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.