A Wishlist of Features For The Mission Editor

In the...

... with Simon Pearson (ED's Global Business Development Director) done by the Grim Reapers, one of the things Simon said was, that if mission designers feel there is a feature or an option missing in the mission editor or one that could help a mission designer get where he really wants with his mission (I'm paraphrasing here), then they should simply post a thread clarifying the matter regarding an option/trigger/condition, etc.

Therefore, I thought a thread with a wish list for the ME tool only might be a good start.

Here's a list of features I'd like to see added to the ME tool:

1:

In "part of coalition inside/outside zone" you can determine the type of unit - (all/airplane/helicopter/ground/naval). Would be very helpful if the type of that unit could also be determined too.

Examples: M-113/BMP-2/Armed speedboat/Su-33/F-18C/Paratrooper AKS/B-52H, etc.

2:

Making a type of weapon accessible for only a certain type of aircraft.

Example: M-60M is only accessible for Su-25's. So MiG-21's, MiG-29's, etc. would have no access to it.

3:

Enabling the rearming and refueling of human controlled airplanes/helicopters on a road base or anywhere else through ammo and fuel trucks. Think of the ammo truck as a mobile warehouse. You could limit weapons, remove some and so on.

4:

Limiting the warehouse on carriers is still an issue. Maybe it's bugged still? I've reported this long time ago. As of now, it seems to work for some weapons, but not all. Or is it just me? Look here

--> Not any more. Fixed.

5:

More coalitions; Not just Red and Blue. Look here

6:

Enable cleaning the wreckage of destroyed ground units, especially on an airfield or a FARP. Surely after the fire is no more and the smoke has stopped coming out of that destroyed unit.

7:

Timer function:

Trigger 1: A condition is fulfilled (e.g. unit enters zone). Action: Timer start.

Trigger 2: Another condition is fulfilled (e.g. unit enters a different zone). Action: Timer stops.

8:

An option to disable weapons appearing on the F10 map. Quite many users (including myself) use the CA module to provide GCI for their side. Providing players with BRAA's is something, but seeing the enemy's missiles incoming is unwanted for that purpose. I know CA is not mainly for GCI purposes but with an option like this it becomes closer to that.

9:

The option to add more parking lots at some airbases. Jiroft airbase for instance has 3 only. Lar 5, and so on.

I know we can make airplanes start on the ground and then place them manually at an airbase and I do that quite often. The problem is, this doesn't apply to FC3 airplanes. And also if you want to limit the number of airplanes at an airbase it becomes impossible to do because airplanes placed on the ground at an airbase are not part of the airbase's warehouse.

10:

The ability to copy and paste the warehouses of a FARP to another. We have that with airbases already where you can set up the warehouses (aircraft, weapons, fuel, etc.) as you like and then copy those settings to all airbases on that certain map if you want to. Would be great to have the same for FARP's, please.

* I'm aware that in the past some wish-threads were posted regarding some of the features above. In that case, think of it as a reminder, please. Nothing more.

Godspeed, ED!

4)

Limiting the warehouse on carriers is still an issue. Maybe it's bugged still? I've reported this long time ago. As of now, it seems to work for some weapons, but not all. Or is it just me? Look here

It was fixed with the SC patch. Granted I didn't check absolutely every single weapon. I know there is an oddity with AIM-9X with warehouses in general where if you have 1 remaining and you load a double rack that the game still gives both missiles. Aside for that if you know any weapons in particular that don't work with it then please state them.

More randomization triggers, please:

activate group after a random time

activate/spawn group in random zone

activate random group

go to random waypoint

set random ROE

random units number in a group

I would like to have a boolean conditions generator tool, similar to Steel Beasts Pro. Simple and extremely powerful.

It was fixed with the SC patch. Granted I didn't check absolutely every single weapon. I know there is an oddity with AIM-9X with warehouses in general where if you have 1 remaining and you load a double rack that the game still gives both missiles. Aside for that if you know any weapons in particular that don't work with it then please state them.

It is mainly that which is my biggest concern right now. I'll check out more weapons and report if I find anything.

I would like to be able to :

1) more options for the trigger form, not just the circle we have now

2) Make these "areas" visible on the players F10 map (for example engagement area's, coalition wide pre-planned IP's / CP's, custom airspace boundaries)

3) And as of late, make the CA client slot full just like aircraft slots, so i can give the human jtac player access to the F10 radio commands. (To spawn eny units on request for example)

4) Please, please integrate Sunstags Farp mod because that just makes such cool possibilities for the rotary wing, harriers and A10.

And that heatblur and ED fix the undercarriage issue for the viggen, which stops this aircraft module being able to use this. It would make mission capabilities for the viggen so much more awesome

Maybe, probably with scripting some of these are possibly but i haven'nt fully researched it yet.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G930F met Tapatalk

Hey Guys! Just adding to the Feature Request here for the ME

1. Ships - Command 'Set Waypoint'

2. Ships given an 'Orbit' Task (or the above would solve this as well.)

3. Reactivate a deactivated group - This would save a ton of time

4. Unit specific type In Zone. (Hornet, Huey, etc) This was mentioned above. Just agreeing with it :)

5. Part of Group or Part of Coalition in Moving Zone

Thanks for all that you guys and gals do!!

1) Improved UI with better copy/paste and selection of multiple units.

2) Mixed A/C groups.

3) More dynamic weather, ideally with options to change into a certain weather after X minutes or via trigger.

4) 3d viewer in editor.

5) Better “explosion” trigger (current 1000 limit doesn’t seem to do much damage if I want to cover an entire aerodrome).

My 2c based on my experiences with mission designing recently:

When creating training exercise scenarios such as NTTR based missions you need Nellis to be able to host aircraft from both sides. As it stands with a blue or red ownership both red and blue AI aircraft can takeoff from Nellis but only one side can land. With Neutral ownership, both sides can takeoff and now both sides can land.

HOWEVER, the problem with neutral ownership is with aircraft requiring ground support to operate such as the F-5E which requires the crew chief menu to provide ground power and air to be started by a human player.

If I have a blue or neutral Nellis and my human player is playing an F-5E aggressor role on the red team that player now cannot start their aircraft.

If I have a blue Nellis red aircraft can takeoff but cannot come back and land.

The solution I believe is to change the behaviour of Neutral airbases.

Perhaps allow an optional switch in the airbase configuration where you select coalition. Something like "Allow all coalitions to use ground support facilities" enabling the crew chief for red and blue alike.

Another approach could be an alternative to Neutral called "Shared" which is essentially an airbase such as Nellis which will be used by both sides in the mission. In the end it comes down to the mission designer to ensure that the AIs behave in this shared environment.

In my first attempts red aircraft would take off from Nellis and then make an about turn and start strafing blue aircraft on the ground :lol:

In this mission I also set up a mock top-gun style dogfight over the coyote bravo and charlie airspace where aircraft will repeatedly engage each other until a kill was made then disengage, return to their start point and go again. In order to accomplish this I have to make all combatants immortal as they engage, detect a hit and then make all of them weapons hold and, with a small delay, mortal again (to allow for in-flight missiles to be resolved - I found without a delay the aircraft would go mortal once a hit was recorded only for a real kill to occur a second later because there were still missiles or gun rounds in the air).

Could it be possible to simplify such mock dogfight situations without needing mods like missile trainers etc to simply set a switch for aircraft to disable damage from weapons. Hit still gets recorded but no need to mess around with stuff like immortal etc. It can really ruin the experience when you see two aircraft collide and bounce off each other or one hits the ground and bounces up in the air. I resolved the latter with a hard deck - go below 3048m (10,000ft) and it calls a knock it off and makes everyone mortal again. Oops, hit the ground mr AI? Tough! For added realism my engagement simulation makes all combatants circle the area the plane went down as if a training accident has occurred.

I really believe that with the NTTR map we really also needed some features in DCS that are more training oriented to create missions that are like real world training and exercise scenarios. It really ruins the illusion that you are taking part in training when you see real missiles and bullets flying. The capability needs to be there to have simulated weapons. I mean how hard would it be to have the missile simulated rather than actually fired? Really it would just be a matter of the missile firing and it's physics calculated - flight path etc - but not actually being rendered or having a live warhead. Some way to flag that a simulated hit occurred would also be needed of course.

I most definately second the call for non-circular trigger zones, but I call your non-circular trigger zone and raise you an "airspace" that can also act as a trigger zone. Make a shape using points that must end on the first point and then give it a minimum and maximum altitude ASL. Now you can also enable and disable what is allowed in that zone. You can also use that zone as a trigger zone except now it works in 3 dimensions. Aircraft can avoid the trigger zone by flying below it or above it.

In restricting access the AI will avoid it like the plague. They simply steer to avoid it. The first thing that comes to mind here is the Container in the NTTR. I have had my AI flights in my missions overfly it and it does my head in. Now they can't do so and it now looks more realistic. Using a container airspace definition with no minimum or maximum set it as a trigger zone you could use it to enforce it on the player that baaaad things happen to them in the scenario if they enter it. Here is food for thought, what would happen if a military aircraft did overfly the container by accident? Are there air defences there that might engage? CAP aircraft that would immediately intercept or a scramble from Groom Lake? Does it have fighter aircraft? Or is it simply "enter at your own peril to your career/freedom"?

Oh, and an UNDO function would be really REALLY useful!!!!

6)

Enable cleaning the wreckage of destroyed ground units, especially on an airfield or a FARP. Surely after the fire is no more and the smoke has stopped coming out of that destroyed unit.

I think most of these have been said already, but maybe not a bad thing to repeat them. :)

• I know it's been said already, but I'll +1 for non-circle trigger zones. rectangular maybe? or like a polygon tool to drawn your own?
   
  
• depending on how realistic it is, I'd like to see more airports have their TACAN and ILS info implemented and working correctly. Last I checked (which admittedly it's been a while since I've checked) the Middle East map only had 2 airports with working TACAN at the moment/time. I don't recall the Caucuses having that many either. but if that's realistic, then I'm more ok with it.
   
  
• I'd also love to have a mixed aircraft squadron/group. I get that for realism sake they should all be the same craft. However, For example, if I only own the F-16 and my friend only owns the F-18, it'd be nice if we could make them just part of one group, instead of needing to make two separate groups and set up two sets of waypoints, triggers, ect...
   
  
• not sure if this is even possible, but what the heck. Could a "player entering trigger zone" be an option? so when creating maps that have multiple people playing, have a trigger activate when a specific player enters the zone, regardless of what they're flying?
   
   
  

Just reread all posts here and there are really some helpful tools that I'd like ED to add or at least consider.

7)

Timer function:

Trigger 1: A condition is fulfilled (e.g. unit enters zone). Action: Timer start.

Trigger 2: Another condition is fulfilled (e.g. unit enters a different zone). Action: Timer stops.

Just a few I think off right now:

1. Box select tool
   
2. Add follow ship (and vehicle) waypoint action for helos)
   
3. Add INGRESS/EGRESS waypoint action for AI (or at least lights on/off action)
   
4. Add "start from ground" option for client/player aircraft
   
5. Set take-off times instead of start times
   
6. Create an option to have AI wait at the apron next to the runway
   
7. Add a "NOT" function to trigger conditions (if condition(s) is/are not met, than ...)
   
8. Add barrage option for AAA
   
9. Add option to fine tune wingman formation distance (just like we can with the follow action)
   

There's some great stuff here. If someone has said these then consider this a +1. I haven't read every single post.

1) Group spawn in zone

2) Ability to group and ungroup units with triggers

3) Ability to mix aircraft types in group

4) Cinematic editor (easy way to script camera views and switch between them)

5) Maybe streamline win/lose conditions or give more options

It's probably obvious mine are heavily influenced by ARMA/OFP.

95% of these can be done with scripting. Just saying.

95% of these can be done with scripting. Just saying.

Only 95%?! How about each and every trigger in the ME can be replaced by scripting? So why should ED bother, right? Give us the ME with no triggers at all. Because we'll just script it.

Good on you, mate -_-

Only 95%?! How about each and every trigger in the ME can be replaced by scripting? So why should ED bother, right? Give us the ME with no triggers at all. Because we'll just script it.

Good on you, mate -_-

What is more important, getting it done or getting it your way?

My dream would be to have the arma 3 eden editor in DCS, but more realisticaly having a 3d editor is one of my most wanted features at the moment.

What is more important, getting it done or getting it your way?

Sounds more like it should get done your way: Scripting :smilewink:

I mean, it looks like quite a few players have some wishes too while the only one taking this whole thing a bit off topic is you, mate.

It's a load of work for those who design, update and fix missions constantly. Scripting would yet add more to it when you could just start another trigger doing this or that.

Now let's not start an endless discussion. You wish to script? fine, then leave this thread for those who wish otherwise, please. And if Simon Pearson himself stated that we should/could share our wishes (see first post of this thread) regarding any ME features then what's the point in starting a discussion now?

Sounds more like it should get done your way: Scripting :smilewink:

It’s not my way, it’s the only way. I’m sorry if I offended you, I did not mean to rain on you whine parade. I should have known you were not interested in solutions, and I didn’t know you were afraid of scripting. I’m sorry.

Oh and using trigger zones, flags and so on kind of is scripting. Except with crayons and finger paint lol.

95% of these can be done with scripting. Just saying.

Hi EasyEB, you must admit, for a game/sim that depends so heavily on its community to provide content (stuff to actually do with all these fancy modules), you can't realistically expect everyone to master the art of scripting. To some it might be simple, to others it's like a foreign language.

I mean, how many missions and DLC campaigns do ED and its third party partners officially provide us with? Averagely something like 3 campaigns per module?

Of course, ED already provides us with quite a decent mission editor including a "finger paint" interface and fancy clickable buttons. However, some pretty essential features are still missing and adding them would very much help us lesser scripting gods.

It’s not my way, it’s the only way. I’m sorry if I offended you, I did not mean to rain on you whine parade. I should have known you were not interested in solutions, and I didn’t know you were afraid of scripting. I’m sorry.

 

Oh and using trigger zones, flags and so on kind of is scripting. Except with crayons and finger paint lol.

You're assuming things out of nowhere, taking things out of context, you don't even know me or what I'm interested in or "afraid" of. You didn't even reply to any of what I've mentioned, whether it's the part about Simon Pearson or any of that. And don't claim the higher ground by apologising for nothing.

You've got the MOOSE tag there, I see. Unlike FlightControl with whom I've quite often tested out some scripts for MOOSE back in the day, you don't seem to be someone who's willing to help, but rather troll. FlightControl or Pikey and others were always such welcoming guys to work with.

Now, are you going to finally quit this farce and leave the thread for those who have some wishes to share (and quite some interesting ones were posted here) or just go on with it?

Either way, I'm not going to end up entwined in a pointless discussion as I see this one here. With that, type whatever you want. I'm not interested in responding to you any more.

You're assuming things out of nowhere, taking things out of context, you don't even know me or what I'm interested in or "afraid" of. You didn't even reply to any of what I've mentioned, whether it's the part about Simon Pearson or any of that. And don't claim the higher ground by apologising for nothing.

You've got the MOOSE tag there, I see. Unlike FlightControl with whom I've quite often tested out some scripts for MOOSE back in the day, you don't seem to be someone who's willing to help, but rather troll. FlightControl or Pikey and others were always such welcoming guys to work with.

Now, are you going to finally quit this farce and leave the thread for those who have some wishes to share (and quite some interesting ones were posted here) or just go on with it?

Either way, I'm not going to end up entwined in a pointless discussion as I see this one here. With that, type whatever you want. I'm not interested in responding to you any more.

That’s a pretty hefty response for someone who says he’s not interested in responding.