But can't you see the advantages why the spawn delay is that way? In the old, sure you could just delay the spawn right in the properties of the airgroup itself. Once the delay went off, there's your spawn.

Well, now you have the ability to do the same thing by simply linking a spawn group trigger with a delay trigger. But now you have the advantage of making as many triggers/TT delays with that single airgroup. If you want that thing to spawn every hour, every 10 seconds, every second etc. Now you can do it without having to ever put another object in the mission.

Not only is there less clutter, but it makes for soo many more possibilities. Add coding on top of that, then next thing you know you have events triggering when things spawn, destroy, land, w/e - the makings for a completely dynamic environment where things occur based on what players do. So, I for one am happy that it's this way. It just makes this one soo much better.

Maybe.. maybe not

I guess it all depends on just how bad they want to make missions..

But at least I am glad to hear you admit it did not take a year for people to realize they did not need to know C# to make missions! S!

ACE if YOU read the thread, you would see the problem is the overly complicated process and non friendly GUI.
Thats what were trying to get noticed.

What i dont understand is what are you trying to prove or achieve with your posts in this thread? How is your post helping apart from just wanting to chime in with a argumentative poke?

There must be reason for the lack of COOPs and if guys like the well respected mission maker Cthor tell you the reason, then that's the reason, not a un willingness to read.

Ace is a prime example why new users going to the forums for help making missions is a bad idea.

HAHAHAHA! They just need to "Bootstrap" missions!

I don't get why some developers choose to make drastic changes to what has already proved to be a success. I think most people would have just been happy with better graphics and IL 1946 game play, I know I would. I am just not keen on the driveable tanks and all that and I think it could be heading in the wrong direction. I hope I am proved wrong because I love 1946. I just think if you create driveable tanks then you have to make infantry to take out the tanks. The game then has to properly simulate how all of these vehicles work and to me would take a lot of hardware, but like I say I may be proved wrong.

If several mission builders are not happy there must be a good reason. And it is a pity that CloD cannot yet leverage their skills and experience, to enrich the game's environment.

The changes are welcome and sound fantastic, but what we need is to make them accessible to the majority of CLOD users.

Mission making shouldn't be this hard and it shouldn't be such a necessity in the first place. That's the point. I've done a few missions in IL-2 1946 and it's fairly hard, even with the limited scope of the FMB, to do a good mission. The last time I tried the FMB in CloD it was like all the bad stuff from the 1946 FMB with a whole lot of other stuff on top I had to learn that made it an even bigger pain.

I'm not begrudging having a powerful FMB, other flight sims and ARMA both come with one and people have used it to make some really cool stuff but those games at least came with some content out of the box. Some even come with dynamic mission generators of varying quality.

The way I figure it, if I have to learn so much scripting to get ANY content other than a lacklustre SP campaign and a few anaemic multiplayer maps, I may as well go ahead a step further and just code myself a flight sim. Hell, maybe I ought to do that, I can even sell it on services like Steam!

I'll call it PE-2 Petlyakov - Canterbury Fields. The graphics will be great and I'm sure you'll love it. The physics modelling will be up to the player but I'm sure that won't be a problem, it's not that hard to make with the physics model tools I'll include. Don't worry about the lack of documentation, I'm sure one of my loyal fans will write a wiki.

But they already are...it's really not out of reach, just need to jump in, fool around with it, and learn as you go. It won't be easy at first, but think of the self rewards that follow...by studying others work, I think I will enjoy creating my own ...I know its a busy world we live in, but I could squeeze in some hours a week to learn it.:-P...oh my god, NOT! you are right, average player will not devote much time to this


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3.../Easystuff.jpg

But the game always had this direction. There was a video 5 years ago that showed Oleg firing manning a AAA gun. Over 3 years ago the tanks were displayed with the hatches that opened etc. Why do some people think this is new? If I were to take a guess, the majority of this stuff has been modeled long ago. Only the physics and perhaps some of the component damage model will be tweaked.

Huh? The FMB is one of the easiest tools every created to build missions with. And I don't want the developer to spend time making missions. I want them to spend time making the things that allows us to do w/e we want in missions, a big difference between other flight sims that are very limited in this regard.

And the only thing that's changed between the old IL2 / new IL2 FMB is just how many more possibilities you can have in it. Placing objects, spawn areas, AI, etc.,etc., are virtually the same. The 3rd party stuff will come that does many of the coded things you could do in the old game for the new.

The documentation is needed, I agree, but for anyone that did any missions in the old IL2 it shouldn't be hard to make an old IL246 type mission with the new FMB, with the exception of the traditional old IL2 COOP. The hardest part is making the mission work in the bug filled environment we have atm. But that's not a fault of the FMB.