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.