experienced flightsimmer from building hundreds and hundreds of missions to building pretty much none at all, it is fair to ask if it really is the fault only of the person using the FMB and not of the FMB itself. That the FMB is inconveniently and anachronistocally placed out of the game adds nothing to its welcoming nature or ease of use.

 

I spent a couple of hundred bucks on this sim and I think it was money well spent. I even upgraded my PC, at a cost of about $1000, pretty much just to fly BOX, so it's not like I'm a lazy client. A pain in the ass client, perhaps, but not lazy. But between the difficulty of the FMB and the anemic QMB, some of us are left wanting a bit more fun in BOX.

 

If the QMB could be brought up a level (or two), that would remedy the situation perfectly. Then we could have an option for some good fast fun flying entertainment - this is a game meant to provide fun first and foremost after all - and the FMB could be left to the physicists.

[TP_Silk]

Maybe my memory isn't what it was, but wan't there a statement months back saying that the QMB was one of the things they wanted to work on alongside the new career mode campaign?

 

I agree that a slightly more flexible and intricate QMB would be welcome. I just wouldn't want it to be at the expense of the fine control we can achieve with the current full ME.

[CanadaOne]

Maybe my memory isn't what it was, but wan't there a statement months back saying that the QMB was one of the things they wanted to work on alongside the new career mode campaign?

 

I agree that a slightly more flexible and intricate QMB would be welcome. I just wouldn't want it to be at the expense of the fine control we can achieve with the current full ME.

Indeed. Let the wizards have the FMB and work their dark alchemist magic with it and let us common folk have a nice meaty QMB.

 

Smack me if I'm wrong, but would it take the code masters more than the space of a few breaths to populate some airfields in the QMB and make them targetable? That alone would add significant life to it.

 

The existing "airfield attack" option in the QMB - some AAA around a stone empty airfield - is day old weak tea at best.

[Habu]

 

 

A combination of objects already in place, in a preset or link, that can be added to a map as a single entity so as to not have to place each individually each time?

 

That's right, and a meaning to organise the mission which would be very helpfull for debugging. I don't understand why you said you must go online. Groups is a tool you can use or not. If you use them, it will be very easier and faster to build mission. There is no obligation to use groups. And what we donwload, is only to gain time because we don't want to build what we need. But there is no special script in the groups. All you have in groups can be mad with the editor. It's only because we want to go faster for building our mission. But some groups i donwload don't suit me, because, they are not build like i do, an took me too much time to undertstand the organisation of the groups, to adjust it to my need.

 

Groups is also a meaning for building a mission with several builders. You can divide the work between several builder. A groups can be import, and in that case, the import groups will be at the original location.

 

For exemple.

 

person 1 work on a AI flight

 

Person 2 work on the defence of an airfield, town, etc.., and do a groups with his work

 

Then person 1 import the group of person 2, and that's all. The defence will be where person 2 work and locate it on the map (if he works on the same map as person 1). It's like when you import the template of airfield, cities, bridges, ...

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree, and I'm not alone. I've been making flightsim missions for 20 years, and though it can be argued that the BOX FMB is the most powerful ever, it is, certainly in my experience, the most uninviting. I've made countless hundreds of missions in all kinds of sims, and I have, after several months with this sim, done little more than put a plane in the air and few AAA on the ground. Am I dimwitted? Quite possibly. But when you have an FMB that takes an experienced flightsimmer from building hundreds and hundreds of missions to building pretty much none at all, it is fair to ask if it really is the fault only of the person using the FMB and not of the FMB itself. That the FMB is inconveniently and anachronistocally placed out of the game adds nothing to its welcoming nature or ease of use. I spent a couple of hundred bucks on this sim and I think it was money well spent. I even upgraded my PC, at a cost of about $1000, pretty much just to fly BOX, so it's not like I'm a lazy client. A pain in the ass client, perhaps, but not lazy. But between the difficulty of the FMB and the anemic QMB, some of us are left wanting a bit more fun in BOX.

I don't answer to that, because nothing i can tell would change your state of mind, mostly when i read your word which said you have 20 years of experience in mission building, so it's normal that you master a new tool you never see.

[Gambit21]

I disagree, and I'm not alone. I've been making flightsim missions for 20 years, and though it can be argued that the BOX FMB is the most powerful ever, it is, certainly in my experience, the most uninviting. I've made countless hundreds of missions in all kinds of sims, and I have, after several months with this sim, done little more than put a plane in the air and few AAA on the ground. Am I dimwitted? Quite possibly. But when you have an FMB that takes an experienced flightsimmer from building hundreds and hundreds of missions to building pretty much none at all, it is fair to ask if it really is the fault only of the person using the FMB

In my first evening with the editor I had an airbase built.

The next night I had a flight of Ju-52's taxiing from hard stands and taking off - along with a few vehicles driving around for effect.

I didn't understand the 'why's' off all the MCU's, but I was able to follow some instructions and make it work.

I also asked questions here and got help. A little determination goes a long way.

 

I think you have to take full responsibility for your lack of productivity with regard to the editor.

Between Prangsters guide, JimTM's guide and the rest of us, there's really no excuse.

I'll say one more time that if you'd poured as much energy into learning the editor as you have trying to convince us that it's crap, you'd be over the hump with it by now.

[CanadaOne]

In my first evening with the editor I had an airbase built.

The next night I had a flight of Ju-52's taxiing from hard stands and taking off - along with a few vehicles driving around for effect.

I didn't understand the 'why's' off all the MCU's, but I was able to follow some instructions and make it work.

I also asked questions here and got help. A little determination goes a long way.

 

I think you have to take full responsibility for your lack of productivity with regard to the editor.

Between Prangsters guide, JimTM's guide and the rest of us, there's really no excuse.

I'll say one more time that if you'd poured as much energy into learning the editor as you have trying to convince us that it's crap, you'd be over the hump with it by now.

 

I don't think the BOX FMB is crap any more than I think trigonometry or slicing onions is crap, as all can have an exceedingly interesting and delicious end result. What I do think is that none are things I would do just for fun. And this being a game, I think there is a reasonable expectation that it and it's player-used components would be... fun. The game itself is a ton of fun. But I do not think some of its components share that quality.

 

I take full responsibility in not using the FMB insofar as I'm not at work anymore and I want to have fun. And when on my funtime, I don't want to do anything that feels like work. Unfortunately, when using the FMB, and then turning it off and getting into the game and then turning off the game and getting back into the FMB, and then turning off the FMB and then getting back into the game and on and on and on... well, it's very little fun at all and I hit an "Ahhhhh **** it!" moment and just stop using it. Then I'm in the QMB which definitely needs some meat on its bones. So some us are stuck between a complicated and inconvenient FMB and a QMB that is a bit shy on the delivery side.

 

Again, this boils down to a less-than-fantastic amount of design control for the guy who just wants to SP fly and have a bit of fun. There seems to be a lack of a middle ground; it's either too much or too little. I don't think that is an unreasonable observation nor do I think it would be that difficult to remedy. I mean, if they (the devs) can craft a map as delicious as Kuban and build cockpits that are beyond FSX payware quality, I can't see that pumping up the QMB a bit - which would take simpler minds off the FMB - would be more than a fart in the wind effort wise.

[Pict]

Unfortunately, when using the FMB, and then turning it off and getting into the game and then turning off the game and getting back into the FMB, and then turning off the FMB and then getting back into the game and on and on and on... well, it's very little fun at all

 

I'm inclined to agree with all you've said, but I would like to add to this point in particular...

 

As I outlined in other posts regard the FMB,  I have to literally rotate my desktop through 90 deg and back again just to use the FMB every time I start it...and that's before the steep learning curve. Hopefully this issue will get fixed sometime as it's very far from fun.

 

The learning curve I don't mind so much as having to jump in and out of the FMB & IL2 just to test stuff. I tried to fire up both at the same time to save the rig-marole of rotating the desktop, but was quickly informed the another instance of IL2 was already running.

 

This leaves me thinking that the FMB could be incorporated into IL2, which would make it way more easy to use. As it was with the old IL2, whose FMB I never used for some time as I found the learning curve to be steep at first, but after that the FMB button was the one I pressed more often that it's QMB counterpart

 

Is there a logical reason why they are separate?

Edited September 26, 2017 by Pict

[coconut]

Is there a logical reason why they are separate?

completely different gui toolkits, might not be trivial to do. then there's also a couple bugs in the FME. when working with large missions, you typically need to close and reopen to work with another mission. no point in including the fme in the game if you need to restart the game between each mission edit

Edited September 26, 2017 by coconut

[FS_Fenice_1965]

In my opinion what makes Mission Editor less intriguing than IL2 fmb is the fact that you cannot work on the mission constantly and directly from the 3d environment.

There's a 3d view, but you cannot - as far as I know - insert objects staying inside it.

With IL2 FMB it was possible to do almost everything in the 3d view. You could insert objects with insert key, switch between objects with pgup and pgdown keys and move the objects immediatly - with arrow keys or other shortcuts - and you could do all of that without ever leaving 3d view.

Apart from the simplicity and the speed, it was a very immersive way to build missions: was like staying inside the environment and seeing it becoming as your desires were while you were in.

 

To be honest, the mission editor has the possibility of manipulating mission elements at low level. In this area it is far superior to IL2 Fmb.

What is missing are precombined elements in its interface to be user friendly and please the beginners.

In my opinion beginners want the basic function to be prepared from the interface, rather than having to combinate all ingredients to prepare the basic dishes. It's the difference between having to be a chef to prepare original dishes or having to be a normal consumer and having only the need to buy precooked dishes at the supermarket.

[Gambit21]

How long does it take to hit the F9 key?

I view my mission objects in 3D and move them around all the time.

[JimTM]

In my opinion what makes Mission Editor less intriguing than IL2 fmb is the fact that you cannot work on the mission constantly and directly from the 3d environment.

There's a 3d view, but you cannot - as far as I know - insert objects staying inside it.

With IL2 FMB it was possible to do almost everything in the 3d view. You could insert objects with insert key, switch between objects with pgup and pgdown keys and move the objects immediatly - with arrow keys or other shortcuts - and you could do all of that without ever leaving 3d view.

Apart from the simplicity and the speed, it was a very immersive way to build missions: was like staying inside the environment and seeing it becoming as your desires were while you were in.

 

To be honest, the mission editor has the possibility of manipulating mission elements at low level. In this area it is far superior to IL2 Fmb.

What is missing are precombined elements in its interface to be user friendly and please the beginners.

In my opinion beginners want the basic function to be prepared from the interface, rather than having to combinate all ingredients to prepare the basic dishes. It's the difference between having to be a chef to prepare original dishes or having to be a normal consumer and having only the need to buy precooked dishes at the supermarket.

 

See "Chapter 2: Learning Basic Mission Editor Skills" in the IL-2 Sturmovik Mission Editor and Multiplayer Server Manual. There are references in the various procedures for doing things in the 3-D view.

Edited September 26, 2017 by JimTM

[FS_Fenice_1965]

Thank's for your nice manual first of all.

I thought I knew all the procedures: You can rotate objects, go up and down with view while in 3d view etc., but I do not know a method to insert a new object or to scroll between the catalog of objects without leaving the 3d view.

Am I missing something ?

Edited September 26, 2017 by FS_Fenice_1965

[sniperton]

As I see the main problem with the ME is that it's an overkill for simpler tasks. I understand the 'no pain, no gain' mentality, but I also understand why many people are reluctant to spend hours in the ME just to bring together a 5 mins test mission or a 10 mins training mission. Below a professional level of mission-making, the ME is simply not 'cost-effective' as to the pain and gain equilibrum.

I don't wish the ME be made 'easier', but I do think the QME should be made more detailed and versatile, with the option to save missions set up there.

[JimTM]

Thank's for your nice manual first of all.

I thought I knew all the procedures: You can rotate objects, go up and down with view while in 3d view etc., but I do not know a method to insert a new object or to scroll between the catalog of objects without leaving the 3d view.

Am I missing something ?

 

Thank you Fenice.

 

As far as I know, there is no way to place objects or scroll through the objects in the library while remaining in 3-D view. However, you can place an object and quickly return to 3-D view by pressing F9. Then you can move the object around in the 3-D view.

Edited September 26, 2017 by JimTM

[Gambit21]

As I see the main problem with the ME is that it's an overkill for simpler tasks. I understand the 'no pain, no gain' mentality, but I also understand why many people are reluctant to spend hours in the ME just to bring together a 5 mins test mission or a 10 mins training mission.

 

I get that.

It takes me 60 seconds to a few minutes to throw together a quick test mission, but that efficiency also came after many hours of in the editor.

It's a double edged sword.

[CanadaOne]

A double edged sword indeed - one that must be grabbed by the user blade first.

 

A third option is definitely required; either a user friendly in-game ME or a QMB with some meat on its bones. The new IL2-46 B.A.T mod has a living breathing example of an awesome(!) QMB. It should be copied in BOX.

[planesyplanesy]

Hi all

Firstly many thanks for all your suggestions and comments.

I'm heartened to hear that I'm not the only one that struggles with the ME.

However, in my limited knowledge of gaming programmes and coding (always learning!) I can totally recognise it is a very powerful and sophisticated platform.

I did wonder if it was a case of trial and error so I'm making myself comfortable for the next few hours cup of tea or two on the side with brain in gear!

Very excited to hear Unreasonable's news that the developers are making a career mode for later in the year that will be so cool.

 

Best regards to you all and Hi to Jacko from Tangmere Pilots. Hope all is well with the old gang.

 

Till the next time,

Planesy.

[planesyplanesy]

Hi again guys

Well although full of good intentions this afternoon I have already fallen at the first hurdle and am very confused.

A few weeks ago I was able to access the the STEditor no problem but now when I click on it for some reason I am confronted with this??

 

STEditor.exe-entry point not found

The procedure entry point ?? ISM camera@cam@@ QEAA@XZ could not be located in the dynamic link library c:\ program files (x86) \ 1C Game Studios \ IL-2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad \ bin\game\STEditor.exe. 

 

Apologies for writing out the whole error message but I could not work out how to copy and paste it onto here!  

 

Any ideas guys?

 

Many thanks as always

 

Planesy

[Habu]

Go there :H:\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\bin\editor

 

and run the file ResetEditorSettings.cmd

 

Maybe it will solve your problem. If it doesn't work, try running the editor as an administrator.

 

Next time, create your own topic, it's a bit off topic your request.

 

Second : Do not install your game in the program file. You'll avoid many problem.

[IckyATLAS]

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

 

This series of tutorial videos are fantastic for a complete newbie like me. I am very grateful to the french guy who did them. If you combine the manuals and the tutorials then you have it all. I must admit that I speak fluently German, English, french, so that helps for sure. I went through all the Tutos, and then say in an afternoon it was done.

I already made small test scenarios with truck, trains, planes, artillery and tanks. Once you understand the basic mechanisms and the logic behind it, then you see that it is a very powerful editor, much much more powerful that the one we had in the previous IL2 series. I cannot compare to ROF as I never used it.  There are some weird behaviors here and there, but it is still an excellent tool. The number of objects modeled to enrich the environment is more limited than with the previous IL2 series. Example there are no soldiers modeled as in the previous series. You could build tent camps with various objects and people in the previous IL2 that you cannot do here. So yes a very powerful editor lacking a little in terms of objects modeled. 

I would advise the devs to create for the mission builders a special collector package of objects. 

[planesyplanesy]

Go there :H:\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\bin\editor

 

and run the file ResetEditorSettings.cmd

 

Maybe it will solve your problem. If it doesn't work, try running the editor as an administrator.

 

Next time, create your own topic, it's a bit off topic your request.

 

Second : Do not install your game in the program file. You'll avoid many problem.

Hi Habu

That did the trick thanks

Found the correct STeditior in bin/editor.

No idea why it was also in bin/game??

Anyway checked it and all is fine.

Now all I have to do is try and build a mission!!

 

Salute

Planesy

[walter55]

 

My take on the mission editor, I have made missions for 20 years, enjoyed playing with the FMB's as much as playing the games.

 

I still built missions in IL2-46, DCS, and Prepared 3d, however, the FMB in BOS is simply a nightmare, my time is to valuable to waste

 

on an editor that constantly produces frustrating results. The fact that so little downloadable missions are produced by the users

 

speaks volumes, don't the deve's understand that, an easy to use tool would produce large amounts of user made content.

 

Witch in itself attracts more customers! And considerably extend the life span of the program.

 

Cheers

Walt

[Jason_Williams]

Walt,

 

No we're complete idiots. Our ME was never designed for a layman to use, it is a Developer tool. Way back when it was decided to make it public so users could make their own missions because so many people were requesting it even though we knew it would frustrate many. We've never had the money or personnel to completely re-write it. Probably never will. The ME works but it is not so user friendly to the uninitiated. However, it is extremely powerful and does lots of cool stuff that others don't. It's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with whether or not we understand anything. What we are doing is trying to make it as stable as possible so those that can use it can make cool missions. That's what I can try to do with the resources available to me.

 

I suggest you read some of the manuals written by users of the ME and speak with other mission builders and you'll get the hang of it.

 

The time to have completely changed it was 4 years ago when we started BOS, but I wasn't in charge then and I couldn't convince anyone to invest in it.

 

Also, this product is 4 years old now and it will have a very long shelf life regardless of the ME. Many more years of content and feature building and new theaters lay ahead. Our Rise of Flight is 8 years old and still played by many thousands everyday and it will be that way for many years to come. Flight-sims stick around a long time if they are even a little good and BOX is more than a little good.

 

Jason

[LLv34_Temuri]

However, it is extremely powerful and does lots of cool stuff that others don't. It's just the way it is.

This. It basically has scripting support via visual building blocks. Now, I would have preferred textual scripting, but I think using timers, triggers, and other MCU building blocks makes building mission logic more accessible to people who aren't familiar with any scripting language.

 

 

I suggest you read some of the manuals written by users of the ME and speak with other mission builders and you'll get the hang of it.

In addition, search the forum, there's already quite a bunch of information available.

[Gambit21]

My take on the mission editor, I have made missions for 20 years, enjoyed playing with the FMB's as much as playing the games.I still built missions in IL2-46, DCS

Me too.

Yet I'm able to do things with this editor that I used to wish that I could do with the 1946 editor.

My time is valuable too - your not unique in that regard. I invested some time to learn the editor, and now I can simply

create (between crashes - stability is the only real issue right now)

 

There are resources including this forum.

When I stopped whining about the complex editor and actually put some effort into learning it - well guess what?

Results - funny how that works.

Now, I would have preferred textual scripting.

Sure - make it an inaccessible slog - no thanks.

[LLv34_Temuri]

Sure - make it an inaccessible slog - no thanks.

Reason being that building complex logic would be a whole lot faster with just textual scripting

 

 

[sniperton]

 

Reason being that building complex logic would be a whole lot faster with just textual scripting

 

 

^^ I fully agree. The ME in its current state reminds me of a programmer's GUI with only an object property window, but without any code editor to access and to manipulate the defined object blocks. It's something like not being able to define variables, only constants. If I create a block with a squad taking off, flying CAP and landing, it's basically a function or procedure which could also be called up with different parameters if we could access it via a script language. This would also open up the possibility to provide an user interface (as in the QMB) to change some basic parameters such as plane type, etc.

 

What is interpreted by the game engine is a text file with some alphanumeric constants. In the ME this text file has a graphic representation, where you can reset those constants individually by clicking/selecting/typing. What is needed in the ME is an additional script-like representation of the output file where the constants are replaced by variables whose value is defined in the header. If you want to change a plane type or some other parameter, you don’t need to click and reset all occurencies, you only need to change the initial definition.

 

As to complex logic, adding and modifying conditions via a script is a more flexible method, all the more so as you can also include calculations, provided you have variables to count with.

 

Just an idea, don't shoot me…

Edited October 19, 2017 by sniperton

[LLv34_Temuri]

Actually, I've used a text editor's find & replace on the .mission file quite often, when I've needed to make changes on multiple places. For example, changing AI levels of AAA.

It's been faster to do the change with text editor and then wait for the Mission Editor to open the .mission file than to do every change manually with the Mission Editor.

[TP_Silk]

Notepad++ is the perfect accompaniment to the Mission Editor for all those find and replace tasks.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

I also made hundred of missions with IL2 and had some difficulties at the beginning with this editor.

Anyway after that, reading the available guides, I started getting into this editor logic and now I can say that - even if I still miss some features of 1946 mission builder - I'd miss many of the features of this editor if I had to use 1946 editor with this simulation.

This editor doesn't need a total rebuild but, as many already have argued, it needs to be perfected in two opposite directions.

1) the ability to operate low level (text editor), but this is a feature that will be appreciated mostly by expert builders in my opinion.

2) the automation of the most common functions rather than being obliged to combinate mcus and some improvements on the 3d interface. These are going to be more appreciated by beginners.  

This way imho the builders base will be widened both towards experts and beginners.

Edited October 19, 2017 by FS_Fenice_1965

[Thad]

"When I stopped whining about the complex editor and actually put some effort into learning it - well guess what?
Results - funny how that works."

 

Absolutely. Please quit whining about the ME. Put in the time and mission results follow. It can be very intimidating and frustrating especially in the beginning but it gets easier and easier through use and application.

 

If you don't have that inclination or time... perhaps mission building isn't really for you.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Thad

[sniperton]

@Fenice: The funny thing is that #1 (code level manipulation) is the prerequisite for #2 (macro level operation) IMHO. 

 

@Thad: Not quite. The problem is not that it's difficult to learn, the problem is that it's not ergonomic to use. As if you had a hammer without the handle.

[walter55]

Walt,

 

No we're complete idiots. Our ME was never designed for a layman to use, it is a Developer tool. Way back when it was decided to make it public so users could make their own missions because so many people were requesting it even though we knew it would frustrate many. We've never had the money or personnel to completely re-write it. Probably never will. The ME works but it is not so user friendly to the uninitiated. However, it is extremely powerful and does lots of cool stuff that others don't. It's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with whether or not we understand anything. What we are doing is trying to make it as stable as possible so those that can use it can make cool missions. That's what I can try to do with the resources available to me.

 

I suggest you read some of the manuals written by users of the ME and speak with other mission builders and you'll get the hang of it.

 

The time to have completely changed it was 4 years ago when we started BOS, but I wasn't in charge then and I couldn't convince anyone to invest in it.

 

Also, this product is 4 years old now and it will have a very long shelf life regardless of the ME. Many more years of content and feature building and new theaters lay ahead. Our Rise of Flight is 8 years old and still played by many thousands everyday and it will be that way for many years to come. Flight-sims stick around a long time if they are even a little good and BOX is more than a little good.

 

Jason

 

Hi Jason

 

What I really wanted to underscore was the luck of user content, I been with BOS since the beginning, I am aware of the difficulties in the

 

early days, when things where completely derailing from what was expected, anyway things are looking quiet good at this point, kudos to those

 

who saw the light, and managed to stop the car going completely off the cliff. As a matter of fact I have a good grasp of the FMB these days,

 

indeed its very powerful, of course its complexity would require a massive effort to rewrite and stream line. Its probably better to produce

 

new theaters and content at this stage. Those willing to wrestle and get the grips on the FMB have probably done so by now anyway!

 

Keep up the good work Jason, we old time simmers are counting on you.

 

 

Cheers

Walt

[theOden]

I would just like to thank CanadaOne and walter55 making me understand I am not the only one.

Will put this on the backburner.

Jeezus.

[CanadaOne]

I would just like to thank CanadaOne and walter55 making me understand I am not the only one.

Will put this on the backburner.

What I like to thank is Jason's honesty, coming right out and saying that the ME is in fact a developers tool and was not intended as an FMB for public use.

 

That clears things right up. I've been saying that since day one.

 

If that is the case, and it is, and all we will ever have is a developer's tool because of limited team resources,I can respect that, but I really hope the QMB will get a boost.

[SYN_Haashashin]

What I like to thank is Jason's honesty, coming right out and saying that the ME is in fact a developers tool and was not intended as an FMB for public use.

 

I said that several times, still you didnt want to listen. It has been like that since RoF was released.

 

Haash

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

What I like to thank is Jason's honesty, coming right out and saying that the ME is in fact a developers tool and was not intended as an FMB for public use.

 

That clears things right up. I've been saying that since day one.

 

If that is the case, and it is, and all we will ever have is a developer's tool because of limited team resources,I can respect that, but I really hope the QMB will get a boost.

 

Jason and the DEV's have been saying that all along and it has been no secret. In fact all of this was said way before the FMB was released. The DEV's voiced a lot of trepidation prior to release that this would be the reaction despite their warnings. There were multiple caveats up to and just after release that this was a DEV tool and nothing more, would not be supported in customer service tickets and would be difficult for the average user to grasp. I agree the QMB could be considerably better but the FMB is exactly as advertised.

[CanadaOne]

I said that several times, still you didnt want to listen. It has been like that since RoF was released.

 

Haash

I was simply more inclined to take Jason's word for it. Between his Q&A the other day, and what he wrote in this thread, he explained the situation well, spoke reasonably, and avoided pedantacism.

[Gambit21]

It's been common knowledge for a long time.

One also should not consider "developer tool" to be synonymous with "impossible to use"