Moderator: MOD_Command
ORIGINAL: VFA41_Lion
I know its incredibly complex down under the hood (i've seen some screenshots from emsoy on his database works which probably doesnt come close to scratching the surface). I was just trying to make a point that Command is not a 'mostly' airplane combat game.
ORIGINAL: BDukes
Mr. Dimitris
If its true we can do all of this already in the game. Why do we need the advanced planner?
Actually I think we're pretty consistent. More importantly, we're being brutally honest to our customers: It's a very difficult undertaking, and we have to walk a very fine line between implementing core functionality and cutting out (or pushing back for v2, v3 etc.) requests that may sound nice but would add significantly to complexity and dev time (and UI confusion).Very confusing signals coming from all of you. Your posts have a lot of "we're doing this but it's hard" or "may be difficult to use or will require many hours to learn how to use". Do you understand a reader's perspective when they see this coming from the developer?
Maybe, maybe not. Part of the design process is consolidating all the "must haves" into a system as simple as possible (but not simpler, to misquote Einstein), and then trying to also graft additional wishlist items without making it into a steampunk's dream. That means a lot of the nice-to-haves may end up on the cutting room floor, at least initially. C'est la vie.I'm worried this is going to be another screen full of buttons and learning a very complex interface for not much gain.
This is part of why Ragnar is considering the concept of a DLC structure. This would enable folks who do require the new functionality to pay for it, while users who don't care about it don't pay for it and it stays completely out of their UI flow. So far the reception to this concept appears positive.I support you guys but this seems almost like somebody's pet project that ran away. You have a few flight sim nerds on board but not sure they know much about how games appeal to normal people. I know I can choose not to buy it but I would really like to.
ORIGINAL: Cik
push
loiter at specific area until package arrives- once package arrives depart as a group towards next steerpoint
ORIGINAL: Cik
split
diverge from package and return to base and/or hit a tanker and/or move to next push point to meet next package
ORIGINAL: Cik
switch EMCON state
self explanatory
go to tanker (with same settings as normal proceed to tanker order)
should be settable for package, escorts only, strikers only, specific groups etc.
attack TOO (some sort of freeform search and destroy option would be good)
attack while moving from steer to steer, in a specific area, against specific targets with specific weapons ideally etc
change altitude/airspeed
fly angle-off to target(s)
to allow flying notches or beams or for use of specific ISR sensors like SLAR(s) or ELINT sensors.
ORIGINAL: Cik
jettison weapons/fuel tanks
would be real nice to have when planning strikes where agility will be good to have :^)
BOL (decoys)
would be great so you don't have to micro MALD/ITALD
BOL (attack specific coordinate)
would be nice for attacking known positions, carpeting areas with cluster munitions, or for use with ARM weapons for SAM suppression.
ORIGINAL: BDukes
Ok. Sounds cool but a little hesitant when you say its a lot of work. Do you have picture?
ORIGINAL: butch4343
ORIGINAL: emsoy
Okay how about this...
In order to be releasable within a reasonable time frame, Advanced Mission Planner (aka AMP) v1.0 could include:
Editable flightplans: pre-take-off route planning (move, insert, delete waypoints), waypoint speed/altitude, waypoint doctrine and refueling settings
Configurable Time-On-Target (ToT) or Time-On-Station
Strike packages
The AMP v1.0 will NOT be a hands off 'one click does it all' mission tool. In fact, realistically, such a feature will probably never materialize. Simply too much work.
And it will not have detailed weapon allocation and cruise missile planning. That alone could add years to the development schedule.
It will also be a paid add-on. Given the massive time and effort that would go into this, it might in fact be a premium price product.
So it would basically give you this:
Will that work for everyone?
Thanks
Emsoy,
This looks fantastic in terms of additional features for the advanced strike planner, could I ask as a scenario designer, that this be used with the scenario editior?
ORIGINAL: butch4343
For me the strike planner is about creating a scenario where I can have my flight of Fencers/ Eagles/ Badgers Ect, fly a profile of my choosing, Ie to waypoint 1 fly at 25000ft at cruise, Waypoint 2 drop to 250 feet at afterburner.
If you give me that, it means I can choose very specific profiles, because with the best will in the world you guys cant create profiles (Hi-Lo-Hi, Lo-Lo-Lo) for every eventuality.
Its important for scenario designers to manually set strike mission parameters for the AI to execute.
Yours Respectfully
Butch
ORIGINAL: Dimitris
ORIGINAL: VFA41_Lion
I know its incredibly complex down under the hood (i've seen some screenshots from emsoy on his database works which probably doesnt come close to scratching the surface). I was just trying to make a point that Command is not a 'mostly' airplane combat game.
Then say exactly that. There's no point in describing combat as "just a couple of dice rolls". I'm sure you understand why that can be annoying to us.
ORIGINAL: Airborne Rifles
emsoy, if an AMP did nothing more than let a player plot waypoints for a mission, set altitude/speed/WRA/EW doctrine per waypoint, and give the player a ToT for the mission based on the player's inputs, that would be amazing. Giving a mission ToT would allow the player to decide on launch times from various mission from different airfields to achieve the effects they want. Count me in as willing to pay for this, and thanks for listening. You guys are awesome.
ORIGINAL: VFA41_Lion
ORIGINAL: Dimitris
ORIGINAL: VFA41_Lion
I know its incredibly complex down under the hood (i've seen some screenshots from emsoy on his database works which probably doesnt come close to scratching the surface). I was just trying to make a point that Command is not a 'mostly' airplane combat game.
Then say exactly that. There's no point in describing combat as "just a couple of dice rolls". I'm sure you understand why that can be annoying to us.
Well, okay. It's incredibly complex under the hood between that and what appears to the player. I'm just concerned that adding another layer of micromanagement under what already exists will be too time-consuming and an 'information overload' to actually enjoy the game. But that's just one person's opinion. :v
ORIGINAL: emsoy
ORIGINAL: BDukes
Ok. Sounds cool but a little hesitant when you say its a lot of work. Do you have picture?
Picture?
ORIGINAL: emsoy
Okay I'll post screenshots a little further down the road [8D]
ORIGINAL: DrRansom
I can image that the guy who wrote the strike planner would get poached, I wouldn't be half surprised if he got hired by the RAF to build a real strike planner.
Given what CMANO has so far, I think if anyone is going to beat it it'll be you guys.
I heard somewhere that the mission planner, which minimized radar signature over the flight path, for the F-117 was almost as critical to the programs success as the stealth itself.
ORIGINAL: BDukes
Yes if it look as good as Tornado UI screens we're fine. Its its some big screen full of button's and drop down menu's we are not fine.Support will be messy. Player->There is bug Ragnar->Please send me click through of 5 million options you may have chosen with save game. Into support vortex we go!
I do wish them luck with this challenge and look forward to seeing this. I believe in them. Probably shouldn't talk so much so early though.
ORIGINAL: apache85
ORIGINAL: BDukes
Yes if it look as good as Tornado UI screens we're fine. Its its some big screen full of button's and drop down menu's we are not fine.Support will be messy. Player->There is bug Ragnar->Please send me click through of 5 million options you may have chosen with save game. Into support vortex we go!
I do wish them luck with this challenge and look forward to seeing this. I believe in them. Probably shouldn't talk so much so early though.
This is why save files are important for bug reports, it saves the developers a lot of time and they can always ask follow-up questions if required.
If you look at the tech support threads, the ones that provide a save are solved very quickly and usually without any need for follow-up questioning, but the threads where the player doesn't provide a save take a lot of back and forth.
