Mission Editor Features Request Wishlist

[Fishbreath]

When you are in the mission editor and set an object 'hidden' on map, it would help if it was not only available as visualy removed, but perhaps an option or function to only fade it out in the editor to get a better overview of the tactical situation. Editing will also be somewhat less of a search.

 

This request is a year old, but it would be really, really handy, especially since hide/unhide for threats controls their appearance on the ABRIS.

 

I'd also like a way to place a fake unit--something that isn't a real object, but which would show up on the ABRIS and the F10 map, so I can say 'there's a threat around here' without saying 'the threat is right here'.

[Xeno426]

This request is a year old, but it would be really, really handy, especially since hide/unhide for threats controls their appearance on the ABRIS.

 

I'd also like a way to place a fake unit--something that isn't a real object, but which would show up on the ABRIS and the F10 map, so I can say 'there's a threat around here' without saying 'the threat is right here'.

+1. It should only disappear on the map of players, not the mission designer.

[Fishbreath]

In addition to an option to show hidden units in the editor and a way to make a unit invisible from the cockpit but not invisible from the F10 map or the ABRIS, I would very much like a way to mark a waypoint as a target for the Su-25T. (See research into the mission feature in this thread).

 

According to posters there, it was possible to mark a waypoint as a target for the Su-25T in the Flaming Cliffs 2 editor, which would cause it to show up on the HUD as a diamond in air-to-ground mode. Having this feature available would be a huge quality of life improvement for the Frogfoot, and the code is likely already knocking around somewhere, given that it's a former feature we're now missing

Edited August 12, 2013 by Fishbreath

[HiJack]

"Hidden on map" checkbox for the Bullseye symbol in mission editor.

[VapoR]

I would love to see a feature where the ME would not let you place units on ground that is too steep. Something like if the ground is steeper than X degrees, then the ME would either "snap" the unit to flatter ground or would maybe have a big red X over the unit unit you move it to a good place. This would make unit placement SO much easier as the #1 reason I have that something is in a bad spot is just due to being on a very steep hill.

 

Edit: There could also be differences between units--tracked vs wheeled and infantry units for example.

[Flagrum]

I would love to see a feature where the ME would not let you place units on ground that is too steep. Something like if the ground is steeper than X degrees, then the ME would either "snap" the unit to flatter ground or would maybe have a big red X over the unit unit you move it to a good place. This would make unit placement SO much easier as the #1 reason I have that something is in a bad spot is just due to being on a very steep hill.

 

Edit: There could also be differences between units--tracked vs wheeled and infantry units for example.

Isnt that already implemented (in some way)? At least I can remember I had once problems placing a FARP. The ME moved it always somewhere else but not where I wanted it. Then I realized that I tried to place it on a hill side and the ME was automatical moving it to an area with flat ground.

 

Makes sense for an object of that size. But you want that feature also for moving units?

[VapoR]

Makes sense for an object of that size. But you want that feature also for moving units?

 

Yes, exactly. You should not be able to place a tank on the side of a cliff.

[K2mil]

Regarding mission editor.

 

I wish while picking vehicles from drop down list there would be a small thumbnail picture of particular unit. It would make it easier for new comers with building their first missions.

 

Also random dynamic weather

[jbrking]

had a few ideas

 

1. airborne unit or part airborne coalition inside zone trigger.

2. being able to see placed static objects on the map such as buildings so you can see how they will look in the game without having to go in and out of the game.

3. triggers to allow clients to take control of uncontrolled planes on the taxiway. or the option to have clients planes already on the taxiway and perhaps the mission option in the briefing disappears and it is no longer flyable when destroyed? (this way the resource is already used up) also planes could be destroyed in their respective hangers also to the same effect)

4. more triggers in general, more random triggers so people don't have to learn lua just to make a half decent mission. how about a trigger that does 1 of 6 different things? and maybe if you could set the individual % chance on which of these 6 events that could occur?

5. destructible map objects or the means to make map objects destructible such as bridges.

 

i'm sure some of this stuff could probably be done with scripting,lua or a mod of some kind but id prefer it if they just added the extra triggers.

 

thanks..

[jbrking]

Someone must have mentioned this already but a quick use of the search button was inconclusive, so here it is in any case:

 

I'd love some kind of new logic that assigns unit names systematically.

 

When you create new units, you get "New Vehicle Group" and it contains "unit #1, 2, 3," etc. This can make it confusing in the debriefings or when creating triggers, since a name like "unit #62" doesn't really mean anything on its own.

Right now, I immediately go in and change all the names to something more descriptive, like:

 

RED Tanks 01

RED Tanks 01 1

RED Tanks 01 2

RED Tanks 01 3

RED Tanks 01 4

RED Tanks 02

RED Tanks 02 1

RED Tanks 02 2

RED Tanks 02 3

RED Tanks 02 4

RED IFVs 01

RED IFVs 01 1

RED IFVs 01 2

RED IFVs 01 3

RED IFVs 01 4

RED IFVs 01 5 (supply)

RED Gunships 01

RED Gunships 01 1

RED Gunships 01 2

RED CAP Fighters 01

RED CAP Fighters 01 1

RED CAP Fighters 01 2

BLUE Tanks 01

BLUE Tanks 01 1...

 

etc.

This makes it much, much easier to know what I'm doing with the mission, but it takes a long time to even copy-paste all this stuff in, let alone type it out, but it's such a mindless, algorithmic system of naming that I'm sure implementing something like it would be easier that most new features.

 

Obviously if people don't like whatever system is used then they can use something else, but right now you have to do a lot of mindless toil to have any useful naming scheme at all.

 

good idea

[Bushmanni]

It would be nice if there was a reference point object that could be placed in the ME that you could reference using SSE to get the 3D coordinates of the point. By placing lots of these you could define waypoints, areas, lines, grids, etc. for your scripts with much less work. These reference points should also come in groups (like units do) so that they are easier to manipulate both in ME and SSE.

[BAntDit]

SSE already has: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Part_1#coalition

 

RefPoint = {
  callsign = number,
  type = number,
 [b] point = Vec3[/b]
}

 

array of RefPoint function coalition.getRefPoints(enum coalition.side coalition)

[K2mil]

I think a small thumbnails preview of how the aircraft or any other ground or see unit looks like also a skin preview in mission editor would gain advantage for a new comers. Some of new users will try to have fun and I remember we my first mission editing have to google on my iPad what is what. It was nice learning process but I'm rather patient person ;)

[-Demon-]

I think a small thumbnails preview of how the aircraft or any other ground or see unit looks like also a skin preview in mission editor would gain advantage for a new comers. Some of new users will try to have fun and I remember we my first mission editing have to google on my iPad what is what. It was nice learning process but I'm rather patient person ;)

 

Absolutely my wish since fc2. Thumbs up for that post and please ed consider that. I never know what is what and the encyclopedia wont help as the names are different from the names in the editor.

[cichlidfan]

Absolutely my wish since fc2. Thumbs up for that post and please ed consider that. I never know what is what and the encyclopedia wont help as the names are different from the names in the editor.

 

Fixing the encyclopedia and then linking it to the ME so you did not have to exit the ME to access the information would go a long way toward this.

[-Demon-]

Absolutely cichlidfan

[Bushmanni]

SSE already has: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Part_1#coalition

 

Those reference points are not what I meant. They are used for AI JTAC IP points and you can't use them like I described. Mainly it'll be pita to make lots of them and then access them in a handy way in SSE. For example if you wan't to build a network of waypoints (hundreds of points) you will lose your mind using those and I'm not sure if it's even possible to assign lots of them. While this could be done with unit waypoints it's a hassle both in ME and SSE.

[Bix]

Satellite view map being available when placing map objects would be a huge benefit

[ENO]

Mentioned in that other newer thread- being able to see a 3D reference of where you're placing objects would be great without having to run an MP session in the background. I know that's a good work-around... but really it would be nice to view the terrain where the object is being placed.

[Flagrum]

group and un-group commands in ME

 

Was this mentioned in this thread already? I would like to see a "Group" and "Ungroup" or "Split" function for Units.

 

Lets say, I have two vehicle groups that I want to merge. I select both groups (holding STRG or SHIFT? to allow multi-select different items) and then apply the "Group" function. Now all Units of all Vehicle groups are merged into the last selected vehicle group.

 

Or now I have a large vehicle group. I multi-select several units and apply "Split". Now I have a new group with the selected units and the original group is now smaller.

 

To make the handling consistent, both functions should perhaps work on a per unit basis (as opposed to a per-vehicle group basis)?

[ENO]

 

I would appreciate being able to place units inside some of these structures. It would also be nice if these mission editor icons had "footprints" outlining them when they were placed.

[ENO]

Another one that came to me recently was for group name "tags" that would come up if you hovered your mouse over the unit. Currently you have to close whatever window you're working on to view the group where generally you just need the specific name to complete your task. Generally this is while making triggers and if you don't complete it before your close the window it deletes on you!

 

Anyway just a thought

[HiJack]

I use the first waypoint comment to show the group name in my missions that helps a bit but I agree ENO. It would also be nice to group units from different countries, like a “coalition group” or a “global group”. And of course grouping of static units but that we have asked for several times. I hope this can come as an added feature when EDGE hits the ED shop.

[VTJS17_Fire]

I don't know, if it is mentioned before, but I would like to see a third coalition, a neutral one.

 

At first, I'm a Eagle jockey. But: It would be more real. So the F-15C fighters can't use their NCTR function everytime, they have to do a visual ID, like in a real life scramble.

 

Also: You can place units (maybe we get some other neutral units (trucks, jeeps, pick-ups or so) in a mission, that are not red nor blue. So, they shouldn't be targeted by blue or red units.

 

 

What do you think about a third, neutral, coalition?

 

 

regards,

Fire

Edited January 6, 2014 by VTJG17_Fire

[ENO]

 

Wish granted!