It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Often, bombers crash when landing. Does anyone know if this is intentional (for historic flavor)? Was there some high percentage of bombers that simply flew into the trees when landing? It doesn't seem to affect anything - once I escorted a flight of six Cauldrons and four crashed on landing but the debrief said that they all made it back safely.

Does anyone know how close to a target one has to be to get credit for it? I had a CAP mission, flew over the bridge for a good ten minutes, but the debrief said I failed to get to the target in the allotted time.

How does one get one's flight mates to fire their rockets? On an infantry support mission, a few minutes before time to leave, I led my flight to attack the enemy infantry. They followed me (and this is only one example of many) but didn't attack. The same often happens on aerodrome attacks - they dive (maybe) and flyover (at least they draw some of the ground fire) but don't fire rockets, drop bombs, or fire machine guns.

I have to wonder about the scoring sometimes too. Just this evening, I was on a fun mission; a real circus. Eight Nieu-11s on an attack aerodrome mission. My pilot was second in command. We jumped a flight of Rolands (one of my flight mates shot down Goering - wonder if that meant the head of the Luftwaffe in WW II was the Red Baron's nephew? He was in command of some of the larger air operations - Svestopol and Stalingrad - and was an ace late in WW-I (well by allied standards)). Anyway, we shot down nine planes as more German planes kept showing up - mainly Halb D-IIs - I hit a few hangers (nobody else fired), but we lost four scouts. Our planes were all over the place but six showed up near the aerodrome - two following me and two following the flight leader. The mission was a failure, I got some 23,000 points (a failure?), and a nice medal to boot. Seems contradictory somehow :).
This question / problem has been solved by Wailwulfimage
avatar
lordhoff: Often, bombers crash when landing. Does anyone know if this is intentional (for historic flavor)? Was there some high percentage of bombers that simply flew into the trees when landing? It doesn't seem to affect anything - once I escorted a flight of six Cauldrons and four crashed on landing but the debrief said that they all made it back safely.

Does anyone know how close to a target one has to be to get credit for it? I had a CAP mission, flew over the bridge for a good ten minutes, but the debrief said I failed to get to the target in the allotted time.

How does one get one's flight mates to fire their rockets? On an infantry support mission, a few minutes before time to leave, I led my flight to attack the enemy infantry. They followed me (and this is only one example of many) but didn't attack. The same often happens on aerodrome attacks - they dive (maybe) and flyover (at least they draw some of the ground fire) but don't fire rockets, drop bombs, or fire machine guns.

I have to wonder about the scoring sometimes too. Just this evening, I was on a fun mission; a real circus. Eight Nieu-11s on an attack aerodrome mission. My pilot was second in command. We jumped a flight of Rolands (one of my flight mates shot down Goering - wonder if that meant the head of the Luftwaffe in WW II was the Red Baron's nephew? He was in command of some of the larger air operations - Svestopol and Stalingrad - and was an ace late in WW-I (well by allied standards)). Anyway, we shot down nine planes as more German planes kept showing up - mainly Halb D-IIs - I hit a few hangers (nobody else fired), but we lost four scouts. Our planes were all over the place but six showed up near the aerodrome - two following me and two following the flight leader. The mission was a failure, I got some 23,000 points (a failure?), and a nice medal to boot. Seems contradictory somehow :).
Crash landing was one common source of losses of bombers during WWI, mainly because bombers were often used at dawn dusk or even at night but certainly not to that extent.

In January 1918, out of 36 german Gotha bombers deployed for raids accross the channel, one was lost to night fighters and 4 to crashes upon landing . For the Cauldron G.4., you can find online the records of sqn C10 If you have a look at the losses, the number of accidents seems to have been fairly high, but not to the point of loosing 66% of each flight...

For wingmen, pressing "A' or "M" should order your wingmen to proceed with the attack. that's about all since there was no radio in these planes
Post edited March 05, 2011 by Phc7006
The bombers do seem to crash alot in RB3D, but it doesn't seem to effect the game that much. I would say it is because the AI was programmed for fighters, not bombers.

As to rockets, I have only seen AI use them against balloons, never ground targets. I once saw a line of 5 Nieuports go after a balloon and all fire at nearly the same time. With them in line meant three of them went down to friendly fire, but they did get the balloon.

But you are saying they do not even fire which is interesting. Is this stock or mod? If I remember right you fly Hells Angels mod. Try a campaign mission on stock RB3d taking place with the same squad at the same timeframe and see if your AI mates fire at the enemy. If they do, then it must be the mod that is causing the problem. Best place to go is SWWISA.net
http://www.swwisa.net/
avatar
Phc7006: For wingmen, pressing "A' or "M" should order your wingmen to proceed with the attack. that's about all since there was no radio in these planes
I believe those are Red Baron 1 commands and I think lordhoff is talking about the HASP mod in Red Baron 3D ... unless one of the mods put wingmen commands back in? I did like that Red Baron1 had the simple wingman commands.
avatar
Wailwulf: The bombers do seem to crash alot in RB3D, but it doesn't seem to effect the game that much. I would say it is because the AI was programmed for fighters, not bombers.

As to rockets, I have only seen AI use them against balloons, never ground targets. I once saw a line of 5 Nieuports go after a balloon and all fire at nearly the same time. With them in line meant three of them went down to friendly fire, but they did get the balloon.

But you are saying they do not even fire which is interesting. Is this stock or mod? If I remember right you fly Hells Angels mod. Try a campaign mission on stock RB3d taking place with the same squad at the same timeframe and see if your AI mates fire at the enemy. If they do, then it must be the mod that is causing the problem. Best place to go is SWWISA.net
http://www.swwisa.net/
Yes, I did forget to mention that I am using HASP SP3.

They do fire rockets at balloons and on balloon attack missions. I've flown mainly German aircraft in the past - they use their incendiary shelled machine guns on the attacks and usually contribute and, when equipped, many drop bombs on infantry attacks. I'm flying French planes now - the Morraines attacked aerodromes and infantry (with machine guns) but the Nieu-11s just do a fly by. I think part of the problem is that some of the missions are a mission without a mission (Infantry support, attack support, etc). Even if left entirely to the AI, now attacks against infantry targets don't happen (for Germans too). They were probably programed to attack units in no-man's land and now none exist. Also, I've noticed that if a mission gets distracted, ie, an aerodrome attack goes after a flight of bombers, they then just do a fly by (sometimes at much higher altitude then poor old me making the attack :) . Yeah, "A" in RB3d just releases the autopilot if it is on and "M" targets members of the flight.

It would be cool to see a RB3d2 - lots of quirks like flight mates crashing/landing behind enemy lines then showing up at the debrief. Ain't gonna happen, though. Modern graphics, more realistic flight models, etc but, I suppose, if it were done, it would be like "The Battle of Britain" where you are requested to send in your computer specifics so the producer can tell you that you need a supercomputer so don't buy it.
avatar
lordhoff: It would be cool to see a RB3d2 - lots of quirks like flight mates crashing/landing behind enemy lines then showing up at the debrief. Ain't gonna happen, though. Modern graphics, more realistic flight models, etc
I think the Redux project is working on doing exactly that ... I met a guy on the Freespace forums asking for people with experience in OpenGL programming to update RB3D's graphics engine so that they would completely negate the need for Voodoo wrappers. It would be a lot like the Freespace SCP (which doesn't need a supercomputer to run the improved version) for Red Baron 3D - with an eventual eye to improving the source code in many of the categories. Wailwulf can probably comment with more detail since I think he is a member of that team. :)
avatar
lordhoff: It would be cool to see a RB3d2 - lots of quirks like flight mates crashing/landing behind enemy lines then showing up at the debrief. Ain't gonna happen, though. Modern graphics, more realistic flight models, etc
avatar
crazy_dave: I think the Redux project is working on doing exactly that ... I met a guy on the Freespace forums asking for people with experience in OpenGL programming to update RB3D's graphics engine so that they would completely negate the need for Voodoo wrappers. It would be a lot like the Freespace SCP (which doesn't need a supercomputer to run the improved version) for Red Baron 3D - with an eventual eye to improving the source code in many of the categories. Wailwulf can probably comment with more detail since I think he is a member of that team. :)
Well now, that's great to hear! The Redux project sounds familiar but its just a name to me; maybe something about it dying on the vine then some people returned and revitalized it? Eh, I'm probably way off - my memory is about as clear as diesel smoke.

Guess I should pick a best answer now - hard when there are several equal. Any suggestions?
avatar
lordhoff: Well now, that's great to hear! The Redux project sounds familiar but its just a name to me; maybe something about it dying on the vine then some people returned and revitalized it? Eh, I'm probably way off - my memory is about as clear as diesel smoke.

Guess I should pick a best answer now - hard when there are several equal. Any suggestions?
I think they're still up and running - again the website lists Wailwulf as a member so he could probably be more definite, but the website is here:

http://redbaron3dofficialsite.com/

As for best answer, while I won't say no to rep points, I think as to your original queries, Phc7006 and Wailwulf probably gave better answers. :)
"Dying on the vine," not really. Redux was very noticeable while putting the flight model together. Once that was finished, Redux has gone quieter. I joined after the FM was mostly finished to help with the terrain. There has been alot of internal working after the public testing of the FM.

Right now, the three biggest things Redux is working on getting fixed is, one porting the game to OpenGL, getting rid of the Flamer bug in MP, and allowing two seaters with AI gunners in MP.

We have done some things that have pushed RB3D farther then it has ever been, but if we can get it to use OpenGL over glide and direct draw, we are not sure how far it can be pushed.
avatar
Wailwulf: "Dying on the vine," not really. Redux was very noticeable while putting the flight model together. Once that was finished, Redux has gone quieter. I joined after the FM was mostly finished to help with the terrain. There has been alot of internal working after the public testing of the FM.

Right now, the three biggest things Redux is working on getting fixed is, one porting the game to OpenGL, getting rid of the Flamer bug in MP, and allowing two seaters with AI gunners in MP.

We have done some things that have pushed RB3D farther then it has ever been, but if we can get it to use OpenGL over glide and direct draw, we are not sure how far it can be pushed.
Does that mean that in MP' it has generally been just scout vs scout? No AI flying at all (at least more then a drone to attack)? Seems, well, weak. I think people who play MP will thank you guys greatly if that can be pulled off.
avatar
Wailwulf: "Dying on the vine," not really. Redux was very noticeable while putting the flight model together. Once that was finished, Redux has gone quieter. I joined after the FM was mostly finished to help with the terrain. There has been alot of internal working after the public testing of the FM.

Right now, the three biggest things Redux is working on getting fixed is, one porting the game to OpenGL, getting rid of the Flamer bug in MP, and allowing two seaters with AI gunners in MP.

We have done some things that have pushed RB3D farther then it has ever been, but if we can get it to use OpenGL over glide and direct draw, we are not sure how far it can be pushed.
avatar
lordhoff: Does that mean that in MP' it has generally been just scout vs scout? No AI flying at all (at least more then a drone to attack)? Seems, well, weak. I think people who play MP will thank you guys greatly if that can be pulled off.
Yes, MP is scout vs. scouts. The tourneys we have done in the past with stock planes is the older planes are used as bombers. Example, if the N17 is the main scout fighter, the Morane Bullet would be used as a bomber.

For the Cold War MP Mod, we actually had bombers with rear gunners. How the rear gunners worked was a gun was positioned three hundred feet behind them and would fire just above the bomber, so it would be good to protect your direct six. Some bomber pilots got pretty good at fighting that way, but I was never one of them.

Some of the bombers in Cold War were great, but the Gotha's never had a damage state so they were funny as they would smash into the ground and stay completely together. I loved the SPAD for the FM was not quite right and it made a good solid turn fighter. :)