Mission Builder request!

[Majakowski]

@ÆþelrædUnræd

I did not say, the Il2 ME was deliberately bad but that creating one that is for the sake of keeping certain people out, would be unnecessarily cruel.

I know what can be done in the Il2 mission builder and am not opposed to a certain complexity or even using a sript or programming language tonget things done, I scripted in Operation Flashpoint back in the day and I had much fun with it.

But if it must be complex and rudimentary in what can be done with relative ease, then at least it should provide for some of the most basic features, that other editors in the industry are doing for ages.

I happily work with the MCU system of the Il2 ME but then it should be implemented in a way that isn't like trying to build a staircase out of matches when others have boards and bricks available. I have not said, that the functionality should be limited for sake of ease but rather that the functions should be streamlined into as less hassle as possible. Why not add a native probability or placement radius option to a spawn or waypoint in addition to timers and other MCUs that could also provide such a functionality if one chooses?

Also the Il2 1946 editor has shortcomings in that you can't easily build convois. But all those are things that could finally be ironed out by combining the strengths of these things while avoiding the errors made in them.

[Gambit21]

16 minutes ago, HerrMurf said:

Non-techie here. The only thing I’d request for a QMB is to be able to program 4 AC x 6 flights, for twenty four  a side, and two separate altitudes. For example 20 bombers at 20k and 4 fighters as cover at 24k or 16 attackers and  8 cover AC. Opposing up to 24 AC on the other side. ‘46 was good at 16 per. BoX left a lot to be desired in the QMB. I’ll let those more skilled than me program big involved missions an an FMB.

Yep...actually just don't put a limit on the numbers, or make the limit much larger. I think a QMB is essential.

 

One of the great things about the IL2 MCU system is that once you know the language you can look at your map and visually decipher what's going on and troubleshoot etc.

You can't do that in DCS...it's all text, and trying to forensically bug-hunt in that environment is a nightmare until you're accustomed to it...but it's always more difficult. 

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

4 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

@ÆþelrædUnræd

I did not say, the Il2 ME was deliberately bad but that creating one that is for the sake of keeping certain people out, would be unnecessarily cruel.

I know what can be done in the Il2 mission builder and am not opposed to a certain complexity or even using a sript or programming language tonget things done, I scripted in Operation Flashpoint back in the day and I had much fun with it.

But if it must be complex and rudimentary in what can be done with relative ease, then at least it should provide for some of the most basic features, that other editors in the industry are doing for ages.

I happily work with the MCU system of the Il2 ME but then it should be implemented in a way that isn't like trying to build a staircase out of matches when others have boards and bricks available. I have not said, that the functionality should be limited for sake of ease but rather that the functions should be streamlined into as less hassle as possible. Why not add a native probability or placement radius option to a spawn or waypoint in addition to timers and other MCUs that could also provide such a functionality if one chooses?

Also the Il2 1946 editor has shortcomings in that you can't easily build convois. But all those are things that could finally be ironed out by combining the strengths of these things while avoiding the errors made in them.

Phrased like this, I can agree with it a lot more 🙂

Of course, deliberately making an editor difficult to use to keep people out would be wrong. But I don't think anyone's advocating that. What I'm saying is that the converse, deliberately dumbing down a mission editor to keep everyone in, is equally wrong.

I hope whatever mission editor they come up with will be streamlined as much as possible, but I'm sceptical about how well a powerful editor can be combined with one that's easy to use. That's why I'm thinking along the lines of two separate editors.

51 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

The other is a full blown mission editor or perhaps an SDK in combination with a graphical "level designer", because for me it might as well be a programming environment that is used as tool. Drawing lines and double clicking on small icons is not the most efficient way to create complex, event driven missions.

The thought of being able to write simple custom scripts in-editor and well integrated with its graphical level is making me drool.

🤤

There, see?

[Jason_Williams]

We plan to have an easy to use and flexible mission builder built into the GUI. How complex and how it works is simply too far down the line to say much more. I fully understand the issues surrounding other solutions out there and what users like and don't like. We will strive to have a good solution for Combat Pilot.

Jason

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

 But I don't think anyone's advocating that. What I'm saying is that the converse, deliberately dumbing down a mission editor to keep everyone in, is equally wrong.

Absolutely...and you just end up with a sea of mediocre content anyway.

 

4 minutes ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

I hope whatever mission editor they come up with will be streamlined as much as possible, but I'm sceptical about how well a powerful editor can be combined with one that's easy to use. That's why I'm thinking along the lines of two separate editors.

The DCS editor as a good example. Most think it's "easy" but they're only building very simple missions. Once you get into a complex build then if anything it's more complex than the IL2 editor...(in some ways) Really depends on what you're doing. 

4 minutes ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

The thought of being able to write simple custom scripts in-editor and well integrated with its graphical level is making me drool.

🤤

There, see?

Yes! The trouble with scripts though is that they tend to break as the product develops, thus increasing the maintenance burden. 

Useful, yes and a great tool. I tend to stay away from them except in special circumstances. Now if there was some sort of graphical "flag" in the UI that told you a script was no longer functioning properly, then I'd be more likely to use them. Otherwise it's another thing to pull hair out over trying and trouble shoot later. Unless you're a LUA guy...which I'm not. I have to borrow a script from someone, past it in, and hope it doesn't break. 🙂

[Majakowski]

@ÆþelrædUnræd

Then I misunderstood your post, sorry for that. Also I did not advocate for dumbing down an editor, just for rearranging some functionalities to come around more intuitively. I am always for maximum functionality but also for ergonomic usability. It shouldn't be a chore.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Majakowski

[Lusekofte]

I will not sweat over a list right now of what they should make. 
It is way too early, I imagine they are still on the basic. And after all the bickering in GB site Jason knows what we would like to have, E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G

what is economical and possible to do depend on money and time. The game itself demand pretty much. Let them breathe

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

Phrased like this, I can agree with it a lot more 🙂

Of course, deliberately making an editor difficult to use to keep people out would be wrong. But I don't think anyone's advocating that. What I'm saying is that the converse, deliberately dumbing down a mission editor to keep everyone in, is equally wrong.

I hope whatever mission editor they come up with will be streamlined as much as possible, but I'm sceptical about how well a powerful editor can be combined with one that's easy to use. That's why I'm thinking along the lines of two separate editors.

The thought of being able to write simple custom scripts in-editor and well integrated with its graphical level is making me drool.

🤤

There, see?

Did u ever tried any other mission editors beside old il2, il2GB and dcs?

Why does it have to be one way or the other, why cant it be all in one or brand new improved design..... that is just narrow thinking. 

In Arma3 editor u can make simple mission in 20 seconds as beginner and hit play, or u can do more complex missions and campaigns than il2 or dcs ever had with the same editor inside the game....editor with good UI.

 

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, Ribbon said:

Did u ever tried any other mission editors beside old il2, il2GB and dcs?

Why does it have to be one way or the other, why cant it be all in one or brand new improved design..... that is just narrow thinking. 

In Arma3 editor u can make simple mission in 20 seconds as beginner and hit play, or u can do more complex missions and campaigns than il2 or dcs ever had with the same editor inside the game....editor with good UI.

 

Yes it’s simple - it’s also remedial and simplistic. It’s a Crayola box of 8, while the IL2 and DCS editors are an artists pallet of almost endless colors. It’s like comparing the old, original, ‘easy to use’ Microsoft Paint to the (yes more difficult to learn) but much more capable Photoshop.

Anyone claiming “more complex than IL2 or DCS ever had” has not spent any time learning about just how deep either or both editors go, or about the actual logic being layered by the more accomplished mission designers. (That’s leaving me out of it btw)

Just look at trigger types, conditions, outputs, triggered actions, variable flag conditions…etc etc in DCS. The Arma editor is not in the same class and no offense, irrelevant to a hard core flight sim editor discussion. Want to talk QMB? Fine in that regard it’s more relevant but even then, a QMB must be more simple even than the Arma editor.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Gambit21

[Ribbon]

23 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Yes it’s simple - it’s also remedial and simplistic. It’s a Crayola box of 8, while the IL2 and DCS editors are an artists pallet of almost endless colors. It’s like comparing the old, original, ‘easy to use’ Microsoft Paint to the (yes more difficult to learn) but much more capable Photoshop.

Anyone claiming “more complex than IL2 or DCS ever had” has not spent any time learning about just how deep either or both editors go, or about the actual logic being layered by the more accomplishes mission designers. (That’s leaving me out of it btw)

Just look at trigger types, conditions, outputs, triggered actions, variable flag conditions…etc etc in DCS. The Arma editor is not in the same class and no offense, irrelevant to a hard core flight sim editor discussion. Want to talk QMB? Fine in that regard it’s more relevant but even then, a QMB must be more simple even than the Arma editor.

 

 

 

 

Did u ever use Arma3 eden editor in depth or even played campaigns from community?

Seems not, cos they are way above anything dcs and il2 ever offered in complexity, maybe cos of gameplay type but that says it all....from scripting animations to everything else....

I opened il2BG editor and started, whem seen the mess of UI i didnt want to bother further so i can not say how complex it is other than from missions u guys created and sorry, no offense but those are not on the arma level of complexity and gameplay. Results are what matters!

[PA_Keko]

Yes I agree, we need some good mission builder. In our virtual Squad ( and with others squad ) we fly Coop campaigns and we try to recreate a historical air battles. I believe had appropriate Mission Builder will make a lot to many Virtual Squad in their activities.  

[Gambit21]

27 minutes ago, Ribbon said:

Did u ever use Arma3 eden editor in depth or even played campaigns from community?

Seems not, cos they are way above anything dcs and il2 ever offered in complexity, maybe cos of gameplay type but that says it all....from scripting animations to everything else....

I opened il2BG editor and started, whem seen the mess of UI i didnt want to bother further so i can not say how complex it is other than from missions u guys created and sorry, no offense but those are not on the arma level of complexity and gameplay. Results are what matters!

Research the trigger options/conditions/logic layering capability etc. 🙂 Yes I looked into Arma a long time ago after seeing a number of posts like yours.

No comparison in capability.

If you want to look at any specific official, 3rd party campaign and tell me, IN DETAIL, using specific logic/examples, how it would have been better using Arma’s simplistic editor, please do. 
 

Edit: In fact, pick the Reflected campaign of your choice, or Hell Hawks. Compare and contrast results obtained with the DCS or IL2 editor vs what would have been obtained with the Arma editor.

Go…

Edited May 22, 2023 by Gambit21

[Stick]

6 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

We plan to have an easy to use and flexible mission builder built into the GUI. How complex and how it works is simply too far down the line to say much more. I fully understand the issues surrounding other solutions out there and what users like and don't like. We will strive to have a good solution for Combat Pilot.

Jason

I used to design fairly complex (considering the year) historical coop missions in IL-2 FB.  IMO, the more people designing missions, the better.  Not familiar with many mission editors but the mission editor in "the product that must not be named" was a bloody mess except to very few.

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Research the trigger options/conditions/logic layering capability etc. 🙂 Yes I looked into Arma a long time ago after seeing a number of posts like yours.

No comparison in capability.

If you want to look at any specific official, 3rd party campaign and tell me, IN DETAIL, using specific logic/examples, how it would have been better using Arma’s simplistic editor, please do. 
 

Edit: In fact, pick the Reflected campaign of your choice, or Hell Hawks. Compare and contrast results obtained with the DCS or IL2 editor vs what would have been obtained with the Arma editor.

Go…

Did you research all the fields in for example trigger, you know you can insert game base codes in its condition/activation/on deactivation...timers, effects, transformation...basically coding the editor.

You can do that (insert code and values) for most of the editor functions which makes it way more complex than it seems on first sight.

But since im not familiar with il2 and dcs editors i just reffer to results(campaigns and missions) and Arma ones seems way more complex and higher level than il2/dcs, offering a lot more gameplay variety plus animations....maybe cos of content and gamestyle, or mission style idk.

To repeat myself, dont take any of this as offense, i like your a20 campaign.😉

And to my initial post, to make editor UI friendly for beginners and yet powerful enough for advanced users...and make it in 3d interaction within/inside game so u can easily and faster test it.

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Ribbon

[Gambit21]

12 minutes ago, Ribbon said:

Did you research all the fields in for example trigger, you know you can insert game base codes in its condition/activation/on deactivation...timers, effects, transformation...basically coding the editor.

You can do that (insert code and values) for most of the editor functions which makes it way more complex than it seems on first sight.

But since im not familiar with il2 and dcs editors i just reffer to results(campaigns and missions) and Arma ones seems way more complex and higher level than il2/dcs, offering a lot more gameplay variety plus animations....maybe cos of content and gamestyle, or mission style idk.

To repeat myself, dont take any of this as offense, i like your a20 campaign.😉

And to my initial post, to make editor UI friendly for beginners and yet powerful enough for advanced users...and make it in 3d interaction within/inside game so u can easily and faster test it.

 

I get it.

I just think we have to careful about assigning “better” results to a simpler piece of software. To be clear, I’m a fan of keeping logic simple 95% of the time even though I have more complex functionality at my fingertips.

Scaleability is key. Have an easy to grasp interface, simple tools on the surface, with the ability to dive deeper if you wish. 
I really think an editor that takes the best from all worlds is possible.

That said, I think those who suggest 2 versions, a “QMB” and a full editor are on the money.

 

 

 

 

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

5 hours ago, Ribbon said:

Did u ever tried any other mission editors beside old il2, il2GB and dcs?

Why does it have to be one way or the other, why cant it be all in one or brand new improved design..... that is just narrow thinking. 

In Arma3 editor u can make simple mission in 20 seconds as beginner and hit play, or u can do more complex missions and campaigns than il2 or dcs ever had with the same editor inside the game....editor with good UI.

Yes, I've tried many mission editors in many different games across various genres. I haven't used Arma3 or its editor, so I won't make any comments on it as it isn't relevant anyhow. It's a wildly different game/genre, and most importantly, based on SteamDB estimates, it's got more than 20 times the sales figure.

And that right there is one of the main reasons it's unlikely we'll see "all in one" or "brand new improved design": budget. Creating a complex editor can take as much resources as developing a small game. My thinking may be narrow, but at least it's realistic.

 

That said, I do think some solution will be found eventually 🙂

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

Yes, I've tried many mission editors in many different games across various genres. I haven't used Arma3 or its editor, so I won't make any comments on it as it isn't relevant anyhow. It's a wildly different game/genre, and most importantly, based on SteamDB estimates, it's got more than 20 times the sales figure.

 

 🙂

What has game genre has to do with m.editor, its a milsim sandbox with playable planes, helis, tanks, boats and infantry with quite similar ME functions and logic...as u said u didnt tried game let alone editor so how can you know is it relevant or not. One thing you are right, they have the budget.

You guys are a bit touchy about it, there are other who would like to use editor with better organized UI...

Edited May 23, 2023 by Ribbon

[Gambit21]

11 minutes ago, Ribbon said:

You guys are a bit touchy about it, you know there are others that would like to use editor without spending hours on its messy UI. You'll still be important members of this community😉

lol...that's not it.  🙂

The point I think is that with power, comes some degree complexity, and thus some degree of "non user-friendliness"....and that's OK.

All 3D programs have a "messy " UI, but that's because of the massive number of tools available...no way around it. Simpler interface/fewer tools...that's just how it works.

 

The DCS editor is a great example of an editor that mostly strikes a good balance in most ways, but needs a few things (borrowed from IL2) to put it over the top.

Namely graphical representation of logic on the map (as an option to be visible or not) and the ability to cut and paste logic...the ability to assign logic to more than one aircraft simply by select/shift-click, etc. 

 

[Ribbon]

30 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

lol...that's not it.  🙂

The point I think is that with power, comes some degree complexity, and thus some degree of "non user-friendliness"....and that's OK.

All 3D programs have a "messy " UI, but that's because of the massive number of tools available...no way around it. Simpler interface/fewer tools...that's just how it works.

 

The DCS editor is a great example of an editor that mostly strikes a good balance in most ways, but needs a few things (borrowed from IL2) to put it over the top.

Namely graphical representation of logic on the map (as an option to be visible or not) and the ability to cut and paste logic...the ability to assign logic to more than one aircraft simply by select/shift-click, etc. 

 

Nope, messy UI is messy UI, doesnt have anything with complexity, well organized editor can have endless tools/complexity yet be well organized with good UI.

I dont see point discussing further since you wont give up cos it is your personal work/hobby involved...hence being touchy about it

Edited May 23, 2023 by Ribbon

[Gambit21]

11 minutes ago, Ribbon said:

Nope, messy UI is messy UI, doesnt have anything with complexity, well organized editor can have endless tools/complexity yet be well organized with good UI.

I dont see point discussing further since you wont give up cos it is your personal work/hobby involved...hence being touchy about it

I guess I mean "complex" not messy.

Yes it is my work.. but not a big deal...that just means I know more than you. 😜

 

(said with tongue firmly in cheek by the way)

 

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Gambit21

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

44 minutes ago, Ribbon said:

You guys are a bit touchy about it, there are other who would like to use editor with better organized UI...

If I sound a bit touchy about it, it's not because I don't respect dissenting opinions, but because those dissenting opinions address none of the arguments I bring forward to support my viewpoint. It feels like I have to keep repeating myself - if you want to know my viewpoint about a "better organized UI" you can read it in many of my posts above.

If you want to have an in-depth and mature discussion in which you actually address the issues Gambit and I bring up like budget and inherent complexity, as well as support your own viewpoint with actual arguments yourself, I'm happy to continue. If instead you prefer to debate without addressing any of my arguments but rather throw around accusations of narrow viewpoints and touchiness, then I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness.

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

If I sound a bit touchy about it, it's not because I don't respect dissenting opinions, but because those dissenting opinions address none of the arguments I bring forward to support my viewpoint. It feels like I have to keep repeating myself - if you want to know my viewpoint about a "better organized UI" you can read it in many of my posts above.

If you want to have an in-depth and mature discussion in which you actually address the issues Gambit and I bring up like budget and inherent complexity, as well as support your own viewpoint with actual arguments yourself, I'm happy to continue. If instead you prefer to debate without addressing any of my arguments but rather throw around accusations of narrow viewpoints and touchiness, then I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness.

Well said.

[Ribbon]

1 minute ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

If I sound a bit touchy about it, it's not because I don't respect dissenting opinions, but because those dissenting opinions address none of the arguments I bring forward to support my viewpoint. It feels like I have to keep repeating myself - if you want to know my viewpoint about a "better organized UI" you can read it in many of my posts above.

If you want to have an in-depth and mature discussion in which you actually address the issues Gambit and I bring up like budget and inherent complexity, as well as support your own viewpoint with actual arguments yourself, I'm happy to continue. If instead you prefer to debate without addressing any of my arguments but rather throw around accusations of narrow viewpoints and touchiness, then I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness.

I did bring valid arguments, and your arguments were about game u even didnt tried let alone its editor. Why i replied.....cos u two guys seems want to keep messy UI keeping other from using it, as u posted in post before....to keep and filter only "quality" content available online, ....that is quite selfish.

And yes no point discussing further, have a nice day/evening 🍻

[Jade_Monkey]

+1

[IckyAtlas]

15 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

One of the great things about the IL2 MCU system is that once you know the language you can look at your map and visually decipher what's going on and troubleshoot etc.

I totally agree. There must also be a self defined discipline on how you group things and how you name the objects. If you set a well defined and logical naming structure and have groups organized as building blocks that have a given function, then the full visual power of the Editor becomes visible, and the visual debugging even quicker. 

I will give a short simple example. If you have a Trigger Counter you can name it according to what it is for and at the end of the name I add the counter value when it is more than 1. This has a small shortcoming, that is when you change the counter value you must also change the counter value in the name. Again a problem of rigor and discipline. But it is extremely useful when debugging as you can immediately see how many target links go to it and the number in the name (without the need to open the Properties of the MCU, and so see visually immediately if there is a problem. The same for the Timer. I have a naming that is as an example "Timer 1sec" and reflects what is in the time parameter. 

Same with another example like the MCU's Delete, Activate, Deactivate,  etc. In the naming you have as an example Delete and then followed by what you delete. And the text of what you delete is the same of the one that names the object that will be deleted. It may seem verbose, but when looking visually to the map in a decluttered way you see quickly if it is correct and then check if the link does correspond. The limitation I found in this method is that the text length that is displayed is not long enough sometimes and I would have liked that text length gets not limited or like 64 chars at least. In this way you have your code in a very readable way

By the way regarding the naming and the text I added another point in my list 🙂