Mission Builder request!

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

4 hours ago, IckyAtlas said:

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 🙂 

Absolutely! Naming and grouping things is a must-have. Which leads me to another point you should add to your list: the ability to group objects as well as define inputs and outputs for messages to/from an object inside the group. Groups are a great way to keep things clear, but linking to an object inside a group (or the other way around) is a major hassle that keeps me from using groups more often. A bit stupid they didn't implement it really, since the basic functionality already exists and is used inside the mission templates for campaigns (the various Helper MCUs).

 

9 hours ago, Ribbon said:

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 🍻

I have no interest in further prolonging this useless discussion, but I do ask you to please refrain from spreading blatant lies. None of us have ever said we want to keep other people from using the editor. In fact I've stated the opposite multiple times already! Either you didn't read my posts well, or you don't comprehend them. If you don't comprehend them, I'll gladly explain them to you in simpler English, but stop putting words in my mouth I never said!

Less importantly, neither of us ever used Arma or its editor as any argument; it was you who brought the game up in the first place.

[Ribbon]

20 hours ago, Majakowski said:

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.

Thats it, to drag ppl into it and to do that start using editor needs to be somewhat fun not repulsive.

The more ppl use editor there will be more content with differend mission design and imagination, if u have only few dragged into it, no matter how experienced with editor they are if they lack mission design imagination you'll again end up with "limited" content. It can backfire two ways.

[Moro]

Lo que yo pienso.

El editor del IL2-ROF en su interfaz es estéril, le faltan cosas que debería tener, pero eso ya se habló y pidió en este mismo hilo.

La curva de aprendizaje de este está supeditada a nuestra propia capacidad, ya sea arma o ME, todo depende de nosotros.

El sistema de uniones de los MCU, para mi es espectacular, y no dista mucho de lo que tiene motores de videos juegos más populares con sus sistemas de BluePrints, que se crearon con la intención de que no solo programadores pudieran crear lógica.

El sistema de grupos es fundamental o en su defecto poder usar capas como se nombró anteriormente.

En lo personal y entendiendo mis limitaciones me gustaría que los archivos de misión sean mas simple de comprender, para poder modificarlo desde afuera según necesidades de la campaña (se que algunos de ustedes lo han logrado, yo todavía no “limite jaja”).

Y el log de la misión también, sencillo, quizás si mas como el viejo Il2

 

 

*/**/**/*/*/*/*/google translate*-*-*-*-*-**-*-*-

What I think.
The IL2-ROF editor in its interface is sterile, it is missing things that it should have, but that has already been discussed and requested in this same thread.
The learning curve of this is subject to our own ability, whether it is a Arma or ME, it all depends on us.
The MCU union system, for me, is spectacular, and it's not far from what the most popular video game engines have with their BluePrints systems, which were created with the intention that not only programmers could create logic.
The group system is fundamental or, failing that, to be able to use layers as previously named.
Personally, and understanding my limitations, I would like the mission files to be easier to understand, so that I can modify them from the outside according to the needs of the campaign (I know some of you have achieved it, I still have not "limited haha").
And the mission log too, simple, maybe more like the old Il2

[Habu]

I hope that objects which spawn can move like a group, and receive formation commands, and any order like a group of planes that is activated.

[Obelix]

I do agree!

[Jeeves]

On 5/19/2023 at 12:17 PM, SYN_Vander said:

Just finished building a mission in GB and one requirement stands out for me: What You See is What You Get. So if you change a setting such as skin, code etc you should be able to see and verify the result in the editor OR be able to very quickly test the mission from inside the editor.

Orherwise mission building is a pain as you will constantly have to start up the game and find that you have missed something small.

Absolutely agree. A way to test/verify skins, codes, links and commands in the editor without opening the game and running the mission would be a huge time saver. For example, will these planes taxi and takeoff as ordered?  Maybe I could watch it happen in the editor, or get a report of the sequence of events that will occur as a result of my commands. 

[Hetstaine]

On 5/23/2023 at 1:11 AM, 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

That's all i need to hear and surely what most want, easy+flexible. Sounds great 🙂

[IckyAtlas]

21 hours ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

the ability to group objects as well as define inputs and outputs for messages to/from an object inside the group

With the present IL2 Editor you can do this for Object/Target links only. Event links are unfortunately not well managed and can be created only one by one. This could be improved. You have to use the Search and Select / Find Mission Objects tool. This is a very very very powerful tool and in combination with the Mission Tree you can optimize and work more quickly.

This tool allows to work across groups nested groups, and you can link objects inside different groups. But you need to have some steps.

The naming convention must be clear and logical to be able to use the Find Mission Objects tool.

Example: We are in a very complex mission with hundreds or thousands of MCU's, objects of all kinds etc. Let's say that you have 100 objects inside 10 different groups or even sub-groups and you want all of them to be Target linked or Object linked to one object that is himself inside another separate subgroup of a group. 

Step 1): First you use the Find Mission Objects and check the following Double-Click Results options: Move Camera to Object and Select in Mission Tree. Search your object by using the name, number, type etc. Once you have it in the list, double click on it. It will appear in the mission tree but will not be selected (important) and you will also see it on the center of your map. Zoom the map so you can clearly see it but as I said do not select it and do not click on the map otherwise the whole process is cancelled.

Step 2): Use again the Find Mission Object and list the 50 objects that will be Target linked again using a proper name that will have them all listed, and using the right checkboxes according to the type. If they are all in the list then you select them (classic way with click to select then shift click at the bottom of the list, or ctrl click if they are in different places in a larger list) and you click the button Add to Selection Objects Selected in Found List. Once this is done close the Find Mission Object window.

Step 3): Now all the 50 objects are selected and stay select in the internal selected list. Your cursor arrow must be displayed on the map, anywhere but on the map, then press Shift-T or Shift-O and you will have written on your cursor arrow Target or Object.

Step 4): Go on the mission tree and right-click on the name of the group (this can be a nested group doesn't matter) and click Set Group as Working  which will activate the objects in that group and make them linkable.

Step 5): Final step. Move the cursor arrow onto the object on the map and click on it. You will have the 100 arrows in one shot connected to this object. 

Once you are used to this it is done extremely quickly and these five steps are not an issue. But I agree it could be done in a shorter way with a dedicated function. I added a point in my list 🙂 

Edited May 24, 2023 by IckyAtlas

[wheelsup_cavu]

I can work with metric and standard values quite readily but would you PLEASE revert back to using X as East-West coordinates, Y as North-South coordinates, and Z for elevation/altitude on the maps.

 

Wheels