I think you have excellent company in the opinion that rook/knight and the bishop pair are of equal value - as far as I know Tarrasch frequently stated that belief.
I think the more pawns on the board and the more rigid their position (number of interlocked pawns), the better for the side with the knight. The rook is also great on an open board, but he doesn't need open diagonals, but open files, and just one, maybe two may be needed for the rook to penetrate, and rook and knight can actually combine their powers on a single square. If there are lots of interlocked pawns, chances are good one of the bishops will be "bad", as in highly hemmed in by its own pawns. On an open board, the bishops penetrate everywhere and exude greater control over the battlefield, though the rook is still a powerful foe, the knight may be too slow to be much of a help.
It's not a question to be answered definitely without a diagram. I think the rook and knight are, on average, somewhat superior, but the difference is hardly worth more than one pawn.
This is my first post, and my question has probably been asked countless times, but here goes...
I know that a single bishop is considered slightly stronger than a single knight, and that the bishop pair is significantly stronger than two knights. I also know that even though rooks are said to be worth 5 points, and minor pieces only 3 points, the exchange is generally considered to be worth less than 2 points.
So what I'm wondering is this: How much stronger, if at all, is a rook and a knight than the bishop pair? I know the rook and knight should be stronger, but I feel like they're almost equal. I'd compare the difference between the two to the difference between 1 and 0.9.