Arma 3d editor

[vostov 10]

Discontinuing the 2d editor is a bad idea.

 

Having the 2d editor for laying out the greatest part of general mission composition. (I build rather large missions) Is essential for what I do.

 

The 3d editor would be good for finishing work. I've encountered a tremendous amount of errors and problems using the new editor. So much so that I have ceased using a game that I have over 5000 hours logged into. (I suppose I needed a bit of a break)

 

Anyway, please reconsider doing this. I urge this strongly: Keep the 2d editor. Let it work in concert with the 3d editor.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, I also ask for the following in your next game: Please don't try to imagine 3 decades from now. Make it more contemporary. The Tavor assault rifle does not have a reciprocating charging handle. The LMG for the OPFOR in the current game looks suspiciously familiar. The Anti-material rifle looks hungarian. I just get annoyed when you pass this stuff off as futuristic. Really, by the 2040s we're looking at tons of drones and very few operators. Probably the scenario I just played through is imaginable if a ton of electronic warfare had been used.

 

It destroys any immersion for me.

 

Make it more authentic. It's a shame such a great ballistic simulator suite wasted an evolution on some half baked future imagining. Where you guys just trying to avoid license problems by using real weapon platforms?

 

Also props to the guys who spent some time in jail for documenting a great battlespace.

 

Ciao.

[zooloo75 834]

I imagine the 2D Editor still has its uses. Besides familiarity, what can the 2D Editor within 3DEN not do that the legacy 2D editor can?

[chortles 263]

@vostov: Arma 3 originated from the repurposing of assets/design decisions for a title that originally had even less to do with milsim (presumably because its development started the year of OA's release)... and as for the 2D editor unfortunately your argument has already been voiced for weeks now -- and their decision has remained the same throughout.

[germanske_norge 43]

Really, by the 2040s we're looking at tons of drones and very few operators

 

Unlikely, Drones will certainly be taking some of the roles that aircraft and ground vehicles currently take up, but a military with nothing but autonomous robots? No. 

[dmarkwick 261]

When you're performing rapid mission load iterations (for example when developing addons using live content) the delays that the 3D editor introduce when exiting a mission is significant.

 

Also, I use TrackIR and the 3D editor will use TrackIR input to move the camera about. Which makes editing more irritating. The fast mission load iteration of addon development means taking my hat off each time/disabling TrackIR each time is a pain.

For nearly all of what I do, the 2D editor suits best.

[kylania 568]

disabling TrackIR each time is a pain.

 

It's a single (customizable toggle) keypress to pause TrackIR.

[Sauerstoff 2]

Just press 'M'. You're now using the 2D editor in Eden. Perhaps BiS should include a tutorial popup when you first launch Eden telling you that all 2D editor functionality still exists and you can even get the 2D view by pressing the 'M' key on your keyboard. This topic comes up frequently in the mission editing and Eden forums.

[dmarkwick 261]

Just press 'M'. You're now using the 2D editor in Eden. Perhaps BiS should include a tutorial popup when you first launch Eden telling you that all 2D editor functionality still exists and you can even get the 2D view by pressing the 'M' key on your keyboard. This topic comes up frequently in the mission editing and Eden forums.

Well, for me the issue is the delays between each tweak/preview cycle. Other than that markers seem to act very funkily in Eden right now.

[kylania 568]

Other than that markers seem to act very funkily in Eden right now.

 

Yeah, the dragging markers resulting in some off center blue circle icon instead of the actual marker is super annoying.