Improved unit editor

[dkraver]

I would like to see the unit editor improved so you would have less units showing and also give a better deployment of troops. Here are some ideas i think could be great.

1.
The abillity to chose weapons , ammo and equipment for the unit in the editor by adding the fields for each weapon/equipment slot.
Effect
+Smaller unit list since you wont have the same soldier 10 times with different weapons.
+Wont have to add/remove weapons in inet field if you wanna use other weapons.
+Smaller unit list since people making weapon addons alone wont have to add it to a man.
+Wont have strange unit names saying which weapon it holds, like:
Soldier (M4M203) or Soldier (RPK) and so on.
But should still keep classes like machine gunner and AT soldier.

2.
Instead of east, west and resistance folder, there should be and the ability to make country folders. Under these folder one should then chose which side/force you want the unit should be. And idea could be something like blue force, red force, green force and Yellow force. I would say there should be 4 sides. 1 for a attacking part, 1 for a defending part, 1 for a resistance part and last one for a neutral part like peace keepers. Civilians should still have a folder for them selfs . There should still be the menu showing side friendly towards but it should have it for all sides instead of only resistance in OFP. Civilians should also be in that selection since they also can have aggression vs a military force. This could and should be include in ofp2 in a way like gimbals tossers that where throwing rocks and bottles. Then the aggression could be controlled by the alertness selection under a waypoints. So they would go from making hand signals to throwing things at you depending on alert level. At the same time if you come as a friendly force they would wave at you and not get scared like now.
Effect
+ Smaller unit list since you wont have unit from 10 countires under one side.
+ Make units work together since you could configure which side they are on, which you cant in OFP. Example would be us and russians troops fight together against another enemy.
- You would have more side folders.

3.
As another post said in this subject forum, the abillity to change uniform/camo in the editor. This could be activated in the cpp file for those who make multiple camo's. and if not the selection would just be non selectable.
Effect.
+ Smaller unit list since 3 or more soldiers (example. soldier, winter soldier and desert soldier) could be under 1.
+ Wont have all those strange names like as a example dkm's tunguske which have these names.
2S6M Fall, 2S6M Sand and 2S6M Green
or the BAS rangers which have these two name types.
Ranger and DES Ranger.

[Hellfish6]

I fully agree with all of these points.

I'd love to see a simplified system. something where weapons are not bound to soldier/soldier classes. So that you can pick a generic soldier, and another drop down menu will let you equip him.

For example, you select "'85 US Soldier 82Abn". Boom. You've got a standard unarmed US soldier, circa 1985 with an 82nd Airborne patch on his left shoulder. Or select "'03 US Ranger Dress Uniform" and boom - you've got a soldier model, unarmed, but with a pretty sand-colored beret and a uniform full of medals and ribbons.With appropriate shoulder patch(es). Same for something else like "'82 Sov Spetznaz Afghan" and boom - you'll have an unarmed Soviet Spetznaz that looks like he just stepped out of the Afghan War.

Then once you've selected your base soldier model, click on the "Gear" drop down menu and you could select a pre-determined load out (much like GR - though I think there should be a way to customize these loadouts and save them for the drop down menu and also don't use GR's class restrictions, where only support troops can carry MGs or AT weapons, or where only snipers can have sniper rifles).

Some example load outs:
US Rifleman '03 (1xM16A2, 7x30 round 5.56mags, 2 hand grenades)
US Grenadier '03 (1xM203, 7x30 round 5.56N mags, 12 40mm HEDP, 2 40mm Smoke, 2 40mm Buckshot, 2 40mm GFlare)
US Machinegunner '03 (1xM240B, 1 M9, 3x100rd 7.62N belts, 3 15rd 9mm)
US Rifleman '67 (1xM16A1, 9x20 round 5.56N mags, 4 hand grenades, 1 Claymore, 1 LAW)
US Combat Vehicle Crew '85 (1xM3A1, 5x30 round .45N mags, 2 hand grenades)
Sov Motor Rifleman '87 (1xAK74, 6x30 round 5.45W mags, 2 hand grenades, 1 RPG18)
Sov Aircrew '90 (1xPM, 3x12 round 9mmW mags, 1 rescue beacon)

and so on... possibly to include things like rucksacks, choice of headgear, etc.

Basically, the Unit menu will let you pick your unit's appearance and the Gear menu will let you pick your unit's loadout. Addons and mods can add to both Unit and Gear menus. And all units can be given all gear loadouts - so you could theoretically have a Soviet motorized rifleman with an ushanka and greatcoat armed with a German MG3. Or a Swedish naval officer in foul weather gear armed with a Chinese infantryman's weaponry.

Maybe we could also see a "weight" carrying capacity instead of the current "slot" carry capacity. You soldier can carry X number of kilograms, and X+Y kilograms with a rucksack. However, the number of kilos over X+Z would affect your soldier's performance. An overloaded soldier can't run fast or far and becomes fatigued quickly (like current system of fatigue). An action menu command to drop the rucksack will solve this problem in combat situations. This lets us, should we chose as players and mission designers, to give our machinegunners lots and lots of ammo, but we just shouldn't expect these guys to be very mobile on the battlefield. Same with a soldier we choose to load up with LAWs or AT4s - they carry a lot of firepower, but they're not very effective in a fluid battlefield situation.

[ran]

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> April 25 2003,03http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I fully agree with all of these points.

I&#39;d love to see a simplified system. something where weapons are not bound to soldier/soldier classes. So that you can pick a generic soldier, and another drop down menu will let you equip him.

For example, you select a US soldier. Boom. You&#39;ve got a standard unarmed US soldier. Then click on the "Gear" drop down menu and you could select a pre-determined load out (much like GR - though I think there should be a way to customize these loadouts and save them for the drop down menu and also don&#39;t use GR&#39;s class restrictions, where only support troops can carry MGs or AT weapons, or where only snipers can have sniper rifles).

Some example load outs:
US Rifleman &#39;03 (1xM16A2, 7x30 round 5.56mags, 2 hand grenades)
US Grenadier &#39;03 (1xM203, 7x30 round 5.56N mags, 12 40mm HEDP, 2 40mm Smoke, 2 40mm Buckshot, 2 40mm GFlare)
US Machinegunner &#39;03 (1xM240B, 1 M9, 3x100rd 7.62N belts, 3 15rd 9mm)
US Rifleman &#39;67 (1xM16A1, 9x20 round 5.56N mags, 4 hand grenades, 1 Claymore, 1 LAW)
US Combat Vehicle Crew &#39;85 (1xM3A1, 5x30 round .45N mags, 2 hand grenades)

and so on... possibly to include things like rucksacks, choice of headgear, etc.

Basically, the Unit menu will let you pick your unit&#39;s appearance and the Gear menu will let you pick your unit&#39;s loadout. Addons and mods can add to both Unit and Gear menus.

Maybe we could also see a "weight" carrying capacity instead of the current "slot" carry capacity. You soldier can carry X number of kilograms, and X+Y kilograms with a rucksack. However, the number of kilos over X+Z would affect your soldier&#39;s performance. An overloaded soldier can&#39;t run fast or far and becomes fatigued quickly (like current system of fatigue). An action menu command to drop the rucksack will solve this problem in combat situations. This lets us, should we chose as players and mission designers, to give our machinegunners lots and lots of ammo, but we just shouldn&#39;t expect these guys to be very mobile on the battlefield. Same with a soldier we choose to load up with LAWs or AT4s - they carry a lot of firepower, but they&#39;re not very effective in a fluid battlefield situation.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
about the player Unit appearance , i&#39;d like , just like how you select your face , to select more parameters like for exemple ,the sex (male or female) ,  a determined type of face (asian , caucasian , european , african and so ...) , choice for things like moustaches or beards independant of the face&#39;s skin , the type of headgear you wear when not wearing a helmet

offtopic : but i&#39;d also like some randomness in the unit&#39;s morphology , the people&#39;s height should vary from one to another for exemple


the loadout idea is really nice , and i already see a few utilities allowing us to make our own loadouts http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Hellfish6]

Good points - I thought of something along those lines as well, but I just kind of assumed that OFP2 would automatically assign random faces to soldier models like it does now. Or allow you to set your unit&#39;s face in the init line.

I&#39;m personally not terribly interested in random morphology or facial features, but I know that a lof of people are. Good idea&#33; Maybe I didn&#39;t think of it cos I&#39;m average height and weight with white skin and no facial hair - my personal soldier model is pretty much default in the game already. In fact, one of the default faces DOES look exactly like me. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ran]

and , about the Camo choice ...... what about a model choice at the same time ?
just like you idea about the the weapon Loadouts we could have something like :


Desert &#39;91
Desert &#39;93
Desert &#39;03
Marpat
Marpat Desert
Olive drab WW2
Olive drab Vietnam
Tiger Stripes
Woodland







so it could be for exemple :


Player Class :
Basic Soldier <
Crew
Pilot
Heavy Weapons
Medic

Skin :
Desert &#39;91<
Desert &#39;93
Desert &#39;03
Marpat
Marpat Desert
Olive drab WW2
Olive drab Vietnam
Tiger Stripes
Woodland

Weapon Loadout :
US Rifleman &#39;92
US SF Rifleman &#39;92
US Grenadier &#39;92
US RTO &#39;92
and so .......


the choice of the unit class and model/skin will affect the choice of weapon loadouts
the mission editing , if puttuing the soldiers 1 after one could be more than tedious though , but this kind of thing could be available in Advanced mode in the editor
we could also keep the old system when you don&#39;t want to bother about the loadouts and skins , it&#39;s in this category we could find OFP1 infantry addons

[Hellfish6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @<hidden> April 24 2003,20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the choice of the unit class and model/skin will affect the choice of weapon loadouts
the mission editing , if puttuing the soldiers 1 after one could be more than tedious though , but this kind of thing could be available in Advanced mode in the editor
we could also keep the old system when you don&#39;t want to bother about the loadouts and skins , it&#39;s in this category we could find OFP1 infantry addons[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I&#39;d have to disagree with this part - I don&#39;t think that your unit class should affect what your choice of weapon loadouts should be. If I&#39;m a medic, I want to be able to use heavy weapons like M-60 MGs, FN-MAGs, etc. I don&#39;t want to be restricted. I only want my choice of unit class to affect my appearance. The more freedom you give people, the more chances you give them to make the game their own, the more people will buy and play it.

However, I do like your idea regarding skins. Simple textures that could replace default textures would be great. I&#39;d suggest coloring only the personal gear and equipment on models (ammo pouches, webbing, map cases, etc.) on the models, but let the actual uniforms be totally customizable.

Or, as I suggest earlier, just give us templates to work with.

Like "&#39;96 US Soldier 82Abn DCU" and you&#39;d have a pre-made soldier model all set to go wearing the proper uniform and equipment. In this case, a US Army soldier, with proper webbing for 1996, in a desert combat uniform with an 82nd Airborne patch.

Or "&#39;85 FR 2e REP Desert" and you&#39;ll have a pre-made French Foreign Legionnaire with the green beret of a 2 REP trooper in a proper uniform and webbing according to what would be seen in Tchad or Djibouti in 1985 - probably a head scarf with an olive drab uniform.

Once you select one of these pre-made units, all you have to do is select what you want to equip them with. That&#39;s it&#33; A two step process.

If you wanted to add another soldier to the group, you&#39;d go through the same procedures, and the default would be exactly the last unit you made.

Thus, if unit #1 is "&#39;03 US SEAL Wetsuit" for soldier model, and "&#39;03 SEAL MP5SD" gear package, when you go to create unit #2, it will default to "&#39;03 US SEAL Wetsuit" for the soldier model and "&#39;03 SEAL MP5SD" for the gear package. If you wanted to change it, you&#39;d just click the drop-down menu and scroll until you saw a soldier model or gear package that you wanted. Like maybe you want the soldier model to be the same, a Navy SEAL in a wetsuit, but you want to equip him with a sniper&#39;s kit, you&#39;d select the default "&#39;03 US SEAL Wetsuit" and scroll around the gear menu until you find "&#39;03 SEAL M82A1".

This would work just like the drop down menus on the unit screen in the mission editor work now. It would be the same as we now have the option to select Side > West > BAS Soldiers > Ranger Team Leader.

This system would just change it to Side > Red > Men (or SEALS, or whatever other custom subdirectory we chose to use) > "&#39;03 US SEAL Wetsuit" and > "&#39;03 SEAL M82A1"

So like we have a BAS Soldier subdirectory now, we could have a SEAL one with the following options, listed alphabetically:

"&#39;03 US SEAL BDU"
"&#39;03 US SEAL Black"
"&#39;03 US SEAL DCU"
"&#39;03 US SEAL Dress Uniform NCO"
"&#39;03 US SEAL Dress Uniform Officer"
"&#39;03 US SEAL HALO"
"&#39;03 US SEAL OD Green"
"&#39;03 US SEAL Wetsuit"

However, the gear subdirectory will be universial. So while you CAN have

Side > Red > Men (or SEALS, or whatever other custom subdirectory we chose to use) > "&#39;03 US SEAL Wetsuit" > "&#39;03 SEAL M82A1"

You can also have

Side > Blue > Men (or WW2 German, or whatever other custom subdirectory we chose to use) > "&#39;42 SS Soldat" > "&#39;03 SEAL M82A1"

This gives everyone a kind of maximum flexibility. If you want to look like a &#39;42 German SS soldier in your MP games, but still use a modern US SEAL sniper kit, you can.

[dkraver]

Your surgestions about having fixed weapons kits/loadout would eliminate the idea about making your own personal loadout. And then again would do that weapon makers would have to make kits for there weapons. This is how selection is today.

Side
west
east
resistance
civilian
 
rank
private
corporal
sergeant

Class
men
car
Armored
Air
 
Unit
soldier
sniper
Grenadier
Machine Gunner

under these you have some other info.
Control, Special, Info age, Name, Vehicle lock, Skill, Init field, Health, Fuel, Anno, Direction, Presence, Condition and Placement.

They way i thought about it, it should be something like this.

Country
USA
Russian
Germany
France
UK
Have the posibility to make your own country folder, since i dont see BIS adding all countries in the world and also there&#39;s would be a way to make resistance forces and imaginary countries.

Side
Red Force/Side 1
Blue Force/Side 2
Green Force/Side 3
Yellow Force/Side 4

Class
Men
Car
Armored
Air
There should still be the possibility to add own folders so addon makers can show that it is there work without having a tag in front of the ingame name

Unit
Soldier
Sniper
Grenadier
Machine Gunner

Camo
Summer
Winter
Desert
Or which come type you chose to make unit in

Rank
private
corporal
sergeant

Then there should be a weapon selection showing like the equipment page in the book when you look at map ingame.

Main Weapon  Support Weapon
Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot
Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot
Side Weapon    Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot    Ammo Slot
Equipment Equipment
Should automaticly remove ammo slot if you choose a ammo type that takes more than one slot.

And then the rest of the selections
Control, Special, Info age, Name, Vehicle lock, Skill, Init field, Health, Fuel, Anno, Direction, Presence, Condition and Placement.

You would have to do more selection to get your soldier, but you would be sure to have the soldier you want without having to type a weapon selection in the init field or it having funny ingame names. And also would have a much better overview of your selection since you wont have 10 countries or more under one side, where you side bar is this size - .

[Jinef]

Don&#39;t make soldiers shorter, they don&#39;t get pulled down becasue of their gear, they get bigger. The civvies all look very large and like 7ft.

[Hellfish6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then once you&#39;ve selected your base soldier model, click on the "Gear" drop down menu and you could select a pre-determined load out (much like GR - though I think there should be a way to customize these loadouts and save them for the drop down menu and also don&#39;t use GR&#39;s class restrictions, where only support troops can carry MGs or AT weapons, or where only snipers can have sniper rifles). [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I never said the gear selection menu should be fixed. I&#39;m actually very much against that. I think it ought to be something more like how flight sims work - specifically how in Jane&#39;s F/A-18 you can select from a default loadout for your aircraft, OR customize your own loadout, give it a custom name and save it to be pulled up later.

I also don&#39;t like the idea of having slots. I think we&#39;ve all been frustrated by the current system, where you can&#39;t assign a soldier a correct peacetime, let alone wartime loadout. As I know some of you guys have been in combat units before, you must remember that there was virtually no limit to the amout of stuff we had to carry into the field. I myself routinely had 13 magazines for my M-16, plus a 100-round belt of 7.62mm and, on occasion, an AT weapon as well. And that&#39;s not including the additional stuff I had in my rucksack or stowed on the Humvee.

I think a weight-based system, like you may see in some RPG-type games would be better.

[Hellfish6]

Hmm... no one has anything else to say about this? I&#39;d really like to see ideas thrown out for how to handle equipping soldiers with custom weaponry and otherwise improving the unit editor.

[Necromancer-]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @<hidden> 25 April 2003,03:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">offtopic : but i&#39;d also like some randomness in the unit&#39;s morphology , the people&#39;s height should vary from one to another for exemple[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Midgets? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Imagine midgets carring an M60 machinegun http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif

[dkraver]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> 25 April 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also don&#39;t like the idea of having slots. I think we&#39;ve all been frustrated by the current system, where you can&#39;t assign a soldier a correct peacetime, let alone wartime loadout. As I know some of you guys have been in combat units before, you must remember that there was virtually no limit to the amout of stuff we had to carry into the field. I myself routinely had 13 magazines for my M-16, plus a 100-round belt of 7.62mm and, on occasion, an AT weapon as well. And that&#39;s not including the additional stuff I had in my rucksack or stowed on the Humvee.

I think a weight-based system, like you may see in some RPG-type games would be better.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I like the idea about making a weighted load out selection instead, and as you said yourself the current system can be pretty frustrating especially around grenades for the m203. But it well take a lot of testing to make a system that wont make a lot of rambo&#39;s runing around loaded like a small apc. If a weighted system could be done a nice feature would be to have a backpack system introduced as well. You could have it so there where as a example 4 kind of backpacks to choose from.
1. Small patrol pack that would give X extra weight.
2. Small Backpack that would give Y extra weight.
3. Big Backpack that would give Z extra weight.
4. AT ammo backpack that would give X extra AT shots.
These backpacks would increase how much you could hold but should also affect your movement and speed. Also it should be so you would have to take the ammo from the packs to your webbing before being able to use it. That way you wont be able to run around with 30 mags or something like that. So it could be something like this in the [ENTER] menu.
Open Backpack
You would then get a pop-up inventory list of the backpack. You could then choose between the items with your mouse and mark/select the things you wish to pick up/move to your webbing or drop them to ground if you dont need them anymore.
A nice features that could be added, that also would add realism, would be the abbillity to take off the backpack, so you could leave it at a gather point before a attack.

PS: Hellfish 6
How did you manage to carry 13 mags, 100 round 7.62belt and AT shots at the same time?? How many ammo bags did you have in your webbing?? That&#39;s 390 5.56 shots plus the other stuff. Standard for me in the danish army where 5 mags with 30 5.56, where one mag was on the rifle and others 2 mags in 2 ammo bags on the webbing. Depending of function i could have 2-4 AT shots, where 2 where in backpack other two in a handheld cannister which really removes some agility and movement. Or i could have 100-200 7.62 in belts or in belts loaded in ammobags that could be mounted on the MG. I would then have ammo in boxes with 5.56 and 7.62 that needed to be loaded to the mags or belts in my backpack or on the vehicle. But 13 mags plus the other seems a lot to carry. If then add webbing, fragmentation vest, helmet, rifle and backpack its a lot of weight, very limited speed and movement which is the exact opposite that all armies want today.

[Hellfish6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (dkraver @<hidden> 28 April 2003,04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> 25 April 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also don&#39;t like the idea of having slots. I think we&#39;ve all been frustrated by the current system, where you can&#39;t assign a soldier a correct peacetime, let alone wartime loadout. As I know some of you guys have been in combat units before, you must remember that there was virtually no limit to the amout of stuff we had to carry into the field. I myself routinely had 13 magazines for my M-16, plus a 100-round belt of 7.62mm and, on occasion, an AT weapon as well. And that&#39;s not including the additional stuff I had in my rucksack or stowed on the Humvee.

I think a weight-based system, like you may see in some RPG-type games would be better.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I like the idea about making a weighted load out selection instead, and as you said yourself the current system can be pretty frustrating especially around grenades for the m203. But it well take a lot of testing to make a system that wont make a lot of rambo&#39;s runing around loaded like a small apc. If a weighted system could be done a nice feature would be to have a backpack system introduced as well. You could have it so there where as a example 4 kind of backpacks to choose from.
1. Small patrol pack that would give X extra weight.
2. Small Backpack that would give Y extra weight.
3. Big Backpack that would give Z extra weight.
4. AT ammo backpack that would give X extra AT shots.
These backpacks would increase how much you could hold but should also affect your movement and speed. Also it should be so you would have to take the ammo from the packs to your webbing before being able to use it. That way you wont be able to run around with 30 mags or something like that. So it could be something like this in the [ENTER] menu.
Open Backpack
You would then get a pop-up inventory list of the backpack. You could then choose between the items with your mouse and mark/select the things you wish to pick up/move to your webbing or drop them to ground if you dont need them anymore.
A nice features that could be added, that also would add realism, would be the abbillity to take off the backpack, so you could leave it at a gather point before a attack.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Here are the comments I posted earlier about weight and backpacks:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe we could also see a "weight" carrying capacity instead of the current "slot" carry capacity. You soldier can carry X number of kilograms, and X+Y kilograms with a rucksack. However, the number of kilos over X+Z would affect your soldier&#39;s performance. An overloaded soldier can&#39;t run fast or far and becomes fatigued quickly (like current system of fatigue). An action menu command to drop the rucksack will solve this problem in combat situations. This lets us, should we chose as players and mission designers, to give our machinegunners lots and lots of ammo, but we just shouldn&#39;t expect these guys to be very mobile on the battlefield. Same with a soldier we choose to load up with LAWs or AT4s - they carry a lot of firepower, but they&#39;re not very effective in a fluid battlefield situation. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It&#39;s much like you said.. I think we&#39;re thinking along the same lines here. Basically, carrying a dropping a backpack will allow players to create a mobile Assembly Area or Patrol Base (in American terminology, anyway) where the player can drop his gear for an assault.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PS: Hellfish 6
How did you manage to carry 13 mags, 100 round 7.62belt and AT shots at the same time?? How many ammo bags did you have in your webbing?? That&#39;s 390 5.56 shots plus the other stuff. Standard for me in the danish army where 5 mags with 30 5.56, where one mag was on the rifle and others 2 mags in 2 ammo bags on the webbing. Depending of function i could have 2-4 AT shots, where 2 where in backpack other two in a handheld cannister which really removes some agility and movement. Or i could have 100-200 7.62 in belts or in belts loaded in ammobags that could be mounted on the MG. I would then have ammo in boxes with 5.56 and 7.62 that needed to be loaded to the mags or belts in my backpack or on the vehicle. But 13 mags plus the other seems a lot to carry. If then add webbing, fragmentation vest, helmet, rifle and backpack its a lot of weight, very limited speed and movement which is the exact opposite that all armies want today.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I was a light infantryman, so we carried everything. I had thirteen magazines, 1 in my rifle, and the remaining 12 in ammo pouches. Normally, an American soldier is only issued 2 ammunition pouches, which carry 3 magazines each. I went out and bought an additional two pouches, allowing me to carry 12 magazines total. Yeah, it weighed a bit more, but it was worth it, especially when I was in a combat situation. Nobody wants to run out of ammo. And we ALL either carried a box of 100 7.62mm round or 2-3 60mm mortar shells. You had to, because the MG and mortar teams could hardly carry enough ammo by themselves.

However, I&#39;d only get the AT weapon on top of this if I pissed someone off. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif But a LAW is pretty small and light, so it wasn&#39;t really a problem, but an AT4 was a big bigger and heavier, so that kind of sucked.

[dkraver]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It&#39;s much like you said.. I think we&#39;re thinking along the same lines here. Basically, carrying a dropping a backpack will allow players to create a mobile Assembly Area or Patrol Base (in American terminology, anyway) where the player can drop his gear for an assault.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah i had forgot your earlier post so we are pretty much saying the same with one big diffence.
You see it ass a total loadout where i see it as a storage area you need to open to get things which is a bit more realistic. Question is if the AI can learn to take things from the backpack.

[vektorboson]

I agree to that points about customized soldiers. I think it is much better if you have one model, but different camo patterns to choose from.

I think that this would make old addons rather incompatible with OFP2, but I think I would pay this price.

I would go further with that idea, and make modifications possible to any units/vehicles/weapons

Soldiers: Helmet/beret/a.s.o., rucksack, gasmask
Weapons: scope, suppressor, grenade launcher a.s.o.

I&#39;m tired of the many versions of weapons; I would rather prefer if I could choose i.e. M4A1, then attach a suppressor, a M203 a.s.o. to it. And this modifications could make it more difficult to handle that weapon. I guess a M4A1 with M203 is heavier than one without M203.

[DM]

How about something like this:

http://www.concept-5.com/ballistic/images/deadmeat/unitloader.jpg

This way, you would have:

Side - Sides like NATO, Al Quaeda, UN (For a modern theatre of Operations)
Or
US, Australia, VC, NVA for a Vietnam Theatre of Operations.

Class - this remains, so we can choose from soldier/infantry or Tanks/Armoured units or Helicopters/Air units.

Country - allows the "Side" to be broken down into sub sections, as each countries equipment differs greatly, thus allowing for the easy customisation of the models, without clogging the "man" list.

Rank - this could change dynamically with the side (or country), for example, the Army does not have "Admirals", yet the navy does... Or it could change with the country, such as having the equivalent or the actual name of that countries ranks.

Camo - Allows the one model to be "skinned" with various versions of the camo, without the need for (Desert) or (Arctic) at the end of each soldiers name.

Loadout - Allows you to choose from a set of pre-defined loadouts, such as Rifleman, Grenadier, AT, Machinegunner, and effects the model accordingly (adds extra MG ammo size pouches for the MGunner etc) The "Custom (Select)" feature could open a second window, that allows you to choose and save custom loadouts.

Model - Again, this alters the model, but on features such as the Helmet/Beret/Cap/Boonie hat etc.

The rest of the features can remain how they are now.

*Important - all features in the list must be customisable, so we can add our own sides, ou own countries etc...

[Hellfish6]

DeadMeat - you read my mind. I was just using PSP to do the same thing.

I like what you&#39;ve done, but I would switch "Side" from NATO/UN/etc. to "Side" Red/Blue/Green etc. I think it would benefit from being more generic in that respect so that US forces could be "RedFor" or "BluFor" instead of NATO or UN. This is what most militaries use anyway. The way I interpret what you said, NATO "Side" will only emcompass those countries that are members of NATO. Whereas, if Side was simply a generic assignment, you could have UK forces assigned to Blue, Red, Green, Pink, whatever. See my ROE paragraph below.

I imagine it would also benefit the player while on the map, as Red team&#39;s icons would be red, blue team&#39;s icons would be blue, etc.

Also, this would allow for more flexibility - especially in that we won&#39;t be restricted to Vietnam-era (and, consequently having to pick VC, NVA, ROK, etc.) side choices.

Another nice feature would be a rules of engagement menu, where you can set the ROE for all forces. For example, you could make Red force hostile to Blue force, allied with Green force and neutral to Black force. Or Blue force can be allied with Red, and neutral to everyone else. The mission maker could change these on the fly to be customized to his mission.

[DM]

Yeah, great idea Hellfish, I like it, keeps the game much more generic, and allows for plauseable combat situations as would be common today - i.e. Russians fighting side by side with Americans.

lets hope BIS like it too... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[dkraver]

Based on the ideas i have and with surgestions from others like hellfish i could see the unit menu look like this.
Unit menu
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/info.jpg
Then when going to equipment menu from the button under the unit selction you would get something like this.
Equipment menu
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/equipment.jpg
I dont like the idea about only having premade load outs since you wont be able to make a load out with equipment/weapons from different addons makers on the same soldier. But you should still have the opportunity to choose one if you dont want to take the time to select all items.

Under weapons selection you would only be able to choose one main weapon, one support weapon and one side arm so you wouldnt have a guy with 5 rifles.

Also under weapons selection both in main and backpack menu. When you choose a weapon the ammo types for that weapon will pop up in the ammo menu so you wont have to look through a big list with all ammo types both only for that weapon.
Also in backpack menu you wont be able to add a weapon to the backpack but only to choose the weapon to show ammo for that weapon to select for the backpack.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another nice feature would be a rules of engagement menu, where you can set the ROE for all forces. For example, you could make Red force hostile to Blue force, allied with Green force and neutral to Black force. Or Blue force can be allied with Red, and neutral to everyone else. The mission maker could change these on the fly to be customized to his mission. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
As i surgested earlier this shouldnt really be under the unit menu but at the same place as it already is for resistance side.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There should still be the menu showing side friendly towards but it should have it for all sides instead of only resistance in OFP. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[Mr. Snrub]

Fantastic idea, although I mentioned something similar in a thread a while back http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Replacing as many init line commands with drop-down editor options is the way to go.

[seedhe]

I see a potentially major problem with maximum flexiblity of appearance/loadouts. Dont get me wrong I like the idea, just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

There is a pretty steep learning curve in a multiplayer environment (especially in advanced mode) being able to identify the differences between east and west in the current version of the game. We all have the differences committed to memory by now but if you have a guy 50-100m away running towards your position with a uniform you havent seen before and carrying a weapon you cant identify at that distance, theres gonna be tears http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Mr. Snrub]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (seedhe @<hidden> 30 April 2003,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see a potentially major problem with maximum flexiblity of appearance/loadouts. Dont get me wrong I like the idea, just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

There is a pretty steep learning curve in a multiplayer environment (especially in advanced mode) being able to identify the differences between east and west in the current version of the game. We all have the differences committed to memory by now but if you have a guy 50-100m away running towards your position with a uniform you havent seen before and carrying a weapon you cant identify at that distance, theres gonna be tears http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you&#39;re playing the mission, you should really know what countries (and hence which uniforms) are going to be involved. It&#39;ll just take a bit of time to learn to distinguish between them, as it did before with the US/Russian uniforms.

I suppose if there&#39;s going to end up being 20+ different uniform choices, it&#39;d be a good idea to fiddle around in the editor and have a look at what a Swedish/Egyptian/Chilean soldier looks like and what weapons they use.

[Hellfish6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (seedhe @<hidden> 29 April 2003,21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see a potentially major problem with maximum flexiblity of appearance/loadouts. Dont get me wrong I like the idea, just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

There is a pretty steep learning curve in a multiplayer environment (especially in advanced mode) being able to identify the differences between east and west in the current version of the game. We all have the differences committed to memory by now but if you have a guy 50-100m away running towards your position with a uniform you havent seen before and carrying a weapon you cant identify at that distance, theres gonna be tears http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Same thing happens in real life. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But, assuming OFP handles MP addons the same way it does now, you&#39;ll probably have to have the addon installed on your system already if you&#39;re playing an MP game with it. I&#39;d assume that you&#39;d have looked at it.

[Hellfish6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (dkraver @<hidden> 29 April 2003,18:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Equipment menu
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/equipment.jpg
I dont like the idea about only having premade load outs since you wont be able to make a load out with equipment/weapons from different addons makers on the same soldier. But you should still have the opportunity to choose one if you dont want to take the time to select all items.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Again, I really don&#39;t like the idea of a slot-based loadout. I think weight is the way to go. It shouldn&#39;t be too much of a burden on addon makers to include weight, either - just have a CPP value for the weight of an object in kilograms.

[FuseBox]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> 30 April 2003,07:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, I really don&#39;t like the idea of a slot-based loadout. I think weight is the way to go. It shouldn&#39;t be too much of a burden on addon makers to include weight, either - just have a CPP value for the weight of an object in kilograms.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
i like that idea but if it was slot based you could add the weight of the backpacks and ammo too (like the more ammo u have the slower u run ingame, the less ammo u have the faster u run) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[dkraver]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> 30 April 2003,07:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (dkraver @<hidden> 29 April 2003,18:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Equipment menu
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/equipment.jpg
I dont like the idea about only having premade load outs since you wont be able to make a load out with equipment/weapons from different addons makers on the same soldier. But you should still have the opportunity to choose one if you dont want to take the time to select all items.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Again, I really don&#39;t like the idea of a slot-based loadout. I think weight is the way to go. It shouldn&#39;t be too much of a burden on addon makers to include weight, either - just have a CPP value for the weight of an object in kilograms.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well the way i put it in that editor picture isnt really slot based. You would select the weapon in first box/slot, then push add button. Weapon and weight would then be added to the equipment list, which just show you what is selected.
At the same time as you select the weapon, the ammo field will change to the ammo types for that weapon alone and you can add the the amounts of mags you want with the add button. And again ammo and weights will be added to list. When weapon selection is at none ammo field will not show any ammo. Also reason i made the lines in the equipment field with:
Weapon + ammo (+ ammo + ammo + ammo)
Sec. weapon + ammo (+ ammo + ammo)
Side weapon + ammo (+ ammo + ammo)
Grenades + Smoke grenades + Flares
Equipment.
wasnt to show it like slots. But to show that like now you would only be able to select a main weapon, a support weapon, a side arm and then your grenades and equipment. List could/would then show them in lines after class for a better overview. The Ammo (+ ammo) was if a weapon would have more than one ammo type each ammo type would show insted of one ammo poll alone. I also kept it at those 5 lines becourse i dont think that you should be able to have more weapons selected so you wont have guys running arouns with a weapon poll of 5 assault rifles which i also wrote in the post. But while writing this i think that there should be added a extra line to ammo you wish to carry for other weapons than you have selected.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Under weapons selection you would only be able to choose one main weapon, one support weapon and one side arm so you wouldnt have a guy with 5 rifles.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Same selection for equipment field and the premade kits. Find which you want push add and it will be added to the equipment list.

In the backpack menu its same aswell. Only you cant add a weapon (at least i think you shouldnt be able to carry weapons in the backpack) but i put it there to easier find the ammo after the same system as above, where you select the weapon and then ammo will show in window below. Also you have backpack selection consisting of 4 types as i see it. 3 for normal ammo types with different weight abbility. Could be something like patrol, medium and big backpack. Last would only be for AT and you would only be able to choose between AT weapons/AT ammo in the fields below.

[DM]

I think Dkraver&#39;s editor system is perfect, as it allows for maximum flexibility of the unit and loadout without having to mess around with miles and miles of init code.

Loadout systems need to be weight based, and i&#39;m sure this could be simple to add, simply by adding the line

mass=xx;

in the cpp (and the neccisary game code)

OR by taking the objects defined mass in the p3d (in the geometry LOD)

[Hellfish6]

Thanks for the explanation, Dkraver. Makes sense to me now. Good ideas&#33;

I&#39;m a bit curious, though - what do you consider secondary weapons to be? Like how DFLW lets you carry an M-4A1 with a secondary MP5 and a pistol? Or are you thinking more like the secondary weapon will be an AT or AA weapon?

[dkraver]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> 30 April 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thanks for the explanation, Dkraver. Makes sense to me now. Good ideas&#33;

I&#39;m a bit curious, though - what do you consider secondary weapons to be? Like how DFLW lets you carry an M-4A1 with a secondary MP5 and a pistol? Or are you thinking more like the secondary weapon will be an AT or AA weapon?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hmm first i thought of it only as a place for support weapons like the secondary field is now. But now you say it could see the gain for a sniper to have a secondary weapon like a Mp5 or maybe someone in a group to have a shotgun to open doors (if its a thing that can be done in OFP 2) or not having the m79 as a main weapon (thinking vietnam). So i could see one having a weapon for a secondary weapon. It would depend on weight system having a limit where there would considerable loss of weight left for ammo for having two weapon instead of one. So people would have to decide between as a example having a sniper rifle with 10 mags and a berreta with 5 mags or having sniper rifle with 2 mags and a mp5 with 3 mags in their main equipment.
BTW this is just a imaginary example i dont know what the weight diffence would be in real life also what it would be to carry or that it should be the max limit. But should show the consideration to be taken before choosing two weapons instead of one.

[Hellfish6]

I like the idea of having backup weapons. Like your sniper example. Or having an AT weapon.

The hard part is, how do you determine what a secondary weapon is? I mean, what&#39;s the difference in having an MP5 as a main weapon as opposed to a secondary weapon? Dkraver mentioned weight, but would that be accurate enough?

I mean, it&#39;s possible that an MP5K would qualify as a secondary weapon, as would a LAW or AT-4 or Javelin, but would an MP5SD6? What about an M-4A1?

It&#39;s a tough call...

[dkraver]

The way i thought of it in last post after you asked is that you could choose every weapon as a secondary weapon, so no weapon would be configured as a secondary weapon. It would be so you would "only" have the weight limit to take into consideration as in the example above. So it would all depend on where you put the max weight limit. It should be at a lvl where it would be acceptable to have:
sniper +  submachinegun + mags + equipment
assault rifle + grenade launcher + ammo (+ equipment)
assault rifle + shotgun + ammo (+ equipment)
assault rifle + 1 shot AT weapon + ammo + equipment
assault rifle + reloadable AT/AA launch system + rifle ammo + equipment
Where (+equipment) means that a equipment thing like aone pair of NVG or on binocular would be ok but not more than that.
Where 1 shot aa weapons would be a real 1 shot weapon at not like now where you can reload and have to carry ammo for it.
Where with reloadable AT/AA weapons, which are heavier than 1 shot weapon, you would carry the lauch tube/system but you would carry the ammo in the ammo bag in the backpack menu which is how you carry it in real life.
But it shouldnt be acceptable to carry:
Machine gun + Machine gun + side arm + ammo + equipment
Machine gun + assault rifle + side arm + ammo + ammo + ammo + grenades + equipment
assault rifle + assault rifle + side arm + ammo + ammo + ammo + grenades + equipment
And so on. As said above it will all depend on finding the right max weight limit for the main equipment loadout. What you carry in the backpack doesnt matter if you would have to take it off and take thing out of it, like i surgested in the first post i talked about backpack.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These backpacks would increase how much you could hold but should also affect your movement and speed. Also it should be so you would have to take the ammo from the packs to your webbing before being able to use it. That way you wont be able to run around with 30 mags or something like that. So it could be something like this in the [ENTER] menu.
Open Backpack
You would then get a pop-up inventory list of the backpack. You could then choose between the items with your mouse and mark/select the things you wish to pick up/move to your webbing or drop them to ground if you dont need them anymore.
A nice features that could be added, that also would add realism, would be the abbillity to take off the backpack, so you could leave it at a gather point before a attack.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[dkraver]

I tried messing around with some real life weights to see how it comes out. And it aint gonna be easy to limit the load out for a soldier if you make it a free choice for the two weapon choices/slot and at the same time also have a soldier that can carry a reloadable AT weapon. But i would still keep it at that idea. Based on your info that is at the high end weight scale. At least i think.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I myself routinely had 13 magazines for my M-16, plus a 100-round belt of 7.62mm and, on occasion, an AT weapon as well.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
M16 3.8kg
M16 mag 0.7kg
100 round 7.62 belt aprox. 1.2kg
LAW 2.5kg
AT4 6.7kg
With a LAW it would be 16.6kg
With a AT4 it would be 20.8kg
And after trying some different examples i found that max weight should be around 20kg . And by choosing max weight you would get a considerable negative value to your movement. So it would be a choice between agillity or weaponry.
So here are some examples.
M16 with 6 mags and a carl gustav launcher(no ammo)
= 19.5 kg
M16M203 with 10mag and 20 grenades (found vest that could hold 20 grenades)
= 18.2 kg
M16 with 10 mags and 4 handgrenades and a AT 4
= 19.3 kg
M16 with 10 mags and 4 handgrenades and a LAW
= 15.1kg
M16 with 10 mags and 4 handgrenades
= 12.6 kg
M24 with 10 mags and HK mp5 with 10 mags.
= 16.3 kg
M24 with 10 mags and M4 with 10 mags
= 18.1kg
M24 with 10 mags and M16 with 10 mags
= 19.3 kg
M249 with 4 x 200 round box mags
= 19,7kg
M82A with 10 mags and a M9 pistol with 4 mags
= 19.8kg
M60E3 with 8 x 100 round belts
= 18,1kg
M240 with 7 x 100 round belts
= 19.2kg
This should give a clue to what you could hold at max weight. Also if you wanted other equipment like binoculars or NVG goggles you would have to remove ammo, or if you choose two weapons instead of on it would limited the weight left for ammo and equipment. So i think that a free choice of two weapons and a max weight of 20kg on soldier could work.

[Goeth]

This is one helluva nice idea, i really want see that weight system on ofp 2. This surely could come handy on 2 hour no respawn co-op.

[Hellfish6]

Yeah, Dkraver, I really like the thought you&#39;ve put into this. And it really makes sense. Anyone who has ever tried to dash from cover to cover during an assault knows that it ain&#39;t easy when you&#39;ve got an M-60 or M-240B/FN-MAG to carry around.

How would we factor such potential equipment as body armor? Should that count?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Body armour could make the players sweat like priests in a playground. Maybe. It is pretty uncomfortable in hot weather, but nice in cold http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[dkraver]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @<hidden> 02 May 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How would we factor such potential equipment as body armor? Should that count?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think that would be under the model menu where you choose the look of the soldier. Dont know if you in OFp 1 can choose the weight/agillity on the soldier model. If not it could be a idea for ofp 2. Also if i remeber right people have complained a little about the lack off posibility to add "extra armor" at different points of the body to simulate body armor, helmets and such. Think its one big hp poll now but im not sure about it.
Anyways i dont think it should be under the equipment menu since people wearing body armor really dont have less equipment with them. And with that in mind, if you made it under equipment you would have to raise the max weight that again would allow people without to carry even more ammo.

[Skul]

This has been suggested before, and I think it&#39;s pretty good.
How about the ability to turn off waypoints/units/etc. On some maps, things can get very cluttered, especially on large-scale battles, so an option to turn off individual types of... things would be good, IMO

[USMC Sniper]

Also, if the soldier had too much weight on him, running speed would be slower, and if there was the maximum weight, the soldier could only walk.

[Dubble0zero]

This ideas are great, I would be really happy if they made it for OFP 2... and I think that it should be weight based only, nothing in the way of one primary and one secondary weapon...

Then it comes to the problem with space on the unit, I think that it would be good to be able to pick up an extra M16 from a fallen friend and see it on the shoulder of your self, the same with other stuff, you can probibly put a pistol in your backpack, but for bigger things like laws and similar you must have it on your back... and then we are back to the slot system... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

hmm... hard to solve... but I hope that BIS makes it better than in OFP 1 annyway... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Jinef]

I would like to see all the shit we&#39;re given for if we go down in enemy territory, a torch, pistol, whistle, and be able to have good SAR and CSAR missions with downed pilots.

Also a downed pilot usually doesn&#39;t have NVGs when he hits the ground, they are usually assimilated into the aircraft or broken when he ejects.

Also give us a lot more accessories, like lasers on guns and infrared lasers and spotting devices.

[RalphWiggum]

Along the lines of BLue For and Redfor, I think dynamics between forces should be selectable.

i.e. have 5 "sides"
1.blue
2.red
3.green
4.yellow
5white

1 and 2 should be defined as the eternal enemy, so when you place a group in that side, they fight indiscrimately at each other.

3 and 4 can be something like we have as resistance right now. we can choose both to be hostile to either 1 or 2, or 3 goes with 1 and 4 goes with 2. this could bring some interesting dynamics IMO.

5 is for pure neutral civies.

one problem that we might see is that since most addons that we have now are subclass of a side, there needs to be a scheme/engine change so that we can accomodate OFP addons in OFP2.

[Hellfish6]

Well, with what you have here, we&#39;d only really be adding one side. I&#39;d much prefer to be able to customize the hostility of the sides. If I want Red and Blue to fight each other, I should be able to select HOSTILE in their ROE. Same if I wanted them to be friendly. It would also make it very easy to have the US and Soviet forces be on the same side if desired, battling other Soviet forces (for example). Have you seen the Malvinas mod&#39;s current conundrum? Where they have really great British units on the East side? If we had units and addons that we could assign sides to, we wouldn&#39;t have a problem, because we could just assign those British units to Red or Blue or Green or Pink or whatever side we wanted to, assign them a set of ROEs and play.

It might make for some interesting missions if you don&#39;t know who is on your side and who is not. If your squad detects neutral forces like they currently detect hostile forces ("Machinegunner, 12 o&#39;clock, 200") it could make for some extremely dicey situations. Do you open fire on him now, or wait to see if he&#39;s just passing through?

[dkraver]

Like hellfish says there shouldnt be any fixed sides since then you will still have the problems with forces not being able to work together. Like i made in the unit menu you would choose country and then select what side it should be in. Then either at the same place as now (under date and time of day) or in a new selection there should a side menu where you would select what sides that given side should be friendly towards.

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/sides.jpg

[Acidcrash]

this idea looks really good, like was mentioned would make things a little more interesting when you dont know if they are enemy or not...and that concept image looks really easy to understand...hope BIS take note of this

[Hellfish6]

Yeah, that image explains it WAY better than I could. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[RaNg3R]

I haven&#39;t read every post here but, you should have like a Editor Box (drop down box. much like we have now but more improved and user-friendly) with custom fields like

Side
Unit
Soldier
Gender
Rank
Weapon
Sidearm
Inventory
BDU : (desert, mountain, snow, specop)
Height/Age/Weight (going along with Not all Men are created equal post)

[Jinef]

Getting a bit too RPGish for me, yeah it&#39;s nice to know the faces of the guys who get hit in a campaign and feel bad about it if your favourite joker gets it in the head, but do you want his age weight height hair colour and whether he has a dog? No&#33;

I say keep it fairly anonymous in standard form, but allow large customisation through commands in description.ext so you can create cool campaigns with distinctive characters, liek having a short fat officer who shouts at you from your knees being the 7ft monster you are&#33; Also trying to fit private pyle into a small tunnel would be a good mission&#33;

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Food for thought

[DM]

Indeed, customisation of camo, loadout and weapons. But leave it at that. Any more and it becomes less of a strat sim, more of an RPG...

[Acidcrash]

agreed there, have the soldiers random instead of micro-organisation, so you place a soldier, and like the faces, they will be random, so maybe once it will be a 6&#39;1 guy built like a brick shit house but next time it could be a 5&#39;6 guy, more athletic frame, next time again it could be a woman...see where im going?

[[TU]$33ker]

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/sides.jpg
very nice idea. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif reminds me of that old AOEII: AOK editor. my first editing experience. I even made a little campaign which was released on a PC games mag disc. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif (I wish OFP&#39;s editor could be as simple as AOE&#39;s http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif )

[RaNg3R]

you should also have different camo patterns. Like the new one the marines use. Which has to deal with pixels.

[dkraver]

you should also have different camo patterns. Like the new one the marines use. Which has to deal with pixels.
You should read the whole post  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif  it should cover allmost every part of the unit selection.

[redwolf603]

I do like the whole backpack thing, but it has to be removable, the res soldiers with the backpacks are pretty easy to see when there prone.

[joltan]

It would be very nice if not only addon makers, but also mission makers could add custom cathegories/classes to the editor. Like equiping a soldier and then saving its as a template that could be used in other missions. Several of these template units could be used to form custom groups, that could also be saved as templates. A great thing would be the ability to export/import templates and exchange them with other people.

Such a template would contain all nescessary info like equipement, stats or visual aspects (with the possibility to leave some of them as default/random).

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I haven&#39;t read any of rangers posts because he hasn&#39;t read the whole thread.

[Snypa UK]

there should be a command to make a unit appear at a point without oodles of scripting like "this unit appear" in a trigger field and in the init you could type something like "unit setinvisible"?

[Jinef]

Nice points, i hope BIS considers some of it.

Just one thing, from a mission editors point of view, allow a fully configured unit to be copied then pasted and it will appear with the same uniform, loadout, face etc.

Also you could select the unit to have a random face and random headgear so with ten copy and pastes, you have essentially created an individual squad.

[Blake]

Good ideas, I agree...

[Drill Sergeant]

All good ideas.
So now we can throw out the ability to use old OFP addons.
So we can make totaly new ones, and BIS would have to give us a new 3d program to build with. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[dkraver]

So now we can throw out the ability to use old OFP addons.
Not really. You would only have to change the config a little to make it fit the different selections. Much in the same way that people changed their addons from old OFP to RES OFP with own selection folders.

[SpecOp9]

&#036;33ker @<hidden> June 27 2003,10:58)]
[img]http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/sides.jpg[/img
very nice idea.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif reminds me of that old AOEII: AOK editor. my first editing experience. I even made a little campaign which was released on a PC games mag disc. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif (I wish OFP&#39;s editor could be as simple as AOE&#39;s http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif )
Very nice idea, but Im not here to post about that.
Sounds good for a Perfect Dark setup.



Anyway,

I think it would be good if SpecOps could have Splinter Cell type movments.  Maybey hug walls, a Stealth Walk, and stuff.

Edit - please don&#39;t quote images

[dkraver]

Anyway,

I think it would be good if SpecOps could have Splinter Cell type movments.  Maybey hug walls, a Stealth Walk, and stuff.
And why would you post this under in a post about the unit editor??  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[TheManWithManyIdeas]

I didnt find the display of the unit editor to be much hassle. Although selecting commands using the numbers on my keyboard was a bit annoying. Perhaps this is the only solution to such a problem?

The idea here is to have as many options open to the player, yet make them as easy as possible to access.

As of yet, i do not have a solution for this.

[dkraver]

I didnt find the display of the unit editor to be much hassle. Although selecting commands using the numbers on my keyboard was a bit annoying. Perhaps this is the only solution to such a problem?

The idea here is to have as many options open to the player, yet make them as easy as possible to access.

As of yet, i do not have a solution for this.
You really should read the whole post instead of just the title before posting something. This thread is NOT about how you command your units, but on the selection of the units you want to use when making a mission in the mission editor. For the other thing you should post here (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=57;t=29666;st=60) which you already have. But again think you also should read the whole thing there aswell.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I thought he was talking about the Fkeys to select unit, group, trigger etc editing. Looks like he did read the post to me.

[Hellfish6]

I&#39;m not sure I quite follow what the ManwithManyIdeas is saying then - it&#39;s annoying to use the F keys in the unit editor (to add triggers, groups, etc.)? Then just use the mouse... am I missing something? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Thats what I thought too but oh well.

Won&#39;t know till he returns with another posting spasm ;)

[TheManWithManyIdeas]

Oops. Wrong thread.

[noundo]

I would hope that there would be a built in way to create mission briefings, and set other parameters like respawn, and weapons pool from inside of the editor.

I have a few decent missions that have not been released because of the pain of going to a 3rd party app to create these things.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

3rd party programs like notepad?
It is free, and you already have it, you know .. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[BAD ASS JACK]

Hows about you can load up multiple mission pages at 1 time & that you can flick between easily? - Also interface that shows the SQM text file that you can edit in an editor window?

[BAD ASS JACK]

Another idea i had in mind for some time now, @<hidden> 1st i thought it was just crazy, then i thought it was insane, then just kool:)and now im throwing to you lot...

Hows about multi people can use the editor mission page at same time? they connect like multiplayer game via IP or something like that on lan or net?

[h -]

Ran through this thread quickly and I did not find anything related to unit skill...

I think it would be nice with all these ideas/suggestions (which btw great...) to have more &#39;complex&#39; skill settings.
So you&#39;d have multiple skill faders for, let&#39;s say like shooting, driving (tactics, leadership, or is this getting way too roleplay... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif ) etc. because it&#39;s very annoying when you have to make for example a vehicles driver to have full skill just to make him stay on the road whilst driving... When he gets out and starts shooting he is dropping you almost from 800 meters away with single shot right after hitting the ground...

This would also lenghten the fire fights since it would possible to set the NME skill to spot you high but his shooting skill low...
I&#39;d love to get the same fire fight atmosphere in OFP as they have (in other ways a bit crappy...) Call of Duty...

But I&#39;ll shut up now and let you shoot my ideas down  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Gollum1]

Right now, we have 4 sides, West, East, Res, Civ, and we can&#39;t create new ones&#33; A team system like in the "skirmish" mode of, for example, the Command & Conquer games would be practical.

You can create as many teams as you like and then decide which teams they will be friendly to and which sides they will be hostile to.

I bet this could be adapted to OFP2. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[dkraver]

Read back  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
page 3 post 13 of this topic post (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=57;t=29643;st=30)

[mads bahrt]

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/sides.jpg
This would be a natural place to allow the mission maker to name the sides. You could have a text-field for each "color" where you could type an name like "KFOR", "Entente", "Allies", "Rebel", "Communist" and such.

Another idea regarding sides:
The forces from one country should be able to be part of more than one side in the game - you could have royal brits against republicans (in an imaginary war...) or Union and Confederate american troops.

[Tigershark_BAS]

Guys been reading this with some interest....and the ideas flowing around are good.

Problem is.....as far as dialogue design is concerned...I think you are limiting yourselves a little to what the game looks like currently.

What I would like to see is a dialog box with tabs along the top for the various categories you mentioned....on the left hand side have selectable/changeable options for the tab...and on the right side have a 3d rendered engine drawn model showing the changes you have implented. Similiarly to how the face changing dialog works.

Imagine having your soldier/unit on the right hand of the dialog.

Select the skin tab, skin options appear on the left half...scroll through options...select BAS Ranger skin....bang...image updates.

There are practicalities to work out...but I think the dialogs themselves need some redesign in addition to the suggestion you have made in this thread.

[dkraver]

Nice idea tigershark. The reason i kept my ideas in the same form as the current OFP is a mix of different things.
Its a easy way to make people understand them.
That BIS at some time said that OFP 2 would be a upgrade to OFP and not a complete reworked game engine, so it really never crossed my mind making them in another way.
But it would make it a lot easier and give a better overview of them.

[SpecOp9]

Great ideas DKRaver and Hellfish.. hope BIS takes these ideas and puts them to use http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[Hellfish6]

Guys been reading this with some interest....and the ideas flowing around are good.

et cetera...
Do you forsee this, or any other new feature described here, causing problems with making OFP1 addons compatible with OFP2?

[AgentFox2]

On the issue of weight and loadouts...

If any of you have played the old action game Hidden and Dangerous, they did that sort of thing remarkably well.

When you started a campaign, you had a finite amount you could bring with you for the WHOLE campaign. This space was measured as you added things in by a progress bar in the lower right.

Prior to every mission, you would select your team, then select their gear loadouts. As you added more equipment to a given man, a progress bar (again in the lower right) would show the amount of gear he could carry, as well as how much he currently had by use of a percentage meter.

This was all based on weight. So, you wouldn&#39;t really worry about whether something was a secondary weapon or not. The thing was, weapons took up a large chunk of that weight space, and you could potentially add a whole bunch of weapons to yourself, but you would end up with no ammo.

Also, how much one soldier could carry was based on an admittedly RPG-ish attribute of Strength. Each man had a value denoting how strong he was and according to this, how much he could carry. So, you could have a sniper who is a whiz shot, but he might not be able to carry more than his rifle, ammo, and a pistol. Then again you might have a guy who&#39;s super strong and can carry huge amounts of ammo, but is not a great shot. So you give him a big machine gun and let &#39;im go to town.

Anyway, it was a great system, and I think mentioning it is relevant. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[dkraver]

AgentFox2

Much of what you are saying is basicly what the idea made its way to be.
There shouldnt be primary or secondary weapons. There should be a free choice but based on real life weights with a max carrying weight. The choice would then have a effect on the movement of the soldier. So the player would have to choose between what he wants to use and how fast he want to be. With the limit i surgested you would be able to make a realistic loadout and at the same time limmit the ammount of ammo a person that selects multiple weapons rambo style.
I havent played H&D so i cant say anything about that system.
But a thing that i see from what you tell that wouldnt fit the OFP game. OFP isnt a RPG so adding different values to the soldiers would change the game from what it is today. Also any soldier around the world are trained to carry a basic loadout so there wouldnt really be any need for those values.

[SpecOp9]

Quote[/b] ]Do you forsee this, or any other new feature described here, causing problems with making OFP1 addons compatible with OFP2?

I&#39;m sure he does, I know I sure do.

However there is a few things I would like to throw out.

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/dkraver/pic2/sides.jpg



Very good idea, only I am going to be a bit more picky and far fetched.

Building on this idea using a small mod example:

I want to make a civil war mod lets say, in the U.S.

In the flashpoint directory I open up (Sides) folder.
Inside that folder I create 10 files.
-Massachusetts
-California
-Nevada
-Maine
-Florida
-Kentucky
-Chicago
-Texas
-New York
-Alabama


I open up the mission editor, crack open the side editor, and I can configure my sides.
(Everything in BOLD letters has a drop menu.
Pretend this is the Side menu)

-----------------------------------------------------------
                                 Side Menu
-----------------------------------------------------------

Empty is Enemies/Friends/Neutral with Empty

Empty is Enemies/Friends/Neutral with Empty

Empty is Enemies/Friends/Neutral with Empty

Empty is Enemies/Friends/Neutral with Empty

Empty is Enemies/Friends/Neutral with Empty

Empty is Enemies/Friends/Neutral with Empty

Empty is Enemies/Friends/Neutral with Empty

-----------------------------------------------------------
        ACCEPT                                      CANCEL
-----------------------------------------------------------

Now the Bold letters has a drop menu.
Say I click the Empty at the beggining, I get a selection  for:
-Massachusetts
-California
-Nevada
-Maine
-Florida
-Kentucky
-Chicago
-Texas
-New York
-Alabama

I select my state, and then I move onto who they are friends, enemies, or neutral with, also using a drop menu.

VOILA&#33;
I can have a huge battle with 10 diff sides battling each other.


The unit editor should then have a simple (choose side) selection, pop him in the map, and bam.

Cons:  Multiplayer

Solution: Inserting a Sub Folder in your Mission folder called "Sides".

A simple init.sqs file with the starting line
customsides = true
This activates custom sides, so the map knows to run it when the map is PBOed and ready to go.  This way nobody needs to download needles files that need to be installed, and instead of that it&#39;s in the sides are all in the PBO.

If there is going to be sides, I want as many as I want for my mission.


---------------------------

Unit Editor:

RESPAWN

A Simple menu that allows me to choose if I want my unit to: respawn or not, give a certain amount of time to respawn, ETC.

What do you guys think?

Also folks I opened a new forum for Flashpoint.
Speculations (http://bisofp2.proboards24.com/index.cgi)

All ideas on these forums that are worthy of being posted will be used in the all mighty speculation of OFP2.  And will then be simulated, into what could possibly be the next OPFlashpoint.

[dkraver]

To SpecOp9

Think you are making it way to complex.

1. No need for name of the unit in the side selection. It itsnt shown ingame and think about how big the sides lists would be if it had to show names of all addons. So a basic color name is much more simple and effective.

2. Why would you want 10 sides. Im not into the american civil war but some of those states must have been allies all the way through. And if some of them changed side during the war you would only have to change them from example. Red side to blue side in that mission. Wouldnt it be much easier to make it like this.
First soldier
1. Select country/Mod
-American Civil War mod
2. Select Side
-Blue
3. Select class
-Nevada (Just create a class for each state like people do with their own class folders in resistance)
then select unit and so on....
Second soldier
1. Select country/Mod
-American Civil War mod
2. Select Side
-Red
3. Select class
-Florida (Just create a class for each state like people do with their own class folders in resistance)
Third soldier
1. Select country/Mod
-American Civil War mod
2. Select Side
-Blue
3. Select class
-Nevada (Just create a class for each state like people do with their own class folders in resistance)
then select unit and so on....

And then select which sides are against each other in each mission.

10 sides and more are way to many and not needed at all. I have never heard of a battle where 10 sides fight each other at the same time. Thats what we got C&C Generals and other games for. A Max would be 6 sides.
-1st Primary Force (like West)
-2nd Primary Force (Like East)
-1st Secondary Force (Resistance force with West)
-2nd Secondary Force (Resistance force with East)
-Third Party Force (Like Peace keepers)
-Civilian
But as i also say in the post about side selection instead of haveing fixed side give them colors so you can mix it like you want.  

3. For me having to add a line in the init field just to make mission the same as making it to complex and if needed it should be intergrated into the game instead.

4. If there was to be a respawn menu it should be under the mission editor and not under unit selection. Again its about keeping it simple and around the selection of units and not about how you want your mission  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

As i also said in my reply to Tigershark. Menu could be made in a different way. The reason i made them like i did was to make the ideas better understandable vs the current OFP.

[SpecOp9]

Well yea you could use Colors too.

Companies, countries, planets, anything :-P

Just instead of limited to only 4 sides max, I would like as many as I want.  I think that would be the ultimate WW2 mod.. knowing how many people were involved.  a Civil War (not the actual Civil War) was an example on using folders in your mission file for having as many sides as you would need.

The unit respawn goes for everything.  Trucks, Helis, Tanks, Soldiers, planes, ETC.  I honestly hate going through all that code just to make a simple vehicle to respawn properly  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif


Also it may be too complex, but I would like it. Knowing the mission editor had a "Easy" and "Advanced" tab, they would probably add 1 or 2 more selections for that.

[baca85]

Would the ablity to select whether or not the unit had a parachute or not im sure that would effect movement and wait of soldier?

[dkraver]

Just instead of limited to only 4 sides max, I would like as many as I want.  I think that would be the ultimate WW2 mod.. knowing how many people were involved.
Yeah there where a lot of countries involved. But they where more or less only 2 sides. And in any given battle they where only fighting like 2 sides. There where never a 3 way battle. And if you where to make a WW2 mod with campaign, as you mention your self, why would you wanna configure sides that wasnt in a battle?? Almost every battle was fought in zones controlled or appointed to different countries, so there where only 2 sides involved.
Examples.
Pacific front.
US vs Japan
UK with colonies vs Japan
China vs Japan
Russia vs Japan
European Front.
US vs Germany
US vs Italy
UK vs Germany
UK vs Italy
France vs Germany
Russia vs Germany
Then there where smaller supporting armies working under command by the main armies or defending forces in the start of the war. Like Poland, Holland, Norway, Rumania, Bulgaria, Canada just to mention a few.
So the only sides you need is:
2 For the main army group countries like US, UK, Russia , Germany and Japan because they almost never fought in the same battles.
2 For the smaller supporting armies that would join the main armies in battles.
If you make it realistic there really wouldnt be any need for more than 2 sides. Last two would only be to see the difference by color in the map. The big all vs all battles wouldnt really work in ofp. And if you wanna make them theres a game type all ready where you dont select sides but where all are enemies. For all other we got real time strategi games

[dkraver]

The unit respawn goes for everything.  Trucks, Helis, Tanks, Soldiers, planes, ETC.  I honestly hate going through all that code just to make a simple vehicle to respawn properly  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
I think that instead of making it in the unit editor, a idea would be to have a selection in the mission editor like the waypoint selection. That way you could select a single person or a group, click on the map where you want the respawn point, then a menu would pop op and you could make the selection you talked about.

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey]

Dont know if someones said this, but the soldier carrying capacity should be something like Hidden and Dangerous 2. Each weapon, magazine, grenade, helmet, uniform etc. weighs something and this is taken from the soldiers carrying capacity which is say 25-30kg. I also liked the backpack in H&D2 and the way you had to transfer items from your backpack into your jacket pouches as they become empty.
Another suggestion is special vests you can start with, like the grenadiers vest which has loads of pouches, but can only be used for grenade rounds aswell as 10 other pouches for magazines etc. The disadvantage may be weight so the soldier wearing it may not be able to sprint as long and it might be very heavy when fully loaded. Instead of having one primary and one secondry maybe having 2 weapon slots would be a good idea. So instead of having a rocket launcher you can take another rifle along. You wouldn&#39;t be able to take two huge weapons like an M60 and a M40 as the combined weight of the weapons, ammo and all your other equipment would be over the limit and if you where under the limit you wouldn&#39;t be able to carry much ammo for them both. There might be a good reason for taking an XM177 instead of an M16A1 because the weight you save can be spent on other items like handgrenades and magazines or just running speed. As in Operation Flashpoint now there is no reason why you should choose a carbine over a full size rifle.

[@cero]

One think I used to like about Novalogic&#39;s "Delta Force" mission editor was the way they sort out the side for the units.
Something similar to what you lot are going on about.
But the color option makes more sense, this way you could have a unit fighting alongside some other team that is fighting against his own side.
Lets say, some guerrilla addon gets released and this addon have 7 different skins, like Edge&#39;s resistance addons.
You could use them to fight aginst the same Edge resistance addon.
Civilians would be in any side you&#39;ll like and so on.
That would be great.
@<hidden>

[SnypaUK]

i dont know about you but i dont think i could carry 4 Lsws or Minimis in a bergen i think that while you should be able to have more than 1 primary weapon you should not have more than two per person plus pistols grenades etc. For example a sniper in the british army carries his sniper rifle in a drag bag and uses his L85 until he needs the sniper rifle

[Hellfish6]

I don&#39;t think anyone in their right mind would carry more than one primary weapon. Sure, you can probably fit four SAWs in your ruck, but where are you gonna put all the ammo? A SAW with a single 200 round box is about 23 pounds (10kg) put four of them in a ruck and pretty soon you&#39;re gonna have a lot of weight on your back and you won&#39;t be able to carry anything else like ammo, socks, toiletries, food, water, extra clothing, a sleeping bag, etc. Besides that, you&#39;ll be so slow that you&#39;ll be shot before you get to use even one of your weapons.

I think the H&D2 weight/inventory system works well. I&#39;d like to see something like that for OFP2, but I think the present system works fine as well.

[dkraver]

SnypaUK
Earlier i wrote in the backpack menu that i thought weapons shouldnt be allowed in the backback, exactly for the reason you mention. The backpack should only be used for extra ammo. One thing that could be allowed could be a AT weapon like the LAW since its small in size.
But if rifles is allowed it would just be the same as being able to carry multiple rifles on you.

[SnypaUK]

per haps only if your a sniper can you carry a rifle and a sniper rifle?

Anyway i believe that AT weapons already count seperately from rifles anyway so thats pretty much ok

[dkraver]

If you read back to the area about the weight loadouts, there already is a solution to that problem. But it makes you choice between multiple weapons, ammo and agility.

[firedrake]

I know the Russian Infantry and Airborne allow their soldiers to carry an AK74 and SVD. Though I wouldn&#39;t like it in the game, playing Call of Duty I find unrealistic when you can carry 8 grenades, Thompson, BAR, and Colt 45.

I would like however for Bohemia not to include crew served weapons. For example, the AT4 Spigot and only use one man AT Weapons like the RPG-22 (equivalent to the AT4 136). Which actually surposedly disabled a M1A1 with one shot from the rear. So you don&#39;t need heavier portable crew served weapons or artillary to compensate for heavy armour. The same goes for firing individually Artillary pieces otherwise I imagine I&#39;m playing Moh Spearhead.

With ground attack aircraft and helicopters realistically most portable SAM systems, can knock them out in one shot shot in the right area. Hence why they use antimissile systems like chaff and flares. You can even knock helicopters with small arms fire.

I would be nice though to muck around with the inventory so I could have realistically have 6 mags and 4 frags. You get way to many grenades, but maybe Bohemia decided to compensate for those like myself who first played and couldn&#39;t hit a barn door.

People who want to carry more weapons and use crew served weapons should really be playing first person shooters. In OFP you can either pick up the weapon you need for the job or the AI on your side can do it. The whole idea of a combat sim is tactics not firepower.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

...or we could have crew served weapons that need a crew to use them... ever think of that?

Also

You seem to think that because in one case a RPG22 just managed to disable an M1A1 from the rear in a lucky shot, that means that all RPG22s are capable of disabling all kinds of armour? err... no.

[Friedchiken]

yeah, maybe to encourage using crews, "special abilities" are unlocked when people like map readers, commanders, ect. mount the crew served weapon. therefore only one guy on a gun would have very limited abilities. I mean the other crew members are helping right? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[firedrake]

The original OFP did not employ crew served weapons? Why make things more complicated.

Eh&#33; why do you think it was fired at the rear of the tank and at a vulnerable point. A lucky shot would be if penetrated the front of its armour.

Likewise it depends what type of ammunition you are using to penetrate armour. Hence the various types of RPG rounds.
There is no universal round which can penetrate all types of armour&#33; The RPG-22 is designed for AT purposes not knocking out battleships&#33;

You could make the game complicated and start using various types of RPG round for different types of so called armours. If a RPG-22 can disable M1A1 in all intensive purposes if should be able to damage M2A2. If in OFP you can knock out a M2A2 with a RPG NH-75 and thats something that actually hasn&#39;t happened in reality yet&#33;

I didn&#39;t actually state the RPG-22 can penetrate all types of armour thats your own delusion&#33;

[Friedchiken]

well, I don&#39;t want one rambo to control all the functions of the tank.  Crew weapons like tanks shouldn&#39;t be too complex in this type of game.  Just have each guy have a limited role.  Plus we don&#39;t have to make it 100% realistic.  For instance, on an artillery peice, the map reader clicks on the target on the map and then the "gunner" would get guidelines on where to aim.  Simple  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[The-Architect]

What about a uniform editor like you get with some footy games? You get a default uniform for east west and resistance or whatever, and you can import jpeg&#39;s/tga&#39;s etc onto the unit. Flashpoint would recognise where the pic is supposed to go, ie shirt, shorts etc by what you name it, ie shirt.jpg, shorts.tga.

[Superskunk]

I like to be able to switch units-textures while playing.

So you can start as civilian and at a cut scene, you appear in uniform, and play on like that. Its good for story telling.

just with a simple script line like:
this setunittexture "man1"
or
this setunittexture "sniper"

Would be fun in some way&#33;

Keep up the good work BIS.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I like to be able to switch units-textures while playing.

So you can start as civilian and at a cut scene, you appear in uniform, and play on like that. Its good for story telling.

just with a simple script line like:
this setunittexture "man1"
or
this setunittexture "sniper"

Would be fun in some way&#33;

Keep up the good work BIS.
I get the point but the models are different for civilians and infantry, not just the textures.

[SnypaUK]

U sure baron? if u have a soldier minus a weapon next to a civilian they are exactly the same

[m21man]

Quote[/b] ]if u have a soldier minus a weapon next to a civilian they are exactly the same
Except for the ammo pouches, the backpack, and the hat...

Yes, civilian models are different from soldier models, and I&#39;m sure that the differences will be more noticeable with OFP2&#39;s improved models.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

U sure baron? if u have a soldier minus a weapon next to a civilian they are exactly the same
http://members.lycos.co.uk/hurlothrumbo/EH.jpg

[SnypaUK]

I assumed you were talking about the animation not the actual models

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I assumed you were talking about the animation not the actual models
...
You think textures are applied to animations?

Read the thread next time.

[SnypaUK]

Im saying that the standing still animations are still exactly the same

[DM]

Im saying that the standing still animations are still exactly the same
And everyone else is talking about the MODELS not the animations.... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[waffendennis]

Im saying that the standing still animations are still exactly the same
And everyone else is talking about the MODELS not the animations.... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
Yes and the offical topic was:

The choise of weapons and load out and not about Models.

So i suggest that you read the first message again before saying a thing.

//WaffenDennis

[DM]

Yes and the offical topic was:

The choise of weapons and load out and not about Models.

So i suggest that you read the first message again before saying a thing.

//WaffenDennis
Err... actually, if you keep up with the topic, Superskunk suggested the ability to change the look of your soldier whilst playing (a key part of any "Unit EDITOR")

He suggested using a method similar to the current setobject texture. Hurlo then pointed out that the soldier and civilian models were fundamentally different, so this would not be possible.

SnypaUK didn&#39;t quite understand what Hurlo was talking about (the fact that the soldier/civilian models are different, thus a simple "setobjecttexture" would not suffice) and started talking about animations etc.

Also, I was one of the first posters in this topic, and the "official" topic was about improving the way units are selected in the ingame editor. Not weapons or loadouts, but making the overall navigation easier via more intuative sub-classes, and modifiers.

So I suggest that YOU read the topic first waffen, rather than charging in on your righteous highhorse...



To keep ontopic:

Some ability on the model to provide a complete set of load bearing equipment, which is then hidden, and specific items then revealed automatically by the game engine when a certain loadout was selected.

E.g. the soldier model is created initially with a full set of M4 pouches, a full set of m249 pouches, a medic pouch and various other aspects of the LBE. All of this is then hidden, and when in the editor you equip your soldier with an M4, the M4 pouches are displayed, if you equip with an M249, then the M249 pouches are displayed.

This could be developed further, say at the start of a mission you equip with an M4, then halfway through, you re-equip with an M249. This would mean you still have the M4 mag pouches on your LBE, thus severly limiting the amount of M249 ammo you can carry. Since the M249 box mags dont fit into the M4 mag pouches.

This would provide an air of "specialism" without making the weapon choice as "solid" as say Ghost Recon (where the weapon you start the mission with is the weapon you end the mission with)

[waffendennis]

But any way I hope BIS reads this and get those ideas in OFP2

[bedlam]

how about a .."loadout" for each unit in editor.. making it easier to limit or pick weapons and ammo?
im gettin tired of all add remove weapon magazine cargo bla bla bla bla strings.

[xenom]

(i haven&#39;t read all topic)

i want a textbox on the unit proprieties to set the height of the same unit; i don&#39;t want to set the altitude by using the "object setpos [getpos this select 0,getpos this select 1,height]"


(sorry for bad english)

[Hellfish6]

how about a .."loadout" for each unit in editor.. making it easier to limit or pick weapons and ammo?
im gettin tired of all add remove weapon magazine cargo bla bla bla bla strings.
It was mentioned. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[WarWolf]

I agree with the need to customise weapon loadout in the editor using drop down listboxes, maybe in a separate popup dialog from the unit dialog, say primary, secondary, handgun, and ammo count for each, this would be better than doing it the hardway through the init line. I can see that this might be problematic with a rucksack though, unless the rucksack&#39;s a separate object which gets a loadout and _then_ gets linked to a unit.

The most important point raised in my opinion is that of camo-textures being selectable.
I get constantly frustrated by all the separate addons for each camo scheme + subsequent searching + downloading etc. IMO it would be MUCH better to have EVERY unit and addon - including 3rd party - include at least the 3 basic camo schemes - green / desert / snow.
That would need to be standardised across all addons, which would make mission editors jobs more simple, the players acceptance of different terrain type missions would be improved by not having to download stuff for every mission type, and would fit very well with a dialog-selected camo type for the units you&#39;re working with. Possibly an option for the mission / mission editor to set this GLOBALLY, therefore all units you place will conform to this scheme without having to hand-edit each unit placed....?

My tuppence worth, anyway. WarWolf

[Sgt_Eversmann]

I want a Unit editor like in SOldner.
You can select bodies Heads Helmets Boots Trousers and so on.
And maybe that you can give your Soldier Weapons by selecting them. Not via [this] exec "M4Acog.sqs"

[uiox]

choose the unit view (1st,2,group) in the editor and lock it specially for MP games.

[Commando84]

I have a idea to improve the mission editor&#33;
i kind of had a idea just poped up in my head, i was thinking about my missions that i had edited and i had used a whole lot of setpos to put buildings and objects at the right height http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif so i was thinking that in ofp 2 there should be a easier way to do it. by having a slider that you can press up and down to change the setpos on http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/unclesam.gif

[-=BT=- Matty R]

what about the normal 2D editer and an option to make it 3D so it would be easyer to place objects and units.. plus with the feature Commando84 said..

you would be able to place people at house windows street coners just with them poping out a little bit.. it would be much easyer instead of keep playing to see if you have everyone in the right places. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Jay L.Macrae]

Don&#39;t know if this has been mentioned before but why not have the editor running... just like the game but without a player.
Let me explain: The game would be running as usual, but on a "PAUSE" mode, so nothing is moving. Then u would have a 3&#39;rd person view over the terrain. U&#39;ll be moving over the terrain with the arrow keys, changing the view angle of the camera (360x360) with the mouse and moving up or down with the Page up and Page down buttons. Everything else would be working as usual... F1, two clicks on the ground or in the air, place a plane, soldier or a boat... and so on. You can even go through houses on different story&#39;s/flat&#39;s/floors and place waypoints everywhere&#33;

What do ya think about that?

[UNN]

To expand on the idea of more detailed editor dialogs, so anyone can add just about anything they want?


Quote[/b] ]I want pre-made scripts for people who don&#39;t know how to make them.  Vehicle respawn for example,

Make Description.ext and Config.cpp the same thing, so a mission designer can include minor addons and re-configure existings ones. It might result in massive missions, but it&#39;s up to you if you want to download them?

If you did that, you could enhance the mission editor dialogs?

http://homepages.gotadsl.co.uk/~gssoft/Sample.jpg

Allow editor dialogs to be inherited and expanded, by the addon or mission maker. Anyone could write regular addons or small (mission only) pbo addons (configs&#92;scripts) for things like spawning options, addon specific loadouts, or editor utilities to setpos objects. e.t.c for different types of game. Then the mission designer could choose which ones to include in his description.ext&#92;mission. And the scripts and in game dialogs would automaticaly be packaged with the mission pbo. If the addon did not have a backpack (for example) then no need for the addom maker to include a backpack interface. Plus, if the mission designer wanted a backpack, he could include a user made backpack module straight into the editor?

Or at least allow a button to be enabled for certain editor dialogs, that launches a user defined dialog. Oh and allows addons, scripts and Descrition.ext to read the values added by the mission designer?

Well, just a thought.

Cheers

[jankyballs]

When you make a unit in mission editor, I think there should be quite a number of options you can do yo customize them.

Side: US
Obvious

Climate: Desert
You can either choose between 3 climates, Desert, Woodland, and Winter

Unit/Men: Soldier
This is where you select the model you want to use, it comes with default equipment.

Weapon: M4A1
You can choose what weapon you want for your unit, it oculd be an M60 to a Colt.

Face: David - Clean
You have a wide selevtion of faces, for every face, there is a clean, camo, and wounded one.

Hands: Nothing
There is a wide selection of gloves and different types of hands.

Shirt: Rolled Sleeves
You can have either rolled up sleeves, no sleeves, sleeves, etc.

Headwear: Brush
You can have small sticks or small peices of bushes put into your helmet, or you could have a bandanna, or a cap.

Stance: Crouched
Either make yourself prone, crouched, or standing up.

Rank: PVT.
You get the idea

Skill: 6
On a scale of one to ten you set the skill of the unit.

Mode: Combat
Choose from the OFP1 modes, like careless, combat and safe, etc.

Accessories: Backpack
Backpack can be chosen for extra ammo, or a medkit, or NVGs etc.

Name: Alpha 1
Name your unit.

Init field
Same as the OFP1 one, for adding extra scripts.

Health
Same as the one from OFP1 thats under the Init field.

Fuel
Same as the one from OFP1 thats under the Init field.

Ammunition
Same as the one from OFP1 thats under the Init field.

Azimut: 0
Set which direction your unit is facing.


Next to this is a 3D image of your soldier based on your settings, it is fully rotatable.

Restore to Defaults.

Ill make a picture once i get Photoshop installed again.

[wolfbite]

No an init field its too time consuming. it would be better if you could just tick a box or click options on a drop down box. I think all the headwear face gloves etc are just a bit too much too that kind of stuff isnt necessary really. it would be better to have it random like in cwc. And i think a side grouping would be better than pick a side. like in Lomac

[NeMeSiS]

No an init field its too time consuming. it would be better if you could just tick a box or click options on a drop down box. I think all the headwear face gloves etc are just a bit too much too that kind of stuff isnt necessary really. it would be better to have it random like in cwc. And i think a side grouping would be better than pick a side. like in Lomac
You would need too much dropdown boxes for all options that cna be used in the INIT field, so in the end typing would be faster then searching in all those clickable thingys http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Just keep the init-box how it is, maybe expand it, but dont replace it&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Jinef]

Well, messing around with the init box ain&#39;t fun.

To do a lot of things you need a long line of code, which is not all visible ....

Also think of the syntax errors;

When you want to setdamage you need to setdammage.
When you want to add binoculars you need to add a binocular.

[LoTekK]

I wouldn&#39;t mind keeping the init stuff,as long as they expand it. I don&#39;t want an init line, I want an init box.

[HoboWithAK]

Don&#39;t make soldiers shorter, they don&#39;t get pulled down becasue of their gear, they get bigger. The civvies all look very large and like 7ft.
It&#39;s a combat stance. Making yourself a more stable platform while presenting a smaller target. It isn&#39;t the gear weight.

[lkavadas]

I&#39;d like the following:

1. Multiple firing ports per turret;
2. Allow a gunner/driver seat; and
3. Allow a vehicle skeletal system.

I want mechs&#33;
http://www.joysf.com/zboard/data/MECH_PIC/1149707420/thanatos.jpg

[THE_BLITZ]

I would like to see the unit editor improved so you would have less units showing and also give a better deployment of troops. Here are some ideas i think could be great.

1.
The abillity to chose weapons , ammo and equipment for the unit in the editor by adding the fields for each weapon/equipment slot.
Effect
+Smaller unit list since you wont have the same soldier 10 times with different weapons.
+Wont have to add/remove weapons in inet field if you wanna use other weapons.
+Smaller unit list since people making weapon addons alone wont have to add it to a man.
+Wont have strange unit names saying which weapon it holds, like:
Soldier (M4M203) or Soldier (RPK) and so on.
But should still keep classes like machine gunner and AT soldier.

2.
Instead of east, west and resistance folder, there should be and the ability to make country folders. Under these folder one should then chose which side/force you want the unit should be. And idea could be something like blue force, red force, green force and Yellow force. I would say there should be 4 sides. 1 for a attacking part, 1 for a defending part, 1 for a resistance part and last one for a neutral part like peace keepers. Civilians should still have a folder for them selfs . There should still be the menu showing side friendly towards but it should have it for all sides instead of only resistance in OFP. Civilians should also be in that selection since they also can have aggression vs a military force. This could and should be include in ofp2 in a way like gimbals tossers that where throwing rocks and bottles. Then the aggression could be controlled by the alertness selection under a waypoints. So they would go from making hand signals to throwing things at you depending on alert level. At the same time if you come as a friendly force they would wave at you and not get scared like now.
Effect
+ Smaller unit list since you wont have unit from 10 countires under one side.
+ Make units work together since you could configure which side they are on, which you cant in OFP. Example would be us and russians troops fight together against another enemy.
- You would have more side folders.

3.
As another post said in this subject forum, the abillity to change uniform/camo in the editor. This could be activated in the cpp file for those who make multiple camo&#39;s. and if not the selection would just be non selectable.
Effect.
+ Smaller unit list since 3 or more soldiers (example. soldier, winter soldier and desert soldier) could be under 1.
+ Wont have all those strange names like as a example dkm&#39;s tunguske which have these names.
2S6M Fall, 2S6M Sand and 2S6M Green
or the BAS rangers which have these two name types.
Ranger and DES Ranger.
about the less units , i think that you should be able to chose your own wepons but still have the soldier classes. so if you want 3 m16s, 1 medic, 1 greny, 1 mg, 1 ar, and 1 law, you can do that easily but if you want a steyer, you can too. if you try giving a soldier a law and watch what happens ;)-his class actually changes. classes, for regular infantry men at least, change based on wepons so a combo of selected wepons and predefined classes is best.

[7-75 Callaghan]

Although a great idea and an improvement over the current unit editor, I believe having the camo/skin seperate to the unit model is fundamentally flawed. The camoflage type often affects the entire model, i.e. desert troops from a certain era would have certain webbing layouts/clothes arranged loosely etc so being able to change the textures for each model would make addon making much harder and the results would be less accurate. The weapon loadout is a great idea, saves making scripts for each soldier, but it is totally unneccesary to choose between woodland/des/snow for each model, as each addon may have totally different camo models. I suggest a simplified version -

1. Side - Blue (Friendly)
Red (Hostile)
Green (Resistance)
Yellow (Civ) ...I dont see the need in haveing resistance and neutral (UN) myself.

2. Nation - NATO
Russia
China
etc

3. Unit - &#39;03 MFR Rifleman (DES)
&#39;03 MFR Rifleman (ACU)

4. Rank - (more ranks through to General)

5. Loadout - Using slots AND weight, RL values for ease of addon making. Slots allow clear visual representation and stop ridiculous selections wheras the weight simply negates from an optimum speed/stamina.

6. Unit insignia - not too important but saves using scripts all the time, could have a markings folder which allows for user made unit patches. This would also allow for markings on planes and armour via the same drop down menu.

7. Race - to represent foreigners in uniform and to keep forces consistent. If bis make skins for arabs, caucasian, black, chinese, eastern europe - this would save a lot of time for addon makers, and mean that all addons are of a higher quality and consistency.

8. Mentality - as i mentioned in a recent post in the AI topic, different AI classes would greatly improve gameplay. A drop down box would allow choice of - Leader, Default (Config defined), Sniper, SF, MG, Support (Medic, Engineer) and Heavy (AA/AT).

...and all the usual - skill, azimut etc etc.

What do you think?

[SaBrE_UK]

I&#39;m for massive customisability in everything, so good ideas. I reckon the &#39;easy&#39; editor mode should do without lots of these thigns, but in &#39;advanced&#39; then we should have dozens more options.

[Praelium]

The main improvements I could really hope for are a better color theme and a slider that controls civilian population. When it&#39;s to the left there are no civilians and when to the right there is a lot of foot/vehicle traffic.

[Baddo]

The main improvements I could really hope for are a better color theme and a slider that controls civilian population. When it&#39;s to the left there are no civilians and when to the right there is a lot of foot/vehicle traffic.
Yes... YES&#33;  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

For the slider to control civilian population.

It&#39;s a lot of work to do as I see it, that&#39;s why there isn&#39;t such a feature in ArmA now.

To automatically populate an island.

The population should take into notice if there is a war going on or a battle near them. That&#39;s a problem. You can&#39;t put civilians driving through an intense firefight, because, well that&#39;s not what you would do.

So it&#39;s even more work.

But it would really give the game a lot more depth. Missions wouldn&#39;t be no-where near as dull as they are now, if the islands wouldn&#39;t be inhabitated only by the fighting troops.

It&#39;s a lot of work for a mission designer, so, http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif if BIS did it then people would use it. Otherwise not many are going to use it.

[NeMeSiS]

The main improvements I could really hope for are a better color theme and a slider that controls civilian population. When it&#39;s to the left there are no civilians and when to the right there is a lot of foot/vehicle traffic.
Yes... YES&#33;  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

For the slider to control civilian population.

It&#39;s a lot of work to do as I see it, that&#39;s why there isn&#39;t such a feature in ArmA now.

To automatically populate an island.

The population should take into notice if there is a war going on or a battle near them. That&#39;s a problem. You can&#39;t put civilians driving through an intense firefight, because, well that&#39;s not what you would do.

So it&#39;s even more work.

But it would really give the game a lot more depth. Missions wouldn&#39;t be no-where near as dull as they are now, if the islands wouldn&#39;t be inhabitated only by the fighting troops.

It&#39;s a lot of work for a mission designer, so, http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif if BIS did it then people would use it. Otherwise not many are going to use it.
It could be done the way animals are handled in ArmA, they are spawned at appropriate places in the neighbourhood of forests/water/etc etc, add &#39;Cities&#39; (More houses=More change of spawning people) and &#39;Combat&#39;(More combat=less chance) to those spawning conditions for people and you could have them spawned the same way as animals.

[MattXR]

Also think of the syntax errors;

When you want to setdamage you need to setdammage.
That was fixed at the end of OFP start of Arma if im not correct. setdamage does work.

[Deadfast]

Also think of the syntax errors;

When you want to setdamage you need to setdammage.
That was fixed at the end of OFP start of Arma if im not correct. setdamage does work.
http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setDamage - fixed in OFP 1.5

[Commando84]

im not sure where mission editor changes goes to but imo if you are making a "beach assault" / "D-day" mission wich im sure many have made and few have made good http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
You notice one function that would be really sweet and that is to make waypoints better.
As it is now if i have 2 groups selected and they are going to go to the same place i can&#39;t have waypoint key selected and click them to go there cause only one of the groups will get that waypoint.
So my wish is that i can set wayoints with more than 1 group at the same time selected.

[dentist guba]

some sort of 3d editing is a must, it would allow much better missions (especially in towns)

[eJay]

I hope BIS will create some templates in mission editor, which will allow designers to put custom things (sounds, pictures, texts etc.) easily without writing 2000 lines of code...

[ArMoGaDoN]

I personally like the general idea of the loadout editor posted at the start of this thread, but I think that the &#39;only have generic soldier classes&#39; is taking things too far when so much content already exists to use the original scheme of things.

e.g. ArmA: There are already basic soldiers in game, SoldierWB class etc., and it&#39;s a simple matter to removeAllWeapons and re-kit a soldier in script...

However, an ADDITIONAL tab (or advanced page) bolted onto the existing unit editor that could (if &#39;ticked&#39; on) auto-generate the removeAllWeapons and addMagazine/AddWeapon scripts and add them at unit-editing-ending to the script line would be a great time-saver :- especially if the lists of weapons and stuff were generated on-the-fly for any addon weapons that are loaded.  The huge number of classnames can get bewildering at times when dealing with multiple weapon packs.

[CyDoN]

many ready scripts for us to use, just that.

[Pauld]

new waypoint system.

instead of placing say 5-10 waypoints around a village or town for a squad to patrol just have one big circle waypoint, so all you have to do it click where u want the circle to go hold down say RMB and then move the mouse back and forth to set how big or small you want the waypoint, less hassle and it looks alot better in the editor.

thats my 5cent http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

[jono_retard]

new waypoint system.

instead of placing say 5-10 waypoints around a village or town for a squad to patrol just have one big circle waypoint, so all you have to do it click where u want the circle to go hold down say RMB and then move the mouse back and forth to set how big or small you want the waypoint, less hassle and it looks alot better in the editor.

thats my 5cent   http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Thats the best idea i have read in a long time, would be very pleased if BIS could add this to the game

[Commando84]

I got an idea, what If Bis put the scroll wheel to use in the editor? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Taurus]

Someone mentioned less units.
I agree.

US has like 3 times more available units in different categories than SLA.
its kinda imbalanced.
And what happened to the T80 from OFP?

When creating units in the editor the skill defaulted for it should represent the rank of the unit.
As they are if you place a group[F2]

Also seeing different camo
like BLUFOR - Forest, Desert, Night
And the same for the other sides.

It doesn&#39;t make sense that you&#39;d run around in Desert camo uniforms in a forest, neither does it make sense that you run around in the same uniform as a special ops unit at night.
I&#39;m aware of that the AI only looks for the stealth value coded to the unit, but for the looks.

Also I&#39;d like to see the move waypoints for units be treated differently by the AI.
They don&#39;t need to be at the precise spot when moving to the next, see helicopter pilots struggling with slowing down to hit that exact coordinate, instead they should just bank their air craft and fly past to the next.
Halt only on "hold/sentry" etc etc way points.

I know some of these things have been done already by the community, but addons are hard to force everyone to download, atleast the basic units should be covered in the "Vanilla" release.

[zolop]

I would like to see the unit editor improved so you would have less units showing and also give a better deployment of troops. Here are some ideas i think could be great.

1.
The abillity to chose weapons , ammo and equipment for the unit in the editor by adding the fields for each weapon/equipment slot.
Effect
+Smaller unit list since you wont have the same soldier 10 times with different weapons.
+Wont have to add/remove weapons in inet field if you wanna use other weapons.
+Smaller unit list since people making weapon addons alone wont have to add it to a man.
+Wont have strange unit names saying which weapon it holds, like:
Soldier (M4M203) or Soldier (RPK) and so on.
But should still keep classes like machine gunner and AT soldier.

2.
Instead of east, west and resistance folder, there should be and the ability to make country folders. Under these folder one should then chose which side/force you want the unit should be. And idea could be something like blue force, red force, green force and Yellow force. I would say there should be 4 sides. 1 for a attacking part, 1 for a defending part, 1 for a resistance part and last one for a neutral part like peace keepers. Civilians should still have a folder for them selfs . There should still be the menu showing side friendly towards but it should have it for all sides instead of only resistance in OFP. Civilians should also be in that selection since they also can have aggression vs a military force. This could and should be include in ofp2 in a way like gimbals tossers that where throwing rocks and bottles. Then the aggression could be controlled by the alertness selection under a waypoints. So they would go from making hand signals to throwing things at you depending on alert level. At the same time if you come as a friendly force they would wave at you and not get scared like now.
Effect
+ Smaller unit list since you wont have unit from 10 countires under one side.
+ Make units work together since you could configure which side they are on, which you cant in OFP. Example would be us and russians troops fight together against another enemy.
- You would have more side folders.

3.
As another post said in this subject forum, the abillity to change uniform/camo in the editor. This could be activated in the cpp file for those who make multiple camo&#39;s. and if not the selection would just be non selectable.
Effect.
+ Smaller unit list since 3 or more soldiers (example. soldier, winter soldier and desert soldier) could be under 1.
+ Wont have all those strange names like as a example dkm&#39;s tunguske which have these names.
2S6M Fall, 2S6M Sand and 2S6M Green
or the BAS rangers which have these two name types.
Ranger and DES Ranger.
Everything this person posted I would like to see added to ArmA, mostly including the second point he made about "Country Folders".

Its a better way to organize the game, for the developers, community and other people that mod or play the game. It makes the current way ArmA is organized with "Sides" (East West, Opfor, Blufor, etc) look backwards. I love ArmA but like most games out there it could always use improvement.

[zolop]

I got an idea, what If Bis put the scroll wheel to use in the editor?  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
YES http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[zolop]

new waypoint system.

instead of placing say 5-10 waypoints around a village or town for a squad to patrol just have one big circle waypoint, so all you have to do it click where u want the circle to go hold down say RMB and then move the mouse back and forth to set how big or small you want the waypoint, less hassle and it looks alot better in the editor.

thats my 5cent   http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Thats the best idea i have read in a long time, would be very pleased if BIS could add this to the game
Agreed. It would help the developers when making missions for this game and also for the community when they get to finally use the ArmA 2 Editor.

[dentist guba]

I hope BIS will create some templates in mission editor, which will allow designers to put custom things (sounds, pictures, texts etc.) easily without writing 2000 lines of code...
you could place sounds as objects in OFPE editior, would be good if there were pre set triggers and actions though. the editor could have a user friendly template system.

e.g.

Step 1: pick condition "player vehicle runs out of petrol"
Step 2: pick action "play sound <damn, were out of gas"
Step 3: muse at how easy it was and repeat for any features needed in a level

this would allow newbies (and console players) to create very complex levels. also, experienced level designers could prototype mission ideas quickly before making any time consuming scripts.

[eJay]

I meant custom things not default. If you want a put stupid picture in intro you have to write Rsc code in description and fix in as many times as you will receive good result.

Also I&#39;m worried about 3D editor because Bohemia didn&#39;t confirmed it yet...

[MattXR]

I think it would be great to see some kind of new editor features as thats one thing that hasnt really fully changed since OFP to Arma. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[eenter]

There&#39;s some sort of wiki for scripting commands with examples implemented as seen in one of the GC 08 videos.

[Spetz]

One suggestion i have is that a easier to use editor, OFP had a much easier editor then ArmA, i hope they add more samples

Also an online editor where 2 or more people can join together to edit and create a mission

[Wolfrug]

One suggestion i have is that a easier to use editor, OFP had a much easier editor then ArmA, i hope they add more samples

Also an online editor where 2 or more people can join together to edit and create a mission
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

The editor in OFP and ArmA are entirely, 100% identical (just some UI changes). The only difference in functionality is that the ArmA editor has a few more waypoint types and, I think, one new Trigger type. That&#39;s it. Oh, and it&#39;s called RACS is friendly to.. instead ot Resistance is friendly to...

Ah well...

Regards,
Wolfrug

[DespairsRay]

Dunno if  this is the right section...

I want backpacks and helmets to be in a separate section.

as in this addequipment "etc" and you can add different helmet or backpack just like how you add weapons. Mind you I havn&#39;t played Arma, just years of OFP.


Also someone said...
Quote[/b] ]"It doesn&#39;t make sense that you&#39;d run around in Desert camo uniforms in a forest, neither does it make sense that you run around in the same uniform as a special ops unit at night."

I don&#39;t think the game should force this on you. You should have the freedom to do this.

A change of clothes option should be available if possible. Would be an interesting feature.

[lwlooz]

I suppose this serves as the mission editor suggestion thread.

Group Dialog (Edit Mode):

- Interface Integration: In the Mission Editor while in "(F2) Group Mode" and clicking on an already existing group , that means clicking on a exisiting unit , a group edit dialog would appear.

- Requested Functionality:
* Being able to set group variable name
* Being able to set group ID
* Being able to set group Description

- Purpose:
* The purpose of the group variable name is to make life easier for new and veteran mission makers alike.
This especially applies in missions with characters that can be switched off where it would end rather intricate ways of getting the group name.
* The purpose of both the group ID and description are to provide descriptions for group slots that are more fitting to the mission and more detailed to the player who wants to find the right group

- Implementation Feasibility:
It seems easy to my untrained eye to add this information to the mission.sqm and assign the group variable name the proper group as soon as they are initialized , but considering that none of this was done as of yet I suspect that I am missing something.

[xxbbcc]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, hasn't read the whole thread.

It'd be nice to have filters in the editor to show/hide certain objects, not only markers. Like, only show WEST units or only show the waypoint for the currently selected unit, etc. Lare missions have a very chaotic map and it's sometimes hard to go through details.

[ruebe]

Please make the editor aware of subfolders in the missions directory (load/save mission). I hate to put all missions into only one directory, which ends up in a mess too soon, too easily. Like in: a directory without island-suffix is a subdirectory, one with such an island-suffix is a mission. There. ;)

[JW Custom]

I would like to see the unit editor improved so you would have less units showing and also give a better deployment of troops. Here are some ideas i think could be great.

1.
The abillity to chose weapons , ammo and equipment for the unit in the editor by adding the fields for each weapon/equipment slot.
Effect
+Smaller unit list since you wont have the same soldier 10 times with different weapons.
+Wont have to add/remove weapons in inet field if you wanna use other weapons.
+Smaller unit list since people making weapon addons alone wont have to add it to a man.
+Wont have strange unit names saying which weapon it holds, like:
Soldier (M4M203) or Soldier (RPK) and so on.
But should still keep classes like machine gunner and AT soldier.

2.
Instead of east, west and resistance folder, there should be and the ability to make country folders. Under these folder one should then chose which side/force you want the unit should be. And idea could be something like blue force, red force, green force and Yellow force. I would say there should be 4 sides. 1 for a attacking part, 1 for a defending part, 1 for a resistance part and last one for a neutral part like peace keepers. Civilians should still have a folder for them selfs . There should still be the menu showing side friendly towards but it should have it for all sides instead of only resistance in OFP. Civilians should also be in that selection since they also can have aggression vs a military force. This could and should be include in ofp2 in a way like gimbals tossers that where throwing rocks and bottles. Then the aggression could be controlled by the alertness selection under a waypoints. So they would go from making hand signals to throwing things at you depending on alert level. At the same time if you come as a friendly force they would wave at you and not get scared like now.
Effect
+ Smaller unit list since you wont have unit from 10 countires under one side.
+ Make units work together since you could configure which side they are on, which you cant in OFP. Example would be us and russians troops fight together against another enemy.
- You would have more side folders.

3.
As another post said in this subject forum, the abillity to change uniform/camo in the editor. This could be activated in the cpp file for those who make multiple camo's. and if not the selection would just be non selectable.
Effect.
+ Smaller unit list since 3 or more soldiers (example. soldier, winter soldier and desert soldier) could be under 1.
+ Wont have all those strange names like as a example dkm's tunguske which have these names.
2S6M Fall, 2S6M Sand and 2S6M Green
or the BAS rangers which have these two name types.
Ranger and DES Ranger.

Fully agree :thumbsup:

[Landdon]

The editor needs improvement. Since the days of OFP, someone has provided a "Editor addon" to reveal all of the object present in the game, this should be standard fare. Additionally, objects such as the LHD should be a "one" piece unit, so an individual does not have to spend several hours trying to get it all lined up and placed right.

[Sgt_Hawkins]

I been working with the editor as long as ofp came out and if they reconfigured it like that I would be lost..I like it the way it is..but Thats coming from a guy who has 8 years exp with the editor.

[redmotion]

Couldn't these extras for unit editing just be added with an "advanced" tab7button like other parts of the UI? That would at least maintain some kind of consistency then without treading on too many toes.

Can I also add that I'd like to be able to visually choose units faces (if its already been mentioned, consider my own request as another vote in favour of it)

[Kremator]

How many of you have tried RTE (real time editor) from ionos? It can be found (in alpha release) over on OFPEC forums. Its a wonderful thing - truly wonderful.

I'm just waiting for MERLIN system to be ported over from A1.

[nuxil]

I had to dig this one up. instead of making new post.

i like to see in the editor is some kind of selection of layout on your vehicles/men. it would save some time for a quick mission setup.so we dont need to mess with scriping commands ..etc.

i would also like to see a better marker system. thats in general.
forexample. somethimes i only would like to have 1/2 a circle as a marker.
again there is ways to attchive this. but it would be nice have the ability to do so in the editor.

but if you want to make a mission like warfare, domination,evo etc etc.
the editor is not your friend.

i would not worrie about a editor update. i would rather worrie about when next update for notepad++ is :p
since you will be sticking your nose more in a text editor app.the editor itself you will only use to "press play on tape" Preview :p


there is one thing i also like to see. i think they should make sub dirs for each map.
example


...\My Documents\ArmA 2 Other Profiles\blah\missions\utes\mymissions.pbo
...\My Documents\ArmA 2 Other Profiles\blah\missions\Chernarus\mymissions.pbo
...\My Documents\ArmA 2 Other Profiles\blah\missions\Sara\mymissions.pbo
...\My Documents\ArmA 2 Other Profiles\blah\missions\Intro\mymissions.pbo
etc etc


it will be much more organized instead of having all missions you make dumped into


...\My Documents\ArmA 2 Other Profiles\blah\missions\mymissions.pbo


This may not be spesific to Editor update but its related to mission design.

[Flash Thunder]

When you make a unit in mission editor, I think there should be quite a number of options you can do yo customize them.

Side: US
Obvious

Climate: Desert
You can either choose between 3 climates, Desert, Woodland, and Winter

Unit/Men: Soldier
This is where you select the model you want to use, it comes with default equipment.

Weapon: M4A1
You can choose what weapon you want for your unit, it oculd be an M60 to a Colt.

Face: David - Clean
You have a wide selevtion of faces, for every face, there is a clean, camo, and wounded one.

Hands: Nothing
There is a wide selection of gloves and different types of hands.

Shirt: Rolled Sleeves
You can have either rolled up sleeves, no sleeves, sleeves, etc.

Headwear: Brush
You can have small sticks or small peices of bushes put into your helmet, or you could have a bandanna, or a cap.

Stance: Crouched
Either make yourself prone, crouched, or standing up.

Rank: PVT.
You get the idea

Skill: 6
On a scale of one to ten you set the skill of the unit.

Mode: Combat
Choose from the OFP1 modes, like careless, combat and safe, etc.

Accessories: Backpack
Backpack can be chosen for extra ammo, or a medkit, or NVGs etc.

Name: Alpha 1
Name your unit.

Init field
Same as the OFP1 one, for adding extra scripts.

Health
Same as the one from OFP1 thats under the Init field.

Fuel
Same as the one from OFP1 thats under the Init field.

Ammunition
Same as the one from OFP1 thats under the Init field.

Azimut: 0
Set which direction your unit is facing.


Next to this is a 3D image of your soldier based on your settings, it is fully rotatable.

Restore to Defaults.

Ill make a picture once i get Photoshop installed again.

This is one thing I really liked from Dragon Risings Editor, being able to change almost any setting.

I agree with your idea: but one important feature you missed: RANDOMIZE this would make setting up enemies or team mates alot quicker, or harder for you if you want to try out randomize gear etc. :yay:

[RodeoX]

dkraver I like your ideas! I would second that motion, but it looks like I will have to 100th it.

[Monotone]

What I need really about tweak in unit section is not about Infantry but Vehicles.
We can choose vehicle type as HMMHV or F-16 or so and set its weapon,skin,troop number written on vehicle as almost all flight sim can do.
It would be quite nice for both of mission editor and addon maker.

[CarlGustaffa]

Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54973802@<hidden>/4624044651/sizes/o/) is what I would like as a unit editor within the editor:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4021/4624044651_8536c529ab_o.jpg

Builtin stuff for a whole lot of new things:
* Preset - Sets all the items on the far right to preset values.
* Special - New item, "Stop". Causes the unit not to return to formation, but is free to rotate to face targets.
* Skill set - General sets all subskills, like to day, then there are also these (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setSkill_array).
* Model - Ability to choose the model freely. Allows on the fly creation of missing classes that could be important to the mission.
* DName - Ability to choose from a list of displaynames, such as rifleman, grenadier, team leader, or sniper. Allows on the fly creation of missing classes that could be important to the mission. Important here is the ability to choose from displaynames from all sides and factions. You could create a west "Sapper" if that class is available on the east side. Or a russian engineer (dearly missed). DName would be what shows up when you point at a unit ingame.
* Equip - Ability to choose from a preset equipment list based on already existing classes. Allows on the fly creation of missing classes that could be important to the mission.
* Ruck - Ability to choose what ruck the unit is equipped with. Allows on the fly creation of missing classes that could be important to the mission. Such as a miner ruck with a mine showing, or a radio ruck.
* Healer - Existing, is the unit able to heal? Aka attendant.
* Miner - Existing, can the unit disarm mines?
* Hide - Existing, can the unit hide bodies?
* Obs - New, is the unit an observer, like an FO or FAC? Gives him access to special scripts.
* SL - New, is the unit a squad leader? Gives him option to automatically dissolve squad into fireteams. Using createTeam (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/createTeam).
* TL - New, is the unit a team leader? If squad is dissolved, he will be the new leader of the fireteam. Using createTeam (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/createTeam).

* Updated multiline EOL capable script editor, with line numbers, monotype font, bracket matching and syntax highlighting.
* The possibility to expand the script editor to cover all the lower part of the dialog.

* New control, setBMI (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setBMI_(VBS2)). Only for units.
* New control, setHeight (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setHeight_(VBS2)). Only for units.
* New controls to instantly set the vectorUp (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setVectorUp) part of an object. Only for objects.

* Just some other general rearrangements.

Think about the benefits for players new to the game. Although there will always be situations where you actually needs to script, the most typical things to do for "the new guy who will struggle like hell with scripting", is instantly available. The new guy will start to lookup the Biki, which contains a lot of useful information for the experienced scripter, but the examples will typically not work directly, as they may not be written with "copy & paste into editor" in mind.

BMI and height would allow the creator to setup a mission where the individual unit is easier to recognize, something that is very hard to do only by face. These are VBS2 commands (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Category:Scripting_Commands_VBS2) though, so it is highly unlikely that we will ever see these :)

Elevation contains an instant setPos select 2 without any need of scripting knowledge.

Well... That's my dream anyway... Or at least a highly simplified version of it...

[MattXR]

I like it, more enchancements to the editor would be of great benifit. The Editor has been the same practically since OFP.R with few added features.. Its the least developed part of the game and i think improvements such as this would be good.

Also a Ingame Editor, Breifing [ Task Generator ] would also be cool and easy to use..

[mr.g-c]

Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54973802@<hidden>/4624044651/sizes/o/) is what I would like as a unit editor within the editor:


Builtin stuff for a whole lot of new things:
* Preset - Sets all the items on the far right to preset values.
* Special - New item, "Stop". Causes the unit not to return to formation, but is free to rotate to face targets.
* Skill set - General sets all subskills, like to day, then there are also these (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setSkill_array).
* Model - Ability to choose the model freely. Allows on the fly creation of missing classes that could be important to the mission.
* DName - Ability to choose from a list of displaynames, such as rifleman, grenadier, team leader, or sniper. Allows on the fly creation of missing classes that could be important to the mission. Important here is the ability to choose from displaynames from all sides and factions. You could create a west "Sapper" if that class is available on the east side. Or a russian engineer (dearly missed). DName would be what shows up when you point at a unit ingame.
* Equip - Ability to choose from a preset equipment list based on already existing classes. Allows on the fly creation of missing classes that could be important to the mission.
* Ruck - Ability to choose what ruck the unit is equipped with. Allows on the fly creation of missing classes that could be important to the mission. Such as a miner ruck with a mine showing, or a radio ruck.
* Healer - Existing, is the unit able to heal? Aka attendant.
* Miner - Existing, can the unit disarm mines?
* Hide - Existing, can the unit hide bodies?
* Obs - New, is the unit an observer, like an FO or FAC? Gives him access to special scripts.
* SL - New, is the unit a squad leader? Gives him option to automatically dissolve squad into fireteams. Using createTeam (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/createTeam).
* TL - New, is the unit a team leader? If squad is dissolved, he will be the new leader of the fireteam. Using createTeam (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/createTeam).

* Updated multiline EOL capable script editor, with line numbers, monotype font, bracket matching and syntax highlighting.
* The possibility to expand the script editor to cover all the lower part of the dialog.

* New control, setBMI (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setBMI_%28VBS2%29). Only for units.
* New control, setHeight (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setHeight_%28VBS2%29). Only for units.
* New controls to instantly set the vectorUp (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setVectorUp) part of an object. Only for objects.

* Just some other general rearrangements.

Think about the benefits for players new to the game. Although there will always be situations where you actually needs to script, the most typical things to do for "the new guy who will struggle like hell with scripting", is instantly available. The new guy will start to lookup the Biki, which contains a lot of useful information for the experienced scripter, but the examples will typically not work directly, as they may not be written with "copy & paste into editor" in mind.

BMI and height would allow the creator to setup a mission where the individual unit is easier to recognize, something that is very hard to do only by face. These are VBS2 commands (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Category:Scripting_Commands_VBS2) though, so it is highly unlikely that we will ever see these :)

Elevation contains an instant setPos select 2 without any need of scripting knowledge.

Well... That's my dream anyway... Or at least a highly simplified version of it...
Absolutely Awesome! Yeahh that would be amazing, now with backpacks,etc...
But for "healer" and "miner" to be selectable, Configs must be able to change on the fly from within game.....
I hope Suma read this an watches your Picture, its really great!
Man, i like this so much that i've made a ticket for it.... maybe you can put it in your Signature so people noticed it better :p
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/10757

[CarlGustaffa]

Well, I don't use/show signatures, so... :) Glad you like it. Now, this is naturally kept within the current paradigm of how the editor "works". My "advanced" version completely replaces the paradigm, and may not be so easy for devs to "just improve". Meaning, it's not an improvement on the current editor, rather a pretty full replacement. But for now, an improvement such as this would be a very nice first step.

The idea about "new classes" would be that they was instantly saved to the missions description.ext, rather than having to rely on addons.

The "initialization script box" could also be further enhanced. Make it tabbable (or different buttons), with tabs/buttons like "Initialization" (what you see in the example), "Script" (with default [editable] null handle and parameters, where you can edit the script called directly in the editor), and "Resource browser" (where you can show pictures contained in addons/configs and grab their paths etc).

[SkyDice]

Think about the benefits for players new to the game. Although there will always be situations where you actually needs to script, the most typical things to do for "the new guy who will struggle like hell with scripting", is instantly available. The new guy will start to lookup the Biki, which contains a lot of useful information for the experienced scripter, but the examples will typically not work directly, as they may not be written with "copy & paste into editor" in mind.


Heartily agree. As someone new to the mission editor, I find it incredibly intimidating and not at all 'simple' as described in the dev videos. I have ARMA2 as well but avoided the ME because it was so complex and relied so heavily on manual coding. God knows what it'd be like a for a new owner who'd seen the dev diaries and thought it'd be cool to make his own mission, only to be confronted with the packaged editor and two pages (!) in the manual to 'start you off'.

If there are to be any changes to the editor, please god make some simple graphical options for stuff that everyone uses - objectives (sync to target/unit/building/etc), halo jumps & heli insertions, artillery, briefings, mission ends/starts etc. Don't force us new players to do it the hard way because most of us won't - I'm on the verge of giving up (and I've only tried to do simple stuff) because I've just spent two hours trying to make a UAV work in multiplayer, another three hours trying to work out why the amb.civ module spawns civilians in a village 5 kilometres away from the module's placement but not in the village I put the module over and another four hours searching pointlessly on the forums/guides/stickys/search/etc to be confronted with more and more walls of code I can't understand.

Mission editing should be simple to begin with. If you want to script in crazy stuff then go for it, but something as basic as a multiplayer respawn script or an objective creator should be in there already, with simple graphical options like 'enable respawns in multiplayer? Y/N' or similar. Have two layers of editing maybe, one simple, one hard (for scripters)?

At the moment, unless we have a degree in coding, most of us can't even start. From a company with such an obvious pedigree, it's a shame that one of the most important parts of their games is so impenetrable, and therefore effectively useless to all but a select few. :mad:

[Jelliz]

Silent waypoints:

Hope i am not the only one that has a problem with this. To let a AI-team move around a mountain, you need to use several waypoints to get them around it, instead of over it. Now if the team contains the player, he will be spammed with "ALL, move to that position" for each single waypoint while moving around the mountain.

Now, my suggestion is:

Whenever a team with assigned waypoints has an AI leader, we should be able to give silent/hidden waypoints which only the AI leader can see and follow, while the rest of the group follows in formation behind the leader. All that the rest of the team is seeing, is the next waypoint behind the mountain. This way the player will avoid being radio spammed for each waypoint.

Paint examples:

Mountain example with only one waypoint:
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/5691/scenario1.jpg (http://img828.imageshack.us/i/scenario1.jpg/)
Note that the group will now move directly over the mountain or hill or whatever.

Now with several waypoints to guide the team around:
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3516/scenario2.jpg (http://img534.imageshack.us/i/scenario2.jpg/)
This is where the radiospam-magic happens.

With hidden waypoints(blue):
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3849/scenario3.jpg (http://img266.imageshack.us/i/scenario3.jpg/)

Note that with each blue waypoint here, the leader will go to the next waypoint without issuing "move to xxx" orders, the only order regarding movement the player will hear, is the first "move to enemy position", and it is the only one the player will see.

This will also be useful with guiding AI-led teams through the narrow valleys of Takistan.

[danny96]

Agree with the suggestions :) it would be BEST for ARMA II!!!

[RaZoR1472]

Not sure if this has already been said but i think there needs to be a much easier way of adding a briefing and mission objectives to your mission for the beginner editors (like me).
Just like how you see the official missions in the scenarios section (picture, description).

In the editor where you select the weather and so on there should be a section of create briefing, upload mission image, write mission description. You should be able to place an objective on the map and then sync it to a unit.

There should be an option when you open the editor which says create campaign or create mission so when you save the missions, they all go in a folder under scenarios and they are all automatically linked together.

This would make mission creation a lot easier without the use of 3rd party addons.

[CarlGustaffa]

@<hidden>: There is a nasty workaround for this, but require a bit more "double waypoints" and actual cfgIdentities. Create double identities and use speaker = "NoVoice"; then just change appropriately with setIdentity. It can get messy though, trust me...

It would be so much simpler if we had commands like setSpeaker, setGlasses (and setName and setPitch as well?). SetSpeaker would be very helpful in this instance, and setGlasses would be very helpful in multiplayer for custom "face stuff" that we get in ACE (using identities in MP is NOT a good approach since players will have their own, but no means of overriding certain parts of it).

[Hellhound]

I think the hidden waypoints is a great feature, just make in the waypoint drop down box an extra option called "Move (Silent)" and a different color or dotted effect, shouldn't be too hard i imagine.

[Spooky Lynx]

I hope that finally one serious change in game editor will be made: player will be able to choose fraction of unit at first and then side he wants to this fraction (player, enemy, friendly, neutral). So fractions and sides won't be connected anymore.

[Monotone]

Editor should be able to dealing multiple units at once.
Grouping,syncronizing,change class/state,add a script line in init box and so on...

[SPEKTRE76]

It should also let you assign weaponry to AI and to player class. I'd also like to see patrol paths implemented as well. For example a sentry can walk a predefined path until provoked or suspicious of activity.

[swissMAG]

It should also let you assign weaponry to AI and to player class. I'd also like to see patrol paths implemented as well. For example a sentry can walk a predefined path until provoked or suspicious of activity.

For the Weapon part, use this in the INIT of the Unit

removeallweapons this;
this addweapon "ClassnameofWeapon";
this addmagazin ["Classname of Magazine", "Classname of Magazine"];
So you can fill up the gear of of the player.

For define a path for patroling, just set a linked group somewhere and add some waypoint. set their behavior to carefull and let them walk normaly.

Should do the trick... no bit interfaces for this stuff needed...

[SPEKTRE76]

Hey thankyou! I am going to try that out rightnow. I just made my own night mission with Delta Forces Rangers. I put myself up against Taki SpecFor. It was us 6 against 24. I lost =o(. An enemy got me from a roof top.

[swissMAG]

If you using Arma2 without ACE, here are all the classnames of Vanilla Combined Operations
BIS Forum Classnames (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73241)

If you now have successfully installed ACE, you can google ACE WAGN and there you will find the complete Classlist available online too. Cya soon

[GadgetUK]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but there are 19 pages full of suggestions for me to read through.

My suggestion is: When selection an entire group to move it on the map, it also moves the waypoints. Can you make it so that moving the group ONLY moves the group please; the waypoints should remain seperate.

---------- Post added at 02:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 AM ----------

Some of the static weapons only come with one magazine by default. Can you make it so all static weapons come with at least 4 magazines by default.

I know we can add more magazines with scripting, but why should we need to?

[Trips]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but there are 19 pages full of suggestions for me to read through.

My suggestion is: When selection an entire group to move it on the map, it also moves the waypoints. Can you make it so that moving the group ONLY moves the group please; the waypoints should remain seperate.



Click on the map to deselect everything
Drag a box around your group
Drag the group


Should work fine.

[Strykeeer]

Customizing unit's weapons & ammunitions feature missed in unit editor. Yes, writing some scriptlines for newfag is really uncomfortable, when you just want to create simple mission but with custom-armed unit. Sad.

[snoops_213]

Please add a LAND and a REARM wp! Rearming is fucking terrible and this might be a start to improve vehicle rearming. And like everyone else being able to customize units in editor please. i know i have custom units that do this but still pain in the arse(as well as getting old and lazy :) )

[BasileyOne]

Please add a LAND and a REARM wp! Rearming is fucking terrible and this might be a start to improve vehicle rearming. And like everyone else being able to customize units in editor please. i know i have custom units that do this but still pain in the arse(as well as getting old and lazy :) )

adding "rearming servant unit" ? dedicated unarmed unit for both sides ? :)
remind me famous story about singapoore solider and his backpack, carried by his female[!!!] servant ;-)

[VISION1776]

Like a mission editor a map editor would be godlike. A fully customizable player would also be great including starting weapon with chosen attachments. As well as let you do that in the editor for any specific unit in your mission.

I should throw this out there too, there should be snow terrain. And skins to match it for all vehicles and BDUs

And please, better indoor combat. Easier to implement AI inside buildings.

[hpat]

Actualy, If we're going to go into this much depth, why not have an complete, inbuilt unit editor, like mission editor, rather than in it?