Developer Diary, Part 66

[FlyingNutcase]

Hi Jason,

1. When you say that "all the data necessary to make a new ME or a Campaign Generator is there", do you mean data generated from mission files?
2. With regard to "open source": It doesn't necessarily mean some grand community project involving a lot of people. Different individuals or private groups could take it where they wanted. 
3. Out of interest, what language is the mission editor coded in?

Cheers ~

Flying Nutcase
 

[sop]

+1 AbortedMan I would upvote but it seems I met my daily quota of upboats.))

[SCG_Neun]

You guys really need to get on the same page when it comes to announcements and information dissemination...there's 4 pages of confused customers here. That should be a clear indicator that something on the communication side of things is very, very wrong.

 

I highly suggest that the next time an announcement or Q&A/developer response is planned, that it go through a more stringent public relations proofread session...Loft's response to the questions asked in today's dev diary looks like he's giving a "thumbs down" review of his own product...describing the SP campaign as "groundhog day"...really?!?! That was Bill Murray's absolute living hell...I would never want a game to play like "groundhog day".

I actually changed my signature before AbortedMan pointed this out.....I felt the same way about the comment.  A real downer....

[FuriousMeow]

You guys really need to get on the same page when it comes to announcements and information dissemination...there's 4 pages of confused customers here.

 

There's 4 pages of the same few people repeating the same thing that they misunderstood. They keep stating that we don't get an ME. We do, after Early Access is over. This is not confusing at all:

 

"This will come after game release. Only those who we have worked with before will have a chance to get their hands on the editor during early access."

 

Not to mention, as has been stated many times, the FMB for BoS will be very silmiliar to RoF. An individual should try it, and make a mission, see how well they can use it. That's the training ground for BoS' FMB, so to be extremely clear - you have access to BoS' FMB, it is the RoF FMB, so you can gain experience right now by training with RoF's FMB.

Edited May 30, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[CCG_Pips]

My 2 cents on this heated topic.

 

Personally I really enjoyed learning the FMB in RoF, despite not being a "full-on" mission builder myself, I could create a number of scenarios that you can't do in the QMB and that's where I see the value of the tool is.

 

Now I can understand that 777 do not want to have people coming to them in droves about how the FMB is too complex (and to be fair - it is more complex than other FMBs - but thats the beauty of it - the power of it) but I still think not having it is a step in taking BOS towards a simplified product. Provide the QMB and the FMB and let people make their own choices.

 

 

+1..........I agree.

 

Myself is a full example:  I do not have any time to learn how to build a mission with the ROF editor, BUT...Some of my friends, in my squad are regularly creating small mission for training (with an instructor) or for squad practice!!

 

I just come out from a Campaign made for 5 or 6 squads...in ROF

 

Simply speaking: release that ME and let all those guys doing their job (hobby/pleasure)......you will have in any case some crying peoples ....but it is far better than losing customers!!! believe me ...

 

Because, if we do not have very quickly that ME, a lot of peoples will not buy the game (simply) and another large part that will return to IL-2 1946...

 

[HippyDruid]

Interesting thread. 

 

Thanks for the update guys.

[SOLIDKREATE]

Our experience with ROF tells us a different story. Why then have we not seen legions of BOS fans learning the ROF Editor and have been demonstrating to us how easy it is to use? Are they waiting for something? No, the the truth is the large majority of feedback over the years has been that it is too complex, too slow and not integrated into the main game enough to be effective or fun.

 

And you are reading the 95% / 5% quote incorrectly. Loft is saying that for 95% of users, what we provide them in the form of QMB and Campaign and MP will satisfy their immediate simming/gaming needs. Only a small amount of users relatively speaking will explore anything more. That's not to say we won't have that option, but we are going to give that option  a little later.

 

My wish is for every single serious flight simmer to buy BOS and show us and our bosses that the sim genre is not dead and can support such a money commitment to build such tools. The casual/arcade community is huge apparently. Something I never thought I'd see for a flying game based on all my years of selling PC games and simulations. That crowd seems to find a reason to buy a game/sim, the hardcore crowd seems to find reasons NOT to buy a game/sim and that kills the genre. If the bar for hardcore simmers is so damn high and the market is too small, then there will be no such products anymore. Simple economics guys. Very frustrating for the team behind the development.

 

 

Jason

 

 

As far as money goes, start a Kickstarter if you need more. I'm sure a lot of us will contribute. I know that I would. Maybe I am taking the quote wrong. I never even knew ROF had a mission editor until just now. I stopped playing after seeing no one online. If the ME is what I think it is I'll try it out. I just learned IL2 1946 ME in about 30 minutes.

 

A mission editor to me would have things like:

 

 

Pressure and Density Altitude

Flight planner (fuel load, weight, CG ect....)

Ambient temperature

Mechanical failure

Dynamic weather

Wind on the ground & aloft/ turbulence/icing

Adjustable skill level slider (as seen on ArmA)

AI learning algorithm (rate at which the enemy can adapt to your tactics) slider

Advanced scripting (not just following way-points from A-B)

Ability to load voice acting for radio transmissions

Bomb fuses, ammo belt configuration

Create airfield from the ground up complete with barracks, hangars, signs (and you can skin all this of course).

 

just to name a few.......

 

If your ME will be something like that. I'd love to learn it.

[Jade_Monkey]

 

The truth is World War I and World War II are very different and appeal to different groups of people.  You are managing the release of the ME based on the idea that you understand how the community will respond, when you don't seem to understand this simple concept.  A disclaimer saying the ME is released as is and unsupported is all you need.  Simply don't reply to requests for support.

 

This sim was set to, in my opinion, destroy DCS: WWII.  Now it seems that (at least as far as content) it will blow IL2:BOS out of the water.  This is frustrating to many of us because we want this sim to be successful in the long term.  Flight sim enthusiasts will stick with a sim so long as there is content.  This is why people still fly Flight Simulator X and IL2: 1946.

 

 

I agree. I think it's being assumed that we all played RoF. That's not my case and I'm sure many others are in my situation, where they are interested in WWII and not in WWI planes.

There is a decent group of people that might be really good at creating missions that was not there in RoF and therefore you cannot expect the feedback from RoF to represent our opinion at a 100% level.

 

I have to say that I love the game and I cannot wait to see what's inclueded in the final release. To be honest I think it's already great at the current stage, I cannot imagine what the full game will look like.

 

I also appreciate the straight answers and not trying to delay the "bad news" (it's relative I guess).

[Rivet]

I've supported 777 through ROF by buying everything released for that sim. A sim which I still very much enjoy including the SP campaign which seems to be in permanent beta stage but it is a campaign. With ROF, 777 gained my trust which is no longer an easy thing due to experiences with other developers over many years. They did this by their impressive communication on the forum and by delivering on their promises.

 

Trust though, is hard won and easily lost. I looked forward to BOS in the early stages with great anticipation of an up to date IL-2 with a solid SP dynamic campaign and good flight models. Well some of that is shaping up well enough but as a single player (leader board point scoring air quake holds no interest for me whatsoever) the seeds of doubt are beginning to grow.

 

"Missions are not connected with each other."

Ok so there's no real SP campaign then.

 

"There's sort of a "groundhog day" within each single phase. Time of a day, weather conditions (within a list of historically correct ones for each period) will vary every time you start the mission. And you play this or that phase as many times as you want. Several successfully completed missions open access to the next phase leaving the completed one available for reply at any time. This is akin to sand-box style gaming."

Uhh, hang on. I get what you mean by "groundhog day" but as I see it you are stuck in a particular "phase" by that I'm assuming a particular group of unconnected missions, until they are successfully completed before being allowed to move on to the next group of possibly more difficult missions or "Phase"? I don't know about sand box - it sounds more like arcade ladder climbing and unlocking to me.

 

"Players who are looking for precise reconstruction of particular historical events will have community created missions to satisfier their demands. Those missions can tell about specific pilots, events and real combat missions down to historically correct personal skins and battle conditions. But our studio is not able to deal with such amount of tasks right now, that's why community we'll need to provide themselves with those WWII reconstruction missions."

Ah! Ok, so there can be a proper campaign but we have to make it ourselves. Oh but wait, wouldn't we need a full mission builder to do that? I don't count myself in the clamour for the FMB but I can see the need for access to it even if it is "too complicated" for your customer base to use. However, I think it should be available for those who wish to try it. How can the community make a campaign without it?

 

I've always been up beat and positive about ROF at every stage of development and that has been reflected in my purchases. I also had the same positive thoughts and expectations for BOS until this announcement. Now my trust has nosedived and I'm no longer sure this will be the game I'd hoped for.

 

To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. Sorry, I so wanted this to be all it could be. A sim with a decent cohesive SP campaign.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Rivet

[FuriousMeow]

Ah! Ok, so there can be a proper campaign but we have to make it ourselves. Oh but wait, wouldn't we need a full mission builder to do that? I don't count myself in the clamour for the FMB but I can see the need for access to it even if it is "too complicated" for your customer base to use. However, I think it should be available for those who wish to try it. How can the community make a campaign without it?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6885-developer-diary-part-66/?p=123775

 

We will have a FMB, very close to the same one RoF uses.

 

As far as phases, they are talking about the phases of the battle of Stalingrad this title covers. Each phase is a particular scenario within the battle being covered here. It was quite clear in the first post that the battle has phases, or campaigns if you will, and that is what was meant.

 

Its gotten to the point I'm not sure if some actually intend to understand what was stated, or just wants to be upset.

 

I for one am very happy, one of the complaints always found in a flight simulator is that clouds are terribly done - and just now I went over Stalingrad in heavy condition popping in and out of cloud cover (not cotton ball crap like other places) and flying over dense cover while occasionally seeing the ground below in very small clearings and then arriving over a large clearing where the clouds were properly illuminated around the edges. All the while having a true advanced FM, true ballistics, accurate ground handling/modelling, variable wind and turbulence, very good complex engine management and not just the click four times to pump fuel "hardcore" stuff, and much more. I'm loving what is done so far.

Edited May 30, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Rivet]

Yes, I'm sorry, I've just spotted that about the FMB but wasn't allowed to edit my post.

[AbortedMan]

Its gotten to the point I'm not sure if some actually intend to understand what was stated, or just wants to be upset.

It's understood that you have an interpretation of what is being announced and said today, but there are many other implications and other people's interpretations that are still up for question. You are one person, there are many that still have questions about things and circumstances that aren't addressed clearly. Don't discount people's concerns just because you feel you have a grasp on the situation.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Ultimately though, their envisioned campaign will allow the game to come out in September as apposed to say Spring 2015.  Furthermore, the big problem with this new product coming out and the fact that there is an older product that has more content, is really tainting a lot of peoples understanding of what the flow of release is here.

 

This game will grow, and things will be made by the community, expansions will come, and yet more missions will be made by the few (or more when the ME is released).  Everyone needs to stop being Doom and Gloom based off the little information and uncertainty of the future. 

 

Remember when everyone was FLIPPING OUT over no trim.....  well I haven't seen a post about trim in awhile since it was released.  Just relax people.  It will be fine.

 

But to the Devs. You all ned to get on the same page before going public.  I mean its pretty self critiquing isn't it?  You've seen what unorganized unfiltered information gets you.  CRAZED customers convinced the sky is falling.

[Jason_Williams]

Sorry but there are dozens of blog updates that have stated exactly what we are doing. This one particular issue is the exception and partly my mistake. And I was only referring to my recent statements that seemed to conflict with some of what my colleagues have said. What they have said all along is accurate.

 

There is no reason for any more confusion. All questions about the release of the ME have been addressed. And if this thread leads to further confusion, I'll just delete it and start over.

 

Jason 

[ShamrockOneFive]

I think the crucial thing that Offliners feel they will miss, if we have interpreted things correctly, is Narrative.

 

"Missions aren't connected to each other" and "Sandbox" and "groundhog day" sound a bit/lot like QMB scenarios that are framed around "phases" or maybe another way of saying "templates" which all sounds a bit ... boring?

 

I mean, a campaign should have a story to tell, right?

 

It's all very well saying the players will tell their own story, and "the story is about the planes", but without anything pinning it all together ... no sense of progression aside from 'win X number of missions to unlock the next XYZ/Skin/Gunpod', no sense of being a part of something...

 

Hopefully something has been lost in translation, hopefully it'll all be far better than it sounds on paper.

 

I guess much depends on how the briefings and debriefings move us through the phases, to how connected we feel.

I wonder if it might feel pretty good if we see some good before and after action reports. Where we went, aircraft shot down, teammates that lived, mission overall success, etc. Put that together with a scripted text generator and even a single mission can feel like it has its own internal narrative.

 

Old games like Aces of the Pacific and Aces Over Europe were brilliant in the way that they were able to do this (at least I thought so in the early 1990s) and even IL-2's previous forrays have lost in some of that. Even when you knew the text was pretty much the same few phrases... it was neat to see it react to the success of the mission.

[FuriousMeow]

It's understood that you have an interpretation of what is being announced and said today, but there are many other implications and other people's interpretations that are still up for question. You are one person, there are many that still have questions about things and circumstances that aren't addressed clearly. Don't discount people's concerns just because you feel you have a grasp on the situation.

 

I quoted the parts that were very clear, there is no interpretation. It is right there. There isn't anything further to question, I bolded the important parts.

[Sunde]

Can you please take out complex engine management?  I think its too hard to manage oil and radiator temperature, RPM, and manifold pressure while flying and keeping track of friendlies and enemies, correctly identifying aircraft by their silhouette, and lining up my aircraft such that when I pull the trigger the rounds will travel 300+m out in front of me where I've calculated the enemy aircraft will be when the rounds pass through that area.  Its too hard.

 

I think you've misjudged your own community.  I don't think anyone is upset that the FMB will be released after the game, or even that it will be difficult to use.  At least for me, its just infuriating that you think I'm not intelligent enough to figure it out, so you will select a few community members to give it to.

 

From the sound of the singleplayer campaign, the FMB just got a lot more important.  Please give it to everyone or no one (read as: everyone).

 

I suggest you take a look at the Arma 3 community.  There are hundreds of missions available for that game.  Its editor is pretty simple, but can be quite complex when adding scripts and triggers and more interesting features.  I have downloaded exactly 0 missions for Arma 3.  My buddies and I only play missions that we make.  This is the same for every combat flight simulator we've played (IL2, DCS, etc.)

 

 

This was not helpful.  So, I can either prove you right, that I'm not capable of learning the editor - or I can prove you wrong, and be frustrated that I won't be allow access to the editor I learned to use.  Win-Win.

 

I would also like to introduce you to a website called YouTube.  You can find video tutorials for anything.  I imagine the community would produce these for you.

A 2-second search reveals there are already tutorials for the ROF editor available.

 

Thank you for the update.  I've been enjoying the game quite a bit.

 

NO! please do not make this sim even more simplified. basicly you turn on engine and fly, how can you ask them to make it easier than it already is ? You want them to make the aircraft fly for you? I mean cockpit management is about as low as possible. Which is a shame, bring back the cockpit systems from CLOD. (Not that i dont like BOS, i just find it abit simpel)

[AbortedMan]

I quoted the parts that were very clear, there is no interpretation. It is right there. There isn't anything further to question, I bolded the important parts.

Yet there's multiple people in this thread that have questions.

[UncleHajo]

NOOOOO I dont play this GAME with one Monitor, when i have 3 MONITORS !!!

Pleas give me back my MONEY !!

 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2092-video-and-sound-settings/page-2?do=findComment&comment=123801

[J2_Trupobaw]

Meanwhile the player is not limited with anything and the playable character is impersonalized. Each player is going to have their own virtual life and singular, specific experience and emotions. You'll be free to pick any plane, any airfield and any mission that is available at that moment. And this unique experience of yours will build your personal campaign.

 

Missions are not connected with each other. There's sort of a "groundhog day" within each single phase. Time of a day, weather conditions (within a list of historically correct ones for each period) will vary every time you start the mission. And you play this or that phase as many times as you want. Several successfully completed missions open access to the next phase leaving the completed one available for reply at any time. This is akin to sand-box style gaming

 

Few questions on how mission date is intended to work within single phase of Campaign. (If the missions are generated well enough, I think career-like experience is pretty much possible, if player keeps playing the same squadron on consecutive dates?)

 

1) Will the date of mission have any meaning within the phase? Can we expect squadron airfields / concentrations of friendly and enemy troops / frontlines themselves to move as they historicaly did, or are they static and move only when different phase is chosen? Or does "groundhog day" effect mean every day in the same phase is functionally the same thing, except perhaps historical weather, as far as mission generator is concerned?

 

Assuming that date has any meaning at all...

 

2) Will mission dates move forward as player completes more missions within a phase? Like, if fly ground attack mission in Il-2 on 2nd December 1942 , then my next mission in this phase (in different squadron etc)  happens on 3rd or 4th December?

 

3) OR - Will players be able to set mission time? Like, I can choose 2nd December 1942 to be date of my ground attack mission in IL 2, then I can choose 3rd December as date of my next mission etc.

 

4)Will the game be tracking players statistics (kills, kills by type, flying hours etc) in single phase? Will it be possible to track players statistic in just one plane type / squadron (like, kills scored when flying IL-2, or scored when flying for particular squadron / regiment)?

 

Edited May 30, 2014 by Trupobaw

[dburne]

 

I mean, a campaign should have a story to tell, right?

 

 

 

This is what I look for , in a good SP campaign.

[FuriousMeow]

Yet there's multiple people in this thread that have questions.

 

As I said, its only a couple of people and the answer is already there. Hell, even one said that they know people who would use the FMB but they wouldn't which is exactly one of the topics touched on by the devs. Everyone knows someone who will use the FMB, but not themselves.

 

Its no mystery, the FMB is hard to use with RoF but it is by far the most capable of all FMBs out there. Its not simple for a reason, because you have more tools at hand than any other title out there. If you want to get experience for BoS' FMB, try out the one for RoF. Most won't, and yet they insist they know someone who knows someone who is the brother of someone that can make amazing missions because... etc. Yet, they won't touch the RoF FMB because the game is free and so is the FMB and there really is no excuse to build a mission for RoF to test out the FMB so the entire "questions" are moot until these friends of a friend can build a mission in RoF's FMB. That is the root of the matter, because if they can't build a mission in RoF's FMB - then they can't with BoS' FMB. Questions answered, until that last little bit can be done, then they can't use BoS' FMB at all. That's where the 5% come from, because only a few have used RoF's FMB, and so far none that complain about the FMB in BoS have produced a mission from RoF's FMB which, again, will be virtually identical to BoS' FMB.

 

So make a mission with RoF's FMB, questions answered - the ones complaining won't use it, but they know someone who will. They need to have that someone who will build a mission in RoF's FMB, and then they can report back, but they won't because they won't build that mission and that person most likely doesn't exist.

Edited May 31, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[LukeFF]

NO! please do not make this sim even more simplified. basicly you turn on engine and fly, how can you ask them to make it easier than it already is ? You want them to make the aircraft fly for you? I mean cockpit management is about as low as possible. Which is a shame, bring back the cockpit systems from CLOD. (Not that i dont like BOS, i just find it abit simpel)

 

Relax, he was joking.

[Jaegermeister]

I have a few comments on this issue as well. Some of you might remember me as Bird_Brain from the old IL2 days. I've done various offline scripted campaigns so I think I am speaking from real experience, not speculation. There are a few others here that are from the same era like Extreme_One, Flatspinman and FlyingNutcase.

 

Jason, Your speculation that those who will actually use the FMB and create decent missions with is is probably correct. It takes massive amounts of research, time and perseverance to put together 30 or even 20 missions to create a historical recreation of events. We would appreciate the opportunity to do that.

 

I understand there are liabilities in not offering support for software you sell, but a Mission Builders' forum will take care of the issues with the learning curve just like it did in IL2. Those that want the FMB to be simple may not understand that the difficulty of use is just a result of having more complex tools.

 

I have very little interest in WWI biplanes, but I downloaded and installed ROF just to use the Mission Editor in anticipation of something similar being released with BOS. It is challenging, but certainly manageable with some effort and time. I would be very disappointed if no mission editor was released with the full game. I do not fly online much if at all simply because it becomes a FPS plane game and there is no sense of historical context or connection to reality and past events. I appreciate the history as much as the combat.

 

As stated before, let us know what you would like to see in terms of experience with past missions, campaigns, or new missions in the ROF format and perhaps we can prove ourselves "worthy" of access to the Mission Builder.

 

Please don't underestimate the importance of this tool to the old IL2 community that you have adopted. We can handle it and might even surprise you with the stuff we come up with.

 

Thanks for a great sim so far. It is far and away the best one yet so keep it up.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

 

Remember when everyone was FLIPPING OUT over no trim.....  well I haven't seen a post about trim in awhile since it was released.  Just relax people.  It will be fine.

 

Trim has been put in half-assed only with buttons and cannot be used with axis.  Last I read from the devs, is that it MIGHT be corrected later to use with axis.  There hasn't been anything positive in about a month.  I really do hope they can get things together.  I thought this game was going to be il2 with ROF graphics and performance.  I can admit I was wrong.  Maybe I shouldn't have spent my money? 

[Jade_Monkey]

I have very little interest in WWI biplanes, but I downloaded and installed ROF just to use the Mission Editor in anticipation of something similar being released with BOS. It is challenging, but certainly manageable with some effort and time. I would be very disappointed if no mission editor was released with the full game. I do not fly online much if at all simply because it becomes a FPS plane game and there is no sense of historical context or connection to reality and past events. I appreciate the history as much as the combat.

 

Seriously now, they said 20 times that there will be one when the game is fully released.

 

They don't plan on simplifying it to make it user friendly, like ARMA3. However, they WILL release the complex editor once the game has been completed.

 

Please read all the comments, especially the ones in green before adding more fuel to the fire.

Edited May 31, 2014 by CBZ323

[FuriousMeow]

Trim has been put in half-assed only with buttons and cannot be used with axis.

 

Now that is just comical. Its "half assed", but actually implemented correctly and modeled correctly compared to the previous Il-2 series. Just because it can't be mapped to an axis doesn't mean its half-assed, it just means its not mappable to an axis. Its actually modeled way better than the previous Il-2 series.

[DougW]

May I suggest that those who are willing to create missions/campaigns now, nominate yourself to the development team as being in the "5%" of those to gain access to the ME.  I would appreciate your time and effort to lend your expertise to the development of the game before it is officially released.  Besides, this may be an opportunity to begin testing fan based missions and begin to work through problems that may arise from them.  This is not to say the development team needs to dedicate time to tidy-up these missions as I agree with a previous poster that a stable game with fewer features is released in September is preferred over a game with more features but with bugs.

 

Also, for those with experience with ROF editor, I know there are videos on the internet that provides guidance on how to create missions, but I assume there are the "little tricks" and "lessons learned" that are not well represented in the videos.  How about a thread that provides these insights and provide assistance with mission building?

[Gambit21]

There is nothing better than a well put together and researched user made campaign.

I myself built the "Liberation Skies" campaign for IL2 back in the day, and had a great time doing it. I spent easily

8 hours in each of the 20 missions - full ground battles, huge convoys, friendly and enemy planes going about their 

business no matter how long you flew around on the map. 

 

I was disappointed to see how bloated and un-user friendly the ROF mission builder is, and any dreams of 

recreating my efforts of old were squashed, I just don't have that kind of time.

 

I'm hopeful a few people will have the time and resources to take on the BOS builder and give us what

 we really need. Given that it's WWII and not WWI, I KNOW it will happen.

I expect the campaign that ships with the sim to be fairly dry and lifeless, (confirmed by the most recent blog post) much like ROF.

I already love the sim though, and will continue to support it -  I'm just not placing my faith in the campaign engine.

 

What has been created already up to this moment is fantastic.

Looking forward to  watching this sim grow.

I understand there are liabilities in not offering support for software you sell, but a Mission Builders' forum will take care of the issues with the learning curve just like it did in IL2. Those that want the FMB to be simple may not understand that the difficulty of use is just a result of having more complex tools.
 

Exactly.

Unfortunately I've spent so much time on the computer learning complex 3D applications over the last few years, my wife will KILL me if I now spend more countless

hours learning a mission builder with no financial gain in return.

If I was a single guy, I'd take it on and master it. As it stands, I'll have to rely on you guys.

[SCG_Neun]

As I said, its only a couple of people and the answer is already there. Hell, even one said that they know people who would use the FMB but they wouldn't which is exactly one of the topics touched on by the devs. Everyone knows someone who will use the FMB, but not themselves.

 

Its no mystery, the FMB is hard to use with RoF but it is by far the most capable of all FMBs out there. Its not simple for a reason, because you have more tools at hand than any other title out there. If you want to get experience for BoS' FMB, try out the one for RoF. Most won't, and yet they insist they know someone who knows someone who is the brother of someone that can make amazing missions because... etc. Yet, they won't touch the RoF FMB because the game is free and so is the FMB and there really is no excuse to build a mission for RoF to test out the FMB so the entire "questions" are moot until these friends of a friend can build a mission in RoF's FMB. That is the root of the matter, because if they can't build a mission in RoF's FMB - then they can't with BoS' FMB. Questions answered, until that last little bit can be done, then they can't use BoS' FMB at all. That's where the 5% come from, because only a few have used RoF's FMB, and so far none that complain about the FMB in BoS have produced a mission from RoF's FMB which, again, will be virtually identical to BoS' FMB.

 

So make a mission with RoF's FMB, questions answered - the ones complaining won't use it, but they know someone who will. They need to have that someone who will build a mission in RoF's FMB, and then they can report back, but they won't because they won't build that mission and that person most likely doesn't exist.

I understand your logic FM, but I think one reason that many players didn't try out the ROF/FMB and attempt to overcome it's complexities is that ROF has everything that an offline/historical minded hardcore cyber pilot could want.  There really wasn't any need to give the thing a go.....But now..after understanding what awaits us in the SP mode in BOS, there might be a real need to try and get creative.  I must admit...I'm not looking forward to putting in the time on this....but I will try the best I can to make BOS something I can enjoy.  You're right...the sim has so many wonderful features......but for me personally, without a career/dynamic based mission style.....I just can't get into the sim.  Right now....it sounds a lot like Birds of Prey..unlock this..unlock that...advance to this.....Not my style at all.  Now that's just me....I do not speak for anyone else on this......and I appreciate the fact that business models aren't always going to conform to everyone's needs.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Sad news about SP.  One of the things I really enjoyed about RoF was squadron management.  I kept hoping that there would be some sort of experience system added to RoF where squadron pilots would become less noob-ish and more proficient as they built time and survived missions, and perhaps a more complex model for aircraft availability, where an aircraft landing just on the friendly side of the lines takes longer to make it back into service than a similarly damaged aircraft that makes it back home.

 

It hasn't happened in RoF, and it seems like the situation is even less developed in BoS with a "who cares if all your airplanes got shot up, the universe is not persistent" model unless I am misreading things.

[Jaegermeister]

Please read all the comments, especially the ones in green before adding more fuel to the fire.

I read all 4 pages of it. I am not adding fuel to a fire, Thanks for the advice.

[pilotpierre]

I have a few comments on this issue as well. Some of you might remember me as Bird_Brain from the old IL2 days. I've done various offline scripted campaigns so I think I am speaking from real experience, not speculation. There are a few others here that are from the same era like Extreme_One, Flatspinman and Flying Nutcaseup

Jagermeister aka Bird_Brain, of Flying Tigers campaign if I remember correctly? I still have scenes from that firmly embedded in my memory.

[Zoring]

No Dyanmic Campaign? Sorry guys but you have lost me on that one, what is the logic there? Is it just too hard to implement? Why do we have to wait for the community for some back-end implementation?

 

The reason that games like Red Baron, European Air War, Aces Over Europe and so on where so highly regarded and fondly remembered is for there Dynamic Campaigns, it's also the reason that I still play and enjoy Rise of Flight. I sincerely hope that you reconsider, or at least announce plans for something later on. Single-player is where the vast majority of people play these games.

 

Isn't prefacing your post with this comment:

 

"this community is quite segmented in its desires, just because you are the loudest, does not mean you are the biggest"

 

Indicative that you know this is a controversial update that a lot of people won't be happy with?

 

Anyway I hate being quite negative because I do believe that 777 is the best developer in the games industry today but this is the first piece of news i've been disappointed with because in all other respects the game is looking and plays fantastic.

[Bearcat]

Unfortunately, I am forced to read english from Moscow sometimes that is a bit rough and even I can get confused as to the plans that have been decided. Sometimes, my comments seem to contradict what Zak and Loft write. It is not my sole decision to release the ME or not. I am one part of the management team and can only suggest what to do on topics such as this. In this case, it has been decided to give the ME to a few trusted users who can work on some content for the community. And then later, after release the plan is to release the ME either as it is now or maybe with some improvements. When that happens we don't know and what possible improvements may occur we also don't know.

 

Jason

 

Sounds pretty clear to me..

 

Hi Jason,

1. When you say that "all the data necessary to make a new ME or a Campaign Generator is there", do you mean data generated from mission files?
2. With regard to "open source": It doesn't necessarily mean some grand community project involving a lot of people. Different individuals or private groups could take it where they wanted. 
3. Out of interest, what language is the mission editor coded in?

Cheers ~

Flying Nutcase

 

 

 

UQMG, Mission Mate and Quick Mission Tuner are all examples of tools for IL-2 1936 that were created by third parties with no assistance from the game developers.

 

Mission files are, in essence, scripts that tell the simulator the number of planes, their flight paths, their objectives, what other elements are included such as tanks artillery etc.

(I'm not trying to be condescending, or patronising, just explaining the very basics for the benefit of everyone that might be reading.)

 

The third party programs write these script (mission) files, which can be read and interpreted by the sim, but they are created based on their own interface or rules, outside of the mission editor that the developers produced.

They didn't need to hook into the game files, nor did they require anything special from the developers in order to acheive what they did.

 

That's what Jason means when he says all the data is available.

 

The UQMG, Mission Mate type programs can be built for BOS once the community / 3rd party programmers understand the way the mission files are structured.

 

{Edit}

Also, I neglected to mention the log files, which can be examined (by a running program/process) and utilised in order to create dynamic missions based on the outcome of the previous mission.

 

Hope that all make sense.

 

You do make perfect sense. This is why I hope that those who can will consider doing something like this.. and from what they have said.. what I gathered anyway.. even if someone is not in that 5% that keeps being mentioned .. if someone were to get ROF with the express purpose of learning details about the ME with the notion of creating an interface for it the devs would offer whatever assistance that person needed .. but they do not have the time to do that task at the moment and may never.. but the things needed to accomplish that task are already there.. all someone needs to do is know how to do it and know the ME to some extent.

 

Ultimately though, their envisioned campaign will allow the game to come out in September as apposed to say Spring 2015.  Furthermore, the big problem with this new product coming out and the fact that there is an older product that has more content, is really tainting a lot of peoples understanding of what the flow of release is here.

 

This game will grow, and things will be made by the community, expansions will come, and yet more missions will be made by the few (or more when the ME is released).  Everyone needs to stop being Doom and Gloom based off the little information and uncertainty of the future.

 

+1

 

I have a few comments on this issue as well. Some of you might remember me as Bird_Brain from the old IL2 days. I've done various offline scripted campaigns so I think I am speaking from real experience, not speculation. There are a few others here that are from the same era like Extreme_One, Flatspinman and FlyingNutcase.

 

Jason, Your speculation that those who will actually use the FMB and create decent missions with is is probably correct. It takes massive amounts of research, time and perseverance to put together 30 or even 20 missions to create a historical recreation of events. We would appreciate the opportunity to do that.

 

I understand there are liabilities in not offering support for software you sell, but a Mission Builders' forum will take care of the issues with the learning curve just like it did in IL2. Those that want the FMB to be simple may not understand that the difficulty of use is just a result of having more complex tools.

 

I have very little interest in WWI biplanes, but I downloaded and installed ROF just to use the Mission Editor in anticipation of something similar being released with BOS. It is challenging, but certainly manageable with some effort and time. I would be very disappointed if no mission editor was released with the full game. I do not fly online much if at all simply because it becomes a FPS plane game and there is no sense of historical context or connection to reality and past events. I appreciate the history as much as the combat.

 

As stated before, let us know what you would like to see in terms of experience with past missions, campaigns, or new missions in the ROF format and perhaps we can prove ourselves "worthy" of access to the Mission Builder.

 

Please don't underestimate the importance of this tool to the old IL2 community that you have adopted. We can handle it and might even surprise you with the stuff we come up with.

 

Thanks for a great sim so far. It is far and away the best one yet so keep it up.

 

 

Good post

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

I am trying to think of something to compare the SP campaign to.

 

Will it be like Company of Heroes, where you have missions not really dependent on one another, but in the same general area and time frame, and the experience one of your personas collects carries on to the next even if they are different people in the story line?

 

Well, I guess in that case there is a sort of off-board main character who is theoretically controlling the action and gaining experience.

 

Is it like a multi-player game but with no other players, where noting really matters at the end of a mission except win or lose and maybe stats?

[Jaegermeister]

Jagermeister aka Bird_Brain, of Flying Tigers campaign if I remember correctly? I still have scenes from that firmly embedded in my memory.

A little OT but that was Chuck Older aka Chris. He changed his tag when the real CO passed away. I did beta test it for him and pack the files for uploading.

I did The Blue, el Alemaine, Cactus Diary, Cat O'9 Tales and a few others. They were all historically based and researched. I started doing campaigns right after Extreme_One showed us all how with Battle over Britain and then when I posted a tutorial, it snowballed and we got lots more people putting them together.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Jagermeister

[ShamrockOneFive]

No Dyanmic Campaign? Sorry guys but you have lost me on that one, what is the logic there? Is it just too hard to implement? Why do we have to wait for the community for some back-end implementation?

 

The reason that games like Red Baron, European Air War, Aces Over Europe and so on where so highly regarded and fondly remembered is for there Dynamic Campaigns, it's also the reason that I still play and enjoy Rise of Flight. I sincerely hope that you reconsider, or at least announce plans for something later on. Single-player is where the vast majority of people play these games.

 

Isn't prefacing your post with this comment:

 

"this community is quite segmented in its desires, just because you are the loudest, does not mean you are the biggest"

 

Indicative that you know this is a controversial update that a lot of people won't be happy with?

 

Anyway I hate being quite negative because I do believe that 777 is the best developer in the games industry today but this is the first piece of news i've been disappointed with because in all other respects the game is looking and plays fantastic.

 

Actually, the way they describe it, sounds like at bare minimum it's similar to the dynamic campaign that IL-2 Forgotten Battles had or akin to what we used to see in Aces of the Pacific and Aces Over Europe. Missions don't really affect each other much at all in those games either and the war carries on pretty much as you would expect. The old "cog in the wheel" feeling.

 

I don't think anyone has done a truly dynamic campaign since Falcon 4.0. Maybe DCG has one now?

Edited May 31, 2014 by ShamrockOneFive

[novicebutdeadly]

I'm not sure where to really begin.....

Perhaps someone has already said this (after reading 2-3 pages of people saying pretty much the same thing, I started skim reading),

 

I can understand the frustration at not being able to affect the outcome, that is not being able to go outside the scope of the game (increased notoriety etc), I remember playing Silent hunter 3 and spending a very long time sneaking into Scapa Flow, hoping to find some juicy worth while targets, only to find a single destroyer.....

 

However what has to be remembered is that every squadron was a small part of a big event. How can one Squadron affect the entire outcome? And even if it could, the game would go from being Historically accurate to a "Choose your own adventure" game.

I honestly prefer MP to SP because of the human factor.

 

In all honesty I find the AI boring.

 

Not that they are too easy etc, but because the don't make mistakes. An example of this is that the Soviet fighters had a lower max dive speed than German fighter, many soviet pilots made the mistake in the heat of the moment of over speeding their aircraft, yet even when set to novice the AI doesn't make this basic mistake, that even the more experience pilots could sometimes make.

I don't say this next bit as any sort of "put down" etc,

 

But isn't instilling fear into human players at the mere sight of you joining the server, more satisfying than having some sort of fear from the AI?


I hope that mission editors become available, I have never made a mission, but have enjoyed the fruits of other peoples labor

I also hope that the game takes a similar path to the original il2 in that other aircraft will become available, and it becomes a full ww2 sim.

 

Whilst like most people I have my own questions and gripes (I'll leave them for another day), until the full game is released I will be optimistic.  


 



 

Edited May 31, 2014 by 907-novicebutdeadly

[FlyingNutcase]

A little OT but that was Chuck Older aka Chris. He changed his tag when the real CO passed away. I did beta test it for him and pack the files for uploading.

I did The Blue, el Alemaine, Cactus Diary, Cat O'9 Tales and a few others. They were all historically based and researched. I started doing campaigns right after Extreme_One showed us all how with Battle over Britain and then when I posted a tutorial, it snowballed and we got lots more people putting them together.

 

May those good 'ol days return [nervous smile, lol]

 

@Jagermeister/Bird_Brain: It's good to see you back. ~