Matrix Games Forums

I am allowed a vote also. Especially when the asked for feature is completely doable with existing functions.

I just want to make sure everyone knows you can do this. If you put a request in for something that already exists, someone should point that out.

Small quality-of-life suggestion: add "Go to unit in OoB" to right-click menu.

It is already possible to find a unit in the OoB with existing functions of course, but this would save some time in certain repetitive operations and IMO would make life easier sometimes.

Thanks,
P

Real Time Multiplayer would be AMAZING. Even if limited to just 2 players.

Regional weather settings that could change with time would be awesome! Or even a "download live weather" feature that took a snapshot from a database somewhere and did an approximation of weather around the globe.

A toggle for "weather overlay" might be cool.

Request: Could we get a hypothetical Chinese H-20 stealth bomber?

As always, absolutely LOVE this program. Thanks again to everyone on the team! [:D]

Some QoL improvement requests. First is the ability to highlight units from the target list. Some scenario designers name individual units, while others do not. This can make it tricky when one wants to remove a particular unit from the strike.

For Example :



Adding something like the "Highlight and Center" button as in the Reference Point Selector from the Patrol Mission interface would be excellent.



Second one, piers have the effective area highlighted to show the applicable area. When you change the rotation of the facility it is very easy to visualize. Could the same be done for runways?



When either striking runways or placing them, this would be nice to get an easier visual of where to send the strikers.



It does display the degree, but a visual would be helpful.

Request ability to control height and speed of refuel operations. At the moment it seems set to loiter and 36kft by default, which can waste fuel on long distance refuels, especially when the receiver will be forced below the 36kft cutoff to the next higher fuel consumption level.

Thanks,
P

**edit**
Have figured out you can alter altitude, and Im guessing refueling at loiter is intentional, perhaps finding the basket at Mach 0.8 isnt so desirable.

Request: When a Strike mission is created in the mission editor and aircraft assigned, the legs and draggable waypoints be immediately available even if the mission is tasked to happen later.

This would be useful for planning it out, e.g. entering distance/airspeed data in a spreadsheet to get the timing right, particularly if it's to be synchronised with other missions.

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

Request: When a Strike mission is created in the mission editor and aircraft assigned, the legs and draggable waypoints be immediately available even if the mission is tasked to happen later.

This would be useful for planning it out, e.g. entering distance/airspeed data in a spreadsheet to get the timing right, particularly if it's to be synchronised with other missions.

This would be useful for planning it out, e.g. entering distance/airspeed data in a spreadsheet to get the timing right, particularly if it's to be synchronised with other missions.

Be patient [;)][;)][;)]

ORIGINAL: eleos
Be patient [;)][;)][;)]

Ah, OK! [:)][:)][:)]

Bullseye developpers, bullseye![&o]

Suggestion - embed trigger-event functionality from the event handling system into the mission editor, so that mission-active and mission-inactive triggers can be applied easily on a per-mission basis, without needing a seperate event to be created to either/both activate and/or deactivate a mission. Perhaps a seperate tab (where for example, the tabs for strike aircraft and escorts would be) with an "create trigger" button for ON trigger and OFF trigger, which accesses the usual trigger-creation wizard - or allow you to choose an already created trigger. This would be mainly useful in creating enemy AI. All of this is already possible of course, but this may save many steps in controlling missions more finely and reduce clutter in the event handling system allowing easier management.

**edit**

Suggestion - add "AND/OR" toggle to event trigger selection box, ie: "OR" would equal current mechanism, any selected trigger fired, triggers the action. "AND" would require all selected triggers to have fired before the action is triggered.
This would remove the need to create sides and associated score events in the scenario to act as "counters" in many situations, and simplifies the event structure for other types of activity, removing the need for conditions in many cases.

**edit 05/05/2021**

Small QoL suggestion - default the Air Ops screen to all wings collapsed on opening a new window, rather than the topmost wing expanded.

Thanks,
P

Suggestion - In campaign mode, when advancing from one scenario to another, also add a "End Checkpoint" save of the previous scenario so that, if the succeeding scenario is updated (as a couple of Kashmir Fire scenarios were in a hotfix), one doesn't have to either remember to save before advancing or play through the entirety of the previous scenario to play an updated scenario in campaign mode.

Edit - Either that or change the "checkpoint" system to load the scenario file instead of a save file.

Suggestion: It should be possible to micromanage a unit assigned to a mission. Current behaviour is if a unit is assigned to mission and it is engaged in a fight the computer overrides the manually set course, speed and altitude. So it is actually not possible to micromanage a unit that is assigned to a mission in a fight. Even the Flag "automatic evasion" set to no and "ignore plotted course" to No doesn't change this behaviour.

Thank you very much for consider changing this behaviour. It would allow to micromanage a unit while fighting and then after the fight the unit can continue the mission.

ORIGINAL: morphin

Suggestion: It should be possible to micromanage a unit assigned to a mission. Current behaviour is if a unit is assigned to mission and it is engaged in a fight the computer overrides the manually set course, speed and altitude. So it is actually not possible to micromanage a unit that is assigned to a mission in a fight. Even the Flag "automatic evasion" set to no and "ignore plotted course" to No doesn't change this behaviour.

Thank you very much for consider changing this behaviour. It would allow to micromanage a unit while fighting and then after the fight the unit can continue the mission.

So you actually want your pilots to be suicidal idiots?

Suggestion - Add a 'minimum altitude' setting to mission editor altitude settings area.
For instance if I set a AAW patrol enagagement altitude bands to minimum 6000 feet then the AAW patrol/escort will not let itself get dragged into a dogfight below that altitude where it would most likely lose. It will maintain altitude advantage.

ORIGINAL: SkyhawkSG1

ORIGINAL: morphin

Suggestion: It should be possible to micromanage a unit assigned to a mission. Current behaviour is if a unit is assigned to mission and it is engaged in a fight the computer overrides the manually set course, speed and altitude. So it is actually not possible to micromanage a unit that is assigned to a mission in a fight. Even the Flag "automatic evasion" set to no and "ignore plotted course" to No doesn't change this behaviour.

Thank you very much for consider changing this behaviour. It would allow to micromanage a unit while fighting and then after the fight the unit can continue the mission.

So you actually want your pilots to be suicidal idiots?

??? I don't unterstand, but if you don't micromanage the current code is that if you set speed to afterburner, altitude to minimum and course to hide behind a mountain then the AI automatic set altitude to 36000, speed to cruise and direction against incoming missile so for me that is a sucidal reaction of the AI (If it is assigned to a mission). Much better to micrmanage the AC, but unfortunately you can not use the big advantage of using misisons to simply routine task with micromanage fights. You have to unassign for fighting.... That is a real drackback for this people who would like to micromanage the fights

Quality of life suggestion. Ability to make the cone for ports smaller to better fit bases located on rivers inland from shore, could also be used to simulate rivers or canals where the real altitude above sea level does not allow passage.

It would be nice if when you select a unit in the import unit dialog, it would appear ghosted on the map. The idea is it would save you adding all units and going through deletion steps in the case that you didn't really know the position of all units or bases for a scenario and didn't need them all. Example: I am building a Poland scenario and don't really know airbase positions from memory. I add them all and then have to go through delete the bases I don't need. This is definitely a nice to have kind of request. Just saves editors a few steps.

Mike

It would be great if there was a UI method to ready aircraft before the scenario start, so they are ready at scenario start. The idea is that players can set their initial loadouts without the loadout time penalty under the assumption that they made this decision before the scenario start.

This could be done in scenario edit since day one and lua since the functions became available, but it's a common enough thing to maybe ask for a UI implementation.

Mike

LUA: ScenEdit_GetEMCON() to similarly match ScenEdit_SetEMCON();
Suggest returning a table of: At present one can not query the current state of EMCON on a unit or upper level doctrine (outside of obeyEMCON at the unit leve), one can set it of course but not get the state before changes are made, which prevents restoration of a prior state at a later time, or knowing if a change is even necessary.

ORIGINAL: BDukes

It would be great if there was a UI method to ready aircraft before the scenario start, so they are ready at scenario start. The idea is that players can set their initial loadouts without the loadout time penalty under the assumption that they made this decision before the scenario start.

This could be done in scenario edit since day one and lua since the functions became available, but it's a common enough thing to maybe ask for a UI implementation.

Mike

I second this. I've seen a couple scenarios that build in extra time to allow the player to choose the loadouts, and while it's a solution that is probably "good enough," it's a tad bit suboptimal.