Stubborn Aerostats

[Beebop]

Why do the Aerostats always face North?  That's fine for the Arras map as No Man's Land runs North-South.

 

I place them, Link them and set altitude and that works as expected.  But when I try and reorient them (i.e. change 'Orientation' in the Properties dialog) they rotate in the ME are visible in the 3D ME view  facing as set but when I start the mission they are facing North.  I 'Save' after each balloon is placed then 'Save' once again before closing the ME.  When I reopen the mission in the ME they have retained the direction I had set. 

This is on the Velikiye Luki summer map but happens on other maps as well.

 

I suppose this is something (yet another thing) we are 'stuck' with or is there something I am failing to do? 

 

[Gambit21]

I’ve never played around with them.

 

What is your wind/direction?

[Beebop]

No wind.

 

[Sketch]

Testing testing testing... This is 100% because of the wind. (I also wanted to know because I don't do the WW1 stuff enough.)

 

 

Here's the two missions... Yes, I spelled balloons wrong.

Testing Ballons.zip

 

 

Associated helpful video:

 

 

[Beebop]

BIG THANK YOU for the videos! 

 

So I did some experimenting with them.  I found out that....

1. ANY amount of wind turns the Aerostats.  I had .5m/s doing the job.  And they turned rather smartly too I might add.

2. You had the wind at all levels.  My "ballons"  (just ribbin' ya) were set for 750 and 850 meters.  I reset yours to those levels then set the wind to only happen at 500, then 1000 meters.  In both cases the balloons turned so they don't have to be exactly at Ground/500/1000/2000/5000 meters. I did find though that they have to be set close to the wind level height.  For instance at 2000 and 5000 meters or Ground level they didn't turn.

 

So why I wonder, is there even an Orientation dialog box?  In any other application if something isn't appropriate to the item chosen that particular option is greyed out.  The ME toolbar is like that.  Some functions can't be used and they are greyed out.  And why can you turn them, as you did, in the ME but they still orient to North when the mission starts?

Next to where is the Holy Grail and what really happened to The Lost Ark after the Indiana Jones movies, these are yet more of the "Great Mysteries of Life".  ?

 

Thanks again for yet another helpful and easy to understand video.  My brain is bigger.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Beebop

[Sketch]

8 hours ago, Beebop said:

So why I wonder, is there even an Orientation dialog box? In any other application if something isn't appropriate to the item chosen that particular option is greyed out.  The ME toolbar is like that.  Some functions can't be used and they are greyed out.  And why can you turn them, as you did, in the ME but they still orient to North when the mission starts?

 

It's not really a mystery. Imagine having 100+ entities (the vehicle, train, and plane type entities) that all have the orientation dialog box. Then, we have 5 entities that can rotate, but have logic to automatically rotate them into the wind. Should I spend time creating a new advanced properties box that doesn't have the orientation options in? Meaning, I have to remove the rotation options, rescale the properties box, and probably explain to users that the aerostats will rotate anyway. Probably... If this was a commercial product anyway. However, its an internal tool used by developers. So, f it; we'll just leave the rotation options in there.

 

When developers build stuff, they work on things that will give the most return for the least effort, and I suspect they chose not to worry about this rotation options since it gives little in return (for an internal tool). It's probably the case for other options in the Mission Editor too. I don't know if @Jason_Williams and his developers use Agile methods, but I bet they do. This is probably why they keep iterating over the game and making it better and better while knowing that some of the game's issues are still persistent. They've given everything they know they want to add and fix a 'value point'. Those that have higher value will get done first, and those that are lowest value will be done last. The Mission Editor probably gets the lowest values. How many mission designers are there in the community? How many of those designers are making epic missions? Maybe 10-20% of the community are mission designers and that's being generous. Should the devs work on stuff that 100% of the community will use (planes, tanks, and other cool stuff) or stuff that only 10% of the community will use? This video on Agile talks about how value points get set by devs and project managers:

 

 

[Beebop]

You make excellent points.  It just frustrating to come from an environment (1946) where there was more communication from the developer and his team.  Then again they had, initially, the huge Ubisoft Corporation behind them so they had the staff and could make the time for better documentation of the "features" of the game.  And yes, even with all that people complained and complained and complained.  I get it.

3 hours ago, Sketch said:

and probably explain to users that the aerostats will rotate anyway

This is the kind of thing that I and other mission builders would like.  You are right that resizing the dialog box for this and just a few other items doesn't give a good return for time spent  investment.  And there are many things that are like this.  For some of them the Dev's respond by saying something to the effect "it is what it is and we don't have the time/manpower/tools to change it". (the rest of the time they are working hard to fix it and we get a better game of it).  But at least we get an answer even if we don't like it.  And I understand that the more people who buy the product, the more finances they will have to address the shortfalls they face with such a niche segment of the gaming industry.

 

Bottom line is this is too good a game to get really mad about it but sometimes the frustration level becomes quite high.  It's one of those things where I wish it wasn't so but "it is what it is" and I'll either adjust or not.

 

The kind of help and insight I get from this Community goes a long way to relieving the frustration level.  Knowing that some of the best minds around have the same issues and have found workarounds for them and share them is comforting.

 

Thank you, JimTM, Gambit21, Gramps, Icky Atlas, Alonzo and a plethora of others who if I try and remember them all I will forget someone, (so if you've responded to one of my many posts, thank you), for all your efforts, patience and going more than the extra mile by making videos, looking at and fixing my mission files and taking the time to help me, and others, understand the ME environment we work in.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Beebop

[Jaegermeister]

22 hours ago, Beebop said:

For some of them the Dev's respond by saying something to the effect "it is what it is and we don't have the time/manpower/tools to change it". (the rest of the time they are working hard to fix it and we get a better game of it).  But at least we get an answer even if we don't like it.  And I understand that the more people who buy the product, the more finances they will have to address the shortfalls they face with such a niche segment of the gaming industry.

 

Bottom line is this is too good a game to get really mad about it but sometimes the frustration level becomes quite high.  It's one of those things where I wish it wasn't so but "it is what it is" and I'll either adjust or not.

 

The kind of help and insight I get from this Community goes a long way to relieving the frustration level.  Knowing that some of the best minds around have the same issues and have found workarounds for them and share them is comforting....

 

The more I interact with the Devs, the more I realize how thin they are stretched. Trying to update current features, fix bugs, develop the next module with map, flight models, new 3D vehicles, all new types of vehicles like the AA with all that entails, improve the campaigns and develop user content ...

 

To expect them to revise something as basic as the Mission Editor and document ever changing guides on "how it works" is definitely a stretch. You are only talking about a few people to get this all done. I'm not sure how the priorities are established for what gets attention at what time, but I'm sure it involves a lot of multitasking on a daily basis.

 

I personally think we are lucky to get as much feedback from Jason and the Devs as we do. At least we know for the most part what is being addressed and what is not.