Time Acceleration in SP Scripted Campaigns

[ACG_Dunkz]

I don't understand why the Time Acceleration function does not work.  Please can you explain why?  Or is there some way to activate it?

 

I like the scripted campaigns but having to spend 20+ minutes flying to target is extremely laborious and puts me off from buying any of the other campaigns.

 

Even if the Time Acceleration would work for the first couple of waypoints it would be fantastic.

[LukeFF]

Time acceleration does work in scripted campaigns, but how effective it is is largely dependent on how many air and ground objects are in any given mission. 

[ACG_Dunkz]

ok thanks for confirming.  In that case, assuming the problem is the game engine, it would be great if it was possible to add the option to choose to start the campaign mission from a particular waypoint en route to target.  that way no need to stress the game engine with time acceleration you could just choose to start the mission alot closer to the target area.  I hope devs are considering this for a future update.

[FoxbatRU]

45 минут назад, LukeFF сказал:

Time acceleration does work in scripted campaigns, but how effective it is is largely dependent on how many air and ground objects are in any given mission. 

And the performance per CPU core to the player.

[Jaegermeister]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:44 AM, ACG_DunkzGM said:

ok thanks for confirming.  In that case, assuming the problem is the game engine, it would be great if it was possible to add the option to choose to start the campaign mission from a particular waypoint en route to target.  that way no need to stress the game engine with time acceleration you could just choose to start the mission alot closer to the target area.  I hope devs are considering this for a future update.

 

No, that is not possible in a Single Player Scripted Campaign. As the name implies, "Scripted" means that there is only 1 option for how the mission is started.

 

As has been mentioned frequently in other threads recently, if you skipped part of a mission you would miss various triggers that activate other events later in the mission. They are not always activated or triggered by the previous waypoint. As a matter of fact, triggering events with a waypoint linked to the player doesn't work all the time because players sometimes do not follow the "suggested" map route. The option doesn't exist anyway so it's a moot point.

 

It would be possible for campaign authors to script their missions with an air start close to the combat area, but I personally would not do that. You might as well just set up an AQMB mission. It sounds to me like you simply need to look for campaigns with short flight times. There are some available.

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Jaegermeister

[Gambit21]

On 8/9/2023 at 8:25 AM, LukeFF said:

Time acceleration does work in scripted campaigns, but how effective it is is largely dependent on how many air and ground objects are in any given mission. 

 

Define "works"

I've found that in anything resembling a full mission build, you have 2X (which might just yield you 1.5X or so) and after that you can keep hitting that "increase" button to no avail. You'll get the little "4X, or 8X" indication, but the mission does not speed up.

 

If some missions you don't even get 1X due to time dilation.

 

 

 

 

 

[Juri_JS]

There are a few things mission designers can do to increase time acceleration and reduce time dilation for players with older CPUs.

 

For example in my missions I only activate larger AI plane formations and ground unit groups when they are near the player's aircraft. When the player is on the way to the target area I try to keep the number of active AI units as low as possible to allow faster time acceleration. On my rather good system this methode usually allows me to achieve full 8x acceleration on the way to the target, although people with older CPUs might only get 4x.

 

Once the target area is reached, I keep the number of AI planes that are active at the same time below 30 and only activate additional groups when a certain number of planes has been shot down or despawned. I also delete AI groups that are no longer needed once a certain distance from the player is reached by using a proximity trigger.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Juri_JS

[Gambit21]

Aye - FYI however I’ve seen heavy time dilation in my own missions utilizing extensive‘proximity activate/deactivate or spawn/deactivate logic as well. 
 

I’ve seen a mission operating with no TD, then adding ONE more aircraft attacking ground targets - suddenly massive TD. It’s insidious and unpredictable. 
 

I think @Jaegermeister mentioned something a while back about the under the hood logic problem of inactive units clogging zone triggers o some such being dealt with. Ring a bell Jay?

 

 

[Jaegermeister]

Without quoting above, Juri is right about those things you can do to reduce the time dilation and help increase time acceleration, BUT with as few as 4 planes in a flight active and every other linked object either deleted or not activated yet, the most I have seen recently is true 2x speed measured with the in game cockpit clock compared to my iPhone stopwatch. Actually something like 1 minute in game for 28 seconds in real life. Changing to 4x and 8x acceleration did not make the cockpit second hand spin any faster. With more like 8 or 12 linked objects active which is fairly common, I can only get about 1.5x time acceleration max. I have what I would consider a mid range system with now 3 generation old graphics (1080ish) and CPU and running VR. Most of BlackSix's missions are barely playable for me and I usually try to keep a few less active objects than that.

 

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I think @Jaegermeister mentioned something a while back about the under the hood logic problem of inactive units clogging zone triggers o some such being dealt with. Ring a bell Jay?

 

You are correct, what I mentioned was that the game keeps track of all deactivated linked objects just as though they were active and they reduce time acceleration and add to time dilation just like an active object would. I don't think that will be changed in any way with this game engine. I have not been able to detect any difference with lots of checkzones active so I use a lot of those for everything to activate, deactivate or delete them outside of about 10,000 meters from the player. 

[Juri_JS]

5 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

BUT with as few as 4 planes in a flight active and every other linked object either deleted or not activated yet, the most I have seen recently is true 2x speed measured with the in game cockpit clock compared to my iPhone stopwatch.

I've no problems to get something close to 8x acceleration under these circumstances. As far as I can tell the CPU makes a huge difference. At the moment I have a i9-11900KF. With the mid range CPU I had in the past it was impossible to achieve this and I also had problems in BlackSix missions.

[Jaegermeister]

9 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

I've no problems to get something close to 8x acceleration under these circumstances. As far as I can tell the CPU makes a huge difference. At the moment I have a i9-11900KF. With the mid range CPU I had in the past it was impossible to achieve this and I also had problems in BlackSix missions.

That’s what I figured. I’m not sure how much longer I can go before I have to build a new sim computer. 

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

I've no problems to get something close to 8x acceleration under these circumstances. As far as I can tell the CPU makes a huge difference. At the moment I have a i9-11900KF. With the mid range CPU I had in the past it was impossible to achieve this and I also had problems in BlackSix missions.

Good to hear - but this isn’t TD being solved, it’s finally having enough processor power to begin overcoming it to an acceptable degree.  
 

You’re having to throw massive resources to achieve a ‘normal’ baseline level of performance in missions that still have (relatively speaking) a modest number of active units. Really this should have been possible several generations of processors ago. 

 

It’s like adding another Ferrari V12 each time to gain a few kph. So while I’m glad to hear things are improving due to throwing sheer horsepower at it - imagine the performance/possible number of units, AAA, etc if the TD issue was actually remedied in the code. 
 

I’m sure improvements are forthcoming in any case down the road.

[ACG_Dunkz]

just wondering if reducing the draw distance in graphics settings helps with time acceleration?  or is there any other setting that might help?

 

I'm thinking of starting the Normandy scripted campaigns but omg i dont wanna spend hours just staring at the water

[Sandmarken]

18 minutes ago, ACG_DunkzGM said:

just wondering if reducing the draw distance in graphics settings helps with time acceleration?  or is there any other setting that might help?

 

I'm thinking of starting the Normandy scripted campaigns but omg i dont wanna spend hours just staring at the water

The normandy scripted campaigns iv played has never been houres of water. They felt the same as all other campaigns when it comes to mission lenght. Exept the first mission, the one official with the hawker typhoon has really short missions.