Patrick Wilson sent me a new version of RoFCampaign this morning: 20091102-0901_RoFCampaign.zip

If you did not download it yet then grab it here -> RoF Resources: Gameplay Enhancements

Cheers

Dart, I don't buy that...

Blowing the engine trying to match some arbitrary ground speed while heading into the wind yes... Daft but I can see it being possible...


Turning around and blowing the engine while heading downwind, while presumably under the same waypoint type, and without a possible attempt to make-up time with higher engine settings, and I cant' see it...

Sounds like goofy FM coding. You do not fly relative to the ground, but instead relative to the wind, so whatever the wind does just helps you get lost more easily and complicates/eases landing... It doesn't change rates of turn, airspeeds or propeller revolutions.

Flew my first mission in your campaign last night.

More than an hour (certainly my longest cross-country so far in RoF).

Never saw another plane (I attribute that to the random nature of the program). Stayed at 10-11,000 feet in an SE5a.

But (the important part to me) was that my two wingmen took off with the and formed up with me when I hit the 5 key and landed with me (well, one tipped over on his nose).

Some combat would have been welcome but everything I saw seemed to work just fine.

Nice!

HT

Precisely.

It's about duration of engine stress, not wind direction.

While ground speed is greater, not airspeed; unfortunately, without a replay function and full instrumentation we can't validate either way.

I have found zero change in engine RPM's when flying into, across from, or with high winds in the same settings and altitude. If it did change, it would be an FM coding issue; I simply can't replicate the supposition that wind speed has anything to do with engine RPM's.

Try it out yourself - it's an easy one to validate!

That's why I believe it didn't matter if he had turned or not; the engines would have burned out at the time mark in the mission regardless of wind. Another possibility is that the next waypoint, which was downwind, had a lower altitude. If the WP speed was greater than the max speed of the type and the AI went for it, they could easily over-rev and burn up their motors.

I may have misunderstood, but I read it that the AI planes burnt out their engines soon after the turn, I (possibly mistakenly) took this to mean that at a speed and 'duration' the player aircraft was happy flying the AI suddenly all died while running down-wind.

BTW, I'd love to test it. Send me a replacement machine that will meet the minimum requirements and I will

Still running a 1Gb, 2.4GHz single core, non NT P4, with Ti6600 AGP4x 256MB, (also insufficient usable free hard-drive space). With luck and a following wind this may change next summer, but I see no new box till then.

I think you read it the same way I did, which is why I had to check it out!

Oh, I wish I could send you my current machine (after replacing it with something beefier!).

We really need folks like you that can take a close look at FM's using a knowledgeable eye.

And we need that replay function (c'mon, 1.009!); hands free eval is the best way to watch for goofy stuff.

I was very confident that RPM's wouldn't be tied to ground speed simply because it would be the hardest way to program the FM. It's much simpler to work the FM/engine management first and then do the positioning against the ground, factoring in IAS, direction of travel, and wind. In fact, one could have two people working nearly independantly on each - so long as they spoke in the same language conventions it would be nature's own to sew them together.

Of course I could be completely wrong on how such things are coded!

Did you successfully carry AI wingmen with you? I don't doubt for a second the player aircraft is correct, but an inadvertent bug when handling some AI function is still possible.. (especially since 'bomb-less' aircraft scripts are not human flyable (my quick skim take on the 'removing bombs from AI aircraft' thread))

I do at that!

Standard AI caveats - when they're not overly smart, they're incredibly dumb.

They fly in perfect trim, but will run their engines to the point of over-rev at times. They'll walk the stall and then dive too fast and lose a wing now and then.

The bomb thing is silly. The default layout in arming planes is "full boat." If the Camel has the option of carrying four bombs in the layout, the default is four bombs, as that is the greatest munition allowed.

In the stock campaign, one has zip to say about any plane's loadout but one's own; that's why as leader you've got to tell them to get rid of them on a fighter sweep. I don't know if Patrick has cracked that nut or not in his campaign engine.

Not to play my own horn too loud, but the RoF campaign thread I'm writing in the AAR forum is truthful in the missions; it's only the stuff outside of the missions that's complete fabrication. Lots of the good and bad of AI is in there.

Now that we've managed to bump the thread by way of derailment, let's try to get it back on topic:

Is there an updated readme file to go with the updated engine?

Thanks for the update Gremlin.. any list of changes/fixes since the last?

Also, if I may make a request for future versions. It would be nice to be able to select N.17 Squadrons. They may be available for French (haven't tried), but they are not available for British. I also was unable to do Alb D.III careers.

Patrick Wilson wrote this:



Hope this helps. Had no time at all to try out RoFCampaign.