Editor improvement suggestions.

[moricky 211]

Bohemia wiki is incomplete

Than complete it ;)

[Tankbuster 1746]

Honda wrote the handbook for my car, not me.

[neokika 62]

Than complete it ;)

That's what a wiki is for. :)

[Rak 0]

This sounds like laziness talking, as there are good templates available, or copy setup and ideas from missions who had briefings you liked. Good quality brief is a good indication if mission is gonna be a keeper or not.

Yes there are templates available, but adjusting all those code to your liking is still rather tiresome. You have to learn HTML coding(i think?) as well. Someting like a WYSYWIG would be ideal.

Than complete it

I don't have the knowledge, nor the time. I'm your average customer. How about BIS themselves provide proper documentation for their games?

[Przemek_kondor 13]

Than complete it ;)

Then give us source code (of the game) to complete it. Empiric researches (for example of some not commented commands or features) could be very long.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

Than complete it ;)

It may be a surprise for you, but there are some people who work 50-60 hours a week and sadly having family and friends who decrease ArmA-time anyway. It's not funny if you ask your customer to complete a documentation for you. If I would ask this to my customer I would get a shitstorm from them and an appointment with my superiors.

[Nicholas 5]

Legislator;1969896']It may be a surprise for you' date=' but there are some people who work 50-60 hours a week and sadly having family and friends who decrease ArmA-time anyway. It's not funny if you ask your customer to complete a documentation for you. If I would ask this to my customer I would get a shitstorm from them and an appointment with my superiors.[/quote']

Legislator, I hope you know that the Bohemia Interactive Wiki is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving the Bohemia Interactive Wiki, making many changes. All of these changes are recorded in article histories and recent changes.

Don't be afraid to edit! Anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits. If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified.

Remember, you can't break the Bohemia Interactive Wiki; all edits can be reversed, fixed or improved later. The Bohemia Interactive Wiki is allowed to be imperfect. So go ahead, edit an article and help make the Bohemia Interactive Wiki the best information source on the Internet!

Edited June 30, 2011 by Nicholas

[Tankbuster 1746]

Legislator;1969896']It may be a surprise for you' date=' but there are some people who work 50-60 hours a week and sadly having family and friends who decrease ArmA-time anyway. It's not funny if you ask your customer to complete a documentation for you. If I would ask this to my customer I would get a shitstorm from them and an appointment with my superiors.[/quote']

Fact. Playing this game is not work for us, it's recreation. We paid for the game, we don't expect to be asked to add core features, like documentation.

[neokika 62]

This really shows how lazy community members are/have become. :(

Please, saying you guys have no time etc, then stay away from the editor, you dont have time, play missions already made, the editor is not suppose to be a goddamn template where people go in, select some GUI options and the mission gets done by itself, and actually works without issues. Please...

If you dont have time to learn, then stay away from editor editing instead of making a fool of youselves sayin "I work 60 hours a week, cant learn etc" and then ask stupid/dumb features that more likely seem to be a template then a mission editor.

And yes, the Wiki is for the community to complete, not just the developers. You dont like the way it is, please, close your editor, download some finnished missions and play them.

_neo_

[dmarkwick 261]

This really shows how lazy community members are/have become. :(

Please, saying you guys have no time etc, then stay away from the editor, you dont have time, play missions already made, the editor is not suppose to be a goddamn template where people go in, select some GUI options and the mission gets done by itself, and actually works without issues. Please...

If you dont have time to learn, then stay away from editor editing instead of making a fool of youselves sayin "I work 60 hours a week, cant learn etc" and then ask stupid/dumb features that more likely seem to be a template then a mission editor.

And yes, the Wiki is for the community to complete, not just the developers. You dont like the way it is, please, close your editor, download some finnished missions and play them.

_neo_

Neo, your point has been made, you believe editor enhancement suggestions equates to lazieness. However, it really isn't your place to say what users must and mustn't do, if a casual player wishes to make missions using ONLY the mission editor, I think that should be facilitated as far as it can be.

It won't change the advanced user's workflow. It just means that some things that can be considered basic editor functionality, can be achieved in the editor. Quite honestly I really don't understand hostility to this idea, it's almost like there is a desire to place restrictions on the editor to weed out unsuitable mission makers.

I might make the assumption that most editor work is purely for user-only entertainment, and most missions (like, VASTLY) never see any distribution.

I understand about the flexibility that external scripting affords,I make extensive use of it myself. Most of the stuff I need to do, I need to do using external scripting. This will not change with editor improvements, unless there is in-editor support for script writing.

[2nd ranger 282]

the editor is not suppose to be a goddamn template where people go in, select some GUI options and the mission gets done by itself, and actually works without issues. Please...

...Why not? I mean, I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting or expecting a 'mission wizard' that lets you create complex missions with a few clicks of the mouse, but why shouldn't it be easy for beginners to make a simple mission? As DMarkwick said, this won't affect advanced users at all, so why does it even bother you?

Quite honestly I really don't understand hostility to this idea, it's almost like there is a desire to place restrictions on the editor to weed out unsuitable mission makers.

I'm starting to think that some people are afraid they'll lose their 'advanced scripter' status or something.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

This really shows how lazy community members are/have become. :(

Please, saying you guys have no time etc, then stay away from the editor, you dont have time, play missions already made, the editor is not suppose to be a goddamn template where people go in, select some GUI options and the mission gets done by itself, and actually works without issues. Please...

If you dont have time to learn, then stay away from editor editing instead of making a fool of youselves sayin "I work 60 hours a week, cant learn etc" and then ask stupid/dumb features that more likely seem to be a template then a mission editor.

And yes, the Wiki is for the community to complete, not just the developers. You dont like the way it is, please, close your editor, download some finnished missions and play them.

_neo_

You dare to call me lazy? I've certainly created more missions than you I suppose. I don't apologize to you or any other guy for not investing more time into research. I guess you never experienced the force of real life. Now according to your "humble" opinion everyone who can not effort more time for this game should stay away from it. Fine, won't buy any more ArmA games, not caring for anything regarding this community anymore. Reducing activity in this forum doesn't seem to be bad idea anyway.

[NoRailgunner 0]

neokika FPDR

Its about how userfriendly and flexible the A3 editor can be made. Guess why many software programs and editors/tools do have features that make the life easier and that safe time in developing and creating something? Even if BIS would make an "Arma Suite - for mission development" - missions don't get done by themselves.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Neokika's post is interesting.

No wait, interesting isn't the right word.. let me think.. what is the right word?

Hmm. Oh yeah, I got it.

Bollocks. Yes, that's right. Neokika's post is bollocks.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Neokika's post is interesting.

No wait, interesting isn't the right word.. let me think.. what is the right word?

Hmm. Oh yeah, I got it.

Bollocks. Yes, that's right. Neokika's post is bollocks.

Nope. I think that the editor should be written in Czech. THAT would be a real challenge, to check if people are really lazzy.

[neokika 62]

Neo, your point has been made, you believe editor enhancement suggestions equates to lazieness. However, it really isn't your place to say what users must and mustn't do, if a casual player wishes to make missions using ONLY the mission editor, I think that should be facilitated as far as it can be.

It won't change the advanced user's workflow. It just means that some things that can be considered basic editor functionality, can be achieved in the editor. Quite honestly I really don't understand hostility to this idea, it's almost like there is a desire to place restrictions on the editor to weed out unsuitable mission makers.

I might make the assumption that most editor work is purely for user-only entertainment, and most missions (like, VASTLY) never see any distribution.

I understand about the flexibility that external scripting affords,I make extensive use of it myself. Most of the stuff I need to do, I need to do using external scripting. This will not change with editor improvements, unless there is in-editor support for script writing.

Hi DMarkwick,

I think you got me wrong again mate, see I am all for improvements and new features to be in the editor, I just don't wont it to become a mission wizard, as many seems to ask for.

With that said, I do find interesting and very nice ideas some people suggested, like a proper edit resource, with giving the option for a in-game "notepad" to handle files in the current mission root folder and many other I can grantee you.

...Why not? I mean, I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting or expecting a 'mission wizard' that lets you create complex missions with a few clicks of the mouse, but why shouldn't it be easy for beginners to make a simple mission? As DMarkwick said, this won't affect advanced users at all, so why does it even bother you?

I'm starting to think that some people are afraid they'll lose their 'advanced scripter' status or something.

Hi 2nd Ranger,

Did I ever said that should be hard to make a mission?

And what is hard about making a simple mission (editor only) in nowadays editor? I think its pretty easy, and you have tons of info in here.

Don't get me wrong, I do want the editor to be improved.

Legislator;1970279']You dare to call me lazy? I've certainly created more missions than you I suppose. I don't apologize to you or any other guy for not investing more time into research. I guess you never experienced the force of real life. Now according to your "humble" opinion everyone who can not effort more time for this game should stay away from it. Fine' date=' won't buy any more ArmA games, not caring for anything regarding this community anymore. Reducing activity in this forum doesn't seem to be bad idea anyway.[/quote']

Hi [GLT] Legislator,

No, I don't dare to call you anything, just like I never did mate.

And no, I welcome everyone to come and enjoy Arma series, I really do, I have even bought many copies to other people (most actually don't play any more or never actually did) just to let them see how good these series are.

neokika FPDR

Its about how userfriendly and flexible the A3 editor can be made. Guess why many software programs and editors/tools do have features that make the life easier and that safe time in developing and creating something?

Hi NoRailgunner,

Well I agree 100% on what you just said.

Neokika's post is interesting.

No wait, interesting isn't the right word.. let me think.. what is the right word?

Hmm. Oh yeah, I got it.

Bollocks. Yes, that's right. Neokika's post is bollocks.

Hi Tankbuster,

Thank you for your interesting opinion on the matter.

_neo_

Edited June 30, 2011 by neokika

[Archosaurusrev 12]

This thread is bullshit.

Some people are arguing that making the editor a bit more user friendly and flexible is bad, some say it's bad to have it as it is.

In my opinion, the editor is fine, it just needs some more polishing.

[ryguy 10]

This really shows how lazy community members are/have become. :(

Please, saying you guys have no time etc, then stay away from the editor, you dont have time, play missions already made, the editor is not suppose to be a goddamn template where people go in, select some GUI options and the mission gets done by itself, and actually works without issues. Please...

If you dont have time to learn, then stay away from editor editing instead of making a fool of youselves sayin "I work 60 hours a week, cant learn etc" and then ask stupid/dumb features that more likely seem to be a template then a mission editor.

That post really is bollocks.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Some people are arguing that making the editor a bit more user friendly and flexible is bad

User friendly and flexible don't always go hand-in-hand. More flexibility is always good, but not at the expense of overly simplified user friendliness.

Now, extensibility would be a better option for BIS to consider. That would satisfy both us advanced users (who can add additional functionality) and potentially the less advanced users (whom could benefit from advanced users providing the extra "easy to use" interfaces for them).

Either way, BIS catering to less advanced users just doesn't seem worthwhile. Don't forget that modding/editing is based on the community; BIS has been supporting us but they haven't been doing the work for us. That's how it should remain.

[dale0404 5]

User friendly and flexible don't always go hand-in-hand. More flexibility is always good, but not at the expense of overly simplified user friendliness.

Now, extensibility would be a better option for BIS to consider. That would satisfy both us advanced users (who can add additional functionality) and potentially the less advanced users (whom could benefit from advanced users providing the extra "easy to use" interfaces for them).

Either way, BIS catering to less advanced users just doesn't seem worthwhile. Don't forget that modding/editing is based on the community; BIS has been supporting us but they haven't been doing the work for us. That's how it should remain.

I don't usually disagree with what you say mate but this time I feel I need to.

How can you say that BIS catering to less advanced users cannot be worthwhile. I am no scripting genius by any stretch of the imagination but I get by. With my limited knowledge of scripting I feel I have produced some decent single player missions.

Everyone started from the beginning with no knowledge of scripting etc, ie the new users of the editor. Without catering to "less advanced" users like we ALL used to be, how can that be a good thing?

Surely its a good idea to get more people designing / creating missions for the community? And by making the editor easier to use in my eyes smooths the path as it were.

By all means keep the intricacies of the editor in place for the advanced user but also improve the interface and / or give people more tools to use the editor.

As I have said in another thread, I find it strange that BIS give us the tools to use the editor including modules etc but why do they not give us the instructions to go with it?

Would you rather have the knowledge provided for you or would you like to pull your hair out trying to figure it out? I know which one I would choose.

[SPC.Spets 21]

A shaped trigger would be nice. Sometimes I need to trigger some areas with IA respawn, depending from where is player comming, but they can turn and take another route, so I have to create 2 or more respawn triggers to cover it well. The problem is, that they can activate the trigger again if they walk in the other triggers position, so, a shaped trigger can solve this problem, so I can draw the trigger whatever size and shape I want and it will active once

[jake_krieger 10]

The Editor should be more convenient. For example Music should be directly importable from the Editor and the editor should even be able to convert and cut the mp3 to the ogg format . And the modules for civilians for example should be more easy . Just one click and you populate the whole island for example . The island should have many cars on the road which actuallly drive to some specific place . Or even planes that start and land at the airport . Stuff like that . Like Traffic in normal status or disturbed traffic during conflict. You should also be able to add the respawning system right from the editor and customize the weaponloadout for each soldier right from the unit screen .

[Przemek_kondor 13]

(...)And the modules for civilians for example should be more easy . Just one click and you populate the whole island for example(...)

It works (more or less) like that, but sometimes module's parameters need some changes, so it would be nice to have ability to set them from editor level (modules have their configuration windows already).

[wamingo 1]

A shaped trigger would be nice.

I don't know how bad it would be performance wise, but the code needed to test every object against especially concave polygons is quite heavy compared to simple rectangles/ellipsis.

You can solve your problem with multiple triggers by using shared variables, like a bool,

seudo example for every trigger:

code && NOT anyZoneOn

code; anyZoneOn = true

Might have to initialize the bool? can't remember. can't hurt though.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

* Shaped triggers, locations, and markers +.

* Shapes (triggers, locations, and markers) to have a switch that make them 3D, with ability to set altitude (supporting AGL and ASL keywords) and height.

* Fields for HPB rather than only H(eading/Azimuth) with switch that takes P&B from surface/building point.

* Ability to visualize these shapes in the game during a preview or exported (could be useful in some circumstances I guess). I often need to see a trigger, so I have to create a marker. A simple switch would be far better, especially if we had 3D versions of these.

* For volume objects (think visual 3D marker here), ability to set certain properties for them, like "view block object" or "collision object", "fire geometry" or whatever.

* Waypoints to have a height setting as well (see TKOH) complete with support for AGL or ASL mode).

* For 1D stuff (think icon markers and zero size triggers), you should be able to make them visible on map and in 3D, with an option for each to have fixed scale or scales with zoom/distance. 1D stuff in 3D would just be sprites.

I would also like buttons for ConfigViewer, AnimViewer, ParticleViewer, and EffectsViewer.

I don't know how bad it would be performance wise, but the code needed to test every object against especially concave polygons is quite heavy compared to simple rectangles/ellipsis.

Correct, but you could test for convex and choose simpler math if that applies. Also, I doubt I'd be using polygon triggers much, although markers would be very nice to avoid that overlapping thing. Nonetheless polygon area stuffs is something I have missed quite often. And yes you'd need to initialize the variable you test agaist.

Edited July 1, 2011 by CarlGustaffa