What improvements to the editor are planned at this point?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Cpl Steiner]

I think we could do with a lot more AI groups. I'd rather have 16 groups and 4 plans than 8 groups and 8 plans. In a scenario I'm currently working on I wanted three RPG teams to be ferried by taxi to three separate tall buildings. The only way I got it to work was to have a separate AI group for each taxi and RPG team. That doesn't leave many left out of 8!

[birdstrike]

All of the above would be a nice addition. Especially the LOS tool (make the target command available in the editor), and more AI plans.

Also, some more things which could be useful:

- fix renaming HQ teams in a unit (cannot be renamed at the moment)

- an undo button

- make it possible to name AI plans (instead of plan 1, 2, etc)

- scrollable unit screen

- ability to pick a certain loadout for air support (or at least a detailed descritpion of the ordnance carried by aircraft - heavy, medium, light is too cryptic)

[Will7813]

I'm onboard with the CAS issue too, selecting loadouts would be great. Also, although I don't know how it would be done, (and this isn't really and editor issue), if only using 1 artillery barrel, you should be able to use the other on a seperate target at the same time.

Will

[ChrisND]

Would be nice:

More AI groups.

More AI plans.

More AI orders within plans.

Ability to name the AI plans, groups, and orders. This would make coordinating multiple group plans SO much easier!

More flexibility with AI artillery. Right now it has 1-2 uses and that is it.

Exit objectives.

Ability to acquire Javelins/ammo/rockets from vehicles during force setup.

A more intuitive AI timing system. The before/after is confusing and poorly explained in the manual.

Ability to upload a PDF for briefing.

Ability to exactly dictate which equipment is used for vaiable equipment (tank models, etc).

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Chops]

When a scenario is Baked, the on-map units will not execute AI plans. However, reinforcements will execute AI plans.

Will the Editor be changed in the future to allow on-map AI units to follow AI plans when a scenario is Baked?

[Paper Tiger]

Since I spend a huge amount of my time in the game editor, I have a burning desire to see it expanded in the next module. I will be a bit disappointed if there are not more AI groups and orders available with the Marines module. As for the artillery, well I've been banging that particular drum for a few months now with absolutely no response from BFC so it's either in the new module and thus a surprise OR it's not an important feature for them.

I LOVE the idea of being able to cut and paste your existing maps. Once you've created your map and put all the bells and whistles on it, it's a DOG to rework it either by expanding it or even shrinking it. I have a map under construction at the moment and if I want to expand or shrink it just 8m in one direction I have to wait for 3 mins for the program to do it. (Yes, that map is BIG). The possiblilties that this would unlock are tremendous.

I'd also add the ability to actually pick the types of vehicles that I want in the scenario editor rather than have them randomly assigned. If I want a battalion of T-62s, why can't I just pick them in the editor?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Since I spend a huge amount of my time in the game editor, I have a burning desire to see it expanded in the next module. I will be a bit disappointed if there are not more AI groups and orders available with the Marines module.

Guys, dont take this as a certainty as Im the art guy and its not my area, but I just wanted to clarify what you should likely expect from modules. Im pretty sure that when improvements are made such as the above along with others such as Tac AI improvements, engine improvements, data updates, etc, they will most likely be available via patch updates, not in the modules as such, as we wish to make these changes available to everybody.

Modules will tend to focus on vehicle models and TOE data, and maybe other stuff that I am not aware of .

Dan

[Battlefront.com]

The list of REALLY GREAT IDEAS (and I capitalize that because I really do mean it) for Editor improvements is massive. This list here pales in comparison with the list our testers have come up with And as I go through such lists I rarely find a truly bad idea. The same was true for CMx1's Editor. Probably thousands of good, sound ideas on how to make it better.

The problem, for us, is that UI work tends to be time intensive vs. game engine work. The game itself is mostly game engine, the Editor is mostly UI. This means we could probably add 3 neat things to the game engine for every 1 neat idea to the Editor. So it's a matter of where our priorities are, and they are (as they should be) with the game.

Obviously there is a fine line to tread. If the Editor is not functional enough, then the quality of the scenarios suffer, which in turn affects the quality of the game itself. Trust me, I definitely understand this. That's why when Charles keeps threatening to make a command line TXT based Editor, because the graphical ones are so time consuming, I tell him "over my dead body" (which is safe for me to say because I live in the country with an arsenal, and he doesn't ).

That being said, Editor improvements are on the priority list for us. Which ones? Like always, I don't list off specifics very often. The reason why is that until the feature is in it really doesn't matter what I say in terms of what is delivered since we reserve the right to remain flexible (there are always competing priorities, things to figure out before committing, things not possible if another feature isn't implemented for another reason, etc.). The reality is, though, that what I say here does set expectations that are too specific. Better to just stay mum for a bit

Steve

[El Hombre]

Command-line editor.... oooooooh!!!!!

You know what that means: vim syntax highlighting and free copy-paste!!!!

[Tuomio]

Steve, in the end, IMO, 50% of the gaming experience comes from well designed map. Heck, if you count in the AI plan quality 80% is more like it. Well laid out map requires a lot of finetuning and it is where the editor does not have a lot of shiny moments. It just may be that there is a key to this lock, TXT editor might not be such a bad idea..

I code a lot for embedded systems and i know how difficult it is to make a working GUI. Solution might be importable terrain file. This means some of the more static 2D stuff (some of them have been as is from the CMBO days) which could be produced by ALTERNATIVE 3rd party editors.

2d-editor can be much more easily coded in enviroments like Visual Basic Express. Many of the feature requests are such that they have no link with the actual map data or hard-coded features, just typical interface related shortcuts. Many of which come naturally with Form-like approach.

I know what you are thinking now Steve, but it necessarily doesen't have to consume your precious time too much.

All that would be needed is a backdoor for external data and not all of it should be done right away. NO tampering with the actual map file. Say, terrain elevation for starters? If you have any interest, you can PM me, i could gladly devote portion of my time by looking into this possibility. Maybe for doing a tech demo for you..