PDA

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


EvilJoven
03-24-2012, 05:00 PM
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.

furbs
03-24-2012, 05:13 PM
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:

addman
03-24-2012, 06:06 PM
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.

6S.Tamat
03-24-2012, 06:06 PM
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.


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

addman
03-24-2012, 06:08 PM
Talking with the people of Sesto stormo, my wing, and with the Italian online community people (who flies or flied 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.

6S.Tamat
03-24-2012, 06:10 PM
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.

addman
03-24-2012, 06:13 PM
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28633

Question 17

bolox
03-24-2012, 06:14 PM
mission building- yes a severe lack of documentation
however there are some community made guides

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3423371/IL2_Cliffs_of_Dover_Full_Missi.html#Post3423371

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3543389/Dummies_guide_to_skill_setting.html#Post3543389

which is a start;)

6S.Tamat
03-24-2012, 06:31 PM
mission building- yes a severe lack of documentation
however there are some community made guides

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3423371/IL2_Cliffs_of_Dover_Full_Missi.html#Post3423371

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3543389/Dummies_guide_to_skill_setting.html#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..

6S.Manu
03-24-2012, 06:31 PM
well if he didn't change his mind, that is a disastrous choice.

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.

Peaveywolf
03-24-2012, 06:38 PM
Can we at least get the latest patch downloaded for us that would like better performance, then start talking about what you want next.

robtek
03-24-2012, 06:40 PM
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:

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.

SlipBall
03-24-2012, 07:00 PM
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:

furbs
03-24-2012, 07:11 PM
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.

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

droz
03-24-2012, 07:19 PM
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:

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.

6S.Tamat
03-24-2012, 07:22 PM
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.
troll :P:-)

FG28_Kodiak
03-24-2012, 07:26 PM
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.

furbs
03-24-2012, 07:58 PM
So what do we need to make the process easy enough for the rest of us to work out?

6S.Manu
03-24-2012, 08:01 PM
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.

NedLynch
03-24-2012, 08:05 PM
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.

addman
03-24-2012, 08:44 PM
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.

KG26_Alpha
03-24-2012, 08:47 PM
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.

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.
.

SlipBall
03-24-2012, 08:52 PM
The old style CooP system is needed ........

.............because only 1% 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 ;)

KG26_Alpha
03-24-2012, 09:10 PM
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.

:)


.

NedLynch
03-24-2012, 09:14 PM
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.

Right on addman :)

furbs
03-24-2012, 09:20 PM
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.
.

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

SlipBall
03-24-2012, 09:21 PM
Correct

It will become extinct if the 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.


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.;)

KG26_Alpha
03-24-2012, 09:22 PM
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.


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

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.



.
.

Seeker
03-24-2012, 09:40 PM
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.
What a salient post!

machoo
03-24-2012, 09:59 PM
Hardly anyone brings up the serious lack of attention to gameplay elements that will actually make CloD fun for the wider player base.



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.

furbs
03-24-2012, 10:21 PM
Alpha, did you play VEF in the old IL2?

robtek
03-24-2012, 10:26 PM
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.



.
.

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.

FG28_Kodiak
03-24-2012, 10:52 PM
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.

So i play my coops too.


In CoD you cannot close the mission and see the mission stats pilots score as there's no debriefing room.


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::

Missionsstatisik vom 14.03.2012 21:39

Startzeit der Mission: 20:32
Endzeit der Mission: 21:39

Missionsstatus: Kein Gewinner

Player: Flipper
Starts: 0
Landings: 3
Crashed: 7
Bailed: 0
Deaths: 6
ShotDown: 1
GroundTargets: 1
Airtargets: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/2: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/3: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/4: 0
FriendlyGroundTargets: 0
FriendlyAirTargets: 1

Events:
00:00:18 - Fliegt für die blaue Seite
00:00:18 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:00:19 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:02:48 - Flipper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:02:48 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:03:16 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:03:16 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:12:01 - gelandet in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA
00:12:35 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:12:35 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:15:07 - baut eine Bruchlandung in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA
00:15:28 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:15:28 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:22:32 - Flipper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:22:32 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:23:04 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:23:04 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:27:27 - Minensuchboote wurde von (shared kill) Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_matkenhauser, FG28_Randy), Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) zerstört
00:27:28 - gelandet in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA
00:28:07 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:28:07 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:33:18 - Flipper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:33:18 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:33:38 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:33:38 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:34:07 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:34:07 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:35:35 - Flipper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:35:35 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:35:58 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:35:58 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:37:59 - Flipper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:37:59 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:38:32 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:38:32 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:41:07 - Flipper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:41:07 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:41:40 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:41:40 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:51:23 - gelandet in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA

-----------

Player: FG28_matkenhauser
Starts: 0
Landings: 7
Crashed: 2
Bailed: 0
Deaths: 2
ShotDown: 0
GroundTargets: 4
Airtargets: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/2: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/3: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/4: 0
FriendlyGroundTargets: 0
FriendlyAirTargets: 0

Events:
00:01:14 - Fliegt für die blaue Seite
00:01:14 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:01:14 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:01:46 - FG28_matkenhauser wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:01:46 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_matkenhauser) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:02:27 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:02:27 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:03:03 - wechselt zu Gunner Position in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:03:51 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:03:51 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:06:58 - FG28_matkenhauser wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:06:58 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_matkenhauser) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:07:03 - Tanker Medium1 wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_matkenhauser) zerstört
00:07:34 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:07:34 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:10:35 - Tanker Medium1 wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_matkenhauser) zerstört
00:12:38 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:14:17 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:14:17 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:19:01 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:19:26 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:19:26 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:25:13 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:25:29 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:25:29 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:27:27 - Minensuchboote wurde von (shared kill) Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_matkenhauser, FG28_Randy), Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) zerstört
00:30:22 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:30:53 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:30:53 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:37:38 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:39:39 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:39:39 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:41:43 - Minensuchboote wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_matkenhauser) zerstört
00:43:30 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:52:41 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:52:41 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:56:33 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
01:00:17 - wechselt zu Gunner Position in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA

-----------

Player: FG28_Kodiak
Starts: 0
Landings: 4
Crashed: 1
Bailed: 0
Deaths: 1
ShotDown: 0
GroundTargets: 3
Airtargets: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/2: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/3: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/4: 0
FriendlyGroundTargets: 0
FriendlyAirTargets: 0

Events:
00:01:57 - Fliegt für die blaue Seite
00:01:57 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:01:57 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:05:49 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:10:45 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:10:45 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:13:56 - Tanker Medium1 wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_Kodiak) zerstört
00:14:32 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:14:32 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:16:33 - Minensuchboote wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_Kodiak) zerstört
00:18:33 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:30:40 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:30:40 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:32:29 - Minensuchboote wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_Kodiak, FG28_Randy) zerstört
00:34:17 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:36:22 - wechselt zu Gunner Position in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:45:12 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:45:12 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:46:48 - FG28_Kodiak wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:46:48 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_Kodiak, FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:47:55 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:47:55 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:56:22 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:56:22 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
01:00:14 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA

-----------

Player: FG28_Randy
Starts: 0
Landings: 6
Crashed: 9
Bailed: 1
Deaths: 7
ShotDown: 0
GroundTargets: 2
Airtargets: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/2: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/3: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/4: 0
FriendlyGroundTargets: 0
FriendlyAirTargets: 0

Events:
00:02:17 - Fliegt für die blaue Seite
00:02:17 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:02:17 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 1 + Platz
00:04:57 - FG28_Randy wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:04:57 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.<< + (FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:15:30 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:15:30 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 1 + Platz
00:17:45 - FG28_Randy wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:17:45 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.<< + (FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:18:15 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:18:15 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 1 + Platz
00:21:21 - baut eine Bruchlandung in Bf-109E-4B Nr. << +
00:22:44 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:22:44 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:25:13 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:26:38 - wechselt zu Pilot Position in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:27:12 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:27:12 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:27:27 - Minensuchboote wurde von (shared kill) Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_matkenhauser, FG28_Randy), Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Flipper) zerstört
00:30:22 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:30:43 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:30:43 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:31:43 - FG28_Randy wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:31:43 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (martin.dammann, FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:32:00 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:32:00 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:32:29 - Minensuchboote wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_Kodiak, FG28_Randy) zerstört
00:34:17 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:35:20 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:35:20 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:37:38 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:41:39 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:41:39 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. M7 + AA Platz
00:41:40 - wechselt zu Gunner Position in Bf-110C-7 Nr. M7 + AA
00:42:02 - FG28_Randy wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:42:02 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.M7 + AA (FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:42:18 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:42:18 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:43:30 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:44:54 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:44:54 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:45:22 - baut eine Bruchlandung in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:45:30 - FG28_Randy wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:45:30 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper, FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:45:37 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:45:37 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:45:41 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:45:41 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:45:43 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:45:43 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:46:48 - FG28_Randy wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:46:48 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (FG28_Kodiak, FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:47:19 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:47:19 - Nimmt als Gunner in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:52:06 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
01:02:39 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
01:02:39 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. M7 + AA Platz
01:04:26 - steigt mit dem Fallschirm aus!

-----------

Player: Kuitenknieper
Starts: 0
Landings: 0
Crashed: 13
Bailed: 0
Deaths: 11
ShotDown: 0
GroundTargets: 3
Airtargets: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/2: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/3: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/4: 0
FriendlyGroundTargets: 0
FriendlyAirTargets: 0

Events:
00:09:05 - Fliegt für die blaue Seite
00:09:05 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:09:05 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-3B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:12:32 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:12:32 - Bf-109E-3B Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:13:20 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:13:20 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-3B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:17:25 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:17:25 - Bf-109E-3B Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:17:42 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:17:42 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-3B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:21:50 - Tanker Medium1 wurde von Bf-109E-3B Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) zerstört
00:23:23 - baut eine Bruchlandung in Bf-109E-3B Nr. 6I + AA
00:23:35 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:23:35 - Bf-109E-3B Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:23:36 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:23:36 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-3B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:26:55 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:26:55 - Bf-109E-3B Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:27:10 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:27:10 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-3B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:33:59 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:33:59 - Bf-109E-3B Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:35:22 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:35:22 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:37:08 - Minensuchboote wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) zerstört
00:39:18 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:39:18 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:39:55 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:39:55 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:41:18 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:41:18 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:41:55 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:41:55 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:44:20 - Minensuchboote wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) zerstört
00:45:22 - baut eine Bruchlandung in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:45:30 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:45:30 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper, FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:45:55 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:45:55 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:50:01 - wechselt zu Gunner Position in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:50:11 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:50:31 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:51:32 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:51:32 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-109E-4B Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:55:08 - Kuitenknieper wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:55:08 - Bf-109E-4B Nr.6I + AA (Kuitenknieper) wurde bei Kollision zerstört

-----------

Player: martin
Starts: 0
Landings: 1
Crashed: 6
Bailed: 0
Deaths: 6
ShotDown: 0
GroundTargets: 1
Airtargets: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/2: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/3: 0
SharedAirtargets 1/4: 0
FriendlyGroundTargets: 0
FriendlyAirTargets: 1

Events:
00:18:06 - Fliegt für die blaue Seite
00:18:06 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:18:06 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:19:47 - wechselt zu Gunner Position in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:19:50 - martin wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:19:50 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (martin) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:21:29 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:21:29 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:23:06 - martin wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:23:06 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (martin) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:25:31 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:25:31 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:30:21 - Tanker Medium1 wurde von Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (martin.dammann) zerstört
00:31:43 - martin wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:31:43 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (martin, FG28_Randy) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:32:27 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:32:27 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:35:24 - martin wurde getötet bei Kollision
00:35:24 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (martin) wurde bei Kollision zerstört
00:41:53 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:41:53 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:52:06 - gelandet in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA
00:57:03 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
00:57:03 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
00:59:21 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (martin) wurde zerstört
01:01:31 - Startflugplatz: Fighter 3 (Sektor: F,6)
01:01:31 - Nimmt als Pilot in Bf-110C-7 Nr. 6I + AA Platz
01:03:40 - martin.dammann wurde getötet bei Kollision
01:03:40 - Bf-110C-7 Nr.6I + AA (martin) wurde bei Kollision zerstört

-----------


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. ;)

SlipBall
03-24-2012, 11:11 PM
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:

KG26_Alpha
03-24-2012, 11:38 PM
Alpha, did you play VEF in the old IL2?

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.



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.

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

furbs
03-24-2012, 11:57 PM
Yep, spot on Alpha.

EvilJoven
03-25-2012, 12:33 AM
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.

zapatista
03-25-2012, 03:37 AM
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.

Force10
03-25-2012, 05:57 AM
.
In my opinion Luthier doesn't want to implement the limitations of the old IL2 coop interface.



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


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?

ElAurens
03-25-2012, 06:00 AM
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.

Flanker15
03-25-2012, 07:03 AM
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.

FG28_Kodiak
03-25-2012, 07:21 AM
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.

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 ;).

csThor
03-25-2012, 08:30 AM
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 € ...

Insuber
03-25-2012, 08:38 AM
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.

zapatista
03-25-2012, 09:29 AM
+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 ?

Insuber
03-25-2012, 10:04 AM
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!

addman
03-25-2012, 10:09 AM
All I want is a fair number of preset triggers to choose from instead of editing text files in c# or whatever it is.

furbs
03-25-2012, 10:11 AM
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.

csThor
03-25-2012, 10:29 AM
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).

furbs
03-25-2012, 10:49 AM
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.

Insuber
03-25-2012, 11:18 AM
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.

furbs
03-25-2012, 11:24 AM
Luthier has said they will be no improvements to the GUI or COOP set up for CLOD.

Ataros
03-25-2012, 11:32 AM
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.


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 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28559) 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.

SlipBall
03-25-2012, 11:35 AM
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 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28559) 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

Ataros
03-25-2012, 11:38 AM
Here's some examples of what we want.


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/showthread.php?t=68697&page=9&p=1815172&viewfull=1#post1815172

So i play my coops too.

Could you share your coop-script please? Is it based on the Banks' script (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28559) or different?

furbs
03-25-2012, 11:48 AM
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/showthread.php?t=68697&page=9&p=1815172&viewfull=1#post1815172

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 :)

Ataros
03-25-2012, 01:19 PM
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.

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.

furbs
03-25-2012, 01:41 PM
Good idea, Alpha or any other mods agree?

speculum jockey
03-25-2012, 02:26 PM
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.

SlipBall
03-25-2012, 02:44 PM
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:

ACE-OF-ACES
03-25-2012, 03:11 PM
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.
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.

ElAurens
03-25-2012, 03:17 PM
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.

furbs
03-25-2012, 03:59 PM
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.

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.

SlipBall
03-25-2012, 04:07 PM
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:

ACE-OF-ACES
03-25-2012, 04:12 PM
But why is that ACE?
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)

ACE-OF-ACES
03-25-2012, 04:13 PM
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:
Bingo!

furbs
03-25-2012, 04:20 PM
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)

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

csThor
03-25-2012, 04:25 PM
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 ... :-?

SlipBall
03-25-2012, 04:38 PM
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

csThor
03-25-2012, 04:51 PM
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. ;)

furbs
03-25-2012, 04:54 PM
Yep, and not because most of the mission making community cant read.

addman
03-25-2012, 05:56 PM
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:

Heliocon
03-25-2012, 07:30 PM
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.

Been said before but still a strong +1!

speculum jockey
03-25-2012, 09:03 PM
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.


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.

Insuber
03-25-2012, 09:12 PM
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.

KG26_Alpha
03-25-2012, 09:18 PM
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.





.

slm
03-25-2012, 09:24 PM
> 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.

ATAG_Bliss
03-25-2012, 09:41 PM
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.

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.


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
1% can handle the scripts.





.

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.

KG26_Alpha
03-25-2012, 09:52 PM
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.


:)



.

ACE-OF-ACES
03-25-2012, 09:55 PM
ACE why are you starting another fight in this thread? Stop trolling or you will end up with another holiday.
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.

ATAG_Bliss
03-25-2012, 10:00 PM
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.


:)



.

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.

ACE-OF-ACES
03-25-2012, 10:01 PM
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.
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!

furbs
03-25-2012, 10:28 PM
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.

speculum jockey
03-25-2012, 10:51 PM
Ace is a prime example why new users going to the forums for help making missions is a bad idea.

Maybe.. maybe not

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

HAHAHAHA! They just need to "Bootstrap" missions!

PotNoodles
03-25-2012, 10:58 PM
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.

Insuber
03-25-2012, 11:11 PM
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.

furbs
03-25-2012, 11:17 PM
The changes are welcome and sound fantastic, but what we need is to make them accessible to the majority of CLOD users.

EvilJoven
03-25-2012, 11:29 PM
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.

SlipBall
03-25-2012, 11:49 PM
The changes are welcome and sound fantastic, but what we need is to make them accessible to the majority of CLOD users.


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/f394/SlipBall/Easystuff.jpg

ATAG_Bliss
03-26-2012, 01:10 AM
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.

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.

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.

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.

ElAurens
03-26-2012, 01:42 AM
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.

6S.Manu
03-26-2012, 01:52 AM
Russian designed GUIs, and any other control interface that they do, are hard enough to understand, why change what worked in the old sim?

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...

ATAG_Bliss
03-26-2012, 02:10 AM
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.

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?

ACE-OF-ACES
03-26-2012, 02:36 AM
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.
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.

Force10
03-26-2012, 06:39 AM
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.

KG26_Alpha
03-26-2012, 12:19 PM
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.

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.



.

ElAurens
03-26-2012, 12:32 PM
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.

addman
03-26-2012, 12:40 PM
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.:)

ATAG_Bliss
03-26-2012, 01:53 PM
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.



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.

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.

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?

SlipBall
03-26-2012, 01:58 PM
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.


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?

Ataros
03-26-2012, 02:01 PM
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.

It may seem more difficult to original IL-2 FMB users because it may be different in 5 - 10 ways. But different does not mean worse or more complicated. On the contrary I think it is more streamlined and consistent for new users. E.g. now you can place an MP Spawn Area in the same way as you place a tank or a building and edit its properties in the same way. Thus consistency among different objects was introduced. As far as I understand it was different in the original IL-2.

It makes life easier for new users like me. I opened original FMB 10 and 6 years ago but it looked too messed up for me then. The new one was self explanatory 95% except for rotation hot-keys, spawn-points placement, AAA placement on ships and triggers/action menu which I had to ask about in the FMB section. It may seem more difficult to original FMB users than new ones because change is difficult.

Regarding issues you mentioned:
- to spawn in a Spitfire as a player (not AI) just tick a "player" checkbox in its properties
- to spawn any plane in a Spawn Area (which is an MP spawn only) launch mission in MP (Lobby or Server room)
- to start on the ground set starting alt to zero in SpawnArea(MP) or Airgroup waypoint (SP) properties. Make sure ground start is not disabled in main game difficulty settings (!)
- to make an airfield or spawn area (whatever you call base) red or blue, select "red" or "blue" in its properties
- to get a Spitfire to fly to a destination place a new waypoint in that destination, edit its properties
- to launch a mission click "Load" and then press "Start Battle"

Sounds 100% logical and self-explanatory, doesn't it?

Again the same functionality of original FMB is available in the new one without scripting.
I am afraid many myths about complexity of new FMB are created by old FMB users who do not what to change 5 - 10 habits in spite of the fact that new FMB is more consistent and streamlined. As far as I can see no one who actually uses it (like ATAG guys) thinks it is more difficult than original one.

The best way to learn those little differences with original FMB is to open 5 existing SP, campaign and MP missions then right-click and carefully look through properties of all placed objects. Takes 40 - 60 minutes.

There are still many bugs in FMB that make creation and testing of missions very time consuming. They have to be fixed but it is a different subject.

Anyway I think the main issue for mission building is a general state of the game itself as it does not give enough motivation to make missions. It will change after 1) official patch or two, 2) BoM, 3) more people fly new Il-2 compared to original.

ATAG_Bliss
03-26-2012, 02:02 PM
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.:)

I think the problem is everyone is scared of it. Just looking through this thread I can tell there's plenty of false things spread about the FMB in the 1st place. To me it's just like 46's FMB, with some features added. If you really know how to do stuff in the old game, then the new one should be fairly straight forward as well - minus if you want to get into scripting.

SlipBall
03-26-2012, 02:09 PM
I think the problem is everyone is scared of it. Just looking through this thread I can tell there's plenty of false things spread about the FMB in the 1st place. To me it's just like 46's FMB, with some features added. If you really know how to do stuff in the old game, then the new one should be fairly straight forward as well - minus if you want to get into scripting.



I agree it is just like 46 for making a basic mission with the tools to take that to your imagination limits.

KG26_Alpha
03-26-2012, 02:13 PM
I think the problem is everyone is scared of it. Just looking through this thread I can tell there's plenty of false things spread about the FMB in the 1st place. To me it's just like 46's FMB, with some features added. If you really know how to do stuff in the old game, then the new one should be fairly straight forward as well - minus if you want to get into scripting.

Sorry Bliss you dont get it at all.

No ones spreading false info here, you are not reading what were saying but picking what you want to see, and are not seeing it from any other view point but your own.

Some of us dont want to fly in DF servers but want to fly in CooP mode 30 - 40 mins missions structured to a specific mission parameter/s.

Old CooP gives mission results pilots results and win/loose condition of the CooP when the mission is closed, none of this is present in CoD, see the pics in this thread.

We know how to make missions we know how to fly the aircraft we don't have the interface to do it how we do in IL2 1946 style CooP mode, as there's no CooP mode in CoD.

Please read the thread from the beginning to understand what's being said here.

Im just saying no ones knocking DF servers and what they do, its just we need a proper CooP interface.

Thanks.

GraveyardJimmy
03-26-2012, 02:15 PM
I agree it is just like 46 for making a basic mission

Yes, I only ever use it to make quick fun missions to check thing s(like placing lots of AA guns to look at the flak explosions effects on aircraft) and it works almost exactly the same as '46, just with more options.

Insuber
03-26-2012, 02:26 PM
Old CooP gives mission results pilots results and win/loose condition of the CooP when the mission is closed, none of this is present in CoD, see the pics in this thread.


Maybe I'm dumb, but in the ATAG server we have eventually a result of the mission: either reds or blues win, if they reach the objectives. Hence the FMB engine is capable to manage a win/loose condition, and with a complete and user friendly GUI we would have much more coop style missions. As far as the pilots results, the pic shown few pages above with the individual pilots' results proves that it's just a matter of better formatting the data already available. Again a GUI issue.
But again, maybe I don't understand the point.

Cheers,
Insuber

ATAG_Doc
03-26-2012, 02:27 PM
What am I missing here? COOP is a mode where you build a mission and play the AI? One side is all human the other is the AI and they carry out a mission that happened in the past? Is that right? To me COOP is what ATAG server does. Problem is not everyone cares what you want to accomplish. There are those that want to complete the objective and others that are looking to disrupt my goal so it requires an amount of sneakiness and planning to avoid them. I have had very few DF's in the last several hours on ATAG. Depends on what you are looking for. If you want a fight you can sure get into one. If you want coop it's there to. The situation changes very often from one hour to the next. Depends on what is complete and what is left. Who on the other side is flying and how many. Lots of dynamics that require your team to coordinate and think about what you are doing.

ATAG_Bliss
03-26-2012, 02:30 PM
Sorry Bliss you dont get it at all.

No ones spreading false info here, you are not reading what were saying but picking what you want to see, and are not seeing it from any other view point but your own.

Some of us dont want to fly in DF servers but want to fly in CooP mode 30 - 40 mins missions structured to a specific mission parameter/s.

Old CooP gives mission results pilots results and win/loose condition of the CooP when the mission is closed, none of this is present in CoD, see the pics in this thread.

We know how to make missions we know how to fly the aircraft we don't have the interface to do it how we do in IL2 1946 style CooP mode, as there's no CooP mode in CoD.

Please read the thread from the beginning to understand what's being said here.

Im just saying no ones knocking DF servers and what they do, its just we need a proper CooP interface.

Thanks.

I'm reading exactly what you're saying. You point out how difficult it is to use the FMB, and I point out just how easy it is. You say that things are over complicated, I explain the advantages of why some of those things are done this way. Then you rant on saying you made some tutorial and know what you're doing in response to me showing those advantages. I can read quite well m8.

Then you complain that you don't have the same interface as 46. I think Oleg brought this up years ago, stating that there won't be different modes, but one on-going mode you can do w/e you want with. As I've already stated, someone will make a program that will give you all the on screen chat / AAR type stuff you want, like an old IL2 COOP.

But my point is, you can have the same "FLYING EXPERIENCE" by doing exactly what I said with regards to your missions. Sure you won't have the 46 style AAR but you can all fly together towards your common goal at the same time quite easily with what is available atm. Didn't someone release a COOP script anyhow? Has anyone used it?

ATAG_Bliss
03-26-2012, 02:33 PM
Maybe I'm dumb, but in the ATAG server we have eventually a result of the mission: either reds or blues win, if they reach the objectives. Hence the FMB engine is capable to manage a win/loose condition, and with a complete and user friendly GUI we would have much more coop style missions. As far as the pilots results, the pic shown few pages above with the individual pilots' results proves that it's just a matter of better formatting the data already available. Again a GUI issue.
But again, maybe I don't understand the point.

Cheers,
Insuber

Yes, of course it is. It's capable of what ever you want to do with it. The GUI can even be coded as well.

SlipBall
03-26-2012, 02:38 PM
Here is the coop link, I'm sure many already know its existence just posting for those who are unaware...would like to hear from any who are using it.
http://code.google.com/p/il2coop/downloads/list

Ataros
03-26-2012, 02:44 PM
The GUI can even be coded as well.

Current version does not allow MP add-ins, only SP ones. According to Small_Bee (author or Operation SeaLion online war mode) who was in touch with the devs about it MP add-ins should come with a patch. Then GUI for the COOP-script will be possible hopefully. Now it is text-based menu only ( TAB- 4 ).

KG26_Alpha
03-26-2012, 04:46 PM
Ok

I'm outta here its like banging my head against a brick wall.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=368839&postcount=24

CoD will go nowhere if it don't evolve the multiplayer from just dogfight.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27934

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=402652&postcount=35




Current version does not allow MP add-ins, only SP ones. According to Small_Bee (author or Operation SeaLion online war mode) who was in touch with the devs about it MP add-ins should come with a patch. Then GUI for the COOP-script will be possible hopefully. Now it is text-based menu only ( TAB- 4 ).

.

GraveyardJimmy
03-26-2012, 05:19 PM
Ok

CoD will go nowhere if it don't evolve the multiplayer from just dogfight.



When I played on ATAG the other day I did no dogfighting, I met up with bombers over the channel (missed our rendezvous) and escorted them across to their target and back. You can do the objectives (destroy ships or tanks etc) or escort bombers etc.

Online at the moment in my experience is not "airquake". It is objective absed gameplay. Sure, some people will head straight to airbases and try to ogfight, but that isn't the point of the best multiplayer servers.

If you mean you only want to fight AI I am sure that everyone could stack one team and AI flights would still be generated (like bombers to intercept) but someone with mission making knowledge would need to tell you if that is the case.

ATAG_MajorBorris
03-26-2012, 05:25 PM
From: ElJoven,

"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."


You have to know the patch could come out any time now, whats your point. It sounds like you and nobody you know all dont fly the sim. Let me tell you, if you have not found the genius in what CoD is at the moment regardless of bugs etc, you will never be satisfied IMHO...no patch will remake the sim in your image.

Blanket statements regarding the purchase of future il2 expansions are ludicris if you allready cant find any positive in the ww2 cfs we have at hand.

Jiminy creepers dude, at least find a plane you like and then post improvements that are needed after you have flown the crap out of it, untill then I find no credibility in these type of posts(thats right we have all read this same stuff over and over if you allready dont know)

Oh and if your friends dont know allready it takes a good year or more before any ww2 cfs gets better.

rant over, now I can go to lunch:)

furbs
03-26-2012, 05:55 PM
Ok, One last time then im giving up...

We dont want a DF server, we want a working COOP GUI that lets us fly and host COOPs....no wait...we want both, we want DF servers for when we want to fly respawn DFs like ATAG, but we also want COOPs for when we want to fly a COOP.

We want a simple easy to use GUI that lets us gather in a lobby collect willing players and then launch the mission, we all read the brief then we all pick our side,planes and load out, then when everyone is ready the host starts the mission with a simple click.

Then when everyone is finished or the mission is won or lost, the host ends the again with a click and we all see the scores and who did what to whom and where, then the stats can be collected and used in a online war like VEF or used for sqds to use, then if we want the host can load another mission or the same mission with a click and off we go again with all the players still here and no waiting around.

Why is it hard for people to understand that's what we want?

All this was easy and simple in IL2 46 and we want the same for CLOD with all its bells and whistles to make it even better.

We want both, more options means more players playing CLOD everyone wins. Why would you not want more options for CLOD?

If Luthier tomorrow added this to CLOD what would be the problem?

SlipBall
03-26-2012, 06:18 PM
Ok, One last time then im giving up...

We dont want a DF server, we want a working COOP GUI that lets us fly and host COOPs....no wait...we want both, we want DF servers for when we want to fly respawn DFs like ATAG, but we also want COOPs for when we want to fly a COOP.

We want a simple easy to use GUI that lets us gather in a lobby collect willing players and then launch the mission, we all read the brief then we all pick our side,planes and load out, then when everyone is ready the host starts the mission with a simple click.

Then when everyone is finished or the mission is won or lost, the host ends the again with a click and we all see the scores and who did what to whom and where, then the stats can be collected and used in a online war like VEF or used for sqds to use, then if we want the host can load another mission or the same mission with a click and off we go again with all the players still here and no waiting around.

Why is it hard for people to understand that's what we want?

All this was easy and simple in IL2 46 and we want the same for CLOD with all its bells and whistles to make it even better.

We want both, more options means more players playing CLOD everyone wins. Why would you not want more options for CLOD?

If Luthier tomorrow added this to CLOD what would be the problem?


No one here is against that, I hope you get it...I think you may already have it, just not as easy to implement as in the old game.

robtek
03-26-2012, 07:00 PM
What some people dont seem to understand is:

There are no Dogfight-Servers anymore!!! Nada! a thing of the past! gone with the wind!

There are only online-server for CoD, where everything happens as the mission designer wants it.

Keeping talking about "Coop" - and "Dogfight" -Servers gives the impression of being rooted in the past and to be unwilling to cope wth the new reality.

That is my opinion.

6S.Tamat
03-26-2012, 07:04 PM
What some people dont seem to understand is:

There are no Dogfight-Servers anymore!!! Nada! a thing of the past! gone with the wind!

There are only online-server for CoD, where everything happens as the mission designer wants it.

Keeping talking about "Coop" - and "Dogfight" -Servers gives the impression of being rooted in the past and to be unwilling to cope wth the new reality.

That is my opinion.

what you said sound so much like "shit happens".:grin:

furbs
03-26-2012, 07:05 PM
If that's true Robtek then its a sad day, and CLOD and what ever comes after will be worse off for it.

Martin77
03-26-2012, 07:13 PM
hello furbs
perhaps you can make a video from the beginning when you fly coop with friends in il2 1946 with then gui and so on? and with the end where the points stats are?
Okay ebnglish is not my language and its hard for me to imagine what your problem is with the coops?

SlipBall
03-26-2012, 07:41 PM
What some people dont seem to understand is:

There are no Dogfight-Servers anymore!!! Nada! a thing of the past! gone with the wind!

There are only online-server for CoD, where everything happens as the mission designer wants it.

Keeping talking about "Coop" - and "Dogfight" -Servers gives the impression of being rooted in the past and to be unwilling to cope wth the new reality.

That is my opinion.


I think that's a directly related result of people not being able to fly...Once the patch, PC upgrades, new coop designers etc. kick in, there will be much more servers for that type of flying.

ACE-OF-ACES
03-26-2012, 08:00 PM
What some people dont seem to understand is:

There are no Dogfight-Servers anymore!!! Nada! a thing of the past! gone with the wind!

There are only online-server for CoD, where everything happens as the mission designer wants it.

Keeping talking about "Coop" - and "Dogfight" -Servers gives the impression of being rooted in the past and to be unwilling to cope wth the new reality.

That is my opinion.
Agreed 100%

It would be great if we could have it all..

As in all the OLD features with the NEW features..

But sometimes you have to give up the OLD to get the NEW..

To make an analogy..

Take Microsoft OS.. Some old DOS and early windows 3.11 apps will NOT run on the Win7 OS..

Why?

Because to provides us with the NEW features they had to stop supporting the OLD.

Life is funny like that

Force10
03-26-2012, 08:01 PM
It's funny that 1C is making this a tank sim to try to attract more players and generate more money for the sim to evolve. You would think that they would want to attract the thousands of players from the old IL-2 that are staying away from COD until they can fly with their squads in a "user friendly" co-op environment. The defenders of the current system IMO are just defending it because Luthier said he isn't going to change it and they know it's a big enough issue to keep flyers away from it. They are making seem like it's "better" and really not a big deal but are not helping the sim survive by alienating players that want to fly co-op in a way that is more user friendly.

ACE-OF-ACES
03-26-2012, 08:02 PM
It's funny that 1C is making this a tank sim to try to attract more players and generate more money for the sim to evolve. You would think that they would want to attract the thousands of players from the old IL-2 that are staying away from COD until they can fly with their squads in a "user friendly" co-op environment. The defenders of the current system IMO are just defending it because Luthier said he isn't going to change it and they know it's a big enough issue to keep flyers away from it. They are making seem like it's "better" and really not a big deal but are not helping the sim survive by alienating players that want to fly co-op in a way that is more user friendly.
See sig

Force10
03-26-2012, 08:07 PM
See sig

Exactly my point Ace. Why not attract more players by making the sim more attractive to those still flying the old IL-2 by making it more user friendly to do co-ops? You guys protesting making it more user friendly is just ridiculous. Again, I think you know it would be a good thing for everyone but it's the "back up Luthier at all costs" mentality that is the order of the day here, even if he is making a bad call.

furbs
03-26-2012, 08:13 PM
hello furbs
perhaps you can make a video from the beginning when you fly coop with friends in il2 1946 with then gui and so on? and with the end where the points stats are?
Okay ebnglish is not my language and its hard for me to imagine what your problem is with the coops?

Sorry, we used to fly COOPs in IL2 but not any more.

The stats were created at the end of a mission in a file that held all the info, that file could be uploaded to a website that then could be viewed by all the pilots that took part.

In VEF online war the stats would be added after each mission and your pilot history would be kept up to date with kills, deaths, missions, ground kills and time flown.

you really wanted to keep your pilot alive and keep and it made you fly much more like real life.

furbs
03-26-2012, 08:17 PM
Agreed 100%

It would be great if we could have it all..

As in all the OLD features with the NEW features..

But sometimes you have to give up the OLD to get the NEW..

To make an analogy..

Take Microsoft OS.. Some old DOS and early windows 3.11 apps will NOT run on the Win7 OS..

Why?

Because to provides us with the NEW features they had to stop supporting the OLD.

Life is funny like that

ACE if a proper IL2 COOP was added would CLOD be better or worse?

We want is the Il2COOP GUI with CLODs bells and whistles.

KG26_Alpha
03-26-2012, 08:19 PM
Sorry, we used to fly COOPs in IL2 but not any more.

The stats were created at the end of a mission in a file that held all the info, that file could be uploaded to a website that then could be viewed by all the pilots that took part.

In VEF online war the stats would be added after each mission and your pilot history would be kept up to date with kills, deaths, missions, ground kills and time flown.

you really wanted to keep your pilot alive and keep and it made you fly much more like real life.

http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/htm/2001/09/il2-vef/

ACE-OF-ACES
03-26-2012, 08:20 PM
Exactly my point Ace. Why not attract more players by making the sim more attractive to those still flying the old IL-2 by making it more user friendly to do co-ops?
First the argument was NO coops..

Than someone wrote the script that allowed coops..

Now the argument is MORE FRIENDLY coops..

Which only proves to me that if 1C did include a coop like menu 'someone' would still find issues with it

You guys protesting making it more user friendly is just ridiculous. Again, I think you know it would be a good thing for everyone but it's the "back up Luthier at all costs" mentality that is the order of the day here, even if he is making a bad call.
Sorry but that is not true..

How do I know it is not true? Easy, note you did NOT provide a quote of ANYONE of the so called/labeled 'you guys' protesting 1C making it more user friendly.

The only thing the so called/labeled 'you guys' did is point out that 'thing change' What use to be one of two options (DF or COOP) is now one (MISSION).

The funny part about all this is how 'YOUR GUYS' totally.. and I mean TOTALLY ignore all the POSITIVES that come with the new CoD missions.. YOUR GUYS want to focus on the NEGATIVE.. Which falls in line with the goal of many guys posting in this thread that are just looking for something to complain about. That is to say they really don't care about DF vs COOP, they just love the opportunity to talk ill of CoD

addman
03-26-2012, 08:22 PM
Exactly my point Ace. Why not attract more players by making the sim more attractive to those still flying the old IL-2 by making it more user friendly to do co-ops? You guys protesting making it more user friendly is just ridiculous. Again, I think you know it would be a good thing for everyone but it's the "back up Luthier at all costs" mentality that is the order of the day here, even if he is making a bad call.

It's just their opinions, it doesn't mean they are right. I think both would be good, the devs could simply add some more preset triggers/scripts to the ones we already have in the FMB to choose from. Also implementing a coop interface for those who likes that couldn't be so hard since CloD has a .net framework. I'm all for the new possibilities with the "mixed" dogfight/coop servers like ATAG, I fly on that more than ever now but I also like the old style coops, why can't one have/like both? It's not like anyone wants to take anything away here. Time will tell how many people will migrate to CloD and also how quickly with the current online framework that the game has.

P.S If luthier is serious about "crushing" the competition he'd better start making user friendly interfaces because the competition has thousands of online players and they're all used to click on the single "instant battle" button. Free advice for you luthier, "instant action" = instant cash.

ACE-OF-ACES
03-26-2012, 08:23 PM
ACE if a proper IL2 COOP was added would CLOD be better or worse?
First the argument was NO coops..

Than someone wrote the script that allowed coops..

Now the argument is PROPER coops..

Which only proves to me that if 1C did include a coop like menu 'someone' would still find issues with it

But to answer your question, I would welcome it and love it if they could provide both the old DF/COOP along with the new MISSION methods.. But not if it meant we had to give up some of the new features the new MISSION methods provide.. Why? Well because I like the idea of having more immersive missions to play.. I am one that welcomes advancements and not stuck in one way of doing things

furbs
03-26-2012, 08:32 PM
It's just their opinions, it doesn't mean they are right. I think both would be good, the devs could simply add some more preset triggers/scripts to the ones we already have in the FMB to choose from. Also implementing a coop interface for those who likes that couldn't be so hard since CloD has a .net framework. I'm all for the new possibilities with the "mixed" dogfight/coop servers like ATAG, I fly on that more than ever now but I also like the old style coops, why can't one have/like both? It's not like anyone wants to take anything away here. Time will tell how many people will migrate to CloD and also how quickly with the current online framework that the game has.

P.S If luthier is serious about "crushing" the competition he'd better start making user friendly interfaces because the competition has thousands of online players and they're all used to click on the single "instant battle" button. Free advice for you luthier, "instant action" = instant cash.

Exactly, were asking for the COOP GUI for CLOD.
We want the ease of use of the GUI menus with the triggers and fancy stuff of CLOD.

41Sqn_Banks
03-26-2012, 08:36 PM
Sorry, we used to fly COOPs in IL2 but not any more.

The stats were created at the end of a mission in a file that held all the info, that file could be uploaded to a website that then could be viewed by all the pilots that took part.

In VEF online war the stats would be added after each mission and your pilot history would be kept up to date with kills, deaths, missions, ground kills and time flown.

you really wanted to keep your pilot alive and keep and it made you fly much more like real life.

Back in the days someone had to write the code to parse the log file for statistics. Now you need someone who that creates the mission script to write the log file on his own and than parse it for statistics.
I can assure you, every programmer is happy if he doesn't need to parse the predefined log file but is able to create his own, with his own content and format. That makes the parsing much more easy. Writing the log really is the easiest part of it.

Problem is that there are to few people that get creative and produce "customer created content" for the sim. People are spoilt and spent more time complaining in the forum instead of getting creative and finds ways to work around the issues and enjoy the good parts.

furbs
03-26-2012, 08:41 PM
I dont get it, are people saying we shouldn't be asking for useful features that would help CLOD be more popular?

41Sqn_Banks
03-26-2012, 09:01 PM
No, we should ask. But then we have to go on and use what we got so far. You want and online war that features a cooperative gameplay style and statics? Go for it and create one. There are so many ways to cope with the missing coop interface or missing statistics. Just do it.

SlipBall
03-26-2012, 09:11 PM
No, we should ask. But then we have to go on and use what we got so far. You want and online war that features a cooperative gameplay style and statics? Go for it and create one. There are so many ways to cope with the missing coop interface or missing statistics. Just do it.


Inspiring! :-P...I guess just jump in, get your feet wet and do it. It's not like a person would need to make more than one of them, to meet his needs for many years of use.

Insuber
03-26-2012, 09:14 PM
I dont get it, are people saying we shouldn't be asking for useful features that would help CLOD be more popular?

Not "people", just "someone" :D

ATAG_MajorBorris
03-26-2012, 09:19 PM
First and foremost, they need to redue the graphics engine then we can get to cool coop gui but Im not sure we need Hyperlobby anymore(I liked it too but why load up somthing CoD allready does..but it might help get the old il2 guys back)

The scoring system, now we need to be able to work with that as well, the old il2 scoring system was much better for full real servers and was condusive to realistic sim play>> 100 points for a kill if you made it home safe--10 points if not--pilots and planes for victory conditions.

furbs
03-26-2012, 09:53 PM
No, we should ask. But then we have to go on and use what we got so far. You want and online war that features a cooperative gameplay style and statics? Go for it and create one. There are so many ways to cope with the missing coop interface or missing statistics. Just do it.


Sorry banks but i just dont have the skills, wish i did.

Force10
03-26-2012, 10:11 PM
Sorry banks but i just dont have the skills, wish i did.

Furbs, you should be ashamed. Below is a small sample script of getting co-op to work.It is actually much larger but there is a 50,000 character limit here.

As you can clearly see, it practically writes itself! Not sure why this would discourage any newcomers to the COD family.


#region Settings

private int missionPendingTime = 5;
private int missionCycleTime = 15;
private int missionDuration = 60;
private bool forceRandom = false;

/// <summary>
/// The names of the players that have hosting permissions.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Add the names of the player that have admin rights.
/// </remarks>
private List<string> hostPlayers = new List<string>
{
//"41Sqn_Skipper",
};

/// <summary>
/// The sub folder that contains the available missions.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// The folder must be below "C:\Users\*username*\Documents\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\missions".
/// </remarks>
/// <example>
/// Set "" to make all missions available.
/// </example>
private const string missionsSubFolder = @""; // e.g. "\Custom\Server\Kanalkampf"

/// <summary>
/// The name of the map of the lobby mission.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Only missions that stage on the same map can be loaded from the lobby mission.
/// </remarks>
private string mapName = "Land$English_Channel_1940";

#endregion

/// <summary>
/// The ids of the different OrderMissionMenus.
/// </summary>
private enum MainMenuID
{
HostMainMenu,
ClientMainMenu,

OpenMissionMenu,
CloseMissionMenu,
StartMissionMenu,

SelectMissionMenu,
SelectAircraftMenu,
PlayerMenu,
}

private class CoopMission
{
public enum MissionState
{
None,
Pending,
Running,
Finished,
}

public CoopMission(string missionFileName)
{
this.MissionFileName = missionFileName;
this.State = MissionState.None;
}

public MissionState State
{
get;
set;
}

public int MissionNumber
{
get;
set;
}

public string MissionFileName
{
get;
set;
}

public string DisplayName
{
get
{
if (State == MissionState.None)
{
return createMissionFileDisplayName(this.MissionFileName) ;
}
else
{
return createMissionFileDisplayName(this.MissionFileName) + " (" + State.ToString() + ")";
}
}
}

public List<string> ForcedIdleAirGroups
{
get
{
return this.forcedIdleAirGroups;
}
}
private List<string> forcedIdleAirGroups = new List<string>();

public Dictionary<string, Player> AircraftPlaceSelections
{
get
{
return this.aircraftPlaceSelections;
}
}
Dictionary<string, Player> aircraftPlaceSelections = new Dictionary<string, Player>();

public List<AiActor> AiActors
{
get
{
return this.aiActors;
}
}
List<AiActor> aiActors = new List<AiActor>();
}

private Random rand = new Random();
private List<CoopMission> missions = new List<CoopMission>();
private Dictionary<Player, CoopMission> missionSelections = new Dictionary<Player, CoopMission>();
private Dictionary<Player, int> menuOffsets = new Dictionary<Player, int>();

private static string createMissionFileDisplayName(string missionFileName)
{
return missionFileName.Replace(Environment.GetFolderPath( Environment.SpecialFolder.MyDocuments) + @"\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\missions" + missionsSubFolder, "");
}

private List<string> getMissionFileNames()
{
string missionsFolderPath = Environment.GetFolderPath(Environment.SpecialFolde r.MyDocuments) + @"\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\missions" + missionsSubFolder;
string[] tempMissionFileNames = Directory.GetFiles(missionsFolderPath, "*.mis", SearchOption.AllDirectories);

List<string> missionFileNames = new List<string>();
foreach (string tempMissionFileName in tempMissionFileNames)
{
if (tempMissionFileName.EndsWith(".mis"))
{
ISectionFile tempMissionFile = GamePlay.gpLoadSectionFile(tempMissionFileName);
if (tempMissionFile.get("MAIN", "MAP") == mapName)
{
missionFileNames.Add(tempMissionFileName);
}
}
}

return missionFileNames;
}

private List<string> getAircraftPlaceDisplayNames(Player player)
{
List<string> aircraftPlaceDisplayNames = new List<string>();

if(missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
CoopMission mission = missionSelections[player];

if (mission.State == CoopMission.MissionState.Pending)
{
ISectionFile selectedMissionFile = GamePlay.gpLoadSectionFile(mission.MissionFileName );

for (int airGroupIndex = 0; airGroupIndex < selectedMissionFile.lines("AirGroups"); airGroupIndex++)
{
string key;
string value;
selectedMissionFile.get("AirGroups", airGroupIndex, out key, out value);

string aircraftType = selectedMissionFile.get(key, "Class");

// Remove the flight mask
string airGroupName = key.Substring(0, key.Length - 1);

for (int flightIndex = 0; flightIndex < 4; flightIndex++)
{
if (selectedMissionFile.exist(key, "Flight" + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat)))
{
string acNumberLine = selectedMissionFile.get(key, "Flight" + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat));
string[] acNumberList = acNumberLine.Split(new char[] { ' ' });
if (acNumberList != null && acNumberList.Length > 0)
{
for (int aircraftIndex = 0; aircraftIndex < acNumberList.Length; aircraftIndex++)
{
string aircraft = airGroupName + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat) + aircraftIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.Cultur eInfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat);

if (getPlaces(aircraftType) != null)
{
int placeIndex = 0;
foreach (string place in getPlaces(aircraftType))
{
string aircraftPlaceDisplayName = key + " " + aircraftType + " " + place;
placeIndex++;
aircraftPlaceDisplayNames.Add(aircraftPlaceDisplay Name);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
else if (mission.State == CoopMission.MissionState.Running)
{
if (GamePlay.gpArmies() != null && GamePlay.gpArmies().Length > 0)
{
foreach (int armyIndex in GamePlay.gpArmies())
{
if (GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex) != null && GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex).Length > 0)
{
foreach (AiAirGroup airGroup in GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex))
{
if (airGroup.Name().StartsWith(mission.MissionNumber + ":"))
{
if (airGroup.GetItems() != null && airGroup.GetItems().Length > 0)
{
foreach (AiActor actor in airGroup.GetItems())
{
if (actor is AiAircraft)
{
AiAircraft aircraft = actor as AiAircraft;
if (aircraft.Places() > 0)
{
for (int placeIndex = 0; placeIndex < aircraft.Places(); placeIndex++)
{
if (aircraft.ExistCabin(placeIndex))
{
string aircraftPlaceDisplayName = airGroup.Name().Replace(mission.MissionNumber + ":", "") + " " + aircraft.InternalTypeName() + " " + aircraft.CrewFunctionPlace(placeIndex).ToString();
aircraftPlaceDisplayNames.Add(aircraftPlaceDisplay Name);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

return aircraftPlaceDisplayNames;
}

private string getAircraftPlaceDisplayName(Player player, string aircraftPlace)
{
if (missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
CoopMission mission = missionSelections[player];

if (mission.State == CoopMission.MissionState.Pending)
{
ISectionFile selectedMissionFile = GamePlay.gpLoadSectionFile(mission.MissionFileName );

for (int airGroupIndex = 0; airGroupIndex < selectedMissionFile.lines("AirGroups"); airGroupIndex++)
{
string key;
string value;
selectedMissionFile.get("AirGroups", airGroupIndex, out key, out value);

string aircraftType = selectedMissionFile.get(key, "Class");

// Remove the flight mask
string airGroupName = key.Substring(0, key.Length - 1);

for (int flightIndex = 0; flightIndex < 4; flightIndex++)
{
if (selectedMissionFile.exist(key, "Flight" + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat)))
{
string acNumberLine = selectedMissionFile.get(key, "Flight" + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat));
string[] acNumberList = acNumberLine.Split(new char[] { ' ' });
if (acNumberList != null && acNumberList.Length > 0)
{
for (int aircraftIndex = 0; aircraftIndex < acNumberList.Length; aircraftIndex++)
{
string aircraft = airGroupName + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat) + aircraftIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.Cultur eInfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat);

if (getPlaces(aircraftType) != null)
{
uint placeIndex = 0;
foreach (string place in getPlaces(aircraftType))
{
if (aircraftPlace == aircraft + "@" + placeIndex)
{
return key + " " + aircraftType + " " + place;
}
placeIndex++;
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
else if (mission.State == CoopMission.MissionState.Running)
{
if (GamePlay.gpArmies() != null && GamePlay.gpArmies().Length > 0)
{
foreach (int armyIndex in GamePlay.gpArmies())
{
if (GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex) != null && GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex).Length > 0)
{
foreach (AiAirGroup airGroup in GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex))
{
if (airGroup.Name().StartsWith(mission.MissionNumber + ":"))
{
if (airGroup.GetItems() != null && airGroup.GetItems().Length > 0)
{
foreach (AiActor actor in airGroup.GetItems())
{
if (actor is AiAircraft)
{
AiAircraft aircraft = actor as AiAircraft;
if (aircraft.Places() > 0)
{
for (int placeIndex = 0; placeIndex < aircraft.Places(); placeIndex++)
{
if (aircraft.ExistCabin(placeIndex))
{
if (aircraftPlace == aircraft.Name().Replace(mission.MissionNumber + ":", "") + "@" + placeIndex)
{
return airGroup.Name().Replace(mission.MissionNumber + ":", "") + " " + aircraft.InternalTypeName().Replace("bob:", "") + " " + aircraft.CrewFunctionPlace(placeIndex).ToString();
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

return "";
}

private List<string> getAircraftPlaces(Player player)
{
List<string> aircraftPlaces = new List<string>();

if (missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
CoopMission mission = missionSelections[player];

if (mission.State == CoopMission.MissionState.Pending)
{
ISectionFile selectedMissionFile = GamePlay.gpLoadSectionFile(mission.MissionFileName );

for (int airGroupIndex = 0; airGroupIndex < selectedMissionFile.lines("AirGroups"); airGroupIndex++)
{
string key;
string value;
selectedMissionFile.get("AirGroups", airGroupIndex, out key, out value);

string aircraftType = selectedMissionFile.get(key, "Class");

// Remove the flight mask
string airGroupName = key.Substring(0, key.Length - 1);

for (int flightIndex = 0; flightIndex < 4; flightIndex++)
{
if (selectedMissionFile.exist(key, "Flight" + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat)))
{
string acNumberLine = selectedMissionFile.get(key, "Flight" + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat));
string[] acNumberList = acNumberLine.Split(new char[] { ' ' });
if (acNumberList != null && acNumberList.Length > 0)
{
for (int aircraftIndex = 0; aircraftIndex < acNumberList.Length; aircraftIndex++)
{
string aircraft = airGroupName + flightIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.CultureI nfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat) + aircraftIndex.ToString(System.Globalization.Cultur eInfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat);

if (getPlaces(aircraftType) != null)
{
uint placeIndex = 0;
foreach (string place in getPlaces(aircraftType))
{
string aircraftPlace = aircraft + "@" + placeIndex;
placeIndex++;
aircraftPlaces.Add(aircraftPlace);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
else if (mission.State == CoopMission.MissionState.Running)
{
if (GamePlay.gpArmies() != null && GamePlay.gpArmies().Length > 0)
{
foreach (int armyIndex in GamePlay.gpArmies())
{
if (GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex) != null && GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex).Length > 0)
{
foreach (AiAirGroup airGroup in GamePlay.gpAirGroups(armyIndex))
{
if (airGroup.Name().StartsWith(mission.MissionNumber + ":"))
{
if (airGroup.GetItems() != null && airGroup.GetItems().Length > 0)
{
foreach (AiActor actor in airGroup.GetItems())
{
if (actor is AiAircraft)
{
AiAircraft aircraft = actor as AiAircraft;
if (aircraft.Places() > 0)
{
for (int placeIndex = 0; placeIndex < aircraft.Places(); placeIndex++)
{
if (aircraft.ExistCabin(placeIndex))
{
string aircraftPlace = aircraft.Name().Replace(mission.MissionNumber + ":", "") + "@" + placeIndex;
aircraftPlaces.Add(aircraftPlace);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

return aircraftPlaces;
}

public override void OnBattleStarted()
{
base.OnBattleStarted();

MissionNumberListener = -1;

if (GamePlay.gpIsServerDedicated() == true || forceRandom == true)
{
openRandomMission();
}
}

private void openRandomMission()
{
List<string> missionFileNames = getMissionFileNames();
int missionFileIndex = rand.Next(0, missionFileNames.Count);
string missionFileName = missionFileNames[missionFileIndex];
CoopMission coopMission = new CoopMission(missionFileName);
missions.Add(coopMission);
openMission(coopMission);

List<Player> players = new List<Player>();
if (GamePlay.gpPlayer() != null)
{
players.Add(GamePlay.gpPlayer());
}
if (GamePlay.gpRemotePlayers() != null && GamePlay.gpRemotePlayers().Length > 0)
{
players.AddRange(GamePlay.gpRemotePlayers());
}

GamePlay.gpLogServer(players.ToArray(), "New random mission.", null);

Timeout((missionPendingTime * 60), () =>
{
startMission(coopMission);
});

Timeout((missionDuration * 60), () =>
{
closeMission(coopMission);
});

Timeout((missionCycleTime * 60), () =>
{
openRandomMission();
});
}

public override void OnActorCreated(int missionNumber, string shortName, AiActor actor)
{
base.OnActorCreated(missionNumber, shortName, actor);

foreach (CoopMission mission in missions)
{
if (mission.MissionNumber == missionNumber)
{
foreach (string aircraftSelection in mission.AircraftPlaceSelections.Keys)
{
string aircraftName = aircraftSelection.Remove(aircraftSelection.IndexOf ("@"), aircraftSelection.Length - aircraftSelection.IndexOf("@"));
if (missionNumber.ToString(System.Globalization.Cultu reInfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat) + ":" + aircraftName == actor.Name())
{
Timeout(3.0, () =>
{
placePlayer(mission.AircraftPlaceSelections[aircraftSelection]);
});
}
}

mission.AiActors.Add(actor);
}
}
}

public override void OnOrderMissionMenuSelected(Player player, int ID, int menuItemIndex)
{
if (ID == (int)MainMenuID.HostMainMenu)
{
if (menuItemIndex == 1)
{
setOpenMissionMenu(player);
}
if (menuItemIndex == 2)
{
setCloseMissionMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 3)
{
setStartMissionMenu(player);
}
if (menuItemIndex == 4)
{
setSelectMissionMenu(player);
}
if (menuItemIndex == 5)
{
setSelectAircraftMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 6)
{
setPlayerMenu(player);
}
}
else if (ID == (int)MainMenuID.ClientMainMenu)
{
if (menuItemIndex == 1)
{
setSelectMissionMenu(player);
}
if (menuItemIndex == 2)
{
setSelectAircraftMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 3)
{
setPlayerMenu(player);
}
}
else if (ID == (int)MainMenuID.SelectMissionMenu)
{
if (menuItemIndex == 0)
{
setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex == 8)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] - 1;
setSelectMissionMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 9)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] + 1;
setSelectMissionMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < missions.Count)
{
CoopMission mission = missions[menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)];
missionSelections[player] = mission;
setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
// No handling needed as menu item is not displayed.
}
}
}
}
else if (ID == (int)MainMenuID.SelectAircraftMenu)
{
if (menuItemIndex == 0)
{
setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex == 8)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] - 1;
setSelectAircraftMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 9)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] + 1;
setSelectAircraftMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < getAircraftPlaces(player).Count)
{
if(missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
CoopMission mission = missionSelections[player];

List<string> aircraftPlaces = getAircraftPlaces(player);
List<string> aircraftPlaceDisplayNames = getAircraftPlaceDisplayNames(player);
if (!mission.AircraftPlaceSelections.ContainsKey(airc raftPlaces[menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)]))
{
foreach(string aircraftPlace in mission.AircraftPlaceSelections.Keys)
{
if(mission.AircraftPlaceSelections[aircraftPlace] == player)
{
mission.AircraftPlaceSelections.Remove(aircraftPla ce);
break;
}
}

mission.AircraftPlaceSelections[aircraftPlaces[menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)]] = player;
placePlayer(player);

GamePlay.gpLogServer(new Player[] { player }, "Aircraft selected: " + aircraftPlaceDisplayNames[menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)], null);

setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
GamePlay.gpLogServer(new Player[] { player }, "Aircraft is already occupied.", null);

setSelectAircraftMenu(player);
}
}
else
{
// No handling needed as menu item is not displayed.
}
}
else
{
// No handling needed as menu item is not displayed.
}
}
}
}
else if (ID == (int)MainMenuID.PlayerMenu)
{
if (menuItemIndex == 0)
{
setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex == 8)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] - 1;
setPlayerMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 9)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] + 1;
setPlayerMenu(player);
}
else
{
setPlayerMenu(player);
}
}
}
else if (ID == (int)MainMenuID.OpenMissionMenu)
{
if (menuItemIndex == 0)
{
setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex == 8)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] - 1;
setOpenMissionMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 9)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] + 1;
setOpenMissionMenu(player);
}
else
{
List<string> missionFileNames = getMissionFileNames();

if (menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < missionFileNames.Count)
{
string missionFileName = missionFileNames[menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)];

CoopMission mission = new CoopMission(missionFileName);
missions.Add(mission);
openMission(mission);

GamePlay.gpLogServer(new Player[] { player }, "Mission pending: " + mission.DisplayName, null);

setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
// No handling needed as menu item is not displayed.
}
}
}
}
else if (ID == (int)MainMenuID.CloseMissionMenu)
{
if (menuItemIndex == 0)
{
setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex == 8)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] - 1;
setCloseMissionMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 9)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] + 1;
setCloseMissionMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < missions.Count)
{
CoopMission mission = missions[menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)];
closeMission(mission);

GamePlay.gpLogServer(new Player[] { player }, "Mission closed: " + mission.DisplayName, null);

setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
// No handling needed as menu item is not displayed.
}
}
}
}
else if (ID == (int)MainMenuID.StartMissionMenu)
{
if (menuItemIndex == 0)
{
setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex == 8)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] - 1;
setStartMissionMenu(player);
}
else if (menuItemIndex == 9)
{
menuOffsets[player] = menuOffsets[player] + 1;
setStartMissionMenu(player);
}
else
{
if (menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < missions.Count)
{
CoopMission mission = missions[menuItemIndex - 1 + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)];
startMission(mission);

GamePlay.gpLogServer(new Player[] { player }, "Mission started: " + mission.DisplayName, null);

setMainMenu(player);
}
else
{
// No handling needed as menu item is not displayed.
}
}
}
}
}

public override void OnPlayerDisconnected(Player player, string diagnostic)
{
base.OnPlayerDisconnected(player, diagnostic);

if (missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
foreach (string aircraftSelection in missionSelections[player].AircraftPlaceSelections.Keys)
{
if (missionSelections[player].AircraftPlaceSelections[aircraftSelection] == player)
{
missionSelections[player].AircraftPlaceSelections.Remove(aircraftSelection) ;
break;
}
}
}

missionSelections.Remove(player);
}

public override void OnPlayerArmy(Player player, int army)
{
base.OnPlayerArmy(player, army);

assignToLobbyAircraft(player);
}

public override void OnActorDestroyed(int missionNumber, string shortName, AiActor actor)
{
base.OnActorDestroyed(missionNumber, shortName, actor);

assignPlayersOfActorToLobbyAircraft(actor);
}

public override void OnPlaceEnter(Player player, AiActor actor, int placeIndex)
{
base.OnPlaceEnter(player, actor, placeIndex);

setMainMenu(player);
}

/// <summary>
/// Assigns all players that occupy a place of the actor to one of the lobby aircrafts.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="actor">The actor that might be occupied by players.</param>
private void assignPlayersOfActorToLobbyAircraft(AiActor actor)
{
if (actor is AiAircraft)
{
AiAircraft aircraft = actor as AiAircraft;

for (int placeIndex = 0; placeIndex < aircraft.Places(); placeIndex++)
{
if (aircraft.Player(placeIndex) != null)
{
Player player = aircraft.Player(placeIndex);
assignToLobbyAircraft(player);
}
}
}
}

/// <summary>
/// Assigns a player to an unoccupied place in one of the lobby aircrafts.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="player">The player that is assigned to a lobby aircraft.</param>
private void assignToLobbyAircraft(Player player)
{
if (GamePlay.gpAirGroups(player.Army()) != null && GamePlay.gpAirGroups(player.Army()).Length > 0)
{
foreach (AiAirGroup airGroup in GamePlay.gpAirGroups(player.Army()))
{
// Lobby aircrafts always have the mission index 0.
if (airGroup.Name().StartsWith("0:"))
{
if (airGroup.GetItems() != null && airGroup.GetItems().Length > 0)
{
foreach (AiActor actor in airGroup.GetItems())
{
if (actor is AiAircraft)
{
AiAircraft aircraft = actor as AiAircraft;
for (int placeIndex = 0; placeIndex < aircraft.Places(); placeIndex++)
{
if (aircraft.Player(placeIndex) == null)
{
player.PlaceEnter(aircraft, placeIndex);
// Place found.
return;
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
else
{
GamePlay.gpLogServer(new Player[] { player }, "No unoccupied place available in the lobby aircrafts.", null);
}
}

/// <summary>
/// Sets the main menu for a player.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="player">The player that gets the main menu set.</param>
private void setMainMenu(Player player)
{
menuOffsets[player] = 0;

string aircraftPlaceDisplyName = "None";

if ((GamePlay.gpPlayer() != null && player == GamePlay.gpPlayer()) || (player.Name() != null && player.Name() != "" && hostPlayers.Contains(player.Name())))
{
// Set host menu.
string[] entry = new string[] { "", "", "", "", "", "" };
bool[] hasSubEntry = new bool[] { true, true, true, true, true, true };

entry[0] = "Open Mission";
entry[1] = "Close Mission";
entry[2] = "Start Mission";

if(!missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
entry[3] = "Select Mission (Selected Mission: None)";
}
else
{
CoopMission mission = missionSelections[player];

foreach (string aircraftPlace in missionSelections[player].AircraftPlaceSelections.Keys)
{
if (missionSelections[player].AircraftPlaceSelections[aircraftPlace] == player)
{
aircraftPlaceDisplyName = getAircraftPlaceDisplayName(player, aircraftPlace);
break;
}
}

entry[3] = "Select Mission (Selected Mission: " + mission.DisplayName + ")";
entry[4] = "Select Aircraft (Selected Aircraft: " + aircraftPlaceDisplyName + ")";
entry[5] = "Players";
}

GamePlay.gpSetOrderMissionMenu(player, false, (int)MainMenuID.HostMainMenu, entry, hasSubEntry);
}
else
{
// Set client menu.
string[] entry = new string[] { "", "", "" };
bool[] hasSubEntry = new bool[] { true, true, true };

if (!missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
entry[0] = "Select Mission (Selected Mission: None)";
}
else
{
CoopMission mission = missionSelections[player];

foreach (string aircraftPlace in mission.AircraftPlaceSelections.Keys)
{
if (missionSelections[player].AircraftPlaceSelections[aircraftPlace] == player)
{
aircraftPlaceDisplyName = getAircraftPlaceDisplayName(player, aircraftPlace);
break;
}
}

entry[0] = "Select Mission (Selected Mission: " + mission.DisplayName + ")";
entry[1] = "Select Aircraft (Selected Aircraft: " + aircraftPlaceDisplyName + ")";
entry[2] = "Players";
}

GamePlay.gpSetOrderMissionMenu(player, false, (int)MainMenuID.ClientMainMenu, entry, hasSubEntry);
}
}

private void setSelectMissionMenu(Player player)
{
if (menuOffsets[player] < 0)
{
menuOffsets[player] = (int)missions.Count / 7;
}
else if ((menuOffsets[player] * 7) > missions.Count)
{
menuOffsets[player] = 0;
}

int entryCount = 9;
string[] entry = new string[entryCount];
bool[] hasSubEntry = new bool[entryCount];

for (int entryIndex = 0; entryIndex < entryCount; entryIndex++)
{
if (entryIndex == entryCount - 2)
{
entry[entryIndex] = "Page up";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else if (entryIndex == entryCount - 1)
{
entry[entryIndex] = "Page down";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else
{
if (entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < missions.Count)
{
entry[entryIndex] = createMissionFileDisplayName(missions[entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)].DisplayName);
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else
{
entry[entryIndex] = "";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
}
}

GamePlay.gpSetOrderMissionMenu(player, true, (int)MainMenuID.SelectMissionMenu, entry, hasSubEntry);
}

private void setSelectAircraftMenu(Player player)
{
int entryCount = 9;
string[] entry = new string[entryCount];
bool[] hasSubEntry = new bool[entryCount];

if (missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
CoopMission mission = missionSelections[player];

List<string> aircraftPlaceDisplayNames = getAircraftPlaceDisplayNames(player);
List<string> aircraftPlaces = getAircraftPlaces(player);

if (menuOffsets[player] < 0)
{
menuOffsets[player] = (int)aircraftPlaceDisplayNames.Count / 7;
}
else if ((menuOffsets[player] * 7) > aircraftPlaceDisplayNames.Count)
{
menuOffsets[player] = 0;
}

for (int entryIndex = 0; entryIndex < entryCount; entryIndex++)
{
if (entryIndex == entryCount - 2)
{
entry[entryIndex] = "Page up";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else if (entryIndex == entryCount - 1)
{
entry[entryIndex] = "Page down";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else
{
if (entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < aircraftPlaceDisplayNames.Count)
{
if (mission.AircraftPlaceSelections.ContainsKey(aircr aftPlaces[entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)]))
{
entry[entryIndex] = aircraftPlaceDisplayNames[entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)] + ": " + mission.AircraftPlaceSelections[aircraftPlaces[entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)]].Name();
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else
{
entry[entryIndex] = aircraftPlaceDisplayNames[entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)];
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
}
else
{
entry[entryIndex] = "";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
}
}
}

GamePlay.gpSetOrderMissionMenu(player, true, (int)MainMenuID.SelectAircraftMenu, entry, hasSubEntry);
}

private void setPlayerMenu(Player player)
{
int entryCount = 9;
string[] entry = new string[entryCount];
bool[] hasSubEntry = new bool[entryCount];

if (missionSelections.ContainsKey(player))
{
CoopMission playerMission = missionSelections[player];

List<Player> players = new List<Player>();
foreach (Player otherPlayer in missionSelections.Keys)
{
if (missionSelections[otherPlayer] == missionSelections[player])
{
players.Add(otherPlayer);
}
}

if (menuOffsets[player] < 0)
{
menuOffsets[player] = (int)players.Count / 7;
}
else if ((menuOffsets[player] * 7) > players.Count)
{
menuOffsets[player] = 0;
}

for (int entryIndex = 0; entryIndex < entryCount; entryIndex++)
{
if (entryIndex == entryCount - 2)
{
entry[entryIndex] = "Page up";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else if (entryIndex == entryCount - 1)
{
entry[entryIndex] = "Page down";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else
{
if (entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < players.Count)
{
string aircraftPlaceDisplyName = "None";
foreach (string aircraftPlace in missionSelections[player].AircraftPlaceSelections.Keys)
{
if (missionSelections[player].AircraftPlaceSelections[aircraftPlace] == players[entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)])
{
aircraftPlaceDisplyName = getAircraftPlaceDisplayName(player, aircraftPlace);
break;
}
}

entry[entryIndex] = players[entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)].Name() + " (" + aircraftPlaceDisplyName + ")";

hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else
{
entry[entryIndex] = "";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
}
}
}

GamePlay.gpSetOrderMissionMenu(player, true, (int)MainMenuID.PlayerMenu, entry, hasSubEntry);
}

private void setOpenMissionMenu(Player player)
{
List<string> missionFileNames = getMissionFileNames();

if (menuOffsets[player] < 0)
{
menuOffsets[player] = (int)missionFileNames.Count / 7;
}
else if ((menuOffsets[player] * 7) > missionFileNames.Count)
{
menuOffsets[player] = 0;
}

int entryCount = 9;
string[] entry = new string[entryCount];
bool[] hasSubEntry = new bool[entryCount];

for (int entryIndex = 0; entryIndex < entryCount; entryIndex++)
{
if (entryIndex == entryCount - 2)
{
entry[entryIndex] = "Page up";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else if (entryIndex == entryCount - 1)
{
entry[entryIndex] = "Page down";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else
{
if (entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7) < missionFileNames.Count)
{
entry[entryIndex] = createMissionFileDisplayName(missionFileNames[entryIndex + (menuOffsets[player] * 7)]);
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
else
{
entry[entryIndex] = "";
hasSubEntry[entryIndex] = true;
}
}
}

GamePlay.gpSetOrderMissionMenu(player, true, (int)MainMenuID.OpenMissionMenu, entry, hasSubEntry);
}

private void setCloseMissionMenu(Player player)
{
if (menuOffsets[player] < 0)
{
menuOffsets[player] = (int)missions.Count / 7;
}
else if ((menuOffsets[player] * 7) > missions.Count)
{
menuOffsets[player] = 0;
}

int entryCount = 9;
string[] entry = new string[entryCount];
bool[] hasSubEntry = new bool[entryCount];

Insuber
03-26-2012, 10:23 PM
Force10, you totally.. and I mean totally ignore all the positives that come with the new CoD missions ... It is evident from your example that you don't even want to read those few self explaining crystal clear fool proof C# lines. I'm disgusted ... :D.

SlipBall
03-26-2012, 10:37 PM
Furbs, you should be ashamed. Below is a small sample script of getting co-op to work.It is actually much larger but there is a 50,000 character limit here.

As you can clearly see, it practically writes itself! Not sure why this would discourage any newcomers to the COD family.

;


I hope the team can offer up what some old school designers want but
your example is just the point of the whole argument...some kind sole has already made that coop for anyone and all to use. All that is needed is to edit any change that you would like to see implemented, or use it as is, till skills are developed amongst the squad for C#. Coops is not like going out to get a burger:-P

robtek
03-26-2012, 10:39 PM
Dont forget that quite a few things that were avaílable in old IL2, and now are requested here for CoD, were done by enthusiastic flightsimmers after old Il2 was on the scene a few years already.

Now here with CoD, where much is different, you want it done instantly by MG, which never did it in first place.

Force10
03-26-2012, 10:43 PM
I'm not taking away anything from the person who created the script. If anything, it shows how much work he put into it and he should be applauded for his efforts for the community. But the crowd who is telling us "Just make it yourself" and that it's "easy" are the ones taking away from the guy who created it.

furbs
03-26-2012, 10:52 PM
Dont forget that quite a few things that were avaílable in old IL2, and now are requested here for CoD, were done by enthusiastic flightsimmers after old Il2 was on the scene a few years already.

Now here with CoD, where much is different, you want it done instantly by MG, which never did it in first place.


Robtek, instantly? :rolleyes: where did anyone say that?

So again, were not allowed to ask?

SlipBall
03-26-2012, 11:05 PM
It does no harm to ask, in fact it would be very easy for them to add it, I think/unknown...I just would like to hear from someone who is using this coop now. Maybe others would try it then, and have fun with it.

Ibis
03-26-2012, 11:07 PM
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________

Precisely why my squad and many others have given up on CoD and gone back to il2.
We were all prepared to switch but the lack of a simple interface and the complicated mission building has killed it for us.

Pretty pictures are fine but we want to get on with the war and when no one in our squad is prepared to go to IT school to learn to write decent missions then it's a turkey.

I have bought multiples of everything that Oleg produced along with three copies of CoD, I'm sorry but it doesn't work for the average simmer.
cheers,
Ibis.

6BL Bird-Dog
03-26-2012, 11:32 PM
I have to agree with Alpha and Furbs about the need for a Coop Gui & the poll we had a while back showed that so did the majority voting .
The 1946 Coop setup was quick to join ,get the briefing and launch, plus gave all the results at the end for all to see.
How changes can effect player numbers is easily apparent on Hyperlobby where to majority of Coops are in 4.11 or HSFX as many hosts dropped UP because a later version messed up the mission end score board in coops .
I have to agree with what I have heard from groups that actualy use Coops for online wars and missions .These guys are customers too and are not happy with the present Coop setup.
Regardless of prior intentions not to use the old interface the devs have a lot of work still being done on CLod as well as the GFX rework, I would suggest possibly that a Coop gui could be intergreated with the release of the sequel as I think sales and online numbers will benifit from this.
On mission writing ,I did start in the mission builder within the first few days of getting the game and as you know the missions would not save back then.As the game was suffering from many problems I have since waited for it to be rectified before I commense again.I have wrote many missions in iL2 but found the CLoD MB less intuative and will be glad when/if a comprehensive MB manual is supplied.

ATAG_Bliss
03-26-2012, 11:33 PM
-----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________

Precisely why my squad and many others have given up on CoD and gone back to il2.
We were all prepared to switch but the lack of a simple interface and the complicated mission building has killed it for us.

Pretty pictures are fine but we want to get on with the war and when no one in our squad is prepared to go to IT school to learn to write decent missions then it's a turkey.

I have bought multiples of everything that Oleg produced along with three copies of CoD, I'm sorry but it doesn't work for the average simmer.
cheers,
Ibis.

I can only scratch my head here. The new FMB in IL2COD is much more user friendly, or should I say, "makes sense" compared to the old one. It takes 20 seconds to setup 2 airfields and the selected planes to spawn from.

If this is the reason people like you aren't playing, then I highly doubt you've spent 10 seconds in the FMB. Mission building hasn't changed. The features of the old game haven't changed in the FMB (albeit some things are broken). The only thing that's changed is having the ability to do more.

If you or El would have asked how to do something, especially something as simple as placing a spawn area, you would have gotten an answer fairly quickly. I don't understand how you'd give up on something just because you can't figure it out. Again, to me, as someone who's has 1000's of hours in the new FMB, I greatly prefer it over the old one. This one actually makes sense.

Tavingon
03-26-2012, 11:35 PM
I really want to see more aggressive bomber gunners a la 1946 / wings

addman
03-26-2012, 11:43 PM
Just came off ATAG, a few examples of why I prefer coops old style:

1. No human 109/110 vulchers above the airfield (unless put there by mission maker)
2. Wanted to do some bomber intercepting, took off in my 110 and flew around for the good part of an hour along the channel, didn't see 1 bomber, waste of precious time for me plus a spit jumped me and I didn't hear it because I had my headphones off *doh!*

How it would've gotten down if it were "old" style coop:

Group of players select aircraft, spawn and take off and goes on their merry way towards target/intercept/bombing raid etc. No human players spoiling all their fun before they are even in the air. Don't have to look for bombers that may or may not show up at a certain time and place.

Don't get me wrong ATAG is great but sometimes the whole dogfight/coop hybrid doesn't do either very good, ok maybe the dogfighting part but that never interested me so much.

ATAG_Bliss
03-26-2012, 11:49 PM
Sorry banks but i just dont have the skills, wish i did.

So you don't have the ability to learn? You think I'm some sort of programmer? I'm a mechanical engineer. I figured out what I know by learning, reading books, trying things.

If you spent as much time reading/learning C# as you did posting on forums all day, you'd have been writing code long ago.

6S.Tamat
03-26-2012, 11:53 PM
a spit jumped me and I didn't hear it because I had my headphones off *doh!*


Finally someone found a way to eliminate the totally unrealistical sound radar!!:grin:

Force10
03-26-2012, 11:55 PM
If you spent as much time reading/learning C# as you did posting on forums all day, you'd have been writing code long ago.

I guess I missed the requirements on the box that said "Extensive C# programming experience required for Co-op play" :)

6S.Tamat
03-26-2012, 11:57 PM
So you don't have the ability to learn? You think I'm some sort of programmer? I'm a mechanical engineer. I figured out what I know by learning, reading books, trying things.

If you spent as much time reading/learning C# as you did posting on forums all day, you'd have been writing code long ago.
The point is why to need a FMB so.. let's do everything on programming.
That instruments are made to make simple what is in an other way difficult.

See the Arma2 mission builder: simple to do simple things, complex enough with triggers and visual instrument to do more complex things without to script, expandable with the scripting to do more difficult things.

Ataros
03-26-2012, 11:59 PM
Precisely why my squad and many others have given up on CoD and gone back to il2.
We were all prepared to switch but the lack of a simple interface and the complicated mission building has killed it for us.

Pretty pictures are fine but we want to get on with the war and when no one in our squad is prepared to go to IT school to learn to write decent missions then it's a turkey.

I have bought multiples of everything that Oleg produced along with three copies of CoD, I'm sorry but it doesn't work for the average simmer.
cheers,
Ibis.

Maybe this could help if you have similar issues shifting to the new FMB http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=402996&postcount=101

ATAG_Bliss
03-27-2012, 12:00 AM
Just came off ATAG, a few examples of why I prefer coops old style:

1. No human 109/110 vulchers above the airfield (unless put there by mission maker)
2. Wanted to do some bomber intercepting, took off in my 110 and flew around for the good part of an hour along the channel, didn't see 1 bomber, waste of precious time for me plus a spit jumped me and I didn't hear it because I had my headphones off *doh!*

How it would've gotten down if it were "old" style coop:

Group of players select aircraft, spawn and take off and goes on their merry way towards target/intercept/bombing raid etc. No human players spoiling all their fun before they are even in the air. Don't have to look for bombers that may or may not show up at a certain time and place.

Don't get me wrong ATAG is great but sometimes the whole dogfight/coop hybrid doesn't do either very good, ok maybe the dogfighting part but that never interested me so much.

You like COOPs for the reason I hate them. In COOPs you usually know where everyone is starting from (both teams) you know where the objective is / what to do. Because of this you don't have to worry about anything until you get to where you'd could possibly be time enough in the mission to have an enemy in your area.

I like dynamic, ever changing scenarios. I like to spawn in and not know where any enemies are at other than those on coms calling them out, such as how it would be in a real patrol. Not only do you have the objectives to protect/defend/destroy, you have the dynamic situation of an enemy being anywhere on the map at any time. If there was ever a situation that occurred in WWII where the Axis and the Allied forces both took off at the same time and met in the middle somewhere, I've yet to read about it. But in a COOP that's exactly what happens. Every starts exactly the same time. It's not my cup of tea just because you can usually figure out how things are going to happen because of it. I much more prefer the idk what's going on atmosphere where anything can happen at any time, at any place. It's much more dynamic. Sure it can be boring and it can also be brilliant, but I've never felt like I was part of something realistic in a COOP, unless it was a massive 100 player organized event - even then, you have a good idea of what's going to happen if your roles are assigned to you.

ATAG_Bliss
03-27-2012, 12:04 AM
I guess I missed the requirements on the box that said "Extensive C# programming experience required for Co-op play" :)

No, but you did happen to miss the post where I said some sort of COOP interface will probably be done 3rd party. If you can't play in a COOP right now, it's your fault not the games. If you're not willing to make a mission and load it up on a pw protected server that everyone can join in on (in your group - so you start at the same time) then you're just whining to whine.

The point is why to need a FMB so.. let's do everything on programming.
That instruments are made to make simple what is in an other way difficult.

See the Arma2 mission builder: simple to do simple things, complex enough with triggers and visual instrument to do more complex things without to script, expandable with the scripting to do more difficult things.

That's exactly how the FMB is. If you don't think so, please ask a question what's difficult to do?

Force10
03-27-2012, 12:10 AM
Whatever...If you guys refuse to believe a more user friendly GUI would be good for the game, then so be it. As software evolves, it usually gets more powerful and user friendly. It would be like Windows 8 coming out with new features and power, but it needs to be run by using DOS commands.

41Sqn_Banks
03-27-2012, 12:16 AM
I guess I missed the requirements on the box that said "Extensive C# programming experience required for Co-op play" :)

It's not. Just use the script provided. You don't need to read or understand it, just as you didn't need to read or understand the java code of the old coop interface. Just load the provided lobby mission. Use the communication menu (tab + 4) to load the mission you want to use as a coop. Then the clients preselect a aircraft through the communication menu (tab + 4). Then the host starts the mission with the communication menu (tab + 4).

Dano
03-27-2012, 12:19 AM
You like COOPs for the reason I hate them. In COOPs you usually know where everyone is starting from (both teams) you know where the objective is / what to do. Because of this you don't have to worry about anything until you get to where you'd could possibly be time enough in the mission to have an enemy in your area.

I like dynamic, ever changing scenarios. I like to spawn in and not know where any enemies are at other than those on coms calling them out, such as how it would be in a real patrol. Not only do you have the objectives to protect/defend/destroy, you have the dynamic situation of an enemy being anywhere on the map at any time. If there was ever a situation that occurred in WWII where the Axis and the Allied forces both took off at the same time and met in the middle somewhere, I've yet to read about it. But in a COOP that's exactly what happens. Every starts exactly the same time. It's not my cup of tea just because you can usually figure out how things are going to happen because of it. I much more prefer the idk what's going on atmosphere where anything can happen at any time, at any place. It's much more dynamic. Sure it can be boring and it can also be brilliant, but I've never felt like I was part of something realistic in a COOP, unless it was a massive 100 player organized event - even then, you have a good idea of what's going to happen if your roles are assigned to you.

Exactly :)

It's surely just a question of discipline to get your squadron to set up on the airfield instead of in a ready room? Maybe a couple flying a CAP while doing so? Those mannable AAA guns will be a godsend when they come right?

Maybe the next stage will be that we get a real in game ready room where we can play the piano and gaze out of the window.

ACE-OF-ACES
03-27-2012, 12:20 AM
Whatever...If you guys refuse to believe a more user friendly GUI would be good for the game, then so be it.
Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Are you one of those types that belives if he says it enough it will become or at least be precived as true?

PS to those who may be reading this, note Force10 did not provide a quote of anyone saying they don't want the old coop interface..

Why?

Because the fact is no one has said that.. but for Force10 and others arguments to have any meaning they need to fool some people into thinking that is what some people are saying

ACE-OF-ACES
03-27-2012, 12:26 AM
I have to agree with Alpha and Furbs about the need for a Coop Gui & the poll we had a while back showed that so did the majority voting .
Is that the poll where some members of this forum were banned for using multipul forum handles to vote more than once for the old style 1C coop?

ACE-OF-ACES
03-27-2012, 12:27 AM
It's not. Just use the script provided. You don't need to read or understand it, just as you didn't need to read or understand the java code of the old coop interface. Just load the provided lobby mission.+1

SlipBall
03-27-2012, 12:34 AM
It's not. Just use the script provided. You don't need to read or understand it, just as you didn't need to read or understand the java code of the old coop interface. Just load the provided lobby mission. Use the communication menu (tab + 4) to load the mission you want to use as a coop. Then the clients preselect a aircraft through the communication menu (tab + 4). Then the host starts the mission with the communication menu (tab + 4).



Cool, I didn't know that the game has a Coop mission plus the server set up...could someone edit that mission in FMB if they wanted to?

Ataros
03-27-2012, 12:39 AM
What some people dont seem to understand is:

There are no Dogfight-Servers anymore!!! Nada! a thing of the past! gone with the wind!

There are only online-server for CoD, where everything happens as the mission designer wants it.

Keeping talking about "Coop" - and "Dogfight" -Servers gives the impression of being rooted in the past and to be unwilling to cope wth the new reality.

That is my opinion.

I prefer the new system where "coops" can be a part of a "dogfight" airspace because it is less predictable and more historical in this sense.

However pure coop has some advantages that make it very attractive to many players. It is more organised for squad training and it is more competitive like an 8vs8 or 16vs16 duel. A planned duel with equal enemy can create a lot of adrenalin that makes this mode very addictive as a game mode.

I think we should keep communicating a constructive and detailed message about the coop-mode GUI issue to luthier in patch and updates threads where he can actually see it. Please post explanations and links that Alpha provided above on the 1st pages of luthier's and B6's threads.

On the other hand a ready-made and easy to use coop script by Banks is available for use now but no one is interested in flying coops with it because of CTD issue and lack of interest to the game. I think Banks even had to pause further development of it because no single squad was interested in testing it and providing feedback. Yes, we need GUI to attract new players but are users of this forum spoiled to the extent of not being able to press TAB - 4 - 123, etc. keys on keyboard instead of clicking LMB in GUI? I do not know, we will see when CTDs are fixed if any squad is ready to test the script/needs coops.

speculum jockey
03-27-2012, 12:52 AM
Wow! I can sort of see where some people might be hesitant or against the use of steam. I can even barely see people being against "arcadish" play modes being an option, but the resistance to making the creation of missions easier is just beyond the scope of reason!

Really? You want this sim to stagnate because people should learn how to code or scour forums for posts to figure out how to make new missions? Why? Do you just want the entire online community to be comprised of you, and the same 12 other guys in an endless dogfight? It's like some sort of old-fashioned secret society club where you have to be the offspring of a current member to join.

I'd say the IL-2 community beats out the Star Trek gaming community when it comes to downright hostility to new members and ideas.

Ataros
03-27-2012, 12:54 AM
Cool, I didn't know that the game has a Coop mission plus the server set up...could someone edit that mission in FMB if they wanted to?

This script is probably the only thing in CloD that has a user-guide :) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28559
Thanks to Banks.

The script works with any user mission. No need to edit or even open the script. You can edit your mission of cause.

ATAG_Bliss
03-27-2012, 12:56 AM
Wow! I can sort of see where some people might be hesitant or against the use of steam. I can even barely see people being against "arcadish" play modes being an option, but the resistance to making the creation of missions easier is just beyond the scope of reason!

Really? You want this sim to stagnate because people should learn how to code or scour forums for posts to figure out how to make new missions? Why? Do you just want the entire online community to be comprised of you, and the same 12 other guys in an endless dogfight? It's like some sort of old-fashioned secret society club where you have to be the offspring of a current member to join.

I'd say the IL-2 community beats out the Star Trek gaming community when it comes to downright hostility to new members and ideas.

Clearly you can't read very well. There isn't anything you can't do with the old IL2's FMB that you can't do with IL2COD's FMB without one single line of code. As someone that actually uses the FMB, the one for Cliffs is a whole bunch easier and makes much more sense than 46's FMB. All the coding ability is there for is to add to what's already there in the FMB.

I wish people like yourself would quit saying you need to program something to make missions in this sim. Perhaps actually try to make a mission before spreading, again, false information.

SlipBall
03-27-2012, 01:02 AM
I just opened the game provided Coop mission in FMB, it's completely editable...so anyone wanting to make adjustments to it can, or even create a new one.

SlipBall
03-27-2012, 01:04 AM
This script is probably the only thing in CloD that has a user-guide :) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28559
Thanks to Banks.

The script works with any user mission. No need to edit or even open the script. You can edit your mission of cause.


Thank-you

speculum jockey
03-27-2012, 01:05 AM
Clearly you can't read very well. There isn't anything you can't do with the old IL2's FMB that you can't do with IL2COD's FMB without one single line of code. As someone that actually uses the FMB, the one for Cliffs is a whole bunch easier and makes much more sense than 46's FMB. All the coding ability is there for is to add to what's already there in the FMB.

I wish people like yourself would quit saying you need to program something to make missions in this sim. Perhaps actually try to make a mission before spreading, again, false information.

Have you not see the multiple pages here full of people asking for this? How about the multiple threads in this forum asking the same? How about the same in SimHq, Sukhoi, Ubi, and other forums? How can it hurt to make it easier for people to make missions? Is there some prophecy that says...

:evil:"If thou shalt make the creation of missions more accessible to the plebes, I shall strike thee down!"

SlipBall
03-27-2012, 01:14 AM
Have you not see the multiple pages here full of people asking for this? How about the multiple threads in this forum asking the same? How about the same in SimHq, Sukhoi, Ubi, and other forums? How can it hurt to make it easier for people to make missions? Is there some prophecy that says...

:evil:"If thou shalt make the creation of missions more accessible to the plebes, I shall strike thee down!"



Bliss was only trying to point out that FMB is basically the same as the old one...it's not rocket science at all, very easy to use, especially for those who worked in the old one. They should feel at home to make a mission or two...I made a dozen of them, again not rocket science

ATAG_Bliss
03-27-2012, 01:31 AM
Bliss was only trying to point out that FMB is basically the same as the old one...it's not rocket science at all, very easy to use, especially for those who worked in the old one. They should feel at home to make a mission or two...I made a dozen of them, again not rocket science

Someone that can read and also comprehend. Good skills to have ;)

speculum jockey
03-27-2012, 02:27 AM
Someone that can read and also comprehend. Good skills to have ;)

I, and the other people are asking for a more user-friendly or intuitive interface for making missions. What are you not getting?

ATAG_Bliss
03-27-2012, 02:35 AM
Really? You want this sim to stagnate because people should learn how to code or scour forums for posts to figure out how to make new missions?

I, and the other people are asking for a more user-friendly or intuitive interface for making missions. What are you not getting?

Perhaps you should read your own quote where you said people need to learn how to code to make missions. Perhaps you can read my own words, and others that have actually used the FMB before, and realize it's much easier to make missions with IL2COD's FMB than 46's.

Strange how I don't see you whining in IL246's forum area for the need for the FMB to be "easier to use", "easier to create missions", when IL2COD's FMB is even easier to use yet.

You're a walking contradiction. Congrats.

speculum jockey
03-27-2012, 02:41 AM
Perhaps you should read your own quote where you said people need to learn how to code to make missions. Perhaps you can read my own words, and others that have actually used the FMB before, and realize it's much easier to make missions with IL2COD's FMB than 46's.

Strange how I don't see you whining in IL246's forum area for the need for the FMB to be "easier to use", "easier to create missions", when IL2COD's FMB is even easier to use yet.

You're a walking contradiction. Congrats.

I've said before that learning how to code is not a necessity, but that fact has been almost hidden to some people. The "scouring the forums" is referring to having to find out that coding isn't a necessity and still, the interface is quite difficult. Being able to do more with the FMB does not mean that it is easy. Being easier than IL2 doesn't mean that it is easy either.

Why would people in these forums not want the FMB to be more intuitive or have actual documentation? That's what the rest of us are trying to figure out. Why the rest of the users are so adamant that nothing be done?

ATAG_Bliss
03-27-2012, 02:47 AM
I've said before that learning how to code is not a necessity, but that fact has been almost hidden to some people. The "scouring the forums" is referring to having to find out that coding isn't a necessity and still, the interface is quite difficult. Being able to do more with the FMB does not mean that it is easy. Being easier than IL2 doesn't mean that it is easy either.

Why would people in these forums not want the FMB to be more intuitive or have actual documentation? That's what the rest of us are trying to figure out. Why the rest of the users are so adamant that nothing be done?

I suggest, once again, to read what you wrote. You said the only way to make "new missions" is to scour the forums to learn how to code which is completely false. And if you said earlier that you don't have to code to make missions then today having said you do, you even contradicted yourself even further.

If you want the FMB to be more intuitive, there's a big sticky to the devs at the top of this board where you can suggest what to do about it.. But considering you have yet to post there, all you are trying to do in this instance is dig yourself out of the hole you've put yourself in.

I can't wait to see your posted suggestions to the devs on how to make it more user friendly.

speculum jockey
03-27-2012, 03:08 AM
I'll post my quote, which you quoted.

You want this sim to stagnate because people should learn how to code or scour forums for posts to figure out how to make new missions?

Meaning they can learn to code, or find out how to do it otherwise.

ATAG_Doc
03-27-2012, 03:18 AM
What some people dont seem to understand is:

There are no Dogfight-Servers anymore!!! Nada! a thing of the past! gone with the wind!

There are only online-server for CoD, where everything happens as the mission designer wants it.

Keeping talking about "Coop" - and "Dogfight" -Servers gives the impression of being rooted in the past and to be unwilling to cope wth the new reality.

That is my opinion.

I guess I really don't get what the coop people want. Is it that they don't want humans shooting at them and they want to intermingle with only AI?

ATAG_Bliss
03-27-2012, 03:24 AM
Wow! I can sort of see where some people might be hesitant or against the use of steam. I can even barely see people being against "arcadish" play modes being an option, but the resistance to making the creation of missions easier is just beyond the scope of reason!

Really? You want this sim to stagnate because people should learn how to code or scour forums for posts to figure out how to make new missions? Why? Do you just want the entire online community to be comprised of you, and the same 12 other guys in an endless dogfight? It's like some sort of old-fashioned secret society club where you have to be the offspring of a current member to join.

I'd say the IL-2 community beats out the Star Trek gaming community when it comes to downright hostility to new members and ideas.

I'll post my quote, which you quoted.



Meaning they can learn to code, or find out how to do it otherwise.

Ah so there's only 12 people making missions for all of the IL2 series? What you were alluring to is cliffs is much harder to make missions. And what you're alluring to with your post with the big OR in it was people can learn to code or search the forums to find code examples to put into their missions.

Again, as others have already stated (those that use the FMB) it's not hard to make the transition and most would find it easier. If you were serious about what you are actually saying you would post suggestions on how to make it easier in a thread designed just for that.

So why haven't you posted a suggestion in that thread yet? You seem pretty adamant about wanting it to be easier. Yet you haven't given one suggestion for doing so?

speculum jockey
03-27-2012, 04:09 AM
So why haven't you posted a suggestion in that thread yet? You seem pretty adamant about wanting it to be easier. Yet you haven't given one suggestion for doing so?

My suggestion would be to actually put some thought into the interface, and create some documentation to aid people. I'm not going to write a 13 page document on how the devs could do this. They know (I hope) how they could make the process easier, and if they don't, they should look to other games that have done similar things and try and do that.

furbs
03-27-2012, 07:03 AM
Im still at a loss here, are some saying we shouldn't ask for a better GUI to handle COOPs?

You seem to say its ok to want to play them but not ok to ask for a better way to handle them?
Lots of people want a easier, friendlier GUI that would make CLOD more popular, so why are some people so against that?

Ataros
03-27-2012, 12:01 PM
Im still at a loss here, are some saying we shouldn't ask for a better GUI to handle COOPs?

No, as far as I can see reading text, but some people are saying that their opponents are saying this (not providing quotes of cause) just to troll them and have fun :)

SlipBall
03-27-2012, 12:25 PM
Im still at a loss here, are some saying we shouldn't ask for a better GUI to handle COOPs?

You seem to say its ok to want to play them but not ok to ask for a better way to handle them?
Lots of people want a easier, friendlier GUI that would make CLOD more popular, so why are some people so against that?


I think that this thread revealed that the devs did not leave out/forget about Coop's, they even supplied a mission dedicated to that. As far as I can see, anyone could be using Coop right now if they wanted to...FMB will be used by some to make more coop style missions, no doubt soon.

KG26_Alpha
03-27-2012, 02:12 PM
I think that this thread revealed that the devs did not leave out/forget about Coop's, they even supplied a mission dedicated to that. As far as I can see, anyone could be using Coop right now if they wanted to...FMB will be used by some to make more coop style missions, no doubt soon.

What this thread has revealed from the main problem is this.

You like COOPs for the reason I hate them.

So from that point every comment made in here from them regarding CooP's is redundant imho.

Also

Any server that needs subscriptions/donations would/could worry their user count could be compromised by more interesting servers and CooP mission hosts detracting from their popularity.

Were trying to move forwards by getting the CooP side of the interface usable, no ones asking to take anything away from the game, there are plenty of purposeful and obvious reasons for it to be implemented, I cant see any reason why it isn't, if CoD was CooP only and no DF interface I would be the same and want the DF side implemented because I don't hate Dogfight mode, its all part of the IL2 series that made it so popular.
I wouldnt be here telling the DF guys to "suck it up" and move on its time to "evolve" or suggest everyones an idiot for not making missions that are full of scripts to "emulate" what you want, we need to address it sensibly.

There's only so much we can do for CoD the rest is up to the 1C Team to get the sales going.


:)



IROTT
.


PS: edited protagonist to problem.

KG26_Alpha
03-27-2012, 03:44 PM
For clarity.

Please direct any further CooP interface discussion to the poll thread here :

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28429

And leave this thread clear for the OP's original discussion.

Thanks all.


:)

csThor
03-27-2012, 03:54 PM
Weak, Alpha. Really, I had thought you above such toddler tactics. If you don't have an argument you make up a consipracy? :roll:

I have taken a little time to review the posts of Ilya and Oleg over the time and I think MG may have tried to listen to the main criticism concerning the online modes (before MDS came into being, that is): the inability to use moving AI objects on DF servers and the utter lack of flexibility (and therefor predictability) of Coop missions. One may argue that they have overshot the mark when they removed the requirement for "canned" mission files completely (hence the lack of the "old" Coop format). And I think most here agree that the GUI is not really intuitive and user-friendly and could use some work to remedy this issue. This - translated into generating a less cumbersome Coop GUI - is probably the only way since I really doubt they're going to redo their basic concept for missions (with their utter flexibility and the load of scripting that can be used to make them even more flexible and unpredictable) just to revive an old format that was criticized just as much as it was loved.

6BL Bird-Dog
03-27-2012, 05:03 PM
Is that the poll where some members of this forum were banned for using multipul forum handles to vote more than once for the old style 1C coop?
I am not awre of this,where is the post that says multiple forum handles were used on this poll & if this was the case what are the real figures for the poll and who actualy checked to find this out & proved it providing the evidence for the Moderators to see ?
Additionly If you are going to make statements like that please back it up with the evidence as otherwise your statement carries no validity and comes across more as someone trying to stirr things up ,which I am sure is not your motive ACE;)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28429

WHY not if it will draw more players from 1946 COOP`s to use the game.
Cliffs of Dover is only the start of a new series of theaters under the new game engine so it make sense to request any changes now than later.
The present setup does not provide the ease of use and the information that the old one used to for Coop users.
This has absolutly nothing to do with the FMB ,Scripting,the present state of the FM,s,GFX,Bugs or any other issues or even how the missions have been built,this is solely the request of those who use Coops and build them in the
iL2 series and would like this rectified eventualy as it was a lot more user freindly.It will not effect any other aspects of the game other than improve it for a prercentage of players.

ACE-OF-ACES
03-27-2012, 05:11 PM
I am not awre of this,where is the post that says multiple forum handles were used on this poll & if this was the case what are the real figures for the poll and who actualy checked to find this out & proved it providing the evidence for the Moderators to see ?
Where is it, it is one of the locked threads in this forum, if your interested in it do a search for 'icars' or something like that.. I forget his name. As for the real figures, no one knows for sure because the actual number of multi handles used in the poll was not divulged, if I recall correctly the mod simply said multi handles (as in more than one).

Additionally If you are going to make statements like that please back it up with the evidence as otherwise your statement carries no validity and comes across more as someone trying to stirr things up ,which I am sure is not your motive ACE;)
That is your choice.. to belive or not.. no skin off my back either way. I only asked because I don't recall exactly which poll it was, there were a rash of them that week.. But I am 99% sure it was a poll that furbs started, so you may want to ask him if you are truly interested

Krt_Bong
03-27-2012, 05:41 PM
I just had a thought after reading a couple posts, there has been some discussion and debate about icons and the inability for players to locate other players on a huge map, and I thought where is the glint of sunlight off of canopies and shiny surfaces that would show where a dogfight is? If you were some distance away from the fight and saw the flash of sunlight you would probably head in that direction to investigate. I don't know quite how this would work from a graphic programming sense but it would help if there was little glints of light from a furball when seen at extreme range. This would make it possible for people to find where all the fighting is, just a thought.

Insuber
03-27-2012, 06:22 PM
The reflections on the canopy as you describe them were planned and probably also programmed by Oleg, who mentioned them few years ago in this very forum, but alas they didn't make to the release. I've recently asked about them to Luthier, with a link to the original Oleg's post, but I don't remember his answer (so it was not interesting). Keep along the queue mate!

ATAG_MajorBorris
03-27-2012, 06:32 PM
From: KG26 Alpha

"Any server that needs subscriptions/donations would/could worry their user count could be compromised by more interesting servers and CooP mission hosts detracting from their popularity."

You cant realy believe that? I played il2 for many years and I also played many coops, out of the 1000s of players in servers back then there might be a couple coop's starting at a givin time. Or am I going crazy and it was the other way arround?

Now I have to say Alpha and everyone else that lets this gui/coop thing stop you from supporting or playing the sim, thats just ridiculous. If you think that the coop gui is going to bring all the lerkers out of the closet I dissagree on that point as well.

IL2 CoD needs only one thing and we have that, a passionate developer thats supports the sim yesterday-today-and tommarow.

I challenge you to swallow your pride, join us on coms and go out for a couple missions on the ATAG server in some bombers, pick one of the objectives, call for some escort and see if we have some FUN with the sim we have today.

I have 700 hours in a Ju88 online(please dont tell my wife) and I have yet to fly with you in combat and on coms, if you dont like it after that I will understand but for all you know, it may just be your cup of tea:)

Chivas
03-27-2012, 07:20 PM
I haven't read the whole thread but understand the angst of the OP about missing features that will make the sim playable. This is all a factor of the sim being released unfinished, and not because these features were forgotten. Unfortunately these features were setback even further by the necessity to rewrite the basic graphics engine to provide a stable platform and the headroom necessary for these resource hungry features to be implemented.

Also the question of easy implementation of COOPs in just another factor of the sim being released unfinished. Luthier didn't say Coops wouldn't be improved, he just said the game engine is already capable of making more immersive COOPs. He should have added that the tools and documentation to make it happen easily are still waiting to be completed and implemented. I'm quite sure any sane person would understand that Luthier is aware of this problem and the issues will be addressed. There is no doubt there is confusion on everyones part, especially Luthier, who's already up to ass in aligators. Things are slowly looking brighter.

furbs
03-27-2012, 07:26 PM
Guys the topic has moved...

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28429&page=4