Is ME usability taking another nosedive with the new Mig-29A?

[cfrag]

A fantastic new video from Wags (see here) shows us how the (as of now upcoming) Mig-29A is set up in Mission Editor for navigation. From what I've seen (my interpretation, I can be wildly wrong), setting up a player-controlled Fulcrum's route is non-standard, and breaks compatibility with all other units.

RIGHT NOW when we assign routes to units in ME, the procedure is simple and universally applied to all units (air, ground, naval): add waypoints, and it is understood that a unit follows all waypoints in sequential order. 

WITH THE FF FULCRUM it seems that - probably only for Fulcrums with Skill of Player or Client - this changes significantly: the first three waypoints placed in ME are now fed into the Nav System's "AD" store (AeroDromes, e.g. for diverts) while all other waypoints added are going to be accessible with the swith in "WP" position. The result is that a (player?) Fulcrum's route now always has to be set up with three divert AD points, and only then adds the "real" waypoints.

[EDIT: to be more precise, I do understand what Wags says at the 02:57 mark: "if you wanted to have six geographic waypoints you could set those aerodromes as geographic points not assigned to specific aerodromes, rather any geographic location. Just need to make sure that you have the switch in the AD position to access those". I'm at a loss to interpret what that means, and I think that this means that waypoints 1-3 as set in Mission Editor can be accessed as Waypoints as well, depending on the setting of the AD/WP switch - but it is not clear to me how this duality of WP interpretation works in what context, especially with AI aircraft. For the sake of this discussion I'm assuming (dangerous, I know) that WP 1-3 by default are treated as AD points, and WP 4-6 as waypoints for navigation. So if you want to navigate to WP 1 as assigned in ME, you'd switch to AD, then select '1'. Ugly enough. How does this apply to AI aircraft? If the waypoints 1-3 are stored as diverts, will an AI aircraft then directly fly from spawn-point to WP4, or do AI aircraft interpret waypoints differently?]

THIS IS INCREDIBLY POOR DESIGN

Why? A couple of points

• it breaks established procedure that a unit follows a route from first to last waypoint. Now, some units (Fulcrums) follow the route like this: from initial point they go to the FOURTH waypoint. It's not made clear in the tutorial, and I assume that this only holds true for player-controlled Fulcrums, not AI-controlled
• if there is a difference between how AI-controlled Fulcrums handle a route and player controlled do (player Fulcrums ignore waypoints 1-3), this further breaks usability, as the value of an attribute (Skill) changes route behavior.  
• it makes it more difficult for content creators to visually understand a mission. Remember that in ME all waypoints for all units are drawn and connected. If there are multiple player Fulcrums they all now show the divert points, with the routes criss-crossing the map.
• it requires that mission creators remember that the FF Fulrcum have non-standard route assignments, and they must know how to handle the "(player) FF Fulcrum case" (the first three waypoints are special). If AI and player units handle routes differently, creators must also remember this correctly.
• it works against (and destroys) established practice from experienced content creators when they create complex, multiplayer missions that provide slots for multiple player types. Let's look at "Foothold" or "Pretense" as exampls: established procedure is to first place a player aircraft, set up the route, and then copy-paste unit with route. Then, we change the pasted unit's type to a new aircraft. The new units inherits the old route and all is well. This breaks for FF Fulcrums, requiring additional steps - if the content creator remembers that Fulcrums behave differently
• route scripts that process a unit's route for any purpose (there are lots of them: visualizing a unit's path, automatically providing info about the route, automatically placing units along the route etc.) now could break functionality for FF Fulcrums
• breaking the sequential logic of a linear route depending on a units/skill is incredibly bad design, as it requires additional coding and is not backward compatible
• DCS's own 'save state' (which, admittedly, is still nowhere) will have to compensate for this design flaw, and the code will have to check for type and skill, and provide extra code to preserve the AP states
• it can be a source for errors. AP points can be anything, there is no validation built into ME that the first three points in a FF Fulcrum are airfields. 

A BETTER DESIGN, more in line with established ME procedures would be:
If a mission creator edits a FF Fulcrum, they can enter AD info from the "Aircraft Additional Properties" tab. This FF Fulcrum specific tab can hold three AD locations AD1, AD2 and AD 3 which can be set to any airfield in the map by means of selecting that airfield from a drop-down. [Edit: if it is important that AP can also be assigned as any geographical point, this ability could be added via trigger zones: An optional secondary drop-down menu allows mission creators to choose any existing trigger zone's center as geo point. I regard such an approach as klutzily and still at LOT better UX-wise than re-purposing ME waypoints.]

Perhaps something like this:

All route waypoints now are treated just like route waypoints created for any other unit, WP1-3 are no longer dual-purpose in ME.

I think that the current design smacks of a "let's be low-effort and re-purpose existing data, and to hell with possible consequences for users" attitude that reflects poorly on ED's dev team. The current design creates more problems for everyone else down the line and is one of the main reasons why I'm so worried about DCS's future; why I no longer feel encouraged to contribute. What we have here is a brand new, for-profit module that reveals significant integration design flaws. That to me shows that too little thought has gone into game integration. This is not a good trend, and further confirms my unease about DCS's future.
 

Edited 2 hours ago by cfrag

[okopanja]

21 minutes ago, cfrag said:

if there is a difference between how AI-controlled Fulcrums handle a route and player controlled do (player Fulcrums ignore waypoints 1-3), this further breaks usability, as the value of an attribute (Skill) changes route behavior.  

Clearly the same principle applied to AI: 

 

22 minutes ago, cfrag said:

breaking the sequential logic of a linear route depending on a units/skill is incredibly bad design, as it requires additional coding and is not backward compatible

Clearly, the design is non sequential in IRL airplane. While you may use the flight plan and go sequentially on a pre-planned path. Actual flight plan is shaped by what is going on in the air.

[okopanja]

Also a content creator for Mig-29 9.12 should know the technical details before creating content in the first place. 

If not, better stick to FC3 29.