Couldn't you just make some missions that let the player go up without a specified flight path and just hunt around for some enemies? I don't know exactly how the mission editing stuff works or how your campaign generator decides where enemies go and which mission to choose but I'm sure you can do it

I edited my aircraftinfo file, I'll try it today before I send my flight stick to be replaced and see if I can find anything.

I can, but I question the value. RoF is just too intensive to put boatloads of flights into the air so a lone wolf without pathing will usually end up as a joy ride.

There is a huge difference between RoF and Red Baron. In RB flights were not really loaded and operated on a much simplified AI until the player got close. This allowed RB to put many flights in the air with minimal resources - they were just a small data object moving along a path. In RoF the flights are fully loaded (models, textures, AI operating at full capacity) and doing things from the moment they are activated.

I can see how it might be difficult.

At any rate, loving it every step of the way.

Umm, maybe I'm missing something, but can't you just go off on your own anyways? I use to wander from the set flight path (within reason) with the earlier version of PW's missions, and yes, enjoyed doing so very much.

With RL in the way I haven't gotten to fly much lately, so haven't tried wandering with Pat's latest version, which relies on 'moving AI flight triggers'. Maybe going off the set path now results in no action???

May be my earlier post was missed...
But is there any chance or possibility to add a claim system in RoF Campaign?
Something similar to the OFF system...

I agree having a claim system would add some interest to the whole combat report structure, but not like OFF because their confirmation is a set percentage and so is purely random--i.e. you can fill the OFF claim report with gibberish and still get a claim confirmed. It's been done, don't believe the hype.

I suggest instead, if possible, that in addition to some random element that if your claim contains an incorrect number of aircraft claimed, or improper aircraft type (a checkbox or radio button list can be provided), that claim is automatically rejected.

Trust me, and I'm sure some of you will agree, there have been many many times that I've been involved in a complex brew-ha-ha where I had no idea whether one of my targets was knocked down or not because I had to shift to someone else. After it was all over, I have been quite surprised that my total was higher than I would have guessed.

This way it encourages you to pay more attention, and your claim is actually driven by the truth. Must run, more later...

I agree with you, about the randomness of OFF system that can be annoying many times...
But I kind of used it as an example to establish a basis of conversation.
After all, we don't even know if such feature is even feasible in RoF CG!

There is already a manual and automatic claim system. I am guessing that you would like some combination of the two where you submit a manual claim and this is somehow backed or not backed by the automated results?

I would use the following algorithm:
Player makes manual claims.
Program reads results file.
For each claim:
If player claims match automatic results claim is verified.

Only claims will count as victories: i.e. if the automatic results state that you shot down 3 and you only claim 1, then you only get 1. If you claim 2 and the automatic results state that you shot down 1 then you get 1 (if you are British you can have 1 destroyed and 1 OOC )

I would not be strict about type, as real WWI claims were notoriously off. Biplanes claimed as triplanes, two seaters claimed as scouts, you name it.

Yeah, I would be toast if I had to correctly identify Albatros types, particularly in a hectic fight. I can pick out a D.II pretty easily since they have those big radiators on the sides. But a D.II late vs. D.III vs. D.Va, I would have trouble with. Not sure it would be very easy to distinguish a Fokker D.VII from a D.VIIF either.

It would be cool to add something like this in, though, Pat. And keep the aircraft identification requirement pretty generic (shot down scout in the vicinity of X, shot down 2-seater over Y, etc.).

It sounds great!
I too agree with the lack of strictness in a/c type identification, it adds to realism also, as Pat's already noticed.
Could the possibility of a claim denial be added also, if not "witnessed" (according to the automatic result state)
by some frienly unit or squadmate, in the vicinity of the action,
in the case that the plane in question has been downed in enemy territory?
It would be great also, if the claim verification could be announced a couple of days later.
And one last thing, I prefer some kind of automatic result system for the virtual pilots along these lines as well,
(with no player's interferance).
For example you apply your claims like in manual result system.
You enter the Combat report screen and you see the claims applied by your squadmates, the losses ect,
(according to the automatic result state).
Some time later,let's say 2-5 days, in another Combat report you could get a claim verification announcement
for you or a squad mate, medals, promotions, ect.