I'm sorry but the program only works for the original version of Falcon 4.0 Alled Force - as you wrote the file .cam must have this format.
Please comments and suggestions of additional features.

Sorry for my poor English.

Piorun, your english is fine. You get your point(s) across and that is all you need. Your work is fantastic and has long been awaited by campaign editors such as myself for AF.

First suggestions then....

1. Could you make the program work (e.g., read and write changes) with both formats of the .cam file? Meaning with the AF version AND the SuperPAK 4.2 version (which is the older version)?

2. Could you make the program be able to add a new squadron to an airbase?

Right now it will only do air units and weather. But could it be expanded to place other new units such as armor, infantry, engineers, artillary, etc?

basically what I am asking for is everything the old TacEdit could do with the older versions of .cam files but with the new AF version of the .cam file we could build totally complete campaigns and not do the half-baked ones we've done in the past using SP4.2 .cam files. If it could work at placing totally new units of all types then it would not need to read and/or write both AF and older SP4.2 version of .cam file as we could just create brand new AF version when desired.

Thoughts?

Piorun

Congratulations!

Nice clean interface, easy to use. I tested on a couple of campaigns and it worked well. OOB immediately showed the redeploy. Within 2-3 hours I was getting frags out of new Airbase.

I have a campaign that I wanted to frag out of Koksan, and even though I already had the Fighter Squad moved to Koksan, OOB would not recognize my move. Nothing seemed to get OOB to co-operate for me, as all frags continued from the previous base, but I kept thinking I was close and it could somehow be done because I've seen squads move before. But you really pulled it off!

You accomplished something no-one else could do.

Well done.

Oh, thanks for sharing it.

LoD_Viper - Thank you very much for your kind words, but i don't know if deserves at this.

Ad 1. I couldn’t test of my program's with that version of the simulator because I do not have the basic version of Falcon 4.

Ad 2. Adding new objects during the campaign is probably feasible, but ...

The main reason why I created this program was the need to force the squadrons relocation closer to the front line. I think is acceptable to moving of resources during the campaign but adding a new squadron to me it smells the self deception's unless we add also something for the opponent. Unfortunately with adding the land units is a little bigger problem because they generally require specification of an exact position on the map (X, Y) but don't require assigning to the selected AirBase. In the case of naval units there still need to settings waypoints, because they can not be edited by the player during the game.

To enable fair to add reinforcements, I have to not only turn off filtering of the squadrons due to allied / hostile / neutral, but also I have to enable view of the airports both sides of the conflict. Also I have to reveal a secret of game engine's - future reinforcements are exist at a beginning of the campaign and are properly hidden - they can be seen on the sample list when filtering is turn off. This 'extra' knowledge slightly spoils the enjoyment of the game because a player has can preview future (he can predict where the reinforcements will appear).


As you can see in the picture at the airport Istrana is stationing 103th Attack Squadron in the strength of 12 aircraft, plus two additional squadrons in the strength which is labeled "??". These are the reinforcements that may occur later during the campaign.



The matter looks a bit better if you want to have a tool to create new campaigns. It might be worthwhile to working on the correct file converter (*.tac to *.cam) then will disappear a problem of creating graphic editor's (map of the site + positioning of objects),but still it won't be able to edit waypoints for naval units.

A third option would be a full external graphic editor, such as a Mission Builder AF (TacEdit) designed to create new campaign (everything except creating a new terrain files) - except for modification during the campaign which is impossible to do (I could not recognize of the files structure *.frc and *. his).

-Axe-

Remember, you do not move the squadrons too close the FLOT, because ATO maybe rollback this operation.

All preexisting flights on the ATO list, will be started from the old location, since I don't want automatically delete existings flights.

PS. I'm sorry, but Google Translator is sometimes stupid.

Piorun

I did see the rollback for a couple of my attempts to put a squad at Wonson, but enemy was close so I doubted it would work at the onset. I didn't take time to measure but they must have been closer than 20 miles. Using tasking withing the campaign, I successfully placed a squad at Koksan and it did not rollback, as it had more distance to enemy. Using the 'find' for my squad, it showed it at Koksan and it also showed up as a base to choose from at the commit to campaign screen. But it did not show as a Koksan squad in the OOB base listings. My squad still showed at old base. All future frags were tasked out of old base too. I could not overcome this.

Anyway, I like your approach to this as indicated in your response to LoD_Viper. I didn't want to add anything, just move it closer to front lines. I'm going to see if deleting preexisting flights speeds up the redeployment, but if not it's not much to worry about for me. What do find on that?

(your translator is doing a fine job)

-Axe-

Maybe try to make a save campaign then exit from game (to Windows) then restart from save. Now look at OOB.
If this does not help please send me the files cam, his, frc and saveX.cam if not original (pack to zip or rar). I can see what is wrong.

Good luck.

Piorun,

The failure I mentioned was not using your tool. It was all my independent attempts from within the sim. I hope I didn't confuse you on this. Your tool is working perfectly on moving the squads that I failed in my attempts prior to having your tool.

If you are clear on it being 'my' failures, I would like to send the file. I did make a save on those and it did not help. If so, PM me your email and I'll get it to you.

-Axe-

Symptoms of lack of coherence between OOB and Find function often seen at the sim caused by redeployment or by the action of my program. However, this phenomenon usually disappears pretty quickly itself. I think this is caused by the relatively slow refresh rate intelligence data for OOB.

PS. My e-mail address should be in my profile

Thanks for offering to look at my campaign. Perhaps you will find what stopped me.

email sent.

A follow-up regarding preexisting missions in the frag order. If you cancel or do a RTB for those missions, in other words clear the frag order, the squad will immediately redeploy to the new base.

cool...

I say it too, cool.
Thumbs up!


@piorun

Well if you did this by yourself, then I just have to congrats you, even better.
There are no much people with understanding of cam file.
Good work,

So, hehe, now wishes.
Can You include side selection for a team in your prog. (alliances, enemy, etc.... team selection/rename)
It is driving me crazy always flying for "slovenia".
I know it is not such a big deal, but, hmmm, just annoying

I have work-around that simply by unpacking wch (string file), re-editing it in txt, then re-packing it into wch, again.
I could then rename team name(s) as I want it to.
But, that is just renaming "representation" of an index team.(workaround).
With team selection/rename you could do that in the root (lower level), so no need to change "representation" (higher level,... more work).
I hope you are getting this... blink twice
If no, I'll try to explain it more.

And yes, if you listen to AXe, and make something similar to tacedit, then it will must have that option.
Then you can simply ignore this request.

Thanks, and stay cool
Cheers

P.s. There is (could be) one small problem,... We don't know how would LP react to all this..
I mean, no need to be scared or somethin'. But you/we are doing this on our own, so, no help by their side and no permission.
They could close this thread and disband all of this, but, seems unlikely, they are no those "drats" from FF forum. They are more human I would tell. We'll see.

Swieta matka, thanks Piorun. I just revisited this thread and haven't had a chance to try your utility yet, but it sure sounds like it's going to work.

Cheers!

File Campaign AF cam in basically has the structure consistent with the basic version Falcon4
http://tactical.nekromantix.com/tactical/wiki/doku.php?id=falcon4:file_formats.

In fact, this is the simple sum of several files into one large file. Component files are:

.CMP file (basic campaign information)
.OBJ file (campaign objectives list)
.OBD file (campaign objective deltas)
.UNI file (campaign units list)
.TEA file (campaign teams list)
.EVT file (campaign events list)
.POL file (campaign primary objectives list)
.PLT file (campaign pilots list)
.PST file (persistent objects list)
.WTH file (weather)
.VER file (version information)
.TE file (Victory conditions)

LP expanded internal structure with some additional fields. Analyzing the content unless I was able to recognize 80% of the major additions. Furthermore, I can unzip the cam, make a small reasonable modifications and then pack it back to the cam. Writing the code - ie the user interface is a little tedious but relatively easy to work - here, in principle, no surprises. However, changes in file contents must be very cautious, because the game can then do the CTD.

For example, even a substantial but reasonable modifications weather file (. WTH) rather never cause CTD - though sometimes you can get really wild effects on the screen.

However, burial in files CMP, OBJ, UNI may cause CTD or a total stupid game engine. All changes should be tested under different conditions which is very time consuming.

Burial in the subtitle files (strings.wch and strings.idx) is unlikely to affect the game and only changes the displayed text (warning - the index can point to some rubbish).


I don’t understand - if you want to fly on the side of Serbia, while sitting in the cockpit of F-16C?

I am in favor of flying so close to reality as possible. Therefore, I would not make unrealistic changes in the operation of the simulator.

As I said make a full graphical CampEdit / TacEdit is probably quite feasible but would require very labor intensive. If the number of active users of such a program is less than 200 then this work do not make sense. Let us not forget that the world of Falcon 4.0 AF is already in decline (and I'm sorry about that).

PS. I wonder how many people around the world use the my small CampaignEditor? - I think that only a few which makes me not too much optimism.

But I would point out that if we campaign editors had the proper tool to make NEW campaigns for new theaters then more people would fly Allied Force. It's just people have gotten tired of Korea and Balkans. You can only fly those two theaters so many times before boredom sets in.

Okay, but as I wrote the campaign graphical editor might even facilitate the construction of saveX.cam files but does not make terrain files. Painting the texture field is really terrible job (I think I'd be twins.) Without new terrain in each "new campaign" would you still flew over the old Korea or the old Balkans.
Newly developed terrains such Operation Desert Storm made by people with http://tactical.nekromantix.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=48 are in my opinion a bit boring at times (it can through the desert).

If someone could even do a beautiful terrain and created the super interesting campaign, and so most gamers would say that Falcon 4 AF has a poor graphics because only DirectX 8.1, and the shooter Xxxxxxxxxxxx is already DirectX 11 or 12. By the way the game is too hard because you have to read the manual before you start to fly. The game is hopeless because the gun deck has only 500 pieces of ammunition and how to hold the trigger for 3 seconds is no longer the shoot, etc. ...

@ Piorun
Your summary of Falcon4 above tells me that you have not been too long among the loyal and religeously committed followers of this simulation on this or perhaps any other F4 forum. And yet, with your initial few posts here, you are coming with nearly astonishing grasp an understanding of the campaign file structure enough to make "while perhaps walking in the park" working and catching interest of most of the Falconeers clear and user friendly campaign editor.

Who are you Mr. Piorun? ..... But kidding aside, indeed a great job and keep at it.

About terrain and the fact that the DX8 graphic engines are obsolete.... I just say it is true to certain degree that Falcon4 is not on the forefront of the georgeous modern flight sims, but still sadly not all of its potential has and perhaps ever would be exhausted or even explored.

About boring desert terrains.... they can be like this you know.


PS. I speak polish, so perhaps if you do not mind I could contact you PM for further exchange.

I can't speak for Piorun, but the way I took his last post, it was written to make the point that even with new campaign or terrain, a "gamer" would find other faults as well. The "gamer" would never understand what it is about Falcon that makes it what it is.

Piorun didn't say Falcon was boring, just that desert tiles were.

"The game is hopeless because the gun deck has only 500 pieces of ammunition and how to hold the trigger for 3 seconds is no longer the shoot, etc. ..."

That was funny to me, and a big clue to the intent of the post.

I could be wrong but that's how I took it. I felt he was preaching the gospel of Falcon.

Hallelujah brothers.

Thank you AXE. This is what I wanted to write but my English is very poor.

That is then very good. I guess my post has been misunderstood too. My intend was to praise accomplishement and encourage further effort in Falcon4 development nearly 10 years after inception. My shot was from upcoming mod which I am part of. Carry on and all the best.

I would like to add promptly, that I have just received and read Piorun's email he was so kind to send me. There, in the email, are very interesting comments and observations about his work and Falcon in general.
Piorun, I shall respond to your mail asap and I am glad and full of fresh enthusiasm that suddenly there is something very interesting happening in Falcon.