RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests

RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios

[Poll]

RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests

See RPs and/or No nav zones and/or exclusion zones from all sides

1% (4)

Local weather fronts (non-global weather)

36% (92)

EE trigger: ID status change on contact

0% (0)

AND / OR operators on event conditions

21% (54)

Dynamic campaign (events on one scen affect the next)

24% (61)

Add Magazine

1% (4)

Lua: Join a unit to a group

0% (2)

Lua: Compel a ship to UNREP

0% (1)

UI windows for editing magazines and datalinks (like wpns / sensors)

4% (12)

Add filter-options to the "Teleport_Unit" event action

0% (0)

Make nav/exclusion zones optionally applicable to specific units

1% (4)

Persist sprint and drift settings to .inst file

0% (2)

Lua: Specify unit as escort on a mission

1% (4)

Lua: Specify desired unit speed/throttle

1% (3)

Option to scrub a No-Nav Zone if the side is human-played

0% (0)

Wrecked ships

3% (8)

Total Votes : 251

(last vote on : 2/11/2022 6:45:03 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (2/20/2016 3:31:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeSade I would love to be able to designate landed aircrafts as strike mission targets. Workaround (launching them, assigning and landing) is very cumbersome when scenario is in advanced stage. Maybe assigning targets for mission from OOB screen? As an option/alternative, possibility to define targets for strike missions by type/subtype rather then actual units. This is a work in progress

iborg -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (2/25/2016 8:38:41 PM)
I voted for AND/OR operators for triggers in the Event Editor. I have another suggestion : being able to specify a set number of units in "unit enters zone/ is destroyed/damaged" triggers. For example, setting a trigger so that when X number of a unit type are destroyed, stuff happens. The most obvious use would be to tailor AI side behavior according to losses.

dsatya -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (3/10/2016 3:57:29 AM)
hello.. will it be possible to change damage status of the unit through lua? As an example, giving status "destroyed" or "damaged" to some sensors of a ship, while overall damage of the ship itself is only 20 or 30 %. I think these would be a good addition to the scenedit scripts, lets say when you want to have "controlled" damage status of a ship caused by some explosions (nuclear maybe) in the middle of running scenario. Thanks !

ComDev -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (3/10/2016 7:17:11 AM)
We've added "Doctrine option: Ignore Bingo fuel." in v1.11 so removed from list [8D]

Primarchx -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (3/10/2016 3:42:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: emsoy We've added "Doctrine option: Ignore Bingo fuel." in v1.11 so removed from list [8D] Wow! With the tanker mission improvements this will do a lot to deconflict long-range air operations (if config'd correctly by the scen editor and/or player). Nothing worse than rolling onto a target at the bleeding edge of Bingo to have your a/c RTB because of fuel state (especially when you have tankers waiting for them on egress). This is awesome!

Dysta -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (3/31/2016 1:06:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Primarchx quote: ORIGINAL: emsoy We've added "Doctrine option: Ignore Bingo fuel." in v1.11 so removed from list [8D] Wow! With the tanker mission improvements this will do a lot to deconflict long-range air operations (if config'd correctly by the scen editor and/or player). Nothing worse than rolling onto a target at the bleeding edge of Bingo to have your a/c RTB because of fuel state (especially when you have tankers waiting for them on egress). This is awesome! Or replicating the 3-minutes-war by forcing the jet to gone afterburner full-time and kill as many as it can, before runs out and crash.

orca -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (4/13/2016 1:54:11 AM)
It would be very helpful if no-nav and exclusion zones could be made to apply to specific unit target type, subtype, class and specific unit (similar to event trigger options) instead of just aircraft, ships, subs, or land units. This would allow me to keep certain units (ie MPA) out of a certain area but allow other units (ie strike aircraft, subs, etc) to not be effected. Unless maybe there is a way to currently easily do this. The way I do it is to create a separate friendly side containing only the units I want to keep out of certain areas and create no-nav zones for that side. Not ideal but a workaround. Do others know of different ways to keep specific but not all units our of certain areas?

ExNusquam -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/8/2016 7:50:01 AM)
Can the interlock on adding facilities to water be removed when importing from an installation file? I'm trying to reimport some SCS insts I built and it looks like it will only load the ones that are on land masses (very few). I don't see big issues with this, since I don't think the elevation/terrain model is going to change soon, and if it's in an installation file, the author wanted the facility there for some reason.

Mgellis -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/27/2016 7:23:53 PM)
An idea... Would it be possible to update the Event Editor so that some of the more common lua actions are now automated/menu-based (e.g., the way teleporting a unit is) rather than code-based? Things like changing the weather, adding units, having an explosion go off at a certain location, deleting units, killing units, and anything else where it might make sense to set things up this way. You could still use the lua code if you wanted, but there would also be separate items in the Action menu that would let people do it without coding. It would just make things a little easier for scenario designers who, like myself, are a little on the coding-impaired side. [:)] Thanks for considering this.

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/28/2016 1:16:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mgellis An idea... Would it be possible to update the Event Editor so that some of the more common lua actions are now automated/menu-based (e.g., the way teleporting a unit is) rather than code-based? Things like changing the weather, adding units, having an explosion go off at a certain location, deleting units, killing units, and anything else where it might make sense to set things up this way. You could still use the lua code if you wanted, but there would also be separate items in the Action menu that would let people do it without coding. It would just make things a little easier for scenario designers who, like myself, are a little on the coding-impaired side. [:)] Thanks for considering this. The lua console has buttons. You just pick the script from the drop down, add it and then fill in the blanks. Adding a complete module to help you write this would be a large task and would defeat the point. If you need help ask on the q and a site. Lot of guys that like a coding challenge there. Mike

Kitchens Sink -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/28/2016 1:38:22 AM)
I'm not sure if this is the correct thread for this request, but I would like to see an option to "Scrub Event if Side is Human", similar to the "Scrub Mission if Side is Human" setting currently in the game for missions. This would keep some or all AI-Side Event Firings from showing up in the Message Log. I realize this can be done by Players by turning off Events in the Game Options area, but I think it's handy for scenarios where players might forget to do this. Thanks!

USSInchon -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/30/2016 12:44:28 AM)
Would it be possible to make the "ScenEdit_SetLoadout" function able to change a loadout even if the aircraft is still in the process of being readied? At present it comes back with "Aircraft is not parked, cannot change loadout!" This would make it easier to simulate maintenance periods or aircraft breaking down.

Vici Supreme -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (6/8/2016 5:06:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USSInchon Would it be possible to make the "ScenEdit_SetLoadout" function able to change a loadout even if the aircraft is still in the process of being readied? At present it comes back with "Aircraft is not parked, cannot change loadout!" This would make it easier to simulate maintenance periods or aircraft breaking down. +1

Vici Supreme -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (6/8/2016 5:12:37 PM)
Being able to re-arrange several reference points at once in the Event Editor or while setting up on No-Nav zones would literally be a game changer. [&o] [image]local://upfiles/47034/0E0FCB796E994E3D8DDDF00413BEB654.jpg[/image]

acidtekno -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (7/5/2016 7:15:19 PM)
LUA: 'wait(n seconds)' function that could be used without blocking the main thread. Ksawery

orca -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (8/27/2016 9:33:05 PM)
Can the option for unlimited ammo at bases be either: yes, no, or yes but only at selected bases. This allows more options for scenarios when base ammo details are important in some locations but would be much easier for scenario designer to have unlimited ammo at others.

orca -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (9/21/2016 7:16:36 PM)
Can the map be updated to include the reclaimed SCS islands? This has been discussed before but am reposting as it's extremely important in any SCS scenario. There is a work around by placing units on land somewhere else and the moving to the appropriate position on "water". But it's not ideal for several reasons including normally mobile land units can't move correctly on "water" which limits mobile radars and missiles. There is much information now on these islands. Google maps shows many of these including the airfields on Woody, Subi, Mischief, and Fiery Cross. When you look you realize how big they are. You can even see Flankers parked on Woody and many large ships docked at all. Here are a few interesting links: http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/chinas-artificial-islands-are-bigger-and-a-bigger-deal-than-you-think/ https://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (9/21/2016 7:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orca Can the map be updated to include the reclaimed SCS islands? This has been discussed before but am reposting as it's extremely important in any SCS scenario. There is a work around by placing units on land somewhere else and the moving to the appropriate position on "water". But it's not ideal for several reasons including normally mobile land units can't move correctly on "water" which limits mobile radars and missiles. There is much information now on these islands. Google maps shows many of these including the airfields on Woody, Subi, Mischief, and Fiery Cross. When you look you realize how big they are. You can even see Flankers parked on Woody and many large ships docked at all. Here are a few interesting links: http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/chinas-artificial-islands-are-bigger-and-a-bigger-deal-than-you-think/ https://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/ Is on our list. Probably best to see what things look like after all the terraforming going on in real life. This is a very complex task so unfortunately its not a quick add. Its on the list though already. Mike

Rory Noonan -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (2/20/2017 5:24:13 AM)
I'd love to have the following lua commands: add a side delete a side

michaelm75au -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (2/20/2017 8:13:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0 quote: ORIGINAL: USSInchon Would it be possible to make the "ScenEdit_SetLoadout" function able to change a loadout even if the aircraft is still in the process of being readied? At present it comes back with "Aircraft is not parked, cannot change loadout!" This would make it easier to simulate maintenance periods or aircraft breaking down. +1 1.11.SR7 - ScenEdit_SetLoadout() allows READYING a/c to be updated also

michaelm75au -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (2/20/2017 8:21:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink I'm not sure if this is the correct thread for this request, but I would like to see an option to "Scrub Event if Side is Human", similar to the "Scrub Mission if Side is Human" setting currently in the game for missions. This would keep some or all AI-Side Event Firings from showing up in the Message Log. I realize this can be done by Players by turning off Events in the Game Options area, but I think it's handy for scenarios where players might forget to do this. Thanks! In 1.11.SR7: Added option on Event that can controls logging to the game log; on by default, but useful for an event that fires quite often

michaelm75au -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (2/20/2017 8:24:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dsatya hello.. will it be possible to change damage status of the unit through lua? As an example, giving status "destroyed" or "damaged" to some sensors of a ship, while overall damage of the ship itself is only 20 or 30 %. I think these would be a good addition to the scenedit scripts, lets say when you want to have "controlled" damage status of a ship caused by some explosions (nuclear maybe) in the middle of running scenario. Thanks ! In 1.11.SR7: added new function ScenEdit_SetUnitDamage(table)

orca -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (2/26/2017 6:31:53 PM)
Would be nice to have a unit leaves area trigger. Also is it possible to make the text size in the event editor stay changed every time I reopen it? Currently it always defaults to 8 which is small on my monitor. thanks

Rommel76 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (3/25/2017 4:35:23 PM)
I vote for local weather fronts (non-global weather).

ExNusquam -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/8/2017 11:05:50 PM)
This is a very small request - can the "Change Database" menu be rearanged so that the most current builds of DB3k and CWDB (and soon WW2DB) are at the top of the list? There are now so many versions of DB3K you have to click at the bottom to scroll down.

Zaslon -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/9/2017 11:57:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rommel76 I vote for local weather fronts (non-global weather). Defined with points, like Missions for example. quote: ORIGINAL: ExNusquam This is a very small request - can the "Change Database" menu be rearanged so that the most current builds of DB3k and CWDB (and soon WW2DB) are at the top of the list? There are now so many versions of DB3K you have to click at the bottom to scroll down. I agree.

Norm49 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/28/2017 8:14:08 PM)
Me I went to be able to transfer ammunition with cargo plane and helicopter.

ParachuteProne -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/28/2017 9:54:01 PM)
Please add a more advanced or at least more realistic ground combat model so ground forces cannot drive through each others area of control and have a realistic attrition rate. Although I would vote for above first I would like to second SAR mentioned earlier. If a ship or plane goes down a number of rescuable targets may be left to recover.

ParachuteProne -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (5/31/2017 8:36:55 PM)
Please add expanded /more detailed /realistic ground combat

fortyporkpies -> RE: RUNNING POLL - ScenEdit requests (7/28/2017 11:02:33 PM)
Please oh please add a countdown timer. Both at the lua level, as Acidtekno mentioned earlier, a "wait(duration)" function that doesn't jam up other processes (I'd vote for that!), and at the "basic" level too, a [Time Elapsed] trigger selectable in the "create new trigger" dropdown menu. Hope that makes sense

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

1.046875