PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, we need improved FMB



nearmiss
05-02-2004, 11:36 AM
The IL2 mission building community has come and gone continually for the past few years. The FMB tool is so frustrating and time consuming to build missions. It takes a mentality of SUCCEED IN SPITE OF NOT BECAUSE OF to build missions now.

Sure, there aren't a lot of mission builders now. There never will be with the tools we have. If we had the tools for MSFT CFS2 or Jane's WW2 Fighters mission builders would load up the FTP servers with great missions for download. No one would be clamouring for a dynamic computer campaign generator. The campaign generators were available for use with the MSFT CFS2, and received very little attention. When great human created missions are available they address human needs for excitement and interaction.

Currently the campaign generator thing is the best choice. The sad part is there will never be a large community of mission builders while building missions with the FMB is so difficult and tedious.

Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif give us some improvements in the FMB and see how far it upgrades interest in the IL2 sims.

It wouldn't take much to make the FMB a lot better tool for mission building. I don't need to tell you what the FMB needs, because the MSFT CFS2 and Jane's WW2 Fighters mission builders should be the basic standard for any WW2 air combat mission builder.

nearmiss
05-02-2004, 11:36 AM
The IL2 mission building community has come and gone continually for the past few years. The FMB tool is so frustrating and time consuming to build missions. It takes a mentality of SUCCEED IN SPITE OF NOT BECAUSE OF to build missions now.

Sure, there aren't a lot of mission builders now. There never will be with the tools we have. If we had the tools for MSFT CFS2 or Jane's WW2 Fighters mission builders would load up the FTP servers with great missions for download. No one would be clamouring for a dynamic computer campaign generator. The campaign generators were available for use with the MSFT CFS2, and received very little attention. When great human created missions are available they address human needs for excitement and interaction.

Currently the campaign generator thing is the best choice. The sad part is there will never be a large community of mission builders while building missions with the FMB is so difficult and tedious.

Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif give us some improvements in the FMB and see how far it upgrades interest in the IL2 sims.

It wouldn't take much to make the FMB a lot better tool for mission building. I don't need to tell you what the FMB needs, because the MSFT CFS2 and Jane's WW2 Fighters mission builders should be the basic standard for any WW2 air combat mission builder.

Harh
05-02-2004, 12:59 PM
The problem is the engine of il2fb. Its possibilities are too far from good.
You even cannot add your speech or script text phrazes in the mission. I do not
really want to criticize the sim, but i've got a feeling, that it was created
mostly by people, for who is not-so-hard to create a plane model or the cockpit,
but when it goes to DESIGN things, thats going to be more harder.

And thus il2fb got dynamic champaign generator. I think no one appriciated
this, because missions got even more fly-kill-return style and game gone to be too oriented for multiplayer (mostly DM). It's very sad. And,
maybe I shouldn't say it, but i think there no one, who can read and do
something, just only the moderator and many many simmers. To make good tools for
mission building game need REAL engine upgrade, which is too much for addon or
patch. If luck, then we'll get real mission engine (i remember tie fighter --
for its time it had very good mission engine) in the Battle of Britain. But i
fear we'll not get it, because there is no one to push things up. Maybe even i
could do it, but i just can not contact Oleg Maddox and make him listen. He has
too much people to work with. Sad.

About missions -- question: I have done a good mission, where to upload it?

And sorry for my english.

nearmiss
05-02-2004, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harh:
The problem is the engine of il2fb. Its possibilities are too far from good.
You even cannot add your speech or script text phrazes in the mission. I do not
really want to criticize the sim, but i've got a feeling, that it was created
mostly by people, for who is not-so-hard to create a plane model or the cockpit,
but when it goes to DESIGN things, thats going to be more harder.

And thus il2fb got dynamic champaign generator. I think no one appriciated
this, because missions got even more fly-kill-return style and game gone to be too oriented for multiplayer (mostly DM). It's very sad. And,
maybe I shouldn't say it, but i think there no one, who can read and do
something, just only the moderator and many many simmers. To make good tools for
mission building game need REAL engine upgrade, which is too much for addon or
patch. If luck, then we'll get real mission engine (i remember tie fighter --
for its time it had very good mission engine) in the Battle of Britain. But i
fear we'll not get it, because there is no one to push things up. Maybe even i
could do it, but i just can not contact Oleg Maddox and make him listen. He has
too much people to work with. Sad.

About missions -- question: I have done a good mission, where to upload it?

And sorry for my english.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before everyone defends 1C:maddox...

Get a copy of the Quick Mission Tuner (QMT) by Shift_E?

LINK TO QUICK MISSION TUNER QMT (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Utilities/)

QMT is a mission editing tool that just takes the pre-constructed IL2 FMB mission text files and expedites the editing of the existing missions. If you're into mission building get a copy, you'll be astounded to realize there is a great deal that can be done just working with the basic mission text files. The QMT doesn't create missions, just facilitates the editing of them.

1C:Maddox hasn't even made an effort to provide a good text editing tool. Why should 1C:Maddox build a mission editing tool? Everytime new objects and aircraft are added to the sim, it takes hours of work and doing all kinds of workarounds by Shift_E just to get the proper variable names setup within the QMT. This shouldn't be the job of a competent programmer working for free, generosity of heart. The whole door of information with IL2 is basically shut, and upgrading the QMT takes an enormous amount of work just to keep up. 1C:Maddox should provide "AT MINIMUM" a decent mission editor that would facilitate changes that are extremely time consuming to do within the FMB.

In a nutshell

1C:Maddox needs to provide a text editor with spin, check and list boxes with ability to access variable file fields within IL2 embedded data files and update the text based IL2 mission files. This needs to be an efficient tool designed with speed and access in mind. Working within the FMB is tedious and time consuming. Just changing timeouts on 50 flak guns can take 10 minutes, which could be done in much more efficiently through a windows based text editor.

Building such a mission editor is something that could be done easily now, by a reasonably competent programming effort.

Now there are hundreds of objects with different variable names for each, timeouts, skins, payloads, playerskill,etc. All these could be manipulated quickly with a good mission editor.

Currently, as a mission builder my practice is to create areas on maps and place objects. I then add nothing else to the map. I save the mission file with a name that basically describes the situation I created with the objects I placed. ( Example I create on a map a specific airbase at night, with campfires, flak guns, sirens, search lights and misc other stuff. I then name and save this file RU-Anapa-AB-NT-1.mis.) I use this file as a data package that I copy and paste into other mission files to save time in creating that same airbase area time and again. This kind of thing could be facilitated with a good mission editor, and I wouldn't have to do the workarounds.

So...don't buy that stuff about not being able to do something with the FMB. It may not be possible to overhaul the FMB to provide all the features mission builders want, but an enormous amount can be done now.

Nothing has been done to make the FMB any better, since day one, and that's sad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

mike_espo
05-02-2004, 02:01 PM
The FMB is great. I just created a g.50 campaign and in the process of completing a CR.42 one and have my own music and medals ect. The only snag is the AI. Other than that It works great. Not difficult at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

nearmiss
05-02-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike_espo:
The FMB is great. I just created a g.50 campaign and in the process of completing a CR.42 one and have my own music and medals ect. The only snag is the AI. Other than that It works great. Not difficult at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

velly intersting...

I think the IL2-FB AI is the best in any WW2 combat flight sim available. At least I don't considet the AI to be the bigget issue or hindrance to building decent missions in IL2.

In MSFT CFS2 the AI air combat always finished turn and burn in the dirt, along with 900 yard deflection shots. In Jane's WW2 Fighters the AI always did the loop the loop and could shoot anything down within 100 Kilo of the target. Yet, the mission builders in those old six year old sims are far superior to the FMB in "every respect". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

It may just be a matter of experience, they say you don't know you missed something if you haven't had it.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Why don't you try the MSFT CFS2 mission builder, if you really want to enjoy mission building. It'll knock your socks off, if you think the FMB is great.

---------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
05-02-2004, 03:54 PM
I think AI will improve over time. One
exciting way to do it may be with reinforcement
learning and neural networks. A problem might
be creating a training set with enough diverse
missions to get a broad range of AI tactics.

ECV56_Rolf
05-02-2004, 07:06 PM
I fully agree with the time it takes to make and test a complex mission.
But the worst part is the total abscence of trigger conditions, the impossibility off actually removing an existing object after timeout, and that inserting objects during the mission generates stutter, like when somone respawns in a doggie.

Then, there comes the target designation. You can't select a whole flight and indicate a 50% for all the flight. You may insert a 50% target for every flight, but if you didn't destroy 50% on every flight you will never win, even if in total numbers you destroyed far more than that.
Solution, don´t bother with target triggers, use a log parser and make it decide who won.

BTW... I think people claimed for this before, but it will be really nice that destroyed buildings be detailed in the log as bridges are.

And indicating sides with a 1 and 2 as stationary objects are, under the [WING] section, will be really nice! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PD. This is my first post in this site, if I'am proceeding wrongly make me know please!
S! all!

Bearcat99
05-02-2004, 08:00 PM
I dunno... maybe its me.. and maybe it;s because I dont have a lot of experience with other mission builders... I think there could be some improvements.. always in any product.. but i think the FMB in FB is fantastic!! IMO the fact that it foeces you to put some thought into your missions turns out to be a plus. I like the fact that you can place objects, set waypoint times etc. Sure there are no triggers but with carefull planning and a bit of thought you dont need them. IMO the very worse thing about the FMB is the lack of developer supplied documentation on its use. For people who will never come online Eastern Skies and Mikes FMB tutorial is something they will never see. I have a buddy of mine that i used to fly with in CFS and I had been trying to get him and some of my former squaddies to come over here since 2002. Well he broke down and got FB & the AEP and last night for the first time he flew online with us and needless to say he loved it. Afterwards we talked... this brother is a former RAF Vulcan pilot. Interstingly he had nothing but prasie for FB. He said the FMs were the most realistic he had ever experienced and this man is retired.... he is an experienced simmer. He also said that in CFS3 he got loads of stutter at multiple points with hids rig in CFS3 (3.2 P-4 w 9800 Pro and 2G of RAM) yet with FB he said and I quote.. "It's loike wawtching a daeeveaedaee !!" He also commented on the FMB. This guy skins and does missions for the Redtails of CFS so he is familiar with skinning and mission building. He actually thought the FMB was a huge step up. I personally, and maybe because I dont have any experience at all with other MBs... think the FMB in FB/IL2 is extremely versatile.. it just lacks proper documentation. Thats where the community comes in. Its funny... now in CFS which is open sourced you get high user supported activity in the form of planes and tweaks and such... in IL2 & FB which is closed source, you get no less passion and activity it's just different. It isnt so much in the modding and plane flight characteristics end but in the tools used to use the sim. Hence forth we get things like Skinner's Heaven's skinning tutorial (http://www.1java.org/sh/), michapma's FMB tutorial (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/fmbguide/intro.htm), (not to mention the CEM and other guides to be found on Eastern Skies) and the UQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) which in my opinion dwarfs any other user made program I use.. not to take anything away from them at all... when you go to IL2 stab, IL2 Manager, The DCG etc. etc. etc. it just bloe=ws the mind...... but I am straying from the topic........ bottom line for me... sure the FMB isnt perfect.. but it just takes some getting used to and clearer documentation wouldnt hurt.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

nearmiss
05-02-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I dunno... maybe its me.. and maybe it;s because I dont have a lot of experience with other mission builders... I think there could be some improvements.. always in any product.. but i think the FMB in FB is fantastic!! IMO the fact that it foeces you to put some thought into your missions turns out to be a plus. I like the fact that you can place objects, set waypoint times etc. Sure there are no triggers but with carefull planning and a bit of thought you dont need them. IMO the very worse thing about the FMB is the lack of developer supplied documentation on its use. For people who will never come online Eastern Skies and Mikes FMB tutorial is something they will never see. I have a buddy of mine that i used to fly with in CFS and I had been trying to get him and some of my former squaddies to come over here since 2002. Well he broke down and got FB & the AEP and last night for the first time he flew online with us and needless to say he loved it. Afterwards we talked... this brother is a former RAF Vulcan pilot. Interstingly he had nothing but prasie for FB. He said the FMs were the most realistic he had ever experienced and this man is retired.... he is an experienced simmer. He also said that in CFS3 he got loads of stutter at multiple points with hids rig in CFS3 (3.2 P-4 w 9800 Pro and 2G of RAM) yet with FB he said and I quote.. "It's loike wawtching a daeeveaedaee !!" He also commented on the FMB. This guy skins and does missions for the Redtails of CFS so he is familiar with skinning and mission building. He actually thought the FMB was a huge step up. I personally, and maybe because I dont have any experience at all with other MBs... think the FMB in FB/IL2 is extremely versatile.. it just lacks proper documentation. Thats where the community comes in. Its funny... now in CFS which is open sourced you get high user supported activity in the form of planes and tweaks and such... in IL2 & FB which is closed source, you get no less passion and activity it's just different. It isnt so much in the modding and plane flight characteristics end but in the tools used to use the sim. Hence forth we get things like Skinner's Heaven's http://www.1java.org/sh/, michapma's http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/fmbguide/intro.htm, (not to mention the CEM and other guides to be found on Eastern Skies) and the http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html which in my opinion dwarfs any other user made program I use.. not to take anything away from them at all... when you go to IL2 stab, IL2 Manager, The DCG etc. etc. etc. it just bloe=ws the mind...... but I am straying from the topic........ bottom line for me... sure the FMB isnt perfect.. but it just takes some getting used to and clearer documentation wouldnt hurt.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Why don't you try the MSFT CFS2 mission builder, if you really want to enjoy mission building. It'll knock your socks off, if you think the FMB is great.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

clint-ruin
05-02-2004, 08:31 PM
dp

clint-ruin
05-02-2004, 08:32 PM
Bearcat, while I agree that the FMB is good to have generally speaking, it's definitely primative as compared to even other flightsims, let alone other games. If you ever play Operation Flashpoint or Freespace 2 you will see what can be done with triggers and logic scripting. The big hole in the FMBs functionality is that missions are very very static - you can spawn in units at a set time, and that's it. You can't control what the AI does. You can't even print a message on the screen or trigger a .wav file to make the mission more immersive or give -any- reaction from the game other than "mission failed/accomplished".

The criticism levelled at the FMB is that it's very much like some kind of "learners" tool without any access to the games internals. In terms of making it user friendly - that works as an approach. In terms of flexibility and creating complex missions it's woefully inadequate. If you want anything complicated to happen beyond "airplanes meet each other and try to shoot each other down" you are in for a great many hours work trying to make the AI do what you want it to do. If we had access to what's in the guts of FB it would be possible to direct what happens in a mission specifically, rather than hope that nothing goes wrong.

For me Freespace 2's FRED2 is still the absolute bees knees in terms of giving the user access to complex functions while still leaving the basics of making missions easy for beginners. You could build your own scripts through a GUI of pre-fabbed components, or make your own triggers/variables and make those go on to cause all kinds of things to happen. It was an absolutely brilliant implementation of the segmented expressions concept and one that has never really been repeated in any software since. I sincerely hope that Maddox takes a look at this kind of functionality for BOB.

Take a look at http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/fs1/fred/using/sexps.shtml and see if you can think of anything good to do with those functions for FB missions .. I'd need a new set of underpants if we got something like that in the game.

Basically noone is saying that the FMB is "bad", just that it is very limited. Especially as compared to other games that have really pushed the concept forward - FB is a step back about 10 years or more as compared to that.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
05-02-2004, 11:39 PM
oh i am soooooo bumping this thread

Johan217
05-03-2004, 02:38 AM
I agree. IL2's mission builder is a bit too basic for making complex missions. It needs triggers, scripts etc. More specifically, I would like to see the following:

- Sides: Blue, Red and NEUTRAL
- AI behaviour flag: agressive, avoid contact, weapons hold...
- triggers such as "if X arrives at Y, then spawn Z with 50% chance" and "if X destroyed, then Y goto Z"
- ability to play custom .wavs during the mission (radio messages)
- grouping of flights
- campaign builder: an interface for stringing the missions and cutscenes together

Just a few ideas http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Undercarriage lever a bit sticky was it, Sir?
www.europeanaf.org (http://www.europeanaf.org)

TITUS1959
05-03-2004, 03:54 AM
I completely agree with the Johan217's proposals !!! Yes Oleg we need all that too !!! Nice planes and nice textures are nothing without good missions ! And for good missions we need the "if" possibilities !
So please Oleg give your game a chance !
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Johan217
05-03-2004, 08:05 AM
Well I can imagine that the inclusion of triggers would require considerable reprogramming of the AI, so I don't expect to see it in an FB addon. But it would be nice if the developers remember this for their next sim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In any case, it could have been worse: no mission builder at all. I can name a few sims like that... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Undercarriage lever a bit sticky was it, Sir?
www.europeanaf.org (http://www.europeanaf.org)

mike_espo
05-03-2004, 08:55 AM
Wow! Other than Mig alley, I do not have any experience with mission builders. Some great points have been raised, I agree with some of them. Did'nt know it was 10 years behind the times....As for CFS2 nobody on this forum ever has anything positive to say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

owlwatcher
05-03-2004, 09:40 AM
Been playing around with FMB and have not used QMT.

So with that said;
FM building now is to rigid and slow and does need some changes.
I can make almost any thing happen just the way I want right now.
But
Played this game http://www.cincpac.com/
Look at how they label the flights to what purpose.
Some thing like Cap should be a simple routine , not something that has to be mapped .
Targeting needs the most changes. In the flexabilty in use. Defined commands to "AI" flights might do it.

clint-ruin
05-03-2004, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike_espo:
Wow! Other than Mig alley, I do not have any experience with mission builders. Some great points have been raised, I agree with some of them. Did'nt know it was 10 years behind the times....As for CFS2 nobody on this forum ever has anything positive to say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Visual editors / programming software has been around for a while and is now used in a great deal of projects, even ones where raw speed is king like games development. Using them for building up mission scripts makes a lot of sense - you write up enough of the guts to make the games single missions work and then leave the basic commands in place for people to play with. No toying with code directly has to be involved, just re-assembling the component parts. We have a couple of these sorts of things already in FB - triggers are already there, and can be applied to a specific object or a specific area of a map. Just that beyond checking whether something is alive, print one of two messages on the screen, or making an object follow/chase another there's nothing much you can alter. Those are actually some pretty important functions. The limitations in FB are due to just not being able to change a lot of the data involved.

The difference between printing a message on the screen that says "mission complete" when something is destroyed in an area of the map, and printing a message on the screen that says "Sky-blue, vector to grid xxx.yyy to assist convoy under attack" when something is destroyed in an area is basically nothing.

We can already edit the .wav files and the text translations directly for existing radio messages. But there is no way to alter data that would actually matter in the context of making a more interesting mission. A lot of this functionality - triggers and status/event checks - is already there, but the mission designer cannot alter any of it or make one event depend on others.

Freespace.voltionwatch was giving 404 errors all over when I went looking for this before, but this:

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/fs1/fred/using/mission.shtml

is an example of how to make a moderately complex mission in FS2. You can just plonk ships and waypoints down and let them run into each other as in FB if you want, but there is a whole other system under the surface you can use to make sophisticated things happen. It is not a lot more work to make a mission several times more complicated than the example above. Further to that, you could branch events out so that the mission [and the campaign itself] can play out differently depending on which exact set of events happened and when.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Gato-Loco
05-03-2004, 10:21 AM
Superbump! Another thing that could be improved is the layout of the menus in the FMB. In most cases you have to navegate through several levels of menus until you reach the option you're looking for. For example, why have all objects in a single pull down menu when you could have a menu for planes, another for ground objects, etc.

nearmiss
05-03-2004, 11:28 AM
Trying to do things that the current IL2-FB application is not capable of doing is not in my thinking.

Practically speaking, there are plenty of improvements that could be made with the current FMB and it's mission files that would greatly enhance the ability of users to create and edit missions.

I would be excited to know 1C:Maddox takes a viable interest in the FMB, and will make the best improvements possible.

An efficient flexible mission text file editor might,examples-&gt;

1) Allow the cropping of objects within specific 4 corner boxes, by x,y coordinates and then copy/paste into another location with reassignment of the objects to the pasted coordinates would be a huge improvement.
2) A spin type selector that would allow the mission builder to change the direction objects are facing without having to use the zoom down in 3D view, visually watch the objects turn,etc.
3) Some programmable elements I think might be possible to include currently might be the wingmen commands from the TAB/COMMS. If this were possible, it would open up a lot of opportunities for more interesting missions, NOW.

I'm reasonably sure an efficient mission text editor would have to work capably outside the FMB as a windows application. Why because bringing up the FMB, selecting objects, clicking on tabs, clicking a scrolling through poorly designed scrolling tools to select or change items is too tedious. Afterall, FMB is a mission editor now. It's just not efficient.

I realize I can key command out to windows from the FMB, but
Going back and forth from inside the FMB to the desktop has only created problems for me. I completely leave the FMB, and make all file edits from the windows explorer through Wordpad. Then I have to go back into the FMB to test everything.

-------------------------

Harh
05-03-2004, 12:26 PM
Mostly the key for good mission builder is when developer is someway interested
in creating a good mission. Not to provide people a good mission editor, but
just to create scenario for the game. Only then MB is beginning to grow. When
there is need in it. And only then people get a mission builder.


As from beginning, Il2 had missions designed very simply. You seen them, you
know. When FB comes, dynamic campaign generator appeared. All scripted missions
were gone. From that point there was no real need for the mission engine.
Problem is not the mission engine now. It is about that it is highly possible
that in the BoB we'll get the same one without principial improvements.


My point is:

1) Il2 FB will not get good mission editor, but better BoB have, because game
scenario is a part of the game: as graphics, sound, music etc and without it
game will suffer. Game itself must have a good scenario, or it will be highly
oriented to multiplayer (and mostly DM).
2) I disagree with people, who says that FMB is great. Its really not. Sorry
that i again mention Tie Fighter -- it is not even a REAL sim, but in that time,
when it was released (1994) it allready had better mission engine than Il2 in
the 2004.
3) Problem is not only with mission builder, problem is in the engine of the
game. It does not have abilities to create really good mission, not at least
without great creativity which sometimes solves even engine internal problems.
And salute to everyone who read to this point http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nearmiss
05-03-2004, 01:33 PM
I realize many think that the BoB will be "the answer" mission builder wise. Some comments should be made about a better mission builder and Bob.

The BoB was an air war, in fact probably the purest air war of WWII. It was fought by aircraft against aircraft. The Rowan's Bob and European Air War (EAW) handle Bob very well with campaign type generator stuff. Simply because it's large numbers of aircraft in air vs air engagments throughout. The whole Bob thing is gonna be a target rich air combat environment everytime you takeoff.

If we were getting any other war theatre I might perk up. Someone mentioned triggers would be introduced in FMB for BoB. CFS3 has those darn random triggers and they're a joke. So, when someone mentions triggers my excitement meter doesn't jump.

Forget the "on-the-come" (PF & BoB) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif stuff. We need efficiency improvements in the current FMB. A windows standalone software for working with mission files would be fine.

I'd like to see improvements poste-haste, we can wait to see on the things we'd all like to have in the FMB.

clint-ruin
05-04-2004, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
3) Some programmable elements I think might be possible to include currently might be the wingmen commands from the TAB/COMMS. If this were possible, it would open up a lot of opportunities for more interesting missions, NOW.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suggested this a few times myself, never got any response. Setting up a "god" that could control objects on any side through the .mis file, rather than just the 4 sub-squads on one side manually would really help out.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
05-04-2004, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
CFS3 has those darn random triggers and they're a joke. So, when someone mentions triggers my excitement meter doesn't jump.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, all triggers do is set something in motion when a condition is satisfied.

Seriously - can you not think of any use for:

being able to trigger an event when two objects come within range of each other

being able to trigger an event at a certain time, or a certain time after something else has happened, depending on what's alive or dead or damaged or enroute to a waypoint

being able to taylor positioning and targetting based on the strength in numbers and health of other objects, make planes run for base when they hit a specific amount of damage or system failures

being able to carve up missions into seperate paths depending on what the player does, and the same for the entire campaign

make reactive missions where the player is vectored to specific locations to react to specific planes that make it through the flak screen/outer interception ring

being able to make escorts stay within a certain distance of bombers all throughout the mission, covering the more heavily damaged ones specifically, or escort a ground convoy all the time no matter where it goes or what it does

There's an awful lot of stuff FBs AI does wrong [ever try to make two columns cross a bridge at once? wouldn't it be good if you could make planes hang back from the airbase rather than trying to all land at once? let damaged planes land first? engage the most dangerous currently alive target?] that could be cut out of the picture entirely by making it follow any kind of set logic. Rather than just trying to interpret things blindly as it goes along.

That's just the basic 5 minute stuff I've listed. So much of what people complain about with the AI and the "sterile" feeling of FB is entirely fixable with sufficient use of scripts and triggers.

And it's all the more frustrating because some of this stuff is quite obviously present in the engine, but not exposed to any modification. Grr!

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

nearmiss
05-04-2004, 07:20 AM
Triggers would definitely improve our current situation, as well as spawn areas like the CFS3. In fact, if you gave the FMB the triggers in CFS3 along with the current FMB tools it would definitely be an improvement.

The problem I see is...maybe that's all we'll get. I keep coming back to Jane's WW2 fighters and MSFT CFS2 as a basic acceptable mission builder. It would be great if we could get 1C:Maddox to say their benchmark for an upcoming FMB would be either of those old sims.

We need triggers (logic and conditional operators) and variations in ways they can be used in the FMB.

The FMB has never been improved, nor have I ever read anything from Oleg or 1C:Maddox person of any described improvements planned for the FMB.

The life of this sim will be the FMB. Look at the old sims that people still play and enjoy.

If the original developers of Rowan's BOB, European Air Wars, Jane's WW2 FIghters, Jane's F/A-18, Falcon 4.0 had stayed with the sim and kept improving and developing new things the sims would still be making them money.

Harh
05-04-2004, 01:11 PM
Ppl, you can only hope that mission engine/builder update will be avaliable in the Pacific Fighters, because to release it in a patch is work, which is not worth it i think.

nearmiss
05-04-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harh:
Ppl, you can only hope that mission engine/builder update will be avaliable in the Pacific Fighters, because to release it in a patch is work, which is not worth it i think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The time scheduled for PF release is sooner than Bob, couple more months. No one has mentioned anything about improvements over what we have now. I don't expect anything, but more aircraft, some objects and Pacific maps.

The Japanese air combat techniques were a lot different than what we've experienced with the IL2-FB. It will be interesting or lousy dependent upon how the AI programming is modified to accomodate Japanese T & B, against Allied Energy and Boom & Zoom tactics.

If everything winds up on the deck T & B http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif we'll just have another MSFT CFS2.

We're all setting our expectations on the BoB, because Oleg has expressed there will be major changes in the Bob as compared to IL2-FB.

nearmiss
05-17-2004, 08:00 AM
Bump

http://avsims.com/portal/modules/liens/images/banner.gif (http://avsims.com/portal/)

nearmiss
06-09-2004, 09:24 AM
Bump

http://avsims.com/portal/modules/liens/images/banner.gif (http://avsims.com/portal/)

Harh
06-10-2004, 11:19 AM
Sorry, I was out for some time... Graduating from the univercity http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'm also looking forward BoB (not PF mostly) because it MUST be new game on new engine. In case it might embrace (right?) the period of only 2(?) years... It MUST be far more complicated than Il2.

As about mission engine - I begin to recall some missions from other games. And no matter are they "sims" or not I just think that games like TIE Fighter had excellent mission engine (for their time) and in the game "Crimson Skies" there was a very good mission design. The problem is I don't think we'll ever get such things in games like Il2. As I see, in BoB we are to get more capable mission builder (maybe even far more capable, but I doubt it), but shall we get any Missions on it?. Current situation for single player is - dynamic campaign generator: "fly there, blow that target"... I understand - it is a sim, not an arcade, but if people creating a sim, why they do not even think a bit about, for example, create a good static (I don't know how to make a dynamic one) campaign. I know that that all is a bit offtopic, this thread is about mission builder for community, but anyway you see my point... Sorry, if it all is a bit "hard".

About AI programming, I'm also interested. For now, exept behaving on low altitudes and when shot up, AI looks very capable.

There are many changes to make in mission builder, it is really too "draft" and simple, but most of theese changes needs REAL update to the game engine. All those triggers certainly are good, but they need too large engine update to make it in PF.

[This message was edited by Harh on Thu June 10 2004 at 10:34 AM.]

whitetornado_1
06-10-2004, 05:02 PM
Anyone who as ever built missions in OFP with triggers knows the importance of them and the dramatic affect it can have in a game.

I would love triggers.

Harh
06-11-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by whitetornado_1:
Anyone who as ever built missions in OFP with triggers knows the importance of them and the dramatic affect it can have in a game.

I would love triggers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agree with you. I'm talking exactly the same, but I think that SUCH FMB update would not get it into PF. By the way, OFP has an excellent mission engine. While you don't know MB techniques and just playing single player champaign game behavor looks REAL.