Request for community ideas for FighterOps Mission Editor

[Juggernaut]

Hello,

The planning stages for the ACC:FighterOps mission
editor is going well.

The goal is to include as many (and more) features as
I have outlined previously for Project Phoenix.
Please refer to this link for reference:
http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=39781

At this point I would like to hear as many ideas from
the community as possible, in order to make sure that
as many features as possible are included in the
mission editor for FighterOps.

I cannot promise that everything or anything that is
suggested will be included, but I believe that it is
important that the community should at least have the
option to give their thoughts and recommendations to
help make the mission editor as flexible and as useful
as possible.

The reference provided above covers a broad range of
features for the mission editor, but I am certainly
not one to believe that I have been thoughtful enough
to cover all of the possibilities that can be or
should be included.
I would appreciate any positive and constructive
feedback that you can provide.
All ideas are welcome and I will do my best to
incorporate as many of them as is appropriate into the
design plan for the mission editor.

Remember, FighterOps is being designed to suite the
desires of the
hard-core flight sim community.
Now is a chance for you make a difference in the
design of the project.

Sincerely,
Paul "Juggernaut" Sterman

[Top Gunner]

Having come up with a question of similar nature, in addition to what the one in Falcon 4 can do, here are a few more. Not as comprehensive as your fabulous list, but a few nonetheless.


The ability to toggle friendliness/hostility of individual nationalities (for example, in "Advanced Tactical Fighter" series, there are missions having you flying from England against French) .
Okay, maybe many people might think that this one is not that necessary, but I think it'd be cool for fictitous scenarioes. Have mission editor designed to permit add-on nationalities/organizations/entities to immediately be added to the list of available nationalities/organizations/entities.
This one isn't all that related to the mission editor but I think it still has something to do with the editor. The game should be designed to permit add-on aircraft/ship/vehicle textures to immediately be added to the list of available textures, and the mission editor should reflect that. Say, if the game doesn't have the Euro-One camo for F-16, and someone decides to make the texture, that someone should also be able to easily add the texture to the game, and the texture should be available for selection in the editor. For example, [list:72772c141d]
F-16C Block 30
F-16C Block 30 [Euro-One]

[/list:o:72772c141d]

[Guns]

:D An effective working flag system where premade scripts will trigger actions. Example Enemy; If enemy interceptors are destroyed dogpatch fighters will be launched from the closet air base or if enemy active sam sites are fired upon they automatically turn off their radars and only use sniff tactics or if incoming flight destroys more than 50% of interceptors remaining break off and RTB or 25% etc. etc. The flags themselves could be arranged in a pull down list and selected for various elements in the missions construction.
:D List of premade weather conditions that can be tweeked and set to ones satisfaction.
:thumbsup: This is all that I have for the time being.

[PVDfan]

I'd like to see a lot of attention paid to the minute details that would add to the immersion factor. Such as having to switch on your TACAN if your flight gets seperated so that other flight members can locate you. Having to fence in over a certain waypoint would be cool, especially seeing your flight extinguish their external lights as they pass over the waypoint. I think using real radio procedure would be cool too. Asking a flight member for his location he would respond, "3 km north of steerpoint 5 heading 040 base plus 15" base being a predetermined altitude set at the briefing so the pilot doesn't give away his location. Having to switch frequencies to talk to AWACS, JSTARS, ABCCC, ground control, tower, SEAD and escorting flights, FAC and refueling aircraft would be sweet.

Most fighter squadrons aren't equipped with an infinite amount of the latest weapons. One of the things that always bothered me about Falcon 4 was the fact that you would carry 2 GBU-24s to bomb an unhardened hangar when two MK-84s or even Mk-82s would be used.

During a ground attack, one thing that bugs me is having my flight fall into a trail formation and having each aircraft follow the previous one in. In RL the last man would be shot down. Normally, aircraft attack from different altitudes and directions, with enough spacing to account for fragments of bomb casing which can linger in the air for as long as 25 seconds from a MK-84. Maybe at the IP waypoint each aircraft could have its own set of steerpoints leading it to the target.

To sum everything up, despite the fidelity of the avionics in Falcon, the graphics in LOMAC and the vast array of weapons in Janes F\A-18, I never feel like it's possible to be overwhelmed by the multi-tasking required of a real fighter pilot. Maybe the deisgners should read "Vipers In The Storm" by Keith Rosenkranz (or try to get him as a technical advisor) to get an idea of what I'm talking about. He does a great job of explaining what a pilot goes through on a combat mission. If even some of what he talks about can be implemented in the game, I know that I at least, would have a real sense of accomplishment after completing a mission.

[Allen]

I read the link you provided. There is so much there, my head is spinning But, since I greatly value the mission editor on flight sims (won't buy a sim without a good editor), here are a couple thoughts. If these ideas are already in your plans -- GREAT -- I apologise for missing them. They are regarding Pilot personality and the Mission Editor Map.

Along with characterizing the AI as Ace...Rookie, also characterize two other attributes: Aggressiveness and Fighting Spirit (Flying Corps Gold did something like this). So, FighterOps would charcterize a pilot's Skill, Aggressiveness, and Fighting Spirit.

Skill has to do with the effectiveness of an attack.


Aggressiveness has to do with the tactics of the attack.

Fighting Spirit has to do with with the fight-or-flight response (tendency to stay and fight or run from the conflict). In particular, fight-or-flight seems to be missing from most sims and games -- the AI always fights -- in real life, people run somtimes.

These two additional characteristics would allow one to simulate the differences between pilots coming from different backgrounds (as from different countries). For example, in Desert Storm, some of Iraq's pilots avoided conflict -- sometimes fleeing from unarmed USA aircraft -- and lived (I don't blame them at all -- this is not to question a nationality's bravery -- just a situational thing).

Regarding Aggressiveness: one could have a Pilot that is Very-Aggressive (in your face and closes quickly) or a Pilot that is Very-Careful (i.e. sets up shots by the numbers and avoids one-on-one dogfights with superior aircraft) and other degrees of Aggressiveness.

Regarding Fighting Spirit: One could have a Pilot who is "Brave" who will take on all opponents in tough situations (maybe even losing situations) or "Fearful" who (perhaps due to insufficient training and support) avoids conflict with USA or Russian pilots altogether, but will fight other country's pilots, and will not take on a superior Aircraft. And, one could have other degrees of Fighting Spirit.

Regarding the FighterOps Mission Editor Map: Please allow one to Zoom in close and see the actual 3D terrain (like Flanker 2). Then one can plan routes into valleys etcetera to avoid radar etcetera. I do not care for the LOMAC map which does not seem to do that.

Thanks for asking :D

[Top Gunner]

Please allow one to Zoom in close and see the actual 3D terrain (like Flanker 2). Then one can plan routes into valleys etcetera to avoid radar etcetera. I do not care for the LOMAC map which does not seem to do that.
Oh right, I think this should be added, too.

You know, this one reminds me of the moment I tried to hide a TBM launcher in a town in Operation Flashpoint mission editor. The launcher looked as if it was neatly parked on a narrow road in the editor, but when I played the mission, the launcher ended up being "planted" in one of those houses......

[BlackAce]

isohyps would be excellent for map display rather than 3D... easier to read and operate on. And also an "explore" tool could be added for who wants to see the map and assets in 3D.

[BlackAce]

DO NOT forget to add a detail level setting for newbies and experienced users,

[jhook]

I've stated before that I would like to see a detailed mission planner with full waypoint features that allow the palyer to set his/her own waypoints depending on the target type, terrain (with detailed elevation graphs) and threat assesment to and from the target area. Along with package info and waypoints as well.

[Moses]

I would take most of the elements from the Jane's F/A-18 editor as a basis for a great mission campaign editor. Alot of detail in it easy to use, the ability to place targets, and keep everyone in the same flight that is most important so you dont have to put each plane and their seperate waypoints in.

Ease of use seem to be the most important thing though if its not easy to use then why would people want to use it?

[Juggernaut]

Hi,

So perhaps it would be good to have a more detailed map for the mission creating than we get for the actual mission flying?

It would be great to be able to place an object exactly where we want it to be, but when a pilot is going on a mission or looking at a recon image, they usually do not have such detailed information.

So perhaps 1 detail map to place objects and another map that would be available to the person flying the mission?

Does this make sense?

Juggernaut



You know, this one reminds me of the moment I tried to hide a TBM launcher in a town in Operation Flashpoint mission editor. The launcher looked as if it was neatly parked on a narrow road in the editor, but when I played the mission, the launcher ended up being "planted" in one of those houses......

[Top Gunner]

So perhaps 1 detail map to place objects and another map that would be available to the person flying the mission?

Does this make sense?
I'd think so.

[BlackAce]

what's object placing? Are we discussing a MISSON editor or a SCENARIO editor?? I think this one is mission editing tool which will be used prior to flight, then what is use of placing objects?

[Juggernaut]

Hi,

Sorry, by object I meant something like a battalion - like adjusting the position of a tank for example.

However, down the road I would like to see the ability to place objects as a type of scenario editor as you say - I'm just not sure how soon something like that can be implemented.

Juggernaut

what's object placing? Are we discussing a MISSON editor or a SCENARIO editor?? I think this one is mission editing tool which will be used prior to flight, then what is use of placing objects?

[BlackAce]

Hi,

okay! it was confusing but its okay now,

Anyways, a scenario editor would be very nice for scripted missions, for both training and multiplayer purposes.

However, without a dynamic campaign (with Multiplayer) and full mission planning tools, scripted missions would be useless. Thats what we all agree about I think.

Thanks,

PS: Good luck with your task!

[Allen]

Juggernaut said: "So perhaps 1 detail map to place objects and another map that would be available to the person flying the mission?

Does this make sense? "

It does to me. The person designing the mission (scenario) needs to place objects accurately. For example, park a MiG right next to the Schoolhouse (to simulate a certain country's tactic). To do that, one needs to zoom close and see the actual 3D terrain. The mission designer is like God -- sees all and knows all.

On the other hand, when a pilot plans how to fly a sortie in real life, they may get detailed target still-photos (which cannot be zoomed or manipulated) and he/she would get paper topographical maps with info on SAM and radar sites, if any. Flying the sortie, the pilot could have the still-picture and a paper map.

By the way, based on the above posts, maybe I responded to the wrong topic ??? We need to have terminology, I think.

I always thought a Mission Editor was what the Mission Designer used outside the game to build missions (or scenarios) for others to play.

Whereas, when playing, a player-pilot would use a Mission Editor to design his/her sortie(s) -- i.e. would use a Sortie Editor. In many games, the same Mission Editor is used for both Mission (scenario) design and Sortie design.

According to my Thesaurus, Mission and Sortie are synonyms, which adds to the confusion. When one says mission -- do they meen the Scenario or the Sortie?

Maybe, FighterOps could use two terminologies to make it clear when one is describing editing outside the game and editing inside the game -- just to facilitate threads like this one. For example, Mission Editor and Sortie Editor as described above -- or Scenario Editor and Sortie Editor -- or whatever you want.

[Juggernaut]

Hi Allen,

By Mission Editor I am referring to everything.

Mission editor means everything needed to create the mission for others to play as well as the items that the player can manipulate once they are playing the scenario.

Part of the design of the mission editor is to determine those things which the player can and cannot manipulate while they play.

Like F4 the "mission editor" in FighterOps will likely by definition have to include the ability to have a "sortie editor" within it that he player can manipulate (although I would like to see the one in fighterops be more flexible than that in F4).

So yes, a subset of the "mission editor" would be a "sortie or flight editor" or a "package editor". They all fall under the category of the "mission editor".
So I am looking for ideas for all of this...from the design of the "mission editor" all the way down to the fine details of what the player can or cannot do.

Am I making sense?

Thanks,
Juggernaut



By the way, based on the above posts, maybe I responded to the wrong topic ??? We need to have terminology, I think.

I always thought a Mission Editor was what the Mission Designer used outside the game to build missions (or scenarios) for others to play.

Whereas, when playing, a player-pilot would use a Mission Editor to design his/her sortie(s) -- i.e. would use a Sortie Editor. In many games, the same Mission Editor is used for both Mission (scenario) design and Sortie design.

According to my Thesaurus, Mission and Sortie are synonyms, which adds to the confusion. When one says mission -- do they meen the Scenario or the Sortie?

Maybe, FighterOps could use two terminologies to make it clear when one is describing editing outside the game and editing inside the game -- just to facilitate threads like this one. For example, Mission Editor and Sortie Editor as described above -- or Scenario Editor and Sortie Editor -- or whatever you want.

[Bladehawk]

Hey everyone !

Before I start going in details like changing the pilots underwear and things like that, I like to call everyone attention to :

1- The primary objective "keep the hyper realism"

If the AI is perfect then all it be more "real".

In real life can pilots "change" the missions that HQ give to them? can FO simulate the real "Workload" of a Fighter Pilot PERIOD !
Can this editor be made at various levels of use ?
i.e In real life What can a Lt change ("edit") in a mission that is given to him? and a colonel what can he change ? get my point ?
The editor is good but in F.O. the realism of should be targeted at the AI, the implementation of characteristics of pilots, and a strong sense of immersion (Know the pilots in our squadron) like in real life.

This Editor and its functions isn´t more suited to Command Ops for example ? Im just Asking nothing More :thumbsup:





2 - Example of a bad editor : If Im stationed in one air base and with the editor I chhose

[IxianMace]

I agree that keeping it as realistic as possible is important. If it were really realistic, I think a pilot would simply have to look at the orders for his/her mission, and follow it. I doubt he/she would be able to modify the flight plan the way he/she saw fit.

For those that want the experience to be a realistic as possible, I guess they can simply not use any features that they think would reduce the realism. :thumbsup:

I'm sure people wouldn't mind having a little more control and/or functionality in an editor though. :mrgreen:

As for the AI, I've never seen an AI that is 'perfect'. When someone write an AI script that can dynamically adjust to and learn from its experiences, then it will be just like online. :drink:

[Juggernaut]

Hi Bladehawk,

Part of my design plan is to have the person who makes the scenario have the ability to limit what the player can do.

So options such as "player can adjust flights", "player can adjust loadout", "player can add flights" etc...would be options that someone could turn off or on when they are creating the scenario.

This would permit the person who creates the scenario to determine how much the player can be a "commander" of what is going on or simply an "average pilot" obeying orders.

To a large degree Falcon 4 already gave us some control of what a "commander" does in the war.
I would certainly like to see this continued and expanded upon.
I'm sure that programming the computer to calculate an appropriate ATO is a tough task. It would be nice if people could have the option to either "do as they are told" or to also have the ability to control more of the mission planning and strategy if they have a different idea from what the computer ATO has planned.
-It has always been a part of Falcon 4 to some degree, and I do not have a problem with letting it continue and grow with fighterops (if it can be programmed effectively without limiting any other aspect - and remember, fighterops is a project without an end...so anything should be possible).

In either case, my design plan would allow these things to be controlled and changed by the person making the scenario.

Juggernaut


Hey everyone !

Before I start going in details like changing the pilots underwear and things like that, I like to call everyone attention to :

1- The primary objective "keep the hyper realism"

If the AI is perfect then all it be more "real".

In real life can pilots "change" the missions that HQ give to them? can FO simulate the real "Workload" of a Fighter Pilot PERIOD !
Can this editor be made at various levels of use ?
i.e In real life What can a Lt change ("edit") in a mission that is given to him? and a colonel what can he change ? get my point ?
The editor is good but in F.O. the realism of should be targeted at the AI, the implementation of characteristics of pilots, and a strong sense of immersion (Know the pilots in our squadron) like in real life.

This Editor and its functions isn´t more suited to Command Ops for example ? Im just Asking nothing More :thumbsup:





2 - Example of a bad editor : If Im stationed in one air base and with the editor I chhose

[Hollywood]

Hi jugger
The graphics in Fighter ops, what will they be based on? Will high graphic settings be only for 64bit systems? Im only asking because of my experience with LOCKON... Medium settings on there even give my problems especially when Scenes are on... Killer on FPS...

Hollywood


2500xp Athlon
1 gig 3200 Geil DDR
9700 ATI Pro 128MG
MSI Delta mobo Nforce 2
Win XP pro
SB Live 5.1

[Juggernaut]

Hi jugger
The graphics in Fighter ops, what will they be based on? Will high graphic settings be only for 64bit systems? Im only asking because of my experience with LOCKON... Medium settings on there even give my problems especially when Scenes are on... Killer on FPS...

Hollywood


Hi Hollywood,

Sorry, but I have no idea.

I am not even a coder. I am helping to organize the content and structure of the mission editor design so it can be send to the coders to have at it.
:)

Sorry I could not be of more help,
Juggernaut

[Bladehawk]

Jugger

I think FO could be a good way not just to learn hyper realistic the pilot procedures inside de cockpit, but also "outside the pit".
i.e how does a combat mission is planned before the flight ( the use of maps, notes that can be writen and taken (inside the flight suit Pockets...).
The briefing room etc...

do you think FO could deliver this ?

[Stuntie]

Packages and AWACs/tankers.

having a set of 'template packages' would be nice.
So you add an OCA strike package and you get the bomb trucks sead, escort and anything else all together without you needing to set up four or more flights. Staggered take off, tanking and rendevous all sorted so the user does not need to mess about doing it manually.

AWACS/Tankers.

Have these available as 1 click options.
With the AWACS getting an escort.
The tanker can also become a focal point with anything needing gas going to the tanker in a time dependent sequence - i.e no 16 ship packages arriving hungry all together.
Also - have a tanker required warning (with a click to add) if a flight or package needs one given its current loadout and target.

It's kinda quite out there....
Ever flown a mission where you feel like its just you your wingie, and a single enemy strike package?
I think some sort of 'add some stuff to bring it alive' function would be good.
Add a couple of caps, strikes and things that don't interfer with the players flight, but add an element of depth to the war. Radio chatter and a totally unrelated flight whizzing past on their way home would add so much.

[Stuntie]

Rules of engagment.
A set of options that range from 'only when fired upon' through 'visual id' to 'if it moves shoot it'.
That would help simulate restrictive combats such as peace keeping scenarios where it's not total war, so you need to follow the rules.

Add in civilian traffic and you could get some challenging scenarios where knowing when or if to fire is as important as knowing how to.

Would also help with a 'build up to war' for a linked series of missions in a campaign.

[Hollywood]

NP jugger.. Just kinda upset with the lockon thingy.. In my opinion sir, I think alot this should be based off of Janes F-18.. I know you've heard this alot in the thread but it really is a superior mission builder as well as some other things... Just my opinion..

Thanks

Hollywood

[Allen]

Juggernaut,

You make perfect sense. We're discussing what I originally thought we were :) So, I can stick with my comments, as commented :)

[Juggernaut]

BUMP.

Keep the ideas coming guys!

The more the better!

Most of what I have read is already in the design plan, but your ideas help me to think of new things as well.

Thanks!
Juggernaut

[Lowblow]

In my edition of Falcon 4 , when I order the rest of my AI Flight to atack a
ground target, the first AI aircraft often destoys the target and the other
two continue to atack it even though there is no point, in FighterOps I would like to be able to stop my flight from atacking the ground target once it has been destoyed, and then move on to another target or R.T.B
with the remaining A.G ordanance saved for the next mision as I asume their will not be an infinate amount of ordanace available to the us ( at least their shoudnt be, especialy on expeditianary missions).

Lowblow in London/England

[16 263 HeartAttack]

1. How about adding the ability to choose your own Bullseye? I believe that the Bullseye is changed on a regular basis in real life (whats that?) so why not have that ability if you are designing a TE? In a generated campaign, you could have it change automatically and be called out in the mission briefing. "Gentlemen, your bullseye for today is..."

2. Give more functionality to the Data-Link. I have no idea how they do it in real life, but being able to D-Link to the other flights in your package would be absolutely Awesome in the extreme.

3. Movers on the ground. Having been to numerous airshows in which the featured aircraft were F-16's, 18's, 14's and 15's and having spent 48 months riding around in Uncle Sams tanks, I can attest to the fact that as an armored crewman or spectator, you absolutely CANNOT hear any one of the afore mentioned aircraft when they have you "on the nose" and are at attack speed. If there is a column of vehicles on a highway, they should NOT stop when you are within 5 or ten miles of them. We were trained to "Haul As&!" , and find some cover when confronted with ground attack aircraft. Most times, we didn't know we were even a target until either someone blew up, or an umpire came by and bade us stop! From personal experience, you CANNOT even hear an antique AH-1 when he's in hover behind a tree-line and has you boresighted. Just ask the 1991 Medina Division vets! Trust me on this one!

Anyway, I hope moving targets act more realisticaly mabe they can come to a stop after you blow one of 'em up or something. maybe even go into a Herringbone manuever, even the Russian tankers are taught the Herringbone.

[Juggernaut]

I
Along with characterizing the AI as Ace...Rookie, also characterize two other attributes: Aggressiveness and Fighting Spirit (Flying Corps Gold did something like this). So, FighterOps would charcterize a pilot's Skill, Aggressiveness, and Fighting Spirit.
D

Hi Allen,

I am attempting to incorporate you idea into the sim. I had already planned for skill of the pilot and the mission priority (as I mentioned to you). These will cover the skill with which the pilot attacks (using proper tactics or not), and how important it is to accomplish the mission and not get diverted by nearby threats if they are already being handled (mission priority).

I have covered personality by saying they are brave, normal, or fearful with 'brave' pilots willing to take on more numerous enemies of any nation, 'normal' will be a bit more selective in who they fight and against how many, and 'fearful' will be more likely to avoid the fight and run unless the situation is very favorable.
To some degree the personality will need to be overcome by the mission priority (ie a fearful pilot might be nudged up to a "normal" pilot if the mission is of high priority - sort of simulating a coward rising up to the task and becoming a hero when needed), or the pilots chosen for the the mission would have to be limited according to mission priority.

So as far as I can tell, those 3 elements - mission priority, skill, level, and personality should cover most things.

I just wanted to know if you felt I was still missing out on the "fighting spirit"? It is my impression that the fighting spirit would simply be the sum total of the other 3 traits already decribed.

What do you think?
Juggernaut

[spyro23]

Sounds good(and logically)to me :thumbsup:

[Bladehawk]

I
Along with characterizing the AI as Ace...Rookie, also characterize two other attributes: Aggressiveness and Fighting Spirit (Flying Corps Gold did something like this). So, FighterOps would charcterize a pilot's Skill, Aggressiveness, and Fighting Spirit.
D

Hi Allen,

I am attempting to incorporate you idea into the sim. I had already planned for skill of the pilot and the mission priority (as I mentioned to you). These will cover the skill with which the pilot attacks (using proper tactics or not), and how important it is to accomplish the mission and not get diverted by nearby threats if they are already being handled (mission priority).

I have covered personality by saying they are brave, normal, or fearful with 'brave' pilots willing to take on more numerous enemies of any nation, 'normal' will be a bit more selective in who they fight and against how many, and 'fearful' will be more likely to avoid the fight and run unless the situation is very favorable.
To some degree the personality will need to be overcome by the mission priority (ie a fearful pilot might be nudged up to a "normal" pilot if the mission is of high priority - sort of simulating a coward rising up to the task and becoming a hero when needed), or the pilots chosen for the the mission would have to be limited according to mission priority.

So as far as I can tell, those 3 elements - mission priority, skill, level, and personality should cover most things.

I just wanted to know if you felt I was still missing out on the "fighting spirit"? It is my impression that the fighting spirit would simply be the sum total of the other 3 traits already decribed.

What do you think?
Juggernaut

By the way ...
What do you think about the topic about Pilot Stats and AI that were posted ?
I would like if something of that could be implemented ?

[maconu]

It would be cool to have AI wigmen that would stick with you till they die. The more missions they fly the more confidence they have. When a wingmen dies you get a list of possible canidates and there back ground / history. Flying together would create some sort of Camaraderie so if a wigmen has flown with you for awhile he or she would be more likely to cover your a** when things get sticky. You gain rank and medals as time goes on (if you deserve it)

Oops off topic of mission editor .... sorry.

The ability to direct certain wings to certain targets for simultaneous attacks of different targets so you can send another wing to the main target.
Maybe the ability to create your own world situation where you can select your advisary and your advisaries resources. Like number and type of units, region etc.

hope it helps
asta :drink: :thumbsup:

[jhook]

Maconu,
I like the idea of wingmen following you, but they should have an independant AI so as to protest themselves or properly respond to your orders. I also posted a little on how a flight leader could control other air groups in the mission area, and divert them to more important targets, ect. AWACS could also divert aircraft towards more inportant targets. :thumbsup:

[Vlerkies]

I don't know if it has already been put here. But as jhook mentioned in another thread, he talked about intel. It would be great if you could have a sattelite photo for the target area prior to the mission, as well as detailed intel on the various dangers enroute to the area and around the target area.
With an updated Sat image just prior to takeoff :thumbsup:

Shot for the idea jhook

Have a few on me
:drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink:


:military:

~S~

[Charlie_VFP]

Few off the top of my head...

1. A FULL set of modeled equipment. Meaning, if you have a US Navy, we need more than a carrier and two ships. More than one specific type of tank. We will also need a full set of civillian gear so that we can model terrorist activities. (In Afghanistan they favored Toyota trucks).

2. Make it possible to physically set the border lines. Meaning, if a pilot ejects behind enemy lines, they he is captured. Allow the mission creator to set this parameter. It would also be nice to get a 'grey zone' instead of solid lines. Then there is a % at which the pilot is found by freindly or enemy troops. Would simulate a dynamic war front.

3. Ability to assign air bases to specific sides... this way AI is not landing at the wrong sides airbase.

4. Have an option to "Add Defense" to an air base. Then we can spend less time setting up missile batteries and things of that nature. With a simple click, all the standard defese units will be automatically placed around the airfield. Then we can modify as desired.

5. IMPORTANT: Give us the ability to make a helo go into a hover and also land in the wilderness. A menu option of "Hover" and "RESCUE" would be great. This way, we can simulate picking up a downed pilot. The helo will just go into a hover at its current altitude settings if HOVER is selected for a point (give us a time counter too). If it is set to RESCUE, it should come into a hover, land, wait a set amount of time, lift back off, and upon reaching its set altitude, goes on to the next waypoint. If the RESCUE setting is over trees, then it should lower to within 5 ft of the tree top level and simulate droping a line. This would take longer, so it needs to be programmed to wait in that position 3 times as long as the helo on open ground would.

6. Also make it possible for helo operations off the back of ships that can support them.... ie refuelers, LHA's, carriers, Ect.

OK< thats just a quick list off the top of my head. Will try to give more later.

[Vlerkies]

Brilliant ideas bud :thumbsup:


:military:

~S~

[TexMurphy]

Sorry if this is a bit side track but it does involve the mission editor.

What Id like to see is tha missions are scripts (lua or what ever). This will make it easier to create missions, scenarios and dynamic campaigns for developers and commuinty.

This means that the Mission editor has to be able to read these scripts and write them.

For multiplayer campaign and mission editing the Mission editor has to read the mission data of the server and the server has to be the master of what the client can and cannot change in the mission.

Tex

[spyro23]

Terry wrote

2. Make it possible to physically set the border lines. Meaning, if a pilot ejects behind enemy lines, they he is captured. Allow the mission creator to set this parameter. It would also be nice to get a 'grey zone' instead of solid lines. Then there is a % at which the pilot is found by freindly or enemy troops. Would simulate a dynamic war front.


I cant 100% agree with you Terry.
Can you remember Bosnia "peace" operation??? Scott O'Grady USAF F-16 pilot was shot down over Bosnia (I dont remind where exactly :? ) Few days he was hiding in forests; eating worms, plants ect. Few enemy ground units try find him. After few days he was rescued behind enemy lines.
Grey zone is very good idea :thumbsup: but in my opinion rescue should be avaible also in enemy zone (of course rescue propability should be much lower). Thats for Combat SAR units are trained.

And my 2 cents about CSAR & SAR missions.
I prefere fly this mission as Escort/CAS. I imagine those missions like that:
CSAR helicopters try pick up pilot/pilots but enemy ground units are nearby. They try shoot down our heli's and capture pilot. My mission (as f.ex. A-10 pilot) is keep enemy down, cover heli's and pilots, just give suppresive fire and more time. Or simply wait and cover shot down pilot until CSAR arrive. But this is only my opinion

[Charlie_VFP]

Yes, I remember Grady. The helo landed and the Marines almost shot him because he came running at them waving a 9mm pistol. Guess he was just really happy to see the good guys show up that he didnt think that he should keep it lowered or put it away while he ran towards them. :)

This is a very important thing for the dynamic campaign. If AI pilots are shot down over enemy lands, then we need to make sure that the squadron your flying with has a plane and a pilot taken away to reflect the happenings of the past mission.

Not only that, but if your pilot is shot down over enemy lines, you could take on the persona of another squadron mate for the next mission, of which the dynamic campaign assignes to be a rescue mission. So, you will in effect be rescuing yourself. After a success rescue mission (CSAR CAP or something) you will be able to fly your persona again. If he no get rescued, your pilot log for that persona is locked and 'he' doesnt fly anymore.

So much can be done with a dynamic campaign generator and this type of feature.

[spyro23]

Good point Terry! Me rescuing myself :thumbsup:
My last minute idea:
If someone in my squadron were shoot down morale rest of pilots should fall. But if CSAR mission will be succesful morale should raise (of course will be lower than before) . If overall CSAR missions will be well (lets say 60-75% succes) lose (shot down) few pilots shouldn't cause big morale fall, but is CSAR will be suck.... any combat lose will destroy squadron morale.
This option/issue in dynamic campaign could be good reason to fly CSAR mission and take care of wingmens during airfights like in real live. I know from my expirence that in single-/multiplayer sims virtual pilots prefere kill enemy at all costs and sacrifice wingmens lives is in his opinion acceptable. They think that wingmen should/must help them but they dont need help wingmen. They treat wingmens like towed decoy with extra missiles. In real live first you help wingmen, then you can deal with enemy.

[Charlie_VFP]

Actually, from real life experiance, losing a pilot only strengthens the resolve of those left to do the job.

[jhook]

In my opinion, SAR/CAPS are on ready/standby all the time. Chances of being resucued are in the high 90%'s. That's just about anywhere on the battle field, with the exception on parachuting in the middle of a convoy or brigade of infantry. :cry: not only does a SAR/CAP cover the area of a downed pilot, but the have an insergent team (if needed) to secure the gound area during a hot LZ for a downed pilot! :thumbsup: A SAR/CAP can arrive in seconds, first the CAP conducts a ground sweep, clusters if they have to, while the Blackhawk fly's in for the rescue! :military: :thumbsup: I think this is a part of "Fighter Ops" that should be modled and it will depend on the algorythums used by each unti in the operational area! :military: :thumbsup:

[spyro23]

Actually, from real life experiance, losing a pilot only strengthens the resolve of those left to do the job.
Maby you have right, I dont know what real pilots feel :? , I can only imagine.
Kind of revenge willing - yes if war is short and loses are low but if you lose one,two,three,.....wingmens/friends sooner or later you will start thinking "when will be my turn??" If some soldier/pilot tell me that he was/is not afraid during war I will not beliefe him (otherwise he is stupid or crazy :D )

[jhook]

Spyro 23 wrote,
If some soldier/pilot tell me that he was/is not afraid during war I will not beliefe him (otherwise he is stupid or crazy )

Thak God it's fiction here. That is the true insanity of war! :( Hitler was a field soldier and he loved combat. That's just how crazy he was.

[Charlie_VFP]

We were talking about losing a pilot.... not many pilots. Else my statement would have been slightly different. :-p

CSAR doesn't normally show up in 'seconds' but they are not all that far behind.

[Juggernaut]

By the way ...
What do you think about the discussion about Pilot Stats and AI that are posted in the proper topics ?
I would like if something of that could be implemented ?

Hi,

What exactly are you referring to here?

Thanks!
Juggernaut

[Juggernaut]

It would be cool to have AI wigmen that would stick with you till they die. The more missions they fly the more confidence they have. When a wingmen dies you get a list of possible canidates and there back ground / history. Flying together would create some sort of Camaraderie so if a wigmen has flown with you for awhile he or she would be more likely to cover your a** when things get sticky. You gain rank and medals as time goes on (if you deserve it)

Oops off topic of mission editor .... sorry.

The ability to direct certain wings to certain targets for simultaneous attacks of different targets so you can send another wing to the main target.
Maybe the ability to create your own world situation where you can select your advisary and your advisaries resources. Like number and type of units, region etc.

hope it helps
asta :drink: :thumbsup:

Hi,

Good suggestions.

Already incorporated in my design plan:
1) ability to choose to fly with specific wingmen.
-I have also suggested the ability to "train" your wingmen, such that by taking specific wingmen in with you on training missions their skill will also improve.

2) Ability to pre-assign different targets (and multiple targets) to each wingman.

3) the ability to add and remove objects from the virtual world in order to create fictional or historical scenarios.

4) ability to decide upon team "alliances".

Thanks!
Juggernaut

[Juggernaut]

Few off the top of my head...

1. A FULL set of modeled equipment. Meaning, if you have a US Navy, we need more than a carrier and two ships. More than one specific type of tank. We will also need a full set of civillian gear so that we can model terrorist activities. (In Afghanistan they favored Toyota trucks).

2. Make it possible to physically set the border lines. Meaning, if a pilot ejects behind enemy lines, they he is captured. Allow the mission creator to set this parameter. It would also be nice to get a 'grey zone' instead of solid lines. Then there is a % at which the pilot is found by freindly or enemy troops. Would simulate a dynamic war front.

3. Ability to assign air bases to specific sides... this way AI is not landing at the wrong sides airbase.

4. Have an option to "Add Defense" to an air base. Then we can spend less time setting up missile batteries and things of that nature. With a simple click, all the standard defese units will be automatically placed around the airfield. Then we can modify as desired.

5. IMPORTANT: Give us the ability to make a helo go into a hover and also land in the wilderness. A menu option of "Hover" and "RESCUE" would be great. This way, we can simulate picking up a downed pilot. The helo will just go into a hover at its current altitude settings if HOVER is selected for a point (give us a time counter too). If it is set to RESCUE, it should come into a hover, land, wait a set amount of time, lift back off, and upon reaching its set altitude, goes on to the next waypoint. If the RESCUE setting is over trees, then it should lower to within 5 ft of the tree top level and simulate droping a line. This would take longer, so it needs to be programmed to wait in that position 3 times as long as the helo on open ground would.

6. Also make it possible for helo operations off the back of ships that can support them.... ie refuelers, LHA's, carriers, Ect.

OK< thats just a quick list off the top of my head. Will try to give more later.

Hi Terry!

Much of what you mention is common sense and will hopefully be implemented.

With regards to the "add defense" option, this is how I have planned things:
-There will (hopefully) be the ability to save to file any battalion for flight/package or combination of the such. With this ability you would simply once make a defense battalion for a runway, and then anytime you needed another one somewhere else, you would just "open" that file and insert the battalion to the runway of choice. Of course each item would be separately editable.
-I see no reason we cannot add a few "default" files for the more common items (like runway defense, AWACS, tankers, etc).

Thanks!
Juggernaut

[Juggernaut]

Sorry if this is a bit side track but it does involve the mission editor.

What Id like to see is tha missions are scripts (lua or what ever). This will make it easier to create missions, scenarios and dynamic campaigns for developers and commuinty.

This means that the Mission editor has to be able to read these scripts and write them.

For multiplayer campaign and mission editing the Mission editor has to read the mission data of the server and the server has to be the master of what the client can and cannot change in the mission.

Tex

Hi,

Can you clarify what you mean by scripts and how the mission editor would benefit from reading and writing them?
Sorry for my ignorance.


In my design plan is the ability to control which items the end user can adjust (such as loadout, fuel level, etc..)

Thanks!
Juggernaut

[Charlie_VFP]

I took the 'scripts' topic to be that of how FB has an add on util that will allow th ehost to designate how many planes, pilots, mission accomplishments each team has.

Basically, as a host I could say each side gets 20 pilots, 20 planes, and must destroy 10 targets to win. Then in the mission editor, I setup 10 targets for each side that are monitored by the 'script' program.

As the game progresses, it updates when a pilot is killed, plane destroyed, or target destroyed.

However, I think with a dynamic campaign like what G2I has been speaking about in place, there will be no need for this.

Of course, this may not be the script idea that has been stated here.

[france-simulation]

:D

One lack i've found on every Mission editor for flight sim is lack of any triggers..
I think it's not easy in programming but for mission creator the possibility of using..
If ... Then... else
will be a terrific tools.. but may be i ask too much :wink:

[Juggernaut]

:D

One lack i've found on every Mission editor for flight sim is lack of any triggers..
I think it's not easy in programming but for mission creator the possibility of using..
If ... Then... else
will be a terrific tools.. but may be i ask too much :wink:

Hi,

My design calls for lots of different types of flags/triggers.

I'm not sure how hard it will be to program them in, but my design calls for it.

Talk to you later!
Juggernaut

[Jammer164]

I for one would like to see what I call (for lack of a better term, or brain :mrgreen: ) a 'Dynamic TE' option.

By this I mean the ability to set a few 'general' options up front, oponent strength, number of aircraft and type, maximum number of sorties...etc. After these are set the TE ATO would randomly generate flights for both side, you would still have the responsibility to plan your own flight. It would also randomly place ground units, SAM's and such.

By doing it this way the creator (host for MP) would not have any 'before hand' information about 'exactly' what is there and where it is. This would be fantastic for online play as it would allow the creator/host to be able to fly the mission without and 'unfair' advantage.

Sounds good to me on the surface, what do you guys think?

Andy 'Jammer' Simmons.

[Juggernaut]

I for one would like to see what I call (for lack of a better term, or brain :mrgreen: ) a 'Dynamic TE' option.

By this I mean the ability to set a few 'general' options up front, oponent strength, number of aircraft and type, maximum number of sorties...etc. After these are set the TE ATO would randomly generate flights for both side, you would still have the responsibility to plan your own flight. It would also randomly place ground units, SAM's and such.

By doing it this way the creator (host for MP) would not have any 'before hand' information about 'exactly' what is there and where it is. This would be fantastic for online play as it would allow the creator/host to be able to fly the mission without and 'unfair' advantage.

Sounds good to me on the surface, what do you guys think?

Andy 'Jammer' Simmons.

Hi,

For me, that is the ultimate goal in the long run.

My big picture design is to obscure the differences between a dynamic campaign and the mission editor. So, like you stated, eventually you could create a mission editor scenario where the computer acts as the ATO and generates missions based on the goals you set OR you could have a full scale dynamic campaign where the human can be the ATO and leave all of the planning up to the player...or a combination of computer and human generated ATO for both single scenarios or the full blown campaign.

If this can be done, and how long it will take is still up in the air.

I presume it should be relatively easy to "expand" the mission editor design to the dynamic campaign where the human can control everything.
However, the part where the computer generates missions will need to wait until the computer generated ATO can be made.

BTW, my mission editor design allows for so much randomness that it would be possible for someone to create their very own mission and still have almost no idea about what is going to happen, when it will happen, and by whom it will happen. So hopefully we can relatively quickly get the mission editor functioning (still in the planning phases only)...and this may hold people over until the dynamic campaign comes out.

Juggernaut

[Charlie_VFP]

Another mission editor feature....

The ability to set refueling points. Not just letting the tanker run a 'track' and wait for aircraft....

But to actually designate a specific waypoint in which the aircraft should refuel and the AWACS and Tanker respond to the aicraft as if it knew it was specifically coming in to get gas.

[Ami_XSI]

Hey Juggernaut,

I´m not surew if this was brought up yet. As far as mission editing goes, there´s one thing that has always anoyed me. We need to have the option of adding naval vesseles into any mission (TE) by clicking on an icon.

This should be rather simple to add in.

[Juggernaut]

Hey Juggernaut,

I´m not surew if this was brought up yet. As far as mission editing goes, there´s one thing that has always anoyed me. We need to have the option of adding naval vesseles into any mission (TE) by clicking on an icon.

This should be rather simple to add in.

Hi Ami,

That is certainly in the design plan.

Juggernaut

[Baco-ECV56]

Triggers and Flags are of outmost importance to be able to create a life like mission.

It would be grate (but don´t know if posible, to have a map editor, or terrain editor, To be able to create new scenarios, in other countries.

The habilitie to place new airstrips, or basses, to be able to create a map with balanced bases to do an on-line war for instance.

And new objects, like city tiles or nucelrar or electric plants, factories, controle centers... And all kind of strategic or tactical targets.

The idea behind an on line war would be to have a numbre of aircrafts, and ground forces, and you gain terrain by protecting your ground forces and killind the enemies. Hence alowing yours to advance. Stretegic objects such as factories, or powerplants would afect teh number of reinforcemntes or C&C, etc...

An On line war, is far more inmersive than a dynamic campaign you know. Sice your oponents CO is another Human that can change tactics, or react to yours...

So you need much of what has been mentioned here: triggers, ROEs, IA modes of agresivness and be able to program tactics into SAM´s and AAA and AI flights.

To be alble to restrict ordinace for a given side.

Anyway I´m just brainstorming here...

[Juggernaut]

Triggers and Flags are of outmost importance to be able to create a life like mission.

It would be grate (but don´t know if posible, to have a map editor, or terrain editor, To be able to create new scenarios, in other countries.

The habilitie to place new airstrips, or basses, to be able to create a map with balanced bases to do an on-line war for instance.

And new objects, like city tiles or nucelrar or electric plants, factories, controle centers... And all kind of strategic or tactical targets.

The idea behind an on line war would be to have a numbre of aircrafts, and ground forces, and you gain terrain by protecting your ground forces and killind the enemies. Hence alowing yours to advance. Stretegic objects such as factories, or powerplants would afect teh number of reinforcemntes or C&C, etc...

An On line war, is far more inmersive than a dynamic campaign you know. Sice your oponents CO is another Human that can change tactics, or react to yours...

So you need much of what has been mentioned here: triggers, ROEs, IA modes of agresivness and be able to program tactics into SAM´s and AAA and AI flights.

To be alble to restrict ordinace for a given side.

Anyway I´m just brainstorming here...

Hi,

Thanks for the ideas.

The things you suggest have already been incorporated into the design plan. I agree that they are important.

I just hope the coders can code all of it...

Thanks,
Juggernaut

[Stang]

Hi Guys

Thought you might like to check this out http://www.fighterops.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=326

[Juggernaut]

I suppose it is time to bump this up again...

Let's here those ideas guys!

Juggernaut

[have_quick]

I'd like to see separate mission editors and mission planners. It seems like mission editors such as the one in Lomac are optimized for creating missions, not for actually planning a mission. Under the hood they're probably mostly the same but the details presented to the user would be a bit different.

It would be great if there were intel details attached to individual objects in the mission planner. For example, a column of T-80 tanks is displayed on the map. An intel section would tell you that the column was detected by a JSTARS flight at 13:47. In some cases the intel would be wrong, maybe somewhat often in the case of vehicles (meaning that they moved), less often in the case of fixed targets like buildings. You wouldn't need to actually hook this information back into anything in the campaign system (at least at first), it could just be static text setup by the mission designer.

Maybe instead of the mission planner showing a default set of waypoints, it would be cool if the mission planner starts with a time over target and then works backward promting the user for previous waypoints. This user is forced to think like a real pilot rather than just accept the default waypoints and go. As each waypoint is placed any dangers associated with the waypoint placement are highlighted. For example, if by placing a waypoint in a particular spot my flight will be entering a SA-6's engagement range, the mission planner would change the SA-6's range circle to flash, letting me know that maybe this isn't such a good idea. No need for super logic that figures out if I'm terrain masked or anything, just a basic range calculation.

It would be neat if the mission planner performed some sort of fuel calcuation once I've locked my waypoints in so that I can figure out how much fuel to load. Again, no need for super intelligent calculations, just a dumb 'it will take X amount of fuel to get through all my waypoints at their assigned speeds' calculation. It would then be up to the pilot to make sure that they are carrying enough fuel to allow for any unplanned excursions.

Please, please, please ( I'm begging you here :) do not setup the mission planner/editor so that I have to remember anything that's not obvious on the screen. For example, I'm trying to learn to play a wargame that has an absolutely atrocious interface that requires me to remember that if an icon is a certain color it is an elite unit and if it's a different color it's a regular unit, nowhere else in the interface is this information displayed. It makes me want to kill. Basically I'd like to see the mission planner allow me to focus on the tactics of my mission, not on the planner itself.

Keep up the good work!

[Gargoll]

Just one for me:

It would be nice if we could choose the weather during the mission.

For exemple, you edit your mission saying "we'll start with a Big Sun and we'll arrive to the target in a huge Storm" ....... :smile:

[SUBS17]

I'd like to see separate mission editors and mission planners. It seems like mission editors such as the one in Lomac are optimized for creating missions, not for actually planning a mission. Under the hood they're probably mostly the same but the details presented to the user would be a bit different.

It would be great if there were intel details attached to individual objects in the mission planner. For example, a column of T-80 tanks is displayed on the map. An intel section would tell you that the column was detected by a JSTARS flight at 13:47. In some cases the intel would be wrong, maybe somewhat often in the case of vehicles (meaning that they moved), less often in the case of fixed targets like buildings. You wouldn't need to actually hook this information back into anything in the campaign system (at least at first), it could just be static text setup by the mission designer.

Maybe instead of the mission planner showing a default set of waypoints, it would be cool if the mission planner starts with a time over target and then works backward promting the user for previous waypoints. This user is forced to think like a real pilot rather than just accept the default waypoints and go. As each waypoint is placed any dangers associated with the waypoint placement are highlighted. For example, if by placing a waypoint in a particular spot my flight will be entering a SA-6's engagement range, the mission planner would change the SA-6's range circle to flash, letting me know that maybe this isn't such a good idea. No need for super logic that figures out if I'm terrain masked or anything, just a basic range calculation.

It would be neat if the mission planner performed some sort of fuel calcuation once I've locked my waypoints in so that I can figure out how much fuel to load. Again, no need for super intelligent calculations, just a dumb 'it will take X amount of fuel to get through all my waypoints at their assigned speeds' calculation. It would then be up to the pilot to make sure that they are carrying enough fuel to allow for any unplanned excursions.

Please, please, please ( I'm begging you here :) do not setup the mission planner/editor so that I have to remember anything that's not obvious on the screen. For example, I'm trying to learn to play a wargame that has an absolutely atrocious interface that requires me to remember that if an icon is a certain color it is an elite unit and if it's a different color it's a regular unit, nowhere else in the interface is this information displayed. It makes me want to kill. Basically I'd like to see the mission planner allow me to focus on the tactics of my mission, not on the planner itself.

Keep up the good work!
Thats a good idea, maybe for an online war the recce aircraft unit could post the targets on a board. Then pilots would select a target in a lobby and then plan their attack. Working from the target to ingress, and then from egress RTB. Also the range to target, tankers and hi/lo/hi would be factors. Great stuff.
cheers
Subs

[baghdaddy]

Hi there guys her is my two cents.

It would be nice if we can have a feature in F/O where we can make notes on the map in the mission editor like where sam sites, AAA and names of towns are and then having these notes appear on the leg map in the cockpit. Thus way one can make notes that will help you on route to where ever it is you are going.

[RobKPO]

How about the ability to record/save large segments of the players flight which can be used; 1. to replay/import as an AI aircraft's flight - this would assist formation flying training allowing you to follow your own/saved complicated manouvers, and 2. you could import these saved flights into the mission builder to assign them onto AI aircraft to create specific or difficult manouvers on a wider scale.


Rob "Prowler" O.

.

[rcdem]

For the interface, how about something along the lines of the old Chuck Yeager's Air Combat sim. With a few more options, ofcourse.

[Red Gold and Green]

Just a quick point;
Squadron pilots should be given names and a history.
eg, Lomac( :clown: ) has imaginatively used; Pilot 1/ Pilot 2 etc etc.
FB had names and stats :clap:
The Mission editor should allow the player to focus on the creative side of planning,, ie, of 45 minutes gone into making a lomac mission,, 20 mins is purely technical work---> setting alt + speed values agian and again, even if they are all the same values!
Allow pre-made units/packages to be used, and only a short time is needed to alter such units, to make them unique.
Make the interfaces cool :clap:
Keep up the good work!

[Juggernaut]

For the interface, how about something along the lines of the old Chuck Yeager's Air Combat sim. With a few more options, ofcourse.

Hi,

What is this interface like?

I have never seen it.

BTW, most of the ideas suggested are already incorporated into my design plan, but keep the ideas coming.

Thanks!
Juggernaut

[Pegasus]

As Juggernaut insists :D

I've directly jumped to the last page therefore don't know if this already has been put into the list but a JF/A-18 type of possibility for appearence of the units/groups (air and ground) put in the mission.

[Juggernaut]

As Juggernaut insists :D

I've directly jumped to the last page therefore don't know if this already has been put into the list but a JF/A-18 type of possibility for appearence of the units/groups (air and ground) put in the mission.

Hi,

Thanks for the input! This idea has been discussed previously.

Keep the ideas coming guys!

Juggernaut

[a.m.i]

I would like to see an "Unknown" option to the mission...
this means that something that isn't planned will happen during the mission...
such has mechanical failure and more...
there could be lots of things that can go wrong (or not) in a real flight so the ability to simulate those could be neat...
By selecting the 'unknown' method we set the flight to become more real and maybe have some problems that are unplanned...

an option to choose manualy a failure could be neat too... just for practice.. you know...

[Juggernaut]

Hello!

Can anyone suggest any "flag-type" scenarios that they would like to see in a mission editor?

What I mean is can anyone suggest an "if x happens then Y will occur in response" scenario.

These suggestions will perhaps open up new ideas for the mission editor, and will (importantly) permit me to test my current design.

Thanks for your contribution!
Juggernaut

[Stang]

Hey Paul


What do you think of us using a modified version of Falcon View as our mission editor?

www.falconview.org (http://www.falconview.org)

[Juggernaut]

Hey Paul


What do you think of us using a modified version of Falcon View as our mission editor?

www.falconview.org (http://www.falconview.org)

Hi,

I have not had time to read it completely.

Is it anything other than just a mapping program?

If it could be incorporated to show various map views of the mission being created, then that should be cool.
But is there a mission editor involved?

Talk to you later,
Juggernaut/Paul

[kodak]

Hey Paul


What do you think of us using a modified version of Falcon View as our mission editor?

www.falconview.org (http://www.falconview.org)Wow!

Stang - I had a thorough look at that website and downloaded the PPS-Files. Would be too cool if you guys could implement a Flight-/Mission-Planning software that acts and looks like this!!! :bounce:

[cosgrove1982]

Hi

I think a mission editor should have lots of different detail levels. I want to be able to pick a plane type, a target, a mission type, time of day, weather and fly that mission NOT knowing at which point i'll be intercepted or not etc.

I also want to have detail to assign specific flights, targets etc

The real thrill of a campaign is that things still happen even if you wander from your original flight path. It would be great to see a feature that allowed your basic/semi complicated mission to take place in a warzone. Maybe settings for the warzone could be on offensive, on defensive, pinned back, retreating etc reflecting operations.

A lot of people though will want total control of every theatre item for single missions.

I would like to see a 3 tier level CAMPAIGN editor too.

Thanks

[Charos]

Hmmm, this thread seems quite dead, but I read this article (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2001/articles/jul_01/f16_search/index.html) on the subject of CSAR missions and found it worth reading. It would be great to see this kind of action in FO.

[9554@dwc]

Jugg:
Check your email from me

[Juggernaut]

Jugg:
Check your email from me

Hi,

It won't open - the file is too big.

Any other options?

Thanks,
Paul

[9554@dwc]

do you have a yahoo aaount or something with large capacaity?