Jump to content

Mission editor features request


Recommended Posts

I feel a bit curious why the editor is so low on the priority list of ED, while this subject has been identified by to community as one of the biggest weaknesses of the series since Flanker 2.0 days.

Some weeks ago Wags told us that editor improvements are out of the scope of the 1.2 addon. This statement has realy striken me hard and IMO tells much about the prioritys of the team. Lock On is now over 2 years old, we are going to see the second major addon with major improvements in the form of AFM, clickable cockpit technology, a flyable helo etc. There have been improvements to the deepest level of the sim. Still the editor and therefore the static and simple missions remain the same as 2 years ago. In my uneducated opinion there should have been enough time and resources to adress the editor, but obviously the issue hasn't been high enough on the list to be adressed.

 

As a mission designer and player I think Lock On suffers greatly from a lack of missions ( or mission designers ) and the slimm possibilitys of the editor. Even well designed missions tend to be sterile, static and repetetive. The replayability of Lock On should be top priority for ED IMO. Weapon AFM and realistic avionic modeling are great, but for what use are these things without a mission envoirement to utilse them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ThomasDWeiss

Exactly - and it is even worse considering that we are Eagle Dynamics core constituency.

 

Imagine how it would be had LO gone the way Jane's F/A-18 did with just one campaign included and about four campaigns created afterwards. Slow death.

 

The reason why I personally kept LO in my HD was that Mad Jeff, the owner of Biohaz invited me to upload missions there, if I didn't do that and from there went on to creating packs of missions to fly, I would have given up a long time.

 

Hopefully someone at ED will realize that perhaps now (emphasis on NOW) is the time to add a few features to the ME, because if they believe that they will keep this product alive with this labor-intensive, full of bugs hard to manage ME - they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant that human pilots can actually fly that position on their own, not that it can be set that way in the ME.

 

I don't understand, I observe the opposite. I can create that position in the ME, but I can't get any human players to fly it.

 

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully someone at ED will realize that perhaps now (emphasis on NOW) is the time to add a few features to the ME, because if they believe that they will keep this product alive with this labor-intensive, full of bugs hard to manage ME - they are wrong.

 

Agreed!

Dave "Hawg11" St. Jean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

A flight simulator is a very complex project. The only way to complete it is to divide it up into separate tasks for separate people.

 

If you haven't seen any changes to the mission editor since 2003, then it's a good bet that the programmer who created the mission editor left the company around 2003. No amount of crying can bring him back.

 

There is the possibility of getting someone else at ED, or someone entirely new, to pick up his work where it left off, but this has its own problems. Anyone with Falcon 4 AF experience knows that when you are modifying someone else's code, there are big limits to what you can and cannot do. It's an inefficient process because first you have to spend time to learn how that code works, before you can actually start to change it. This is less efficient than, say, spending your time creating your own all-new flyable helicopter with its own independent code.

 

Another problem is the possibility that while trying to improve one part of the old code, you'll somehow break another part. We saw this when some Flanker 1.5 features were absent from Flanker 2.0, and again when some Flanker 2.0 features were missing from Lock On. If you're going to take the risk of making changes and breaking working functions that somebody else wrote who is not there to fix, then you had better be sure it's worth the effort and risk.

 

Now, seriously. Does anyone here believe that if static objects are visible in the Mission Editor, then suddenly we will be able to make any mission, that we weren't able to make before? Nonsense. You guys just like making pretty arrangements of static objects, that's all. It's about making screenshots, not about making missions.

 

IMHO, the BSO fiasco is further proof that making missions by hand is a dead end anyway. Where is T-Bone in this discussion? Is he complaining about static objects? No. Why not ask him what the real obstacle was, interfering with his mission completion, before distracting ED from their work? He already told us:

 

"changes"

 

And here you all are, asking for more changes.

 

I agree that there are problems with the Mission Editor that need to be discussed and addressed, but I don't agree that this discussion is helping. It seems to be creating even more noise, heat and confusion about what needs to be done, in which real needs will get drowned out. Separate your "wishes" from your "needs", and it will be more worth ED's time to respond.

 

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, seriously. Does anyone here believe that if static objects are visible in the Mission Editor, then suddenly we will be able to make any mission, that we weren't able to make before? Nonsense. You guys just like making pretty arrangements of static objects, that's all. It's about making screenshots, not about making missions.

Doh !

 

LOCKON2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ThomasDWeiss

Needs ...

 

1. Random start up time: a start up time 10:xx with a xx being +1, +5, +10

2. Random start up X,Y,Z where X,Y,Z can be +1 km, +5 km, +10km, +20km

3. Option for AI: all AI excellent, good, ..., random

4. Option SHOW ALL

5. Option HIDE ALL

6. allow Player to fly any flyable fighter available to coalition

7. Option Random Weather

8. Option NOT to load any STATIC OBJECT NOT A TARGET for better FPS

 

I hope, I desire, suggest, request ... that has been done now since LO 1.01, maybe the guy who created ME is now working for someone else, but this need is already old news, people have been asking for this now for ages.

 

It is not like 'oh ...wow ... the ME galley-slaves are feeling uncomfortable with the toil' - I am flying a pack of my missions, and then slowly converting it to MP, it is getting tiresome to do it.

 

What I am asking for, everybody is.

 

Please, ask someone at ED to do it, at lest to look at this list.

 

Look how many were making missions two years ago and how few of us are left.

 

------

 

I believe that BSO ended as it did due to a wish to create heavily scripted scenarios that did not work from patch to patch. Perhaps they over-estimated what can and cannot be done with LO. Had they settled in a scenario style they would have avoided the problem.

 

What probably is ending the project is having to go thru with the ME and make it again compatible with 1.2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SwingKid, with improvements to the ME I meant the following:

 

1. Definable chance of appearance, "appearance boxes"

 

2. More goals/triggers: Survive(%), destroy(%), arrive(radius), land, dedect, drop ordenance(radius) etc.

 

3. Events: show custom text, play custom .wav file, change mission goal, change to alternate route, change ROE, change coalition, generate smoke mark(posit), generate laser mark(posit) etc.

 

4. Scripting language to put different triggers and events in relation to each other.

 

5. Infenite amount of coalitions with specific relations to each other ( hostile/neutral/friendly ).

 

 

These seem to be the most pressing features to give Lock On the longlifety it deserves. Of course the editor could use many of the mentioned cosmetic changes that would make the life easier for the mission designer, but the point above would directly affect the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

copy/paste in editor

 

up to 4 clients in single flight

 

yes, and visibility of objects for better placement!

 

that's just the simplies thing that we need

we don't ask now for triggers and scripting actions, but we did plenty of times.

doh!

mission editor friendliness is like pain you can't scratch

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ThomasDWeiss

mission editor friendliness is like pain you can't scratch

 

You see Swingkid - this is not just me who's asking , it is simply that the time has come for Eagle Dynamics to address this problem.

 

Two years with ZERO improvements led to this.

 

If I had to write a review of Black Shark , I would certainly mention the mission editor as a sore disapointement: the Mission Editor is now not an asset, but a hindrance to enjoy the sim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot save the debriefing result of a mission. Without this, no third-party DC can exist.

 

Can we agree on the above?

 

Actually a DC could exist with the current mp_log, but not the way you want it to be. Or I want it to be. As for SP, it can be played as a network game with the player as host with no clients connected in order to generate an mp_log file. But even with the limitations of lack of debrief information, the highest hurdle involved seems to be the automatic generation of the new mission based on the previous results.

 

For the people who are asking for objects to be visible in the ME, that must be conjunction with the map itself being correctly displayed. And then, if a mission is built with high scenes and played on someone's machine with medium scenes, or visa versa you still won't get the desired results sometimes.

 

There actually is a trigger system built into the ME now. But it only applies to failures and it is only based on time. If that was expanded, missions could be much more interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swing Kid and other ED people

 

Hi, not much post from me in the forubut this time I would like to give some comments about this particular discussion that leads to other ones.

 

Swing Kid you reply as if you feel people here is "atacking" ED or something. I don´t think that is the situation. The are some issues with LO that mus be solved, or AT LEAST treated. The ME is one of them, make it more "friendly" would be an improvement, at least as a start. Scripting, and other requested features would be graet, but let´s start ofr something at the least, do you agree? That is why the people here is requesting.

 

A flight sim is complex? sure it is! Im a programmer myself and I know... but people here is not only "fan" of LO, are customers... ED should, must, have to listen them, at least in my opinion. Their comments would help to improve the product, or aren´t we paying for LO?

 

The real issue I think it is people asking to improve some important details of the sim before going on with more addon´s and patches. ME is one, but what about with older ones? Remember the refuel basquet??? It is invisible since flanker 2.0 version... How is it posible that ED has not fix that till today?

 

ED is makeing a GREAT job with LOMAC, Im sure of this and that is why I bought it, but, let´s agree that ED may be is failing to adress some customers opinions/complains/requests

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a DC could exist with the current mp_log, but not the way you want it to be. Or I want it to be.

 

What do you mean?

 

Can you post an example mp_log for us? What's wrong with it? Does it require using .lua scripts?

 

But even with the limitations of lack of debrief information, the highest hurdle involved seems to be the automatic generation of the new mission based on the previous results.

 

IMHO no, I can write my own automatic mission generator. What I'm powerless to do, without ED's help, is to extract debriefing results.

 

For the people who are asking for objects to be visible in the ME, that must be conjunction with the map itself being correctly displayed. And then, if a mission is built with high scenes and played on someone's machine with medium scenes, or visa versa you still won't get the desired results sometimes.

 

Hmm, did you notice something wrong with the map display in ME?

I don't think the "Scenes" setting would have any effect on positioning of static objects... only fixed map buildings and trees.

 

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swing Kid you reply as if you feel people here is "atacking" ED or something.

 

No, that's not my issue, criticism is okay with me, I do it all the time. ;) My problem is one of democracy and triage.

 

i.e., what we have in this discussion is a family of twelve coming into the hospital all screaming to have the doctor immediately see their little girl who has a boo-boo on her finger, while a dying patient is lying outside and can't get in the doors because of the crowd. The family doesn't care that the other patient is dying and needs to see the doctor first, because that patient isn't their own little girl.

 

Without saved debriefings, any DC project is dead. D-E-A-D.

Never never never never never never never never never never.

 

Meanwhile, most of the other suggestions are just demanding more accessibility to things we already have.

 

Call it ego or whatever you want, I feel duty-bound to defend the dynamic campaign against those who would see it dead, by intention or by accident.

 

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dinamic campaign

 

Im 200% agree with you. But, dinamic campaign seems to be a much more dificult objetive to reach than fixeing the little details we still have.

I wonder how LO will have a dinamic campaign if we still don´t have a simple refuel basket in MP missions....

 

Don´t missunderstand me: a dinamic campaign would be something that would make me cry of happiness, but tell me, since you have a more "close" see to ED than me since you are a tester: do you really think a dinamic campaign will arise if ED still has not adress the other requests, much more simple to fix?

 

From a programmer point of view: how difficult could be to put some little checkings in the code to avoid a player to put a tank over a tree or a buk system in middle of a forest? Correct me if Im wrong please, but to introduce such a checking in the actual code, would be much easier than building new code for a dinamic campaign.

 

But, as I said before, I think the real issue are not te specific requests themselves, but ED not hearing and giveing answers to customers requests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the "Scenes" setting would have any effect on positioning of static objects... only fixed map buildings and trees.

 

Yes, but if an object is placed without seeing a tree that will be there later, problems arise. I've got a mission made with scenes on medium that, if played with scenes on high, the entire target group is hidden in a forest.

 

BTW, check your PMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im 200% agree with you. But, dinamic campaign seems to be a much more dificult objetive to reach than fixeing the little details we still have.

 

I'm programming a dynamic campaign for Lock On:

sw2a0p01.gif

 

Only, it doesn't work very well right now, because Lock On doesn't save mission debriefings. :(

 

So, I think a dynamic campaign would be very easy to have, at least from ED's point of view: they don't even have to program it!

All they need to do is copy the code for saving .cmp file debriefings (that already exists) to also record .mis file debriefings.

I think it's not much more difficult to transfer this Lock On code, than to draw static objects in the mission editor with Flanker code.

 

I wonder how LO will have a dinamic campaign if we still don?t have a simple refuel basket in MP missions....

 

The nice thing about a dynamic campaign is that it can run separately from Lock On, so - I can make it. The refuel basket, nobody can do it except ED.

 

Don?t missunderstand me: a dinamic campaign would be something that would make me cry of happiness, but tell me, since you have a more "close" see to ED than me since you are a tester: do you really think a dinamic campaign will arise if ED still has not adress the other requests, much more simple to fix?

 

I don't think the other issues are more simple to fix, I think the mission debriefing save is both the simplest and the most important, and yes I'm very sure that I'll make a dynamic campaign if they do it.

 

From a programmer point of view: how difficult could be to put some little checkings in the code to avoid a player to put a tank over a tree or a buk system in middle of a forest? Correct me if Im wrong please, but to introduce such a checking in the actual code, would be much easier than building new code for a dinamic campaign.

 

Well, I can make a dynamic campaign, but I don't know how to do what you're asking, so I think the dynamic campaign is easier at least for me.

 

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ThomasDWeiss

It will be interesting to see if anything comes out of our discussion.

 

If there is a topic that has been debated over and over again is this - and always we've been told that it is not going to happen, the ME will remain as it is.

 

The Mission Editor seems to be an untouchable part of LO that can't be improved in any way - we can't have a DC for many reasons but one I can add is that we don't have an ME to create a DC.

 

A powerful ME would be the stepping stone upon which a DC like yours could be built.

 

What galls me, is that we are trying to get the tools to create, for free, content for Lock On, which is an almost content-free game engine.

 

If past experience is a guide, two or three years from now we will have a Lock On 1.4 with ME 1.00.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If past experience is a guide, two or three years from now we will have a Lock On 1.4 with ME 1.00.

 

I don't think that will happen... Eagle has enough feedback from users, testers, and they know what features a good mission editor should have but the Lock On editor seems to have a lot of hard coding in it that can't be fixed or changed without a major rewrite which would take a lot of time and resourses. That time and those resourse seem to be better used, from what I gather, on patching, Flaming Cliffs, and finishing Black Shark.

 

The next completely new project from Eagle will have a much more robust mission editor because we will be demanding it right from the start! :)

 

I think if Swing Kid can get some help in the debriefing side to continue is campaign work it would be a big bonus for everyone.

 

Andrew... in multiplayer every action is recorded and saved from what I gather... aircraft, vehicles, ships, buildings, weapons, targets, kills, and hits. Maybe, as was suggested earlier in the thread you could use the MP log file and run the campaign as if it was over a network.

 

I'll see if I can get an MP log file for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If past experience is a guide, two or three years from now we will have a Lock On 1.4 with ME 1.00.

 

Past experience is a useful guide, but sometimes ED's beta testers try to drop you guys hints without violating their NDAs, that nobody seems to pick up on.

 

Do you really think that BSO would be cancelled, if the BSO testers didn't see any changes in v1.2?

 

The question is, whether the changes are for better, or worse...

 

Count how many non-beta-testers who didn't yet see v1.2 are here, asking for changes,

and how many beta testers who did see it (e.g. me, BSO team) are screaming about cancelled projects. ;) :(

 

Trust who you will...

 

Do you remember those guys before Lock On's release, who were screaming that "Russian avionics must be upgraded to Western aircraft avionics standards", before they saw what the standard of the Western avionics was?

 

And today, we have an "F-15 avionics wishlist"

 

Who was correct?

 

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it... ;)

 

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew... in multiplayer every action is recorded and saved from what I gather... aircraft, vehicles, ships, buildings, weapons, targets, kills, and hits. Maybe, as was suggested earlier in the thread you could use the MP log file and run the campaign as if it was over a network.

 

GOYA has sent me one to look at, but it looks like it was just from a furball, I can't tell - when it records that a building was destroyed, does it record which building? It apparently doesn't say whether it was a mission goal. Do you have an mp_log from an a2g mission?

 

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOYA has sent me one to look at, but it looks like it was just from a furball, I can't tell - when it records that a building was destroyed, does it record which building? It apparently doesn't say whether it was a mission goal. Do you have an mp_log from an a2g mission?

 

I'll try to make one right now... stby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...