Does anyone else want an easier editor?

[maxon1001 10]

Hey, i have been playing ARMA for a while now, and i love it, the editor is the craziest, most detailed editor i have ever seen in a game, and this lets the ARMA community create some truly astounding things. I am also part of a realism unit, and sometimes i create simple missions like capture and hold objectives and such. Learning how to do this took AGES! I kind of wish there was an easier way to just create simple missions and stuff. I'm not saying get rid of what is already there, just add a simpler version for simpler tasks.

I am of course open to suggestions of why i am stupid for suggesting this. but to me (at the moment) just makes so much sense.

[chortles 263]

Seeing as this is an alpha, presumably (hopefully?) mission templates will be forthcoming in later development or post-release, I recall that the Operation Arrowhead demo had them...

[roguetrooper 2]

In short: No.

I've been around in Arma and its editor since 2007 and I'd rather like to have more options and functions. Btw, the main part of mapping/editing is scripting, not the editor itself.

[twisted 128]

easier? not so much. I'd like to see a more intuitive editor using so down boxes and with more graphical feedback on the things happening.

[chortles 263]

easier? not so much. I'd like to see a more intuitive editor using so down boxes and with more graphical feedback on the things happening.

So something more WYSIWYG? I could be onboard with that... but then of course, throw in the usual "I want the 3D Editor to finally be officially supported"...

[Dwarden 1125]

well, you can always use http://www.plannedassault.com/ or DIY :)

[chrisb 196]

The ‘Editor’ is great as it is, would rather they would have kept the traditional look, although glad they put the option in to change it back. But its always been good as it is, does take time to get the hang of it but once you have, it comes pretty easy.

They are all more or less the same format, Ofp, VBS/2, TOH, Arma/2 even Elite was similar with a lot less to use though, so its nice to keep everything along similar lines with no great big changes.

Its part of what I like about BIS, they tend not to fix things if they’re not broke. However, that said, there are some things that are broke that never get fixed, suppose rough with the smooth…:rolleyes:;).

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm fairly happy with the editor (I use the retro version... :)) and I'm glad they increased the size of the init field textbox. Wish they would increase the size of ALL init field textboxes though...

Also, I WISH the "save as" actually saved all the folder's contents and not just the mission.sqm file. PITA to have to manually copy over everything.

[[evo] dan 79]

In short: No.

I've been around in Arma and its editor since 2007 and I'd rather like to have more options and functions. Btw, the main part of mapping/editing is scripting, not the editor itself.

this, if anything I want the editor to have more power, as well as being more secure.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, there is still a LOT of room for improvement of the editor (hope some devs would take even 10% of what have been suggested here : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119802-Editor-improvement-suggestions&highlight=editor), such as a better unit editor menu, the undo function or the ability to create and save custom groups within the editor. I hope someone of the ArmA3 team is staffed on that subject only, cause the editor is one of the main reasons we still play this game (together with the modding ability of course).

[[evo] dan 79]

Yes, there is still a LOT of room for improvement of the editor (hope some devs would take even 10% of what have been suggested here : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119802-Editor-improvement-suggestions&highlight=editor), such as a better unit editor menu, the undo function or the ability to create and save custom groups within the editor. I hope someone of the ArmA3 team is staffed on that subject only, cause the editor is one of the main reasons we still play this game (together with the modding ability of course).

exactly

[b00tsy 28]

The ArmA editor compared to other editors is non-intuitive, limited (if you don't include your own scripting) and extremely time consuming.

Basically without manual scripting there is not much you can do with it besides placing units and waypoints and placing objects. The only thing that makes editor a bit easier is the extra modules with are basically pre-packed scripts to make 'stuff' work. Even the modules are not that 'simple' for new players nor intuitive, but at least it's something.

I personally really hoped that BI took some effort in creating a more intuitive and 'ready to go' editor that requires much less manual scripting and previewing your progress constantly. You still can't setup multiple re-spawn points for different sides (last time I checked), customize gear of units and vehicles and no customize option for ammo boxes, no 3D editor, no drag/drop system for objects on the map (like other editors) yada yada. Plus that creating SP missions is not the same as MP, things that might work in SP may not work at all or weirdly in MP. So without learning the script language the editor is pretty much useless for players and they have to depend on templates and even then still run in all kinds of issues. Editing in ArmA is really for the people that wants to take the effort and time to learn the scripting language and spend 100+ hours reading guides, wiki, forums and ask a lot of questions... then eventually you get the hang of it and you can do/create what you have in your mind.

And then having the fact that ArmA thrives on community made content you would think that the editor would be a priority project instead of better looking clouds and PiP and other shinnies that are added (shinnies sells the game better, I know). What I miss the most with working on missions is the feeling of creativity, it feels more like doing math with the current editor and the scripting that comes with it.

[f2k sel 164]

I'm fairly happy with the editor (I use the retro version... :)) and I'm glad they increased the size of the init field textbox. Wish they would increase the size of ALL init field textboxes though...

Also, I WISH the "save as" actually saved all the folder's contents and not just the mission.sqm file. PITA to have to manually copy over everything.

I would agree the text boxes are too small and there's a lot of wasted space, some of the text even overlaps the box.

One thing that I'd really like to see added is the units type displayed especially with a lot of changes to the types.

I'm weary of having to look it up on a site or having to constantly use hint str typeof xx to find the unit type.

[metalcraze 290]

Editor needs the ability to edit sqfs from within it with syntax-sensitive help (at least changing colours for commands and different colours for usual variables). VBS2 editor already does a similar thing and it's great.

That and inventory editor for soldiers with the ability to save loadouts as presets to be able to load them for other soldiers. Again VBS2 editor does it too.

Editor should save the mission maker from doing same routine things again and again, considering that writing loadouts by hand turns init field into a complete barely readable mess.

Of course the biggest dream is 3D editor and instead of dropping it completely BIS should've kept working on it and add it in a patch post-release, not keep it as a PR-feature for ArmA 5 or 6.

[zapat 56]

As the great Ruebe said one time - which got me on my current path - "editor is for sissies". :)

Learn to code and use algorithms for the true sandbox experience. :) :)

[katipo66 94]

I guess all the non scriptures probably would agree with the op, I always wished there were easy setup type modules/templates... But then the community granted almost all my wishes with dac/hac/upsmon and a whole lot more like patrol markers from demonized, one of my favorite scripts, I'm sure in no time A3 will have most bases covered, already some has made creating multiple tasks a breeze, something I failed at miserably.

[Binkowski 26]

It's already easy in my opinion and it's been the same since 2001. Sure there's been some changes, but they aren't anything major. There's a tutorial for just about everything here on the forums and all over community websites like ofpec. I didn't particularly like how they have a new "streamlined" option for the editor. I like that's rubbish.

[maturin 12]

It's a really easy editor, with far fewer buttons and options compared to many other PC games. It's the engine that gives us all the power.

[b00tsy 28]

It's already easy in my opinion and it's been the same since 2001. Sure there's been some changes, but they aren't anything major. There's a tutorial for just about everything here on the forums and all over community websites like ofpec. I didn't particularly like how they have a new "streamlined" option for the editor. I like that's rubbish.

You are right, it is a 2001 editor. Time for improvement thus.

A lot of people here like to see it stay unaccessible, not easy to jump into and non intuitive. Keeping it hard with tons of manual scripting is better so you can bloat about your scripting skillz. I rather see it more 'accessible' to a bigger player base, specially now that ArmA has the attention of a much wider audience. There are tons of creative players out there with many good idea's that are standing in front of big scripting barrier and are confronted with a 2001 editor (like I myself was a couple of years ago), I don't think thats a good idea. I also think a portion of the community have not accepted yet that ArmA is not an elitist game/sim anymore since dayz brought it to the mainstream audience and therefor are unwilling to adapt and embrace changes and structural improvements. They want everything to be as it was and stay in the comfy elitist shell they have build around them selfs. If there is a difficult way and an easy way of doing things it is not logical to want it to be the difficult way if the result is the same, unless you are not willing to have it more accessible to a larger croud.... and thus more missions and especially more quality missions from a larger player base. More accessible is a good thing.

[chortles 263]

You are right, it is a 2001 editor. Time for improvement thus.

A lot of people here like to see it stay unaccessible, not easy to jump into and non intuitive. Keeping it hard with tons of manual scripting is better so you can bloat about your scripting skillz. I rather see it more 'accessible' to a bigger player base, specially now that ArmA has the attention of a much wider audience. There are tons of creative players out there with many good idea's that are standing in front of big scripting barrier and are confronted with a 2001 editor (like I myself was a couple of years ago), I don't think thats a good idea. I also think a portion of the community have not accepted yet that ArmA is not an elitist game/sim anymore since dayz brought it to the mainstream audience and therefor are unwilling to adapt and embrace changes and structural improvements. They want everything to be as it was and stay in the comfy elitist shell they have build around them selfs. If there is a difficult way and an easy way of doing things it is not logical to want it to be the difficult way if the result is the same, unless you are not willing to have it more accessible to a larger croud.... and thus more missions and especially more quality missions from a larger player base. More accessible is a good thing.

+1 to all of this.

Honestly I'm waiting to see what happens next as far as the Editor as we get further into development though -- for example, whether missions templates are going to be added in.

[maturin 12]

2001 has nothing to do with it. Leave Kubrick out of this.

The editor is simple. It is hard because scripting is required for tasks that other editors have tools for. Ie, other more complex editors with more intimidating buttons.

It's not a hard editor, it just has some workflow flaws and lacks features.

[b00tsy 28]

2001 has nothing to do with it. Leave Kubrick out of this.

The editor is simple. It is hard because scripting is required for tasks that other editors have tools for. Ie, other more complex editors with more intimidating buttons.

It's not a hard editor, it just has some workflow flaws and lacks features.

Thats the point I was making. The editor is simple in the way you describe it because you can't do much with it without knowing the scripting language and know how to use the scripting. The editor now is for placing units and objects and waypoints (if you don't use spawning AI), almost everything else is done with manual scripting. A lot of the scripting could and should accessible in the editor as a feature. Anyone can place some units with waypoints, but that does not make a mission and specially not a good mission.

[zapat 56]

I guess BIS is taking a direction wherea they leave the editor as is and spice it up with more accessible, usable, (and hopefully working) modules. Like dynamic patrols, dynamic spawning, etc.

I have been also wondering for years now how one could make a more useable editor. To make it simple, yet powerful. Not an easy task. Just think of the complexity of a good mission. How to do that by a GUI without scripting? So I guess this is the best feature of ARMA. It is programmable.

[xendance 3]

2001 has nothing to do with it. Leave Kubrick out of this.

The editor is simple. It is hard because scripting is required for tasks that other editors have tools for. Ie, other more complex editors with more intimidating buttons.

It's not a hard editor, it just has some workflow flaws and lacks features.

I was thinking about making a map for ArmA 3, but then I looked at the existing terrain editing tools.

Noped my way out of there.

I'd really like some kind of WYSIWYG-editor.

[SavageCDN 231]

Well said Bootsy and I know it's been mentioned before but for the love of God making all selected units playable would be a huge bonus.