A request for more features to make IL-2 a better game, not just better software.
 

Most of the talk on these forums these days have been for fixes to technical issues and adding more aircraft, ships, drivable tanks etc to the game.

Hardly anyone brings up the serious lack of attention to gameplay elements that will actually make CloD fun for the wider player base. The vocal minority (and the most active posters here are mostly a vocal minority) don't seem to think this is an issue but I've seen in other flight sim communities that this lack of gameplay elements is driving away a lot of players.

I, for instance, hardly have any technical issues with CloD. Despite this, I have 8 hours in this game. Most of that was in free flight configuring my controls and since November, I've only launched CloD twice and only out of curiosity to see how many people are playing online, which isn't a lot.

I play with people who enjoy varying levels of realism on different sims; in IL-2 we use CEM, in DCS A-10/Blackshark we fly full realism. In FSX we're flying procedure approaches on VATSIM in everything from bug smashers to 737NGX's. Some of us have never been in a plane before but there's a good portion who are working on or hold private and commercial pilots licenses.

I say this so you know that we ARE the target audience for IL-2. We are NOT a bunch of 'children who should go back to Ace Combat' like some people suggest we do when these issues are brought up.

So, time to get down to the point. Nobody I play sims with finds IL-2 Cliffs of Dover worth their time. The single player is bland. The multi player is worse. There's no dynamic campaign and the development teams refusal to compensate for the fact that this is a sim played on a computer monitor leads to unrealistic engagements.

So, the game needs to be fixed. So far nobody I've spoken to is impressed with the direction IL-2 is headed and a few have already taken a 'won't get fooled again' stance when it comes to the Moscow expansion coming out. If you want us back, you need to make this a better game.

Here's some examples of what we want.

Better Target Recognition

This is a serious complaint a lot of people have. It's harder in CloD to pick out targets than in any other sim we play or IRL. Take a look at the little black airplane sprites in 777 Studios Rise of Flight game. There's a reason why they put those in. Do something like that.

Easier Mission Editing

Why is this so terribly documented and so difficult. Everyone I know who's tried to make a mission in CloD has thrown their hands up in frustration.

Dynamic single player and co-op campaigns

This was hinted at before release but it never materialised. IL-2 1946 has these and Lowengrin made an even better third party generator. The fact that this isn't in CloD is a major step back.

Multiplayer dogfight mission generators

Making missions is hard and time consuming work. Take a look at what Lowengrin's DCG can do in a few clicks. Somewhat decent dogfight maps in a matter of minutes. Hell, there's even support for AI planes in dogfight. This will take a lot of burden off of hosts who want variety but don't want to spend hours making missions. This is sorely needed in CloD.

Mandatory Tree Collision

We make fun of the trees in IL-2 (the common cry when slamming in to one is OLEG TREES!) but in CloD we only get either fully rendered 3d forests or none at all. Because players get to chose, tree collisions is off. The few times I've bothered with multiplayer it's been common to see people flying under the forest canopy. If the average player can't handle full 3d forests, at least put in some Oleg Trees and turn collisions on. This way people flying with trees off can't fly UNDER the forest canopy. Add 2 sprites to the trees though so they aren't almost invisible from the side.

These are the sort of things that CloD needs if your development team is going to survive after releasing the Moscow expansion. Adding more plane variants, more tank variants, making vehicles drivable etc IS NOT going to win us over.

The people here counting the rivets on panels and comparing the paint colors to 75 year old photographs are your vocal minority. If you keep listening to them alone, you won't make enough money off of future releases to keep food on your plates.

Give us a good game if you want us to keep giving you our money.

All good points that have been raised almost every month since release. ive prob asked about IL2 style COOPs about 10 times to no avail, Luthier says we dont need them. :confused::sad:

A good post, to the point and "non-political" and I agree, being a game it lacks gameplay elements but even worse are all the non-intuitive stuff, clunky GUI etc. As Furbs said these questions have been raised before but we don't really know if the devs have taken any of it to heart. The QMB is IMO a step back from IL-2, I can't see what they were thinking, maybe someone else can explain the logic of it. With regards to the FMB, what I miss the most there are triggers Jane's WWII Fighter's style, the triggers in that game where soooo good and practical and easy to use, I could sacrifice 50% of all the objects in the CloD FMB for triggers like that.

Talking with the people of Sesto stormo, my wing, and with the Italian online community people (who flies or flew SEOW probably knows that i'm talking about
at least 80 people) what you said is the minimum average of requests. We all hope (but alot of the ones with i talk about it think that will never happens) that eventually will come.
The amount of people that still flies Il2 is more than an evidence; to the hyperlobby stats you need to add also the SEOW campaing flown two times a week with 80 players online.


omg really luthier said that?! That's a dooming problem for all the wings i suppose..

Yes, in a Q&A last year he said he's sees no need to add/change any coop interface for CloD.

well if he didn't change his mind, that is a disastrous choice.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28633

Question 17

mission building- yes a severe lack of documentation
however there are some community made guides

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3423371

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3543389

which is a start;)

That's very good, so there is the possibility to do alot, BUT we need to understand that all alone. :) well at least we can do it. A "minor" problem so..

I disagree here... I've never worked with CloD's FMB, but from what I've heard it really powerful.

Of course... it's not user-friendly, but with experience you can create very interesting missions (without the coop's limit).

It's something like Arma2's scripting.

Can we at least get the latest patch downloaded for us that would like better performance, then start talking about what you want next.

As was said at that time, CoD has already has everything needed for coop missions, the only thing missing is the manual for the FMB.
In my opinion Luthier doesn't want to implement the limitations of the old IL2 coop interface.
What i have seen already online it is possible to have menus implemented using the tab key.
So with the manual for the FMB it should be possible to get the same options as in the old IL2, only starting in the game, not in the menu.
So the workload is on the mission builder.
Of course without the patch flying in groups together is impractical anyway.

Yes, I believe this is accurate:grin:

Lets hope it can be sorted, because at the moment what we have isn't working for COOPs and they are missed badly.

Coop is already in. Most people do not understand this. You can multicrew any aircraft that can be, and you can also design missions with the coop mindset. Noone understands this. I make missions that are 'coop' all the time with this engine, just for the heck of it. You can actually design it so that only x amount of planes are available, and add AI in to battle against them. I don't see how some don't see that already.

troll :P:-)

Ok i created Coops and i played many of them :rolleyes: in my squad.
I also converted single player missions in Coops with no problem. Its also possible to fly coops as single missions if someone like to do it.
At the moment i do some rework on my Coop-Scipts and waiting for the patch. But I never missed the old IL2-Coop style, the CloDo style is much more flexible and powerfull. If you know how to handle it.

So what do we need to make the process easy enough for the rest of us to work out?

I mission template system could be really interesting... :)

Just like on Arma2 custom scripted missions: there are hundreds of line in the scripts but you need only to change some of them.

There was a poll a while ago on this forum to find out how many people prefer online flying and how many are mainly solo pilots. If I remember correctly the result was roughly 50/50.
So all the answers regarding coop are all fine and good, but for those who cannot play uniterrupted for a prolonged period of time, if you have a family for example ( and there are many of us who do ), the most important thing is a comprehensive DCG.
This adds infinite replayability and that this is missing is more than sad.
Just like the OP, I never had any real technical issues with the sim, it simply runs and looks great, bought it upon the NA release, aware of all the complaints, but they never materialised for me luckily.
However due to the laughable single player content the game is shelved right now. And yes I am aware of all the community efforts to bring a DCG to us, downloaded two, very nice and appreciated efforts, but not the same as a real officially supported, comprehensive DCG.

This is my biggest "problem" at the moment. Online is fine and all but there is no paus key, when my baby daughter starts to scream after waking up because of something and I'm in the middle of a dogfight on ATAG or something it all just falls apart. That's why I prefer offline gaming, I decide over the time I have.

The old style CooP system is needed ........

.............because only 1%(random figure I made up) know how to use scripts to make a Moving Dogfight Server as theres no CooP in CoD.

It quite astonishing the lack of foresight making CoD Dogfight only and removing the old CooP style interface.

Until CooP returns in the correct CooP format we have been used to for 10 years+ this new MDS isnt going to cut it for me and many others due to the limitations using a MDS scripted mission.

Its useless saying its more powerful and wonderful and the best thing since sliced bread when no one understands and comprehends how to use it.

You might as well give a cat a chess set and tell its its a wonderful game and is better than draughts.

A. If you can speak cat language.

B. Have taught a cat to play draughts.
.

The general rule is to evolve, or go extinct ;)

Correct

It will become extinct if they don't evolve the CooP interface.

At present all CoD is is a boring DF game with a few DF servers due to the lack of individuals hosting missions as in IL2 1946 style via Hyperlobby.

If you perceive the future of CoD as being dictated to you by said CoD DF servers then there's nothing evolving, it will remain a limited boring lifeless sim.

There are many mission builders out there from IL2 series that can make missions in CoD, myself included,
the scripting side of things seems an over complicated way of doing some of the simple things possible in IL2 1946 FMB (delayed spawn aircraft) a few clicks and adjust the parameter and hey delayed spawn aircraft, in CoD we have to run scripts to do this ??

It needs simplifying and generally become more user friendly in all areas of the gui including a proper CooP interface and a more scriptless back to clicking FMB for the masses to get involved and feel confident hosting missions for them and their squads, this will bring more interest to CoD users and keep numbers up.


I agree it needs to evolve.

:)


.

Right on addman :)

Bloody hell Alpha i think we agree 100% on something!

Il-2 is the past... there will be those that can teach others to use the new interface...who of us knows the grand plan, and what will be required in the future development to function properly. Certainly change is good when comfortable in the users hands, I'm sure that you will master it.;)

If it doesn't exist it cannot be mastered.

Again ........... THERES NO CooP INTERFACE IN COD

Yes IL2 is in the past, but there's a huge loyal customer base in there not bothering with CoD because there's no CooP and an overcomplicated gui/fmb.
Its not all about the wow factor that looks cool, its about content, at the moment there's none in CoD except flying a few couple of ac on a df server or two.


Lol
Its a pet hate of mine and one that stops me in my tracks with CoD, I don't fly DF servers.

I prefer structured missions set up as a CooP usually between 30-40-60 mins long, all with a win/loose situation and defined target areas.
Percentage destruction levels or points win system depending on mission type.
In CoD you cannot close the mission and see the mission stats pilots score as there's no debriefing room.

Anyway this is very old ground.

Hopefully something will be done to keep the CooP fliers happy.



.
.

What a salient post!

Because it's just adding more things on the list for them to fix , it's taken a year to get this far and they are still miles from release. If you add more you are never going to see anything.

Alpha, did you play VEF in the old IL2?

KG26_alpha,

i believe you have missed the posting from Luthier or Oleg, quite some time ago, where there was said that dogfight servers and coop servers are things of the past.

There are only 2 modes in CoD, online and offline, any further distinctions aren't applicably anymore.

If a developer strives to make the limitations of the past extinct it is very unlikely for him to implement them again.

Unless there is a manual for the FMB we wont really find out how complicated it might be to build a "classic" coop mission.

So i play my coops too.

But you can generate your own stats and save them to disk.
The latest of my squad stats, it was a skip bombing traning :rolleyes::
So i see no problem to create coops.

It would also be possible in furture (if activated by the devs) to create your own GUI, like in Singleplayer also in Multiplayer, so if one programm it you will get your IL-2 Coop interface. ;)

Excellent news!...you know what is possible it seems, you must be very wise hey:grin:

I flew in most of them for a while.
Stopped after being hunted first by log file output cheat > when I you moved seat in the bomber they plotted the grid co-ords, then later the radar hack in other online wars

They were fun/intense though I dont see they are going to get it to run under the current CoD system.


Regarding the missing CooP gui.



No I didn't miss it.

It needs implementing.

I can make classic style CooP missions no problem, I just cant host classic style CooP missions.

All We need is this as I have posted before

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/coop1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/coop2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/coop3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/coop4.jpg

Yep, spot on Alpha.

When it comes to co-ops and mission building, the problem is both the new style user interface, which is very poorly documented, as well as placing all the onus on the players.

Imagine if you bought the latest novel from your latest author, cracked it open and it was just a book full of blank pages and a note saying 'write it yourself, I'm sure it'll be good.'

Making missions is difficult. Making fun, balanced missions even more so. There are very few people willing to sit down and write these things and expecting your player base to do it all themselves is a piss poor attitude.

I'd rather this game have the wrong shade of grey on London bridge's railings and half decent mission generator than what we have now.

Alpha, can we please start a dedicated thread on what we want for coop function to work the way we need it (based on our collective 10 yrs of il2 experience, and how it might be well implemented in some other games). this fruitful discussion, and the illustrations and screenshots you made, will be invisible to luthier who needs to see it (so he can understand why we are frustrated with the current system), and it will just disappear as the thread slides into oblivion

i am also one of those who is frustrated by the lack of proper coop implementation in CoD, and i dont want to spend weeks learning some complex and complicated new scripting method, however good and advanced it might be, its not very usable for most current coop users.

your screenshots with the comments illustrate very well how this issue can be solved fairly simply and quickly by luthier. i would add to those:
1) once coop has started new players should still be able to join, and either choose a new plane on the tarmac or join an existing aircraft (taking over an AI plane, or taking up a crew position in a multi crewed aircraft). that way we get past the boring wait times waiting for a late comer to join, and when people get killed early they dont have to wait 60 to 90 min for the mission to restart in order to play again.
2) when RL players get killed in a mission, they should be able to continue playing by similarly taking over a friendly AI position to control a new aircraft, or take over an AI position on a multi crewed aircraft.
note: server owner should be able to prevent new people from joining if he chooses, and be able to limit numbers of planes a killed player can take over (to prevent abuse by some disruptive players online etc..)


by all means keep the advanced scripting methods that have now been added in CoD, so people can start using them as their skills evolve and they get used to the new system, but additionally it needs at least some kind of console/interface added to make that advanced scripting method easier to use.

I'm just not getting your use of "limitations" here. If getting Co-op to work becomes less user friendly, isn't that making more limitations where only advanced scripting folks can do it and 95% of the customers cannot? It mostly seems that software innovations usually include a more user friendly way of using said software. That doesn't seem to be the case here?

Frankly a simplified GUI for making DF missions is needed as well.

I used to make a lot of DF and a few CoOp missions for the BlitzPigs, but I can't even place a base on a map in CloD.

You should not have to understand a programming language, or whatever it's called, to be able to make missions at least at a basic level.

I think that developers often fall into a trap that has them thinking that their customers are developers as well. It's easy to do if you work with it all day long. Not seeing the forest for the trees.

I don't work in IT.

I'm not a programmer.

I do (or at least used to) enjoy making missions, from the research to the placement of objects. I derived a great amount of satisfaction from seeing my work come to life online.

So how about a simple GUI option for the FMB for those of us that don't want to write scripts and dink about with all that computer boffin stuff?
I know I'm not alone in thinking this. At the very least just implement the ability to use IL2 FMB controls.

Good post OP, those are my problems with the sim too.
A dev can make all the realistic plane models and physics in the world but people still won't want to play it if the game they're in is boring and frustrating to play.

So and why don't you simply ask for a script in the Missionbuilder-Area.
Describe what you want and you will get it, for me it's about 5min to make a simple script. The most scripts you can reuse in other missions. Also don't be shy ;).

Quite honestly I am not one of the few who can actually make sense of the C# gibberish CloD uses for scripting. And I know that area will always be a closed book to me, I simply lack the brain connections to make sense of any kind of coding language. I also heartily agree that the game desperately needs some kind of FMB support interface to help people like me who have no clue about coding.
That said I am quite astonished that people want the horrible old canned Coop format back which really excluded any kind of fluidity, any kind of surprises and deviations from a pre-defined set of parameters. They were, IMO, essentially like a comic strip which ran along a pre-defined path (which the player, with a minimum of intelligence, could easily predict) and had little to do with the conditions on the WW2 battlefield with its fluidity and fog of war.

My 0,02 € ...

+1.
Yes to a GUI for the FMB, no the old Il2 style coops.

so what for of coop would you suggest ? there is no need for it to be a rigid copy of the old version, but it needs to satisfy a few criteria:
- people need to be able to meet in a lobby type format where they can collectively discuss the mission (plane types, target, map, loadout, route to target and egress etc..)
- server owner needs to be able to start the mission so people can take off from the airfield as a cohesive unit
- late comers (who might be finishing dinner etc..) should not have to be waited on for mission start or for them to join, they should be able to join a little later and take over an AI plane etc..
- when players are killed they should be able to rejoin the server without having to wait another 60 - 90 min for the next mission

if you know a better way to include this and not use an improved version of the old system, please explain :)

the only other way i see this is that we have a 24/7 dynamic server that runs an unfolding battlefield scenario over several weeks (largely with scripted elements, not completely player controlled). the server owner could then pause the server when his coops buddies arnt playing ( or let it unfold/run on its own when not used even). you then could use "mission task screens" that give a continuous series of missions that need to be flown, and the players choose some they like (large formation bombers, fighter escort etc). to do this right would be fairly complex, and i dont see luthier pulling that one out of his hat any time soon.

so what other version of coop would you suggest ?

Mate, I am with you for the requested capabilities, but let me explain my position. I've played countless Il2 coops in the last 11 years: there is good and bad, but all in all they're too rigid, and they lack a lot of tactical and strategical flexibility, both for air and for ground units. My opinion is that nowadays MG could do - and possibly did - a much better "coop mode" than that one.
And if I listen to the few C# mission builders here, all of the features of your exhaustive list - that I approve - are already present in CloD, except for the first bullit - where TS comes in more handy :-). That's the reason for my stance: we need a GUI for the FMB, to exploit fully what is under the hood. Once we will know the limits of the new mission builder, we can ask for new functionalities.

BTW, the ATAG Axis vs. Allies server has already a lot of interesting coop-like features. I miss mainly the points for ground targets ... but there are objectives, updates on the targets status, you can join and quit at your will, and once the objectives are reached a faction wins and the mission restarts ... and you can work cooperatively with your mates. AFAIK one cannot jump in a flying AI plane, but I believe that this is a server choice.

I suggest the following to facilitate the communication and understanding on coop, which is one of the most ambiguous and misunderstood debates we have had:

- starting from today's state of the art for online missions, that is the ATAG server, one can specify what one wants different/added/improved. I believe that this would be a more efficient way to proceed.

Cheers!

All I want is a fair number of preset triggers to choose from instead of editing text files in c# or whatever it is.

CThor, but the simple COOP is not just about canned missions with AI that i agree leave little to surprise people.
Its also about quick fast COOps between humans that we miss, also its the set up of quick engagements for a particular training, ground attack, scrambles, skip bombing and such.

What we need is all the new toys in a easy to use and adjust interface with a simple to use and join GUI.

If we dont get that then online wars between sqds are not going to happen.

Though i think we are spiting in the wind with this, its prob not even on Luthiers very long list of fixes and one that we wont see happen for CLOD.

best we can hope for is BOM comes with a better set up for COOPs and we can then go back to CLOD and use it because its not going to happen until then.

The problem is that simply by forcing players onto the same time scale as the old coop format did is not going to produce a real cooperative mission. That requires the willingness of players to actually cooperate and I have seen enough "I'll do what I want and damn the rest" behavior to actually doubt that many players have understood that basic requirement.
As for "online wars between squads" ... I guess that depends on what you take that phrase for. If it should attempt to recreate the conditions of WW2 warfare then the old coop format is simply inadequate as it's too rigid. But if you simply want a Last Man Standing / Deathmatch type of mission then I understand your reasoning, even though I can't agree with it.

Basically the concept SNAFU had for the now unfortunately no longer existing III./JG 27 Server came very close to my ideal of what a decent mission-based server should look like (although they planned "gameplay elements" I could not agree with).

I agree COOPs with public players can be like hearding cats sometimes, but well made VEF missions between sqds were in my view the best flying ive ever done, exciting and tactical with almost everyone sticking to the mission plan just as in real life.

As much as COOPs can go a little "off" DF servers are even further away from realistic flying with almost a guarantee of something going very wrong and being much harder to get everyone in the right place at the right time.

Like i say we need options for all these things to help out every type of mission and player from the very simple COOP to the most trigger laden MDF server but it starts with better FMB manuals, SDKs, docs and better GUIs, the GUI we have now is almost laughable and is almost trying to make things hard on purpose.

With the right tools we can have what ever we want, but right now we have a very limited set up.
The proof is easy to see when starting up CLOD, there is nothing happening with the sim.

The tricky bit is convincing Luthier.

Convincing Luthier of what, exactly, beyond "better FMB manuals, SDKs, docs and better GUIs", which Luthier said is one of the development goals, IIRC.

Luthier has said they will be no improvements to the GUI or COOP set up for CLOD.

To place a base on a map select an object called "SpawnArea" (or similar as I use a RU version) in the FMB ObjectBrowser and CTRL-click where you want to place it. Rightclick for its properties and edit them. No need to learn C#.

An old-IL-2 style coop can be flown in current CLOD version by copying the this coop-script file into the same folder where the mission file is located. No need edit or even open the script file, just give it the same name as your mission file. No need to learn C#.

Any single mission can be converted to coop by removing a tick from a "player" checkbox in players aircraft properties in FMB GUI. No need to learn C#.

C# knowledge is not needed for creation of simple missions equal in complexity to original Il-2 coops. C# is needed to create simultaneous coop & DF combinations within the same airspace like it historically happened in WWII.

Great, thanks for this

Please post suggestions in the appropriate thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28341
Otherwise they will be missed and lost unfortunately.

Regarding COOPs, I posted a link to above screenshots of COOP interface in sukhoi MP bugs thread as a reminder for the devs reading it http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthrea...=1#post1815172

Could you share your coop-script please? Is it based on the Banks' script or different?

Thanks ATaros, im sure it will help, though it still seems a overly complex way to doing things compared to a proper COOP GUI, maybe with Alpha chipping in we might get a word in Luthiers ear in a sticky.

A big thanks to Banks and you for showing us again :)

I agree that it holds sales back to a certain extent and will have even more importance after CTDs are fixed.

Sticky may help but to make sure luthier gets the message I suggest the following:
1) the 1st one who sees a beta-patch posted will reply in that thread with a link to coop issue explanation like this one http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27934 (maybe Alpha can add his screenshots to text). This will work because luthier will read at least several pages of the patch thread. I did it last time but my post was on page 5 only.

2) then the message can be repeated in the patch bugs thread. The key is to make it on the 1st page and provide a link to detailed and constructive explanation. No emotions :)

3) and then if it is not fixed till official patch release, repeat it in B6's updates threads and the official suggestions thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28341 .

I do not want to whine, bitch or complain in any other thread which luthier or B6 will never read as I do not think it would make any sense or difference other than making me look not clever enough :)

On the other hand I do hope we will see development of Banks' DCE and Small_Bee's Operation SeaLion soon after the patch is out and they can offer coop-style online war gameplay.

Good idea, Alpha or any other mods agree?

The fact that it takes over a year for people to learn that you don't need C++ to make missions speaks volumes of the DEV's willingness to share info or create documentation.

I think I made a mission on my first day with Clod:confused:

That is one way to look at it but there is a flip side to that coin..

As in it speaks volumes of the users willingness to go to the FMB, Mission & Campaign builder Discussions section and 'read' the step by step examples provided by community members.

And since there have been missions with and without C# scripts posted there for many Many MANY months, debunks your statement/notion that it took over a year for people to learn C# (PS it is C# not C++)

Some people yes.. but not all, the difference between the two most likely stemming from that willingness to 'read' thing.

In summary as Ataros pointed out, to use the community scripts (like the COOP C# script), one does NOT need to know how to program in C#, only skill required is the ability to rename the script file to match the name of the mission file.

I thank you for the help Ataros, and I salute those who understand how to do this, but I guess my point is that there should be a way to do this without having to understand C# at all, or imposing on another member to make a script.

Simple pull down menus with several choices for actions or inactions based on time/enemy contact or lack there of/player action/etc.

Is it really that difficult to make something like that? Honest question, as I said, I'm not a programmer.

As for the debate about Co-ops, I have flown a few that really worked, the first time they were run, but after that they simply became free for alls with the mission maker and his pals going off to the end objective and not following the mission at all. Meh.


What I want is something along the lines of ATAG's server, but on a smaller scale for my squad and our friends. Mission objective based, join as you want/when you want, with AIs in the air and on the ground. Missions that require team effort to complete, yet are not rigid, totally "scripted" war movies.

But why is that ACE? why has the community as a whole not bothered?

Because its not friendly or intuitive as it should be. That is what were asking for...to make CLOD better and more popular than now.

It basically just like Il-2 with more powerful features available for use. Any Joe who has ever made a mission in Il-2 can do the same in Clod. Coops, well that will take some trial and learned experience:grin:

I already covered that in my post..

To find it, read or re-read the part where I talked about the users willingness to read (oh the irony)

Bingo!

ACE why are you starting another fight in this thread? Stop trolling or you will end up with another holiday.

The problem as I see it is simply that the CloD-FMB is both far more powerful and flexible in what it can achieve but also much more limiting when it comes to who can actually make use of its features. Building a basic mission is no more difficult in CloD than it was in Il-2:1946. But building a mission that really utilizes the possibilities CloD offers is infinitely more complex and requires to be fluid in C#, which is why few people have bothered with the FMB so far (myself included).
And before our coding gurus chime in an point me at the FMB sub-board here I want to insert that copying lines of code without a basic understanding of what they exactly do is not something I am comfortable with. Not to mention that my complete lack of understanding of C# would make troubleshooting a pretty aggravating experience (we germans have a nice phrase for that: "Stille Post" ;)). And to make matters even worse I have pretty high standards for missions, sometimes even bordering on "cinematic" (or should that be "pedantic"? ;)). For me it's not done with copying a bit of code and everything works. I may be overdramatizing things but I don't limit scripting to the aircraft part so I guess making ground objects move at a certain point, artillery beginning to shell an area or maybe even initiating a retreat are all things I (with my utter lack of knowledge) would say are jobs for a script. With missions this complex do you really think just copying some strings from the board is going to make this work? I don't think so ... :-?

Yes I see the difficulty learning C# fluently, I think it depends much on the desire to learn and having many available free hours...few of us have that luxury
http://www.csharp-station.com/Tutorial.aspx

Yes, well ... Problem is that I neither have many free hours nor even the basic understanding of any coding language. My brain just isn't compatible with the patterns of code making. ;)

Yep, and not because most of the mission making community cant read.

I can't see why we can't have both, C# coding for people with the skill to use it extensively and drop down menu preset triggers for the rest of us retards, everybody's happy!:grin:

Been said before but still a strong +1!

This is the best way to make sure nobody new ever plays this game! Exposing casual players to the 1C forums is pretty much guaranteed to drive anyone away from the series. The devs are just hoping that the community will do all the work they should have had done over a year ago.

I agree, the poor interface has kept 99% of the mission builders away from mission building.

One problem is CoD has no live online community except in game and ts, Hyperlobby still supports all those that make it to IL2 1946 and get online via HL.

HL supports CoD but there's no huge attraction until the squads become more active.

In fact I have helped CoD pilots in HL's IL2 lobby before and plenty of casual pilots gather there.

Its usually in these help session the discussion as to why IL2 1946 pilots are not migrating to CoD comes up.
One of the main reasons is no CooP mode, the other is the limited theatre compared to IL2 1946.

================================================== ============================================

The FMB interface is almost identical to the old one, the problem is understanding the C# features and why they went that way.

99% mission builders can handle the CoD FMB
Only
1% can handle the scripts.





.

> One problem is CoD has no live online community, Hyperlobby still supports all those that make it to IL2 1946 and get online via HL.

IMO a big reason is the number of planes. Compared to IL2 there are so few flyable plane types that it gets boring quickly. With Battle of Moscow things should improve. And getting the patch with doubled FPS won't hurt either.

Well, HL will come when the game is fixed. Servers like ours have soo many variables to look for to keep automatically running 24/7 that to add another program into the loop atm would be a royal PITA atm.

If we can make it stable, we'd be using HL too. But there's no point until the game gets there in the 1st place.

As far as the FMB, it's very similar. And there isn't a single thing you can't do in the FMB (besides the broken stuff) compared to the old game that would require any scripting/coding. The main difference is not having a set mode distinguishing online types.

So the 1% about people not coders is probably true, but it only adds to what you can do between both games. You can still spawn planes, ships, trucks, or any other object without a single line of code.

All the other stuff you did to setup missions in the old game were all created by 3rd party - Dgen, FBDj, etc., etc.,

I understand the need for COOP integration and eventually somebody will probably make a program that does all the work for you, just like the old game. But you're making it sound as if what you did FMB-wise / comparing the old and new IL2, one requires code - which is false. But with the new one it allows you to expand missions with programming if you want to / know how.

Im not comparing the new/old.

The difference is the new is sometimes it's unnecessarily difficult, look at the old ac delay spawn, then the new for example ??

If you took 100 that can use the FMB in IL2 then gave them the CoD one 99% wouldn't know how to use the scripting only 1% would is what I meant.

I have made around 2-3 thousand missions in IL2 series and used sometimes the Lowngrin DCG and Starshoys in game DCG in the past to host squad campaigns under CooP conditions, we have tried DF & MDS it don't really work.

Yup its a bad sales point leaving out the CooP interface, but there's more pressing things to sort first for 1C Team and hopefully we will all get what we want from the thing at some point.


:)



.

Please..

My initial reply was to spec.. To point out the fact that it did not take 'everyone' a year to realize C# was NOT needed to make missions

Seeing that was not the case, but still wanting to condemn 1C in some way you chimed in and tried to spin it the topic into another direction. At which point I pointed out to you I already addressed it

As for my answers.. it is pretty simple.. If you don't like my answers, don't ask me questions. Problem solved.

As for trying to start fights.. I have another suggestion for you.. Instead of you trying to play 1C MOD by chiming in with your assessment of posts and punishments.. How about you keep it to yourself and simply report the post? Because if you truly believed what you said, than you know your reply would only escalate the situation.

Agreed?

Now with that said, in light of your other posts in this thread I think you need to read or re-read my post again.

Why?

Because I never said the problem stemmed from people not being able to read (your words not mine)

What I said was their willingness to read!

As in they did not care enough about making missions to read all the info provided here in this and other forums.

Which imho means the only reason they are chiming in on it now is they see it as just another opportunity (more ammo) to talk ill of CoD.

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.

Bliss, I made lots of DF missions in the old IL2 FMB. I cannot even begin to fathom the new CloD FMB, as I have said. And I'm not talking about scripting. I spent hours one day just trying to make a simple 2 base mission, and you know what? It didn't work.

I'm not saying that the new wonderful stuff in the FMB should be eliminated, I love what the programmer types are doing with missions.

But why change the basic things like base and object placement?

Why?

Russian designed GUIs, and any other control interface that they do, are hard enough to understand, why change what worked in the old sim?

It boggles the mind really.

In my opinion the "real" user-friendly interface is not ready simply because it's not a priority at this stage.

They set the bases for a great FMB, but the more complex this is more complex interface you need to manage it, above all if we're talking about design. Probably they got no time to do it, as many other thing in this sim.

Of course one day an user-friendly UI will be developed.. by them or a third developer...

How did it not work? You simply place 2 spawn areas down on top of the 2 airfields you want to spawn from, then select the planes you want to take off from there within the spawn area icon.

You could do that in 20 seconds.

How is that hard? And why didn't it work?

furbs if YOU read the post by specjokey that I replied to, you would see he stated it took a year for people to realize they did NOT need to know how to program in C# to create missions. That is what my reply to him pertained to, which you felt the need to comment on. Again, if you don't like my answers, don't as me questions.

As for your reindeer games.. I could care less what you are trying to get noticed!

But I do care when you put words into my mouth and/or flat out lie about what I said! For example I never said the problem was people could not read! You did so please stop trying to start a fight with me by lying about what I said.

Well Ace, since the FMB and it's co-op mission making abilities are so user friendly, can you point us to all the missions you have made for the community? We all know you defend every aspect of the game by going on the attack so maybe you can back it up this time. If you haven't created any missions yet, maybe now you can show us how easy it is. I will check back tommorrow to see if you have the co-op mission complete with ground battles and multiple squads flying together etc. Shouldn't be a problem since the interface and scripting is so "user friendly" and doesn't need to be addressed in any way.

Have you actually read the Tutorial I made in the Mission Builder section of this forum regarding triggers ?

I know what Im talking about here, after having the game for a year and using every aspect of it including scripting.

What I'm talking about is keeping it simple and thus increasing the FMB user base, increasing the servers and CoD online users.

I don't want 1 or 2 DF servers dictating the way I use the game no matter how clever its setup, give us proper CooP mode and a simple FMB to create missions and host them.



.

What would go a long way is a concise user guide for the FMB, not just a post at SimHQ on how to modify one of the stock single player missions for offline use.

Honestly, I went into the FMB last night and all I could accomplish was to get an AI Spitfire to endlessly circle over base. No way to spawn on the ground in said Spitfire, no indication that the base was red or blue, and no way to launch the mission, even though it shows up in my single player mission list.

It's infuriating for someone who has made missions for years in IL2.

I think it's great that CloD has really advanced features such as scripting and stuff. There are some very talented people out there that can do magic with the tools at their disposal BUT there also have to be a more accessible side to it. Nobody is denying that CloD is a step forward in terms of FMB features compared to 1946 but it's a step backwards (which I never expected) when it comes to being intuitive and accessible. This goes for the whole game IMO, they really need someone with previous experience in making user friendly GUI's, I hope they hire at least one of those. It's a turn-off for newcomers to the game but it's almost even a turn off for a long time fan like myself. I hope to see improvements in the future, hope.:)

No offense, but why would I read the tutorial on the FMB? Did you make it when the game came out? I'm not the one complaining about the difficulty in using it. You were complaining about triggers hence why I pointed out why it's soo much better the way they are implemented compared to 46.

For people like yourself, what I don't understand is why don't you just host a pw protected server to do your COOP style play in (for the time being). You come on here and complain about not having your old style COOP. Why can't you do the same thing by just starting a mission where you spawn from? Sure it's great, I guess, that you could pick your name on a list in some menu instead of clicking on an airfield. But it's not like you can't achieve the same thing (everyone flying at the same time towards your goal of the map).

And again, the FMB in cliffs is just like the FMB in the old game. Why are you complaining about it's difficulty? Please go into specifics here (comparing the 2). I mean, posts saying that the FMB is difficulty in one game compared to the FMB in the other lends me to believe you haven't spent much time with it. Because, side by side, they are virtually the same without the added features that cliffs allows you to do with it.

Again, I don't understand this. You must spend 5 seconds in the FMB and quit. Inside the properties of that spitfire not only will you see altitude is default at 500m, but there's a few checkboxes that you can click on the one's that read "player plane" and "spawn parked" should kinda give it away.

Spawn parked means it's parked where you place it "on the ground" - Player plane should be fairly obvious as well.

And of course your AI spitfire is just going to sit there and turn circles. All you did was give it a single way point and nothing else.

This is exactly like old 46. Do I have a different version of the game or something? How is stuff like this difficult? Are you sure you made missions in the old game?

Hi ElAurens, I know that you have a long history making missions and that I'm sorry that you are having problems. Could you describe your basic mission that you are having a problem with. Is the AI supposed to be your wing man in the mission, or is he to take off from a separate different base?