homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation Rise of Flight - The First Great Air War ROF Campaign Released

I also hope the new campaign isn't based on triggers...it so it would help if the triggers were kept from the player...

This is one of the biggest draw backs to First Eagles IMHO, and why it gets boring relatively quickly, i.e. the fact that all action happens at waypoint 5, so simply advance via Alt-N... A campaign needs to allow the player to lead the flight where ever he sees fit (or follow if flying as a subordinate...) AND have that sense of never knowing if/when you'll be jumped. AFAIK that can only be accomplished with having flights in the air on their own paths.

A question or two for Pat (or anyone) if it doesn't take him away from bug testing.

Sometimes I'll cycle my view through the AI flights just to see what they are up to (and if I've encountered no action, perhaps to see if hostiles are close by--I know, I know ). Anyways, sometimes the AI are in an area where I do not recognize the terrain, and I've determined that they are flying out of the area designated by the mission, sometimes quite a distance away. What is the area/range defined for AI flight paths? Has "concentrating" these paths been an issue in the past?

Also, I just transferred a pilot within the campaign to the D5/D6 Metz area, but none of the villages, towns, or airfields (other than home field at Doncourt) are populated by buildings. How is this accomplished, by some in game setting?

Thanks again

In defense of FE2, i think it does not use triggers but set-time apperance of enemies. However there are always random flights near the player allowing for surprises.. I dont find its generator much worse than Pats.

However Pats has the advantage that the main action never happens at a set waypoint, and you might not even have a flight directly opposing you.

Oh good lord. PLEASE 777, none of that nonsense!!

Well off topic but Colonel don't get me wrong, I've flown FE since the day it came out in Nov 24, 2006 and just tried a few missions this morning for old time sake. It has a special place for me and I truly enjoyed the community and being able to mod for it in a limited way. But it satisfies a completely different mindset. I started to find most of my enjoyment was flying over stuff I worked on, and then nitpicking all the incongruencies that nobody else saw, or that even cared. It was driving me crazy...

RoF, while it seems at this time to be a never ending work in progress, has filled a void in my sim needs (OK, I've had a few drinks with lunch and am waxing philosophically now...). Best leave it there... Now where'd I put'the IPA

Bandy:

I do have logic that eliminates flights that don't come anywhere near the player. However, if a single wayopint is close to a single player waypoint it might be kept, even if it does go off at a significant tangent from there.

Similarly, I do not put ground objects down that are well outside mission parameters, so if you go off flying things that you expect might not be there.

Having problems here. I go thru and set everything up and get to the screen that says accept mission. I click it and nothing happens...what am i doing wrong?

At that point the mission is generated and placed in your single mission selection. The mission naming convention is based on your virtual pilot name.

Many thanks for your reply. I may have played up my rambling habits somewhat...

The non-rendered ground objects/buildings of which I speak involve villages and airfields within easy view of home airfields (as experienced from several campaigns), please see below.
In this example I am flying out of Doncourt on the map (upper centre sector 29), yet Doncourt village just behind the airfield is not rendered, nor other airfields very close by (just by the river in image background and on the map).

Can the render distance be loosened up some? Or perhaps ideally, make this setting player accessible via the config file please? This way performance and ground object render range can scaled to suit systems/personal use. Best regards!

After 7.0 gets out I want to move much of the configuration to a flat file.

Strange as your draw distance seems to be very low...not sure mine is that low myself...I shall check it out...I have been playing QB's recently so I will tryout a campaign mission tomorrow and see if my draw distance is like that.

I don't think the mission populates airfields and villages, they should be there by default. Looks more like a drawing distance problem.

Thanks for reply Pat, and excellent news.

Colonel, read Pat's post:


My grfx settings are high (not maxed anymore post-1.016 ) but I experienced this issue pre 1.016 anyways. It is not related to object render distance because buildings are still not there even when I fly low over where they are supposed to be. Other villages/airfields along the path (such as Mars-le-tour and Puiseux on the map) are rendered at greater visual distances off the mission path than you see in the screenshot with Doncourt.

This must be the generator trying to save system resources with areas literally off the waypoint path, and those airfields and villages not rendered are 180 degrees from the path (see map) BUT unfortunately within visual distance. Though please, somebody confirm and I'll feel much better. I can email the mission as a test.

While on the subject, since there is an object render distance set anyways by the game, what resources are being spared by the mission generator cutting out buildings off the path? File size/mission load time I can understand, it can be a pain waiting. But if one has plenty of RAM there shouldn't be an in-cockpit performance issue once the file is loaded, correct? i.e. more potentially viewable buildings spread out further around the mission path cannot all be seen at once--you still have the object render distance controlling what you see by where you are. Including more buildings around the mission area only allows you to deviate more from the path and still enjoy the scenery.

And who hasn't had an A2A engagement that took them considerably off the mission path? Chasing, or being chased...

Thanks Brigstock

Bandy, I understood Pat's post to mean he's placing ground objects (MG nests and such) not as confirmation he's placing each airfield separatley.

Seriously, there is a lot logically wrong with the idea that in RoF villages, aerodromes, houses and such would be placed by the mission builder. I have never opened the mission editor so I can't say for sure, but chances are infinitly higher it is a problem with your display somewhere somehow.

To list a few reasons why your belief is illogical:

*) If aerodromes and such had to be placed by mission designer, anyone who ever makes a mission would find himself putting in 4, 6, 10 aerodromes and villages by hand, house for house?

*) All mission generators would also have to do that overhead (QMB, NeoQB campaign generator)

*) As you say yourself, drawing distance takes care of performance anyway.

*) Any flightsim I've touched in the last ten years had houses and such as part of the map (IL-2, FS9/FSX, CFS3, SF2..).

Set all detail settings to max, then try again the same mission.

has anyone got a list or map of what squadrons are based where? I am looking for squadrons closer to the front to reduce mission times.

Also, is there a guide to each of the settings in the config file? ie 'Scramble missions' is set to 0, do i just change it to 1 to allow scrambles every now and then? Is there a global setting to reduce ceiling heights for flights? They seem extremely high compared to the in-game campaigns.

Scramble Missions is a binary switch that either creates intercepts as you pass enemy airfields, or not. So yes, 1/0.

Someone over at the RoF boards made a small edit to the java core files which creates reduced ceiling height. There's a link to that edit somewhere here in the thread, but it won't be current version anymore - maybe they kept updating it, not sure.

For aerodromes close to the action, I like RAF No.46 at Le Hameau. Jasta 4 sits opposite them and is also not far from combat.

Scrambles relate to triggered enemy AI squadrons, placed along the waypoints of your flight, rather than missions for the player.
The adding of these triggered aircraft can affect FPS and mission playability on more modest systems, hence the default "off" setting.

Pat, if you are upgrading the 7.0 campaign for the just released Gotha - could you keep a copy of the squadron files for me without it, I'm in no hurry to always have the latest update.

You could maintain your own AircraftInfo.RoFCampaign file, just copy and replace the Gotha for a DFW.