Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Multi-Player Mission Development Help


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 TheBlackFalcon

TheBlackFalcon
  • Posts: 158
  • LocationMineola, NY USA

Posted 14 May 2016 - 22:04

Hello...

 

I have been working with the ROF Editor to create a multi-player mission for training purposes and I have run into an issue that I cannot seem to find any information on.

 

I have built the mission according to the tutorial for TDM Multi-Player mission development practically going on a frame-by-frame basis so I would not miss anything.

 

Everything in the mission appears to be correct.  I can create a server with it and it comes up properly with the game map and briefing page.  I can select a plane at the aerodrome that is supporting the mission and even enter the hanger to modify the plane's load-out.

 

However, when I select the "Fly" option I get the following error...

 

   #30003

   Flight Impossible: no such plane type remained on airfield

 

Does anyone know what is causing this problem.  I believe it is a parameter that is not set properly but again, I cannot find any information anywhere as to what this error is referring to.

 

I have attached the mission files if anyone cares to take a look at them.  If anyone does, they will find two planes assigned to the airfield (Boisencourt), which is incorrect since no planes are to be assigned to an airfield in a multi-player mission.  However, I thought I would give this a try after the mission failed to load into "fly mode" without them.

 

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated... Thank you...

Attached Files


  • 0

Black Falcon


#2 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 14 May 2016 - 23:47

I think the problem is that Boistrancourt is not a "real" airfield. I deleted the linked entity of Boistrancourt, added a "fakeairfield_M",renamed it to Boistrancourt, assigned the aircraft and all is fine.

Attached Files


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#3 TheBlackFalcon

TheBlackFalcon
  • Posts: 158
  • LocationMineola, NY USA

Posted 15 May 2016 - 17:29

@=HillBilly=

 

Thank you so much for your research on my mission development.

 

Interestingly enough, Boistrancourt was listed as an airfield in the objects list for airfields.  I know there are several bugs with the ROF Editor.  This was probably just one of them.

 

I will give your solution a try...

 

Thank you again...


  • 0

Black Falcon


#4 JG1_Butzzell

JG1_Butzzell
  • Posts: 1363

Posted 15 May 2016 - 19:03

S!

 

I think the historical airfields work in single player missions. For multiplayer you have to use either French Medium or German Medium.   It can make things look funny because the terrain tiles have the shadows for the historical field. If you replace Cappy North with German medium, you still see the black shadows  from the tents that were there.


  • 0

sig9.png


#5 TheBlackFalcon

TheBlackFalcon
  • Posts: 158
  • LocationMineola, NY USA

Posted 15 May 2016 - 20:27

@JG1-Butzzell

 

Thank you for your additional information.  However it appears that =HillBilly= was correct with his solution.  As soon as I changed the airfield to his suggested alternative my mission came up successfully.  To ensure that a set of hangers existed at the redefined aerodrome I just pick one from the object list and placed it nearby the corrected airfield.

 

The issue that I was having then appears to be that the aerodrome I selected originally was not configured properly in terms of the editor would accept, though it was listed an airfield object.

 

The problem with the ROF Editor is that as a software engineer I can see that it was not really designed to be used by the ROF Community but instead as a tool for the developers to create their own missions to be presented as part of the simulation package.

 

Though it has been offered to the community as an addition to the package, it is sorely lacking in refinement and as we can see, it suffers from numerous bugs and inconsistencies, not top mention a terrible interface with poor documentation.  This is all quite natural for a developer's tool that was designed to be used mostly "in house" by the development team as they would know.all the issues with the tool and the workarounds to avoid them.

 

One of the community members was interested in actually developing a more modern interface to the tool but I believe that project did not get off the ground as the current tool contains proprietary code and to date I am not aware of any API being offered for such an endeavor.

 

This is too bad as a much more intuitive tool would have easily expanded the offerings that the community could offer.

 

As a result, I have been considering devising a business plan for the ROF development team for them to consider that would allow them to return to the development of ROF without compromising their current projects.  Hopefully, they will consider it...


  • 0

Black Falcon



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users