Mission Editor Overhaul (Crowdfunding?)

[Ejolfur]

It would be so great if you guys could implement an actual usable mission editor, so we can build multiplayer missions without losing all hair. I mean just compare it to the DCS editor, where everything is super simple, and you can do almost everything without any restriction. If that's not enough you can pretty easily include own .lua scripts.

But when you take a look at the Il2 editor it's really confusing to put it very(!) mildly... This whole graph system that has to be used for everything including waypoints and frontlines is a huge PITA to use and has exactly 0 benefits compared to the logic the DCS editor is using where for example waypoints are directly assigned to a unit. 

I could literally write about a dozen more things that are implemented in a horrible way in the mission editor, but I am pretty sure you're all aware of its flaws.

 

Imo that's a lot wasted potential, because most players don't have that many MP options except existing servers. Sure you can use some external tools to build missions, but they're also quite limited imo.

 

I know that developer time is extremely expensive so my idea is that you could maybe start a crowdfunding campaign for a complete mission editor overhaul.

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Nihilion

[MisterSmith]

It isn't, technically, a user mission editor. It is a Dev tool that the public was given access to well after the fact. There are several threads and responses to this subject. The team has, historically, not been interested in crowd funding but as they are under new management that may have changed. I'll let the topic ride for the moment and see where it goes.

 

Smith

[Zooropa_Fly]

11 hours ago, MisterSmith said:

It isn't, technically, a user mission editor.

 

I think this statement is getting a bit old..it goes back to early RoF days.

There would never have been much of an MP scene without the ME being released for 'users' to use.

 

 

Understandably, I doubt there will ever be a 'major overhaul', and there's never been crowd funding before.

 

But I'd still like to see it's user-friendliness improved a little over time.

There's just been a thread from someone wondering what the ww1 assets are ?

Pop up windows with pics of the assets would be great for easy ID and selection, as would be separation of ww1 and ww2 objects.

Then there's the 4k monitor crash thing..

 

Ejolfur - the ME takes a bit of getting used to alright, but give it a go.

There's a manual, youtube vids, and the ME forum section here is great for getting help.

Once you get into it, it can even be a little addictive.

And you can save routine 'groups' once created, so you can import/export from mission to mission.. you can also simply copy/paste from one to another.

 

S!

 

[MisterSmith]

Zoo, you state your tired of the Not-a-User description then go on to describe, essentially, why it's a Dev tool.......

 

Smith

[Trooper117]

Never, never crowd fund anything...

[Bonnot]

On 4/9/2023 at 5:55 PM, Ejolfur said:

implement an actual usable mission editor, so we can build multiplayer missions without losing all hair. I mean just compare it to the DCS editor, where everything is super simple, and you can do almost everything without any restriction. If that's not enough you can pretty easily include own .lua scripts.

But when you take a look at the Il2 editor it's really confusing to put it very(!) mildly....[

.......]a dozen more things that are implemented in a horrible way in the mission editor, but I am pretty sure you're all aware of its flaws.

 

 

I agree with all of this, specially in comparison with wargames games -or A--A II  -  where missions can be designed, tried, improved,  without headache and hours of work...........but maybe it is designed for more sophisticated (or dedicated) brains , and not for the fun.....

Now , for crowd funding the idea is interesting but looks very unlikely to succed here....?

 

 

On 4/9/2023 at 5:55 PM, Ejolfur said:

.

 

[Ejolfur]

On 4/10/2023 at 12:14 AM, MisterSmith said:

It isn't, technically, a user mission editor. It is a Dev tool ...

The problem is not the complexity, but how awkward the handling is, especially for a dev-tool. I actually can't believe they're building actual campaigns with this for years. Most things aren't even sorted properly. Want to add some static trucks to an airfield? Yeah, have fun finding them in the meaningless categeory "blocks" with a few hundred entries. It helps a bit that there are previews, but it's still incredible cumbersome. Drawing frontlines, flightpaths etc.. is even worse since you have to know what position type to select. Since this is documented nowhere you have to test it out ... which means closing the editor and starting the game... every time. Maybe a crowdfunding for a complete overhaul seems unrealistic, but there is *so* much room for improvements.

[Hanu]

Actually there is quite straightforward logic in ME, and when you build it "modulary" ie. create working groups with inputs and outputs you get away most of the cumbersomeness. However the map will become quite mess quickly. You can mitigate it somewhat with visibility options, but still the workflow is quickly hard to follow.

BUT the biggest problems (for me at least) are that things work differently in MP and SP. (I create persistent coop-like-dogfights for my buddies). A lot of good stuff you cannot use in MP at all if you spawn things... -like formations. Commanding the AI via radio calls is not possible AFAIK. The events are not explanatory ("OnKilled" triggers when a plane despawns for example) and some do not function at all. Add/substract counting logic would be very usable when you are trying to fit the AI in to populate the mission but still keeping the server ticks in check.

But still without the Editor me and my buddies would not be flying anymore I guess. So it is essential and I'd love to see it developed.

[Gambit21]

On 4/9/2023 at 8:55 AM, Ejolfur said:

It would be so great if you guys could implement an actual usable mission editor, so we can build multiplayer missions without losing all hair. I mean just compare it to the DCS editor, where everything is super simple, and you can do almost everything without any restriction. If that's not enough you can pretty easily include own .lua scripts.

But when you take a look at the Il2 editor it's really confusing to put it very(!) mildly... This whole graph system that has to be used for everything including waypoints and frontlines is a huge PITA to use and has exactly 0 benefits compared to the logic the DCS editor is using where for example waypoints are directly assigned to a unit. 

I could literally write about a dozen more things that are implemented in a horrible way in the mission editor, but I am pretty sure you're all aware of its flaws.

 

Imo that's a lot wasted potential, because most players don't have that many MP options except existing servers. Sure you can use some external tools to build missions, but they're also quite limited imo.

 

I know that developer time is extremely expensive so my idea is that you could maybe start a crowdfunding campaign for a complete mission editor overhaul.

 

 

As a "power user" of both the DCS and IL2 editor, I can tell you that both have their advantages. It isn't all daisies and unicorns in the DCS editor.

 

For instance in DCS you can't copy and paste logic...which is a HUGE time suck.

You also can't assign the same waypoint/logic group to multiple aircraft, thereby placing a "test" aircraft in the middle of a mission, or towards the end of the mission to test it using the exact same logic, waypoints etc of the actual unit.

 

You also can't drag/lasso select logic in DCS like you can in IL2...another huge time suck. Therefore you can't paste logic from one mission to the next, one map to the next...you have to build everything from scratch each time. You can't save "groups" in a folder like you can with IL2 and just paste in what you need.

 

Logic in IL2 once placed, tested and working, tends to stay that way. As someone who's built very complex missions on both sims, I can tell that this isn't generally the case with DCS. I've had to make almost zero logic revisions to my IL2 missions, (exception being recent waypoints that were too close for revised flight logic) meanwhile the DCS content creators can't say the same thing. I know this because I'm on a Discord with them.

 

 

On the other hand, the DCS editor logic is much, much more powerful.

There are far more tools and options...basically more brushes and paints on the palette. Need to trigger a comm when the player hits the Batt/power switch in the Viper? No problem. Need a "aircraft lower than" Altitude trigger? No problem. Know some LUA and want to add a custom script? No problem.

 

Want to have an unrelated flight join up in formation with another flight? (this is huge) No problem.

On and on.

 

Want a STABLE editor that doesn't crash continuously, thereby wasting your time and causing you to come to the conclusion that you're just done messing with it...even if your long-awaited Zero does finally come? That's DCS.

 

Want an editor that actually receives (and regularly so) actual attention, development and improvements? That's DCS as well.

 

That said I will reiterate that the grass isn't necessarily greener with DCS and editor logic. There are things that I cant' talk about and I'll just leave it at that.

Suffice to say that both have their advantages. Both are powerful tools, both will waste your time in different ways.

 

Bottom line is that 1C missed the boat from the get-go not making the editor a user-tool and developing/improving it as such. Further I've reported instability issues at 4K for over 6 years now and the issue has not been dealt with. That doesn't make me happy, or want to spend time creating content. Life is too short. The very least the company owes it's content creators is a stable editor.

Location of blocks/finding units in the IL2 editor doesn't even make my gripe list honestly. 

 

"it's not intended a user tool" true, but if it was made stable, and some development attention and tools/functionality added, it serves the purpose just fine.

A good flight sim needs a good editor...the end.

 

Essentially, pick your poison. There are things that would make me use, or stay out of either editor.

I voted “No” because this simply won’t work for layered reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Gambit21

[ThePops]

Just my 0.02 € as I'm relatively new to this stuff. My experience is it's very fast and simple (completely intuitive) to set up simple stuff in DCS (point and click). In IL-2 there are lots of different ways to set up simple stuff, but no fast and simple way to do it. IMO this has to do with the basics of the logic of a mission.

 

The fundamental logical element of a mission is a route with waypoints. That is, an aircraft follows waypoints from A to B to C and so on. That fundamental principle is strongly implemented in DCS, but not at all really in IL-2. You can certainly use that principle in IL-2, but the logic is centered more around commands and triggers that are "free floating" rather than as "modifiers" to the route.

 

The end result is that DCS is dead simple and intuitive, IL-2 is not. This is probably only of relevance for simple stuff. When the overall logics get complicated, I'm not sure DCS is better. However, that has all to do how logic is handled on a higher level, not at all to do with the concept of waypoints and routes as basic building blocks. Logics is handled better in IL-2 IMO.

 

The ME in DCS is therefore used a whole lot more by a whole lot more people (relatively speaking). In fact, I don't think many people play DCS without also using the ME as an implicit part of the game. That doesn't mean the ME in DCS is a better tool for creating complex missions though. What it means is more that IL-2 perhaps lacks a simple easy going, intuitive , in-game ME that everyone can use for all the simple stuff. Again, just my € 0.02 ? 

[kraut1]

It was no pure flight sim, but from my point of the Mission Editor of Operation Flashpoint / Arma2 was one of the best full mission editors:

The basic operations placing units, waypoints were very easy to do and each of these elements had itself random parameters e.g.: probability if "spawned" or not , a timer parameter and a placement radius to be defined in meters, in this circle area the unit was "spawned" at a random position.

The effect was that you had just to define some patrols with waypoints of maybe 10km radius and each time the the mission was started it was total different.

And these random parameters were by default available for each unit / waypoint.

 

On the other hand I have learned now a bit the War Thunder Mission Editor of the CDK.

It is interesting:

Some basic operations are very  complex and you have to learn everything from new with the tutorials. E.g.: to make a squadron to take off from an airfield with to be defined spawn points.

Similar to the IL2 GB Editor you have to use many elements like triggers, timers,...

On the other hand the so called "Armada" element (name for a unit with 1 or more planes) has all functions implemented to create one huge unit with one element: e.g.: you can define 1 "Armada" consisting of 36 B17 Bombers flying in 3x 12 plane squadrons with a defined distance.

The missions size is extremely small, because the maps are already populated with houses, airfield elements,... Only one Text file, no binary file.

The disadvantage seems to me that there is no "synchronize" function, this means if you are renaming an unit, that is target object in triggers, actions, you have to rename all texts with its name individually, the best with text editor search / replace.

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by kraut1

[Gambit21]

22 hours ago, ThePops said:

Just my 0.02 € as I'm relatively new to this stuff. My experience is it's very fast and simple (completely intuitive) to set up simple stuff in DCS (point and click). In IL-2 there are lots of different ways to set up simple stuff, but no fast and simple way to do it. IMO this has to do with the basics of the logic of a mission.

 

The fundamental logical element of a mission is a route with waypoints. That is, an aircraft follows waypoints from A to B to C and so on. That fundamental principle is strongly implemented in DCS, but not at all really in IL-2. You can certainly use that principle in IL-2, but the logic is centered more around commands and triggers that are "free floating" rather than as "modifiers" to the route.

 

The end result is that DCS is dead simple and intuitive, IL-2 is not. This is probably only of relevance for simple stuff. When the overall logics get complicated, I'm not sure DCS is better. However, that has all to do how logic is handled on a higher level, not at all to do with the concept of waypoints and routes as basic building blocks. Logics is handled better in IL-2 IMO.

 

The ME in DCS is therefore used a whole lot more by a whole lot more people (relatively speaking). In fact, I don't think many people play DCS without also using the ME as an implicit part of the game. That doesn't mean the ME in DCS is a better tool for creating complex missions though. What it means is more that IL-2 perhaps lacks a simple easy going, intuitive , in-game ME that everyone can use for all the simple stuff. Again, just my € 0.02 ? 

 

As you eluded to already...simple logic is simple to set up in DCS. Complex logic is not only (get ready for it) complex, but more difficult to trouble-shoot later.

The 'visual code' of the IL2 editor does have it's advantages as I mentioned above. Further once you get a group built in IL2, you don't ever have to build it from scratch again...you can just paste it in from your "groups" folder. In DCS you're building most things from scratch each time.

 

So to recap, very simple missions...yes DCS is easier. Complex missions, each editor has it's pros and cons.

[Bonnot]

15 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Mission Editor of Operation Flashpoint / Arma2 was one of the best full mission editors:

........Probably not perfect for everyone, but YES certainly ( one of )  the best, simple and fast : you can really play a challenging mission -say a squad patrols encounter in the jungle- in minutes, add a vehicle, traps, fire support, ambush, etc... is possible in maybe 15 min;

and it is possible to play in the editor to test and correct....that's what I call simple and fast after trying dozens since Flashpoint !

[Bonnot]

ADD:

To be honest I must add that is the Single Player mission for personnal use.  To make the mission playable for other gamers it is a bit more complicated...but not too much, and requires more time and precision.