FMB

[Chris455]

I'll be brief: Please give us a FULL mission builder that will not require a programming degree to use.

PS- I can't tell you how overjoyed I am that this sim is coming to life-I'll see you all (someday) over New Guinea in my P-39!

Chris

[Mysticpuma]

Agreed. CloD and IL2:1946 actually gave humans a chance 🙂

[Trooper117]

9 hours ago, Chris455 said:

Please give us a FULL mission builder that will not require a programming degree to use.

Yes this... I enjoyed making missions with the old IL2, providing maps and screenshots of the target for pilot briefings etc.

But just could not get into the more complicated mission editors with later sims.

[Hetstaine]

Il2 FMB Please. CloD was also very nice to use, GB just wasn't fun at all, the other two i could lost in for hours making missions and campaigns.

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

I'll be of the dissention opinion here then. Please give us a mission builder with which we can do anything that's possible in the game engine, without limits. In other words, a mission editor that has people's knowledge and preparedness to lean as its limiting factor, rather than ease of use.

Popular campaigns like Gambit's Hell Hawks Over the Bulge, the many free ones of Jaegermeister, or even my own Hürtgenwald campaign wouldn't have been possible with a mission editor that doesn't expose the many options that exist in IL2. Versatility and ease of use for the uninitiated public are two aspects that are generally very hard or even downright impossible to combine, so if a choice needs to be made, please choose for versatility rather than ease of use as it will tremendously increase the quality of user-made missions and campaigns (rather than the quantity, which an easier mission editor tends to do).

Of course, if it's possible to make a small, easy to use in-game mission editor like the one in IL2 1946, that's perfect too, as long as there is at least the possibility to use a "complete" mission editor.

[wheelsup_cavu]

3 hours ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

Of course, if it's possible to make a small, easy to use in-game mission editor like the one in IL2 1946, that's perfect too, as long as there is at least the possibility to use a "complete" mission editor.

Of all the ideas that is one I can get behind.  I am also one who loved making missions using the old FMB in 1946 but could not do much more than get a few vehicles to move around using the new FMB in the Great battle series so imo a scalable FMB would be a decent compromise. 

 

Wheels

Edited May 20 by wheelsup_cavu

[Hoss]

DCS FMB isn't Brain Surgery either, pretty easy once you're familure with the tools.

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

I'll be of the dissention opinion here then. Please give us a mission builder with which we can do anything that's possible in the game engine, without limits. In other words, a mission editor that has people's knowledge and preparedness to lean as its limiting factor, rather than ease of use.

Popular campaigns like Gambit's Hell Hawks Over the Bulge, the many free ones of Jaegermeister, or even my own Hürtgenwald campaign wouldn't have been possible with a mission editor that doesn't expose the many options that exist in IL2. Versatility and ease of use for the uninitiated public are two aspects that are generally very hard or even downright impossible to combine, so if a choice needs to be made, please choose for versatility rather than ease of use as it will tremendously increase the quality of user-made missions and campaigns (rather than the quantity, which an easier mission editor tends to do).

Of course, if it's possible to make a small, easy to use in-game mission editor like the one in IL2 1946, that's perfect too, as long as there is at least the possibility to use a "complete" mission editor.

 

Yep

An FMB that scales is the key. Relatively simple to get into for a beginner, but with deep functionality for anyone who's capable of/has the desire to use it. 

The IL2 editor has qualities that I certainly would want to see again, as does the DCS editor. 

One key is a full set of triggers, some of which IL2 is sorely missing, (unit higher than/lower than) ability of non-related flights to follow/join up etc, and AI behavior/logic which functions alongside the editor functionality without constantly breaking.

So a user can write a simple sentence, or combing many sentences and paragraphs into a short story or novel.

 

A dead simple "anyone can use it with no effort" editor is not the answer...that would hurt the product in the long run. 

There has to be a balance.

[Gambit21]

10 minutes ago, Hoss said:

DCS FMB isn't Brain Surgery either, pretty easy once you're familure with the tools.

Yes...and scales nicely when you get more ambitious, and a nice tool set of triggers conditions.

You can't copy/paste logic however and there's no visual representation of your logic on the editor map...both huge weaknesses.

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

When I program a path for the ground vehicles SHOW where it intends to go. The Great Battles AI trains and tanks seem to have no logic as to which roads and rail lines they intend to follow and you have no way of seeing it unless you go into the mission and watch them.  I do not mind placing multiple waypoints to get the results I want but I do want them to follow those waypoints after I place them and I want to see that waypoint path while I am in the FMB. 😎

 

Wheels

[Gambit21]

12 minutes ago, wheelsup_cavu said:

When I program a path for the ground vehicles SHOW where it intends to go. The Great Battles AI trains and tanks seem to have no logic as to which roads and rail lines they intend to follow and you have no way of seeing it unless you go into the mission and watch them.  I do not mind placing multiple waypoints to get the results I want but I do want them to follow those waypoints after I place them and I want to see that waypoint path while I am in the FMB. 😎

 

Wheels

There’s no issues with vehicle pathing/waypoints FYI. Although I DCS does ‘snap’ a nice path indicator. 🙂

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

38 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

There’s no issues with vehicle pathing/waypoints FYI. Although I DCS does ‘snap’ a nice path indicator. 🙂

 

Having literally spent hours trying to figure out where a tank or train will travel in Great Battles with even as few as one Trigger:Waypoint I will respectfully disagree that it works without problems. Plus even when I program one vehicle waypoint path one Trigger:waypoint at a time I have had it refuse to follow those waypoints.  A simple path indicator like DCS and the old IL-2 would eliminate hours of frustration and headaches associated with what the vehicles will do in game. 😎 👍

 

Wheels

Edited May 20 by wheelsup_cavu

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, wheelsup_cavu said:

Having literally spent hours trying to figure out where a tank or train will travel in Great Battles with even as few as one Trigger:Waypoint I will respectfully disagree that it works without problems. Plus even when I program one vehicle waypoint path one Trigger:waypoint at a time I have had it refuse to follow those waypoints.  A simple path indicator like DCS and the old IL-2 would eliminate hours of frustration and headaches associated with what the vehicles will do in game. 😎 👍

 

Wheels

 

We can discuss it elsewhere...it's just a matter of knowing how to use the waypoints.

As you can probably guess I have just a bit of experience in this department.

 

You can PM me at the other forum if you want advise on the IL2 editor.

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

11 hours ago, wheelsup_cavu said:

When I program a path for the ground vehicles SHOW where it intends to go. The Great Battles AI trains and tanks seem to have no logic as to which roads and rail lines they intend to follow and you have no way of seeing it unless you go into the mission and watch them.  I do not mind placing multiple waypoints to get the results I want but I do want them to follow those waypoints after I place them and I want to see that waypoint path while I am in the FMB. 😎

It's quite simple really; the AI will take the shortest path, unless it's configured to go off-road in which case it'll drive straight towards the target. 🙂

11 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Yep

An FMB that scales is the key. Relatively simple to get into for a beginner, but with deep functionality for anyone who's capable of/has the desire to use it. 

The IL2 editor has qualities that I certainly would want to see again, as does the DCS editor. 

One key is a full set of triggers, some of which IL2 is sorely missing, (unit higher than/lower than) ability of non-related flights to follow/join up etc, and AI behavior/logic which functions alongside the editor functionality without constantly breaking.

So a user can write a simple sentence, or combing many sentences and paragraphs into a short story or novel.

 

A dead simple "anyone can use it with no effort" editor is not the answer...that would hurt the product in the long run. 

There has to be a balance.

Well said - although I recently found out that IL2 has a way to write custom scripts, then communicate back to the Mission Logic whatever you did using events. This makes at least some of the things IL2 is lacking possible (e.g. higher/lower).

It does require some programming skills however, isn't officially supported and has 0 documentation. If you want I can send you an example 🙂

Anyhow, IF it's possible to combine ease of use with deep functionality, then that's fine too of course, but personally I think two separate editors is the easier option.