Open Source?

[SquidB]

Been thinking about this for a couple of seconds....

One of the, if not the most sucessfull sim titles on the market is Microsoft flight sim.

The reason often cited is its open structure, one that allows 3rd party expansions and a wealth of mods from a massive community.

Whilst i respect SCS's decision to keep the rights to add extra platforms to the game, that does limit the response that many would be able to add to this great title. (esp given SCS's other commitments)

Perhaps its time that DW was opened up to those that would evolve the title. Surely it could only help sales? :hmm:

[Bellman]

:) I share your desire to dive the Traffy but my perspective is different.

I get few kicks from platform jumping - which IMO leads to becoming a 'jack of all trades, master of none' :down:

I am content to wait for the delights that I know DWX will deliver if SCX is anything to go by.
Also I would prefer SA to concentrate on eliminating the most glaring faults in a patch asap.

So DWX not DWU. :up:

[TLAM Strike]

I get few kicks from platform jumping - which IMO leads to becoming a 'jack of all trades, master of none' :down:

IMHO it leads to becoming the most useful and flexible guy in the battle group. The type of guy who can take you any time, anywhere, and with any thing. :yep:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Been thinking about this for a couple of seconds....

One of the, if not the most sucessfull sim titles on the market is Microsoft flight sim.

The reason often cited is its open structure, one that allows 3rd party expansions and a wealth of mods from a massive community.

Whilst i respect SCS's decision to keep the rights to add extra platforms to the game, that does limit the response that many would be able to add to this great title. (esp given SCS's other commitments)

Perhaps its time that DW was opened up to those that would evolve the title. Surely it could only help sales? :hmm:

Completely different situation. MSFS is made by one of the largest and most successful companies in the world and is the best selling sim in the world (as far as I know). DW is made by a small (but very talented!) company for a very niche market. I don't believe this niche market could be increased by a signifigant amount with an open architecture. Sonalysts is spending probably a relatively sizable amount of its resources on making DW as good as it is, where whatever MS spends on MSFS they know that they'll make it back in other products even if MSFS sells 5,000 less copies next time around. No matter how open DW becomes 98% of people are still going to consider naval warfare boring and uninteresting, and will pick up the next GTA sequel over DW. Sonalysts is a company and can't afford to throw away profits by giving away its monopoly on any addons. The same way they couldn't afford to throw away profits by having a major publisher put DW out.

[Bellman]

:lol: OK TLAM - you have a point.

But I guess you speak with mucho experience. ;)

For the very 'average player' like me I've got to stick to my position in the team and become as proficient as possible.
That means focusing - thank *** we are not all alike.

Flight sim experience would suggest that you have a snow balls chance of survival in h**l if you keep jumping 'ships'

[Wim Libaers]

:lol: OK TLAM - you have a point.

But I guess you speak with mucho experience. ;)

For the very 'average player' like me I've got to stick to my position in the team and become as proficient as possible.
That means focusing - thank *** we are not all alike.

Flight sim experience would suggest that you have a snow balls chance of survival in h**l if you keep jumping 'ships'

I think it would matter much less than in flightsims. In a flightsim, you have two components: tactics and air combat skill. The second one is strongly linked to the capabilities of the plane. In DW, you're not steering manually, so what matters most are tactics, and they're applicable to a lot of platforms. Of course, aircraft, FFG and kilo are different, but using different nuclear subs should be doable if you remember the sound level difference and the Akula missiles.

Having some experience with the other platforms would also be useful even if you only play with an SSN, to know how they can be used against you.

[Wim Libaers]

:lol: OK TLAM - you have a point.

But I guess you speak with mucho experience. ;)

For the very 'average player' like me I've got to stick to my position in the team and become as proficient as possible.
That means focusing - thank *** we are not all alike.

Flight sim experience would suggest that you have a snow balls chance of survival in h**l if you keep jumping 'ships'

I think it would matter much less than in flightsims. In a flightsim, you have two components: tactics and air combat skill. The second one is strongly linked to the capabilities of the plane. In DW, you're not steering manually, so what matters most are tactics, and they're applicable to a lot of platforms. Of course, aircraft, FFG and kilo are different, but using different nuclear subs should be doable if you remember the sound level difference and the Akula missiles.

Having some experience with the other platforms would also be useful even if you only play with an SSN, to know how they can be used against you.

[Bellman]

It is and has been 'doable' its merely a question tending to specialise, for MP particularly.

Agreed flight sim tactics and skill are very closely associated with aircraft type - low-level terrain hugging
ingress and bombing in the Tornado is worlds appart from dogfighting a F16.

I wouldnt venture to prescribe specialisng for all, but I speak from my own experience.
Over three years I have mainly stuck with the Seawolf, taking other subs out occasionaly for a 'view from the other side'
The learning process with tactics, sonar, TMA continued/ues.

Three weeks specialising/focusing on the AK has developed skill expotentialy and continues.
If I consider, months from now that I have got ' a pass' with her then I will look at the Kilo.

Now I have the greatest respect and admiration for those divers like Molon Labe who demonstrate their skill
effectively using various sub types. Some soccer pros can play in a variety of positions, but the majority specialise .

Youve got to work with the hand your dealt. ;)

[Ula Jolly]

Why would the ability to use third party addons remove the interest of some players??
I for one have wet dreams about cruising about in a Foxtrot, and I don't think the ability to add more playable and/or unplayable platforms would matter any, except keeping the interest at an extremely high point.
Those commited to their Seawolves would keep driving their Seawolves. Those who wanted a more spicy existence under water would drive their Typhoons. (Imagine ramming a Tico with a Typhoon. BAM! Splash one Tico! :rotfl:)
A group of people could take an in-game model (or make one themselves) and add instruments to it, model charicaristics, etc, and when they had time, SCS could go through the whole model (which would be extremely well documented so they knew what to look for) and choose wether to put it on their official pages either in a patch or an independent addition file, or not at all!
With so few playables around, and not too many onliny players, I don't think MP compatibility would be a problem for anyone after a week. :D

IMO, the addition of more platforms could not possibly SHRINK the community's size. It would add even more variation, make the game tad more spicy, and maybe even attract players who would like to experiment a lot!
:arrgh!:
As for subs, if all we needed was tactics, then we'd all be driving the same generic tincan. It's the FEEL of being in a Foxtrot you gotta love. You're not just a captain, you're not just THE captain, you're the captain of a <insert submarine name here>!

[Bellman]

:rotfl:

Just cant wait to Captain HMS TinCan :rock:

[mike_espo]

I agree with Ula. :know: I think the game would gain more popularity if more platforms were added. I love DW, but I want to command a boomer, or the Foxtrot would be great too... :up:

This need for variety has led me to purchase Harpoon 3. I am now starting to regret that decision. The Scenario editor sucks.. :down: :down: 10 times more buggy than ours. I also don't get the immersion as with DW

I do see Periscope Depth's point also. Sonalyst is a great company, and their product is great...but they do have to make money also.

Hopefully, in the end I hope Sonalyst will add more platforms or allow the community to do so. :rock:

[Bellman]

:rotfl:

Heinz 57 varieties - I'll stick to this tin can :up:

H3 sucks after 10 minutes - wow :o

:lol: Roll up roll up join the 'Instant gratification' brigade :arrgh!: :arrgh!: :arrgh!:

[big_feef]

Hhhhmm... I just got into naval sims with SH3; and now, I'm grabbing DW and SC as soon as I get back to the US (in two weeks). Yes, naval sims can be boring to some; but as a new-comer into the genre, I must disagree. All it requires is a lot of patience, a decent amount of skill, and you're rewarded with one of the most challenging and exciting gaming experience.

Unfortunately, I only got SH3 4 days before I had to travel to Cuba for a month; but in those 4 days, I had a ton of fun with the game. Nothing was quite as rewarding as finally getting to manual solutions and blowing the crap out of a convoy. And nothing is as rewarding as spending an hour running from 4 destroyers intent on sending you to DJ's locker; then pop up and nail two of them with your last two torps before running again. :rock:

So now, I've found this commnunity a few weeks ago and have been spending $2 an hour to log on to the forums from Cuba to lurk and learn about the newest interest in my gaming life. Anyway, my whole point is this: the majority of gamers will want run-and-gun games like HL2 and BF2; but there are many out there who are looking for a challenge and for something different. While I might not class myself as the typical FPS-goon, I do think there are many like me who would be drawn into this genre rather rapidly if these types of games had more exposure and general appeal. Not all simulations have to be 'niche' games.

[Caseck]

My only issue with the limited platforms, is a lot of folks who's experience in naval sims started with HARPOON, are turned off by the limited amount of platforms for "REDFOR"...

Really, as limited as many "REDFOR" platforms are in capability, it could be argued that more "REDFOR" or threat platforms should be made available.

I'm personally hoping for either a TU-95/142 on the threat side, or some kind of surface platform. (Krivak III?) Or better yet, OSCAR...

Or maybe they'll ramp up to a larger surf platform on the "REDFOR" size, to tune up for an Arleigh Burke or TICO on the "BLUFOR?"

Time will tell...

[MSgalileo]

Before asking fot more plateforms, I prefer get those in the initial simulation but without bugs.

[Wim Libaers]

The reason often cited is its open structure, one that allows 3rd party expansions and a wealth of mods from a massive community.



Now that I think about it, that reason is most likely wrong ;)

The more likely reason is that it has been in existence, in some form, since the age of the dinosaurs (more or less):
http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/feature/history.htm
It also has the name "Microsoft" behind it, which might help a bit. People do not always refer to Microsoft in favourable ways, but at least people know it.

If it was openness that did it, X-Plane certainly would be more popular. But I'm pretty sure most people haven't even heard of it.
http://www.x-plane.com/


Now, to avoid misunderstandings, I certainly wouldn't say no if asked if it would be nice for us to have a more "open" DW. (not open source by the way, that would mean all code would be available and freely modifiable and redistributable, MS flightsim or X-plane aren't open source either. It certainly would be nice to have it open source, though cheating could be a problem, but I'm sure SCS wouldn't like that either).

I just do not think that openness would be the determining factor for commercial success.



Now, another issue is multiplayer interoperability. It would be preferable to have some standard for this. An official version of DW, with patches, or a user mod that is almost unanimously viewed as THE mod to have.

Payware addons from SCS (or another vendor) might harm that, if it interferes with multiplayer connectivity. How? Well, some people would get the addon. Most likely to more dedicated members of the community. Now, if someone wants to get DW and also play multiplayer games, they see that getting in the game with the more experienced people would require not only buying DW, but also the addon. Someone new to subsims might not appreciate having to make an immediate $100 commitment. So payware addons have the potential to fragment the community. The same risk exists for free addons which do not get near-universal approval, but at least there the barrier to entry isn't so high. (remember, even if $30 seems cheap to you for a few extra platforms, look at DW price + addon + shipping price for a newbie who wants to try subs but isn't sure if he'll like it).

[Wim Libaers]

Before asking fot more plateforms, I prefer get those in the initial simulation but without bugs.

Excellent idea :up:

[SquidB]

Thanks to all those who responded to the thread,

My original point was that if there is a thriving community such as freqeunts subsim.com. Why not allow them to add to the software.

I remember that when I originally bought SC i was very impressed. Then after a while the novelty wore off, as many games do. Then one day i stumbled across SCX and SCU. Wow a whole new reason to start playing one of my fav games.

Personally i dont think it could hurt SCS in anyway. In fact given the MSFS model (which i know has differences) it would increase the profile and sales of the title.

Of course i understand SCS's contractual commitments to other projects and that they have bigger fish to fry than just concerntrate on DW. After all they are a business and I respect that.

[Sea Demon]

Or maybe they'll ramp up to a larger surf platform on the "REDFOR" size, to tune up for an Arleigh Burke or TICO on the "BLUFOR?"

Time will tell...

Picture this. "Sonalysts Combat Simulations Proudly Presents......."AEGIS:Multi-Mission Surface Warfare". Fully integrated into DW's battlespace. That would be incredible. You could integrate more missions in conjunction with the ASW role that these ships already posess and excel in.

I got to be honest though. DW has only been out for 5 months. And look how long it took to develop. And we have 7 different platform to play with in one sim. :rock: That is remarkable. I'm having so much fun with this sim. And I look forward to the future for DW. There is so much potential. I heard some people call for a Western diesel. That's certainly do-able. But let's give it some time.

And SquidB, you raise interesting questions. Definitely worth thinking about......in the future. I want to see what Sonalysts will be doing a few months from now, and as MSGalileo says, Sonalysts is focused on patch 1.02 at the moment. In the meantime, let's have fun and appreciate what we got.

Sea Demon

[SquidB]

Fair comment Sea Demon. Im just postulating on what the future could hold. I cant wait for 1.02, but it seems that this is on the back burner somewhat.

Dont get me wrong, I luv this game and all that SCS have done. Hell its not like there are many alternatives.

As it stands DW and SCS are without equal. Then again things can always be made better with the right commitment....look at SCX and SCU

[Bellman]

Caseck,

Excellent point - more REDFOR platforms :up:

The SW divers now in DW have limited tasks - hence many transfer to the Russian subs.
Similarly FFG drivers need to go up against the USA subs. :up:

The game is a bit one-sided and unbalanced.
:) But still its pretty cool in spite of all. :|\

[Hartmann]

the best compromise for a software company is a closed code and a sdk , open estructure or somethink that allow make mods and addons like new submarines or ships.

could be nice have more diesel subs like germans, or a new surface warships.

despite this DW is a great sim.

[MaHuJa]

I just do not think that openness would be the determining factor for commercial success.

In the end, open-source is just another development model. It's the final result that matters for success.


Payware addons from SCS (or another vendor) might harm that, if it interferes with multiplayer connectivity. How? Well, some people would get the addon. Most likely to more dedicated members of the community. Now, if someone wants to get DW and also play multiplayer games, they see that getting in the game with the more experienced people would require not only buying DW, but also the addon. Someone new to subsims might not appreciate having to make an immediate $100 commitment. So payware addons have the potential to fragment the community. The same risk exists for free addons which do not get near-universal approval, but at least there the barrier to entry isn't so high. (remember, even if $30 seems cheap to you for a few extra platforms, look at DW price + addon + shipping price for a newbie who wants to try subs but isn't sure if he'll like it).

That is easily solved. There is the possibility of creating a "merged" product (e.g. "DW Gold") with only a slightly higher price (or downpricing the 'original'.

As for multiplayer compatibility, consider it like this:

All the playable platforms are (of course) included in the database for all combinations of expansions had. As ai craft.

However, they are only playable if (1) marked playable in the scenario (2) if the player has the appropriate expansion. (3) marked as "user-selectable platform", the user could change it to a platform their expansions supports.

If none of the players had the expansion, none could play it, and it would be handled by ai.


I'm sure they are smart enough to figure that out even without me telling them, but now they have no excuses anylonger. :know:

This means, of course, that any database updates would have to be brougt along in patches to the 'normal' products, unless some missions (in addition to those where you play the new platforms) are to be unplayable.

[Nexus7]

As it stands DW and SCS are without equal. Then again things can always be made better with the right commitment....look at SCX and SCU

With all the due respect to the SCX staff, I'd expect a military supplier to know very very well how to build a simulator, I mean, it's obvious they do...

I also think that they don't put much of theyr probably enourmous knowledge into the sim, to keep it away from "hot information", witch is IMHO a shame, as DW is not something for arcade players (SH3 is rather there for those).
Even a look at the graphic aspect of DW hints to an excellent simulator (not to much emphasis on visual gratification but a lot of emphasis on brain work indeed). IMO 3rd party MODS would decrease the overall compatibility of the soft between the already not numerous players around, making for a new problem.


In the SC times, I never switched to SCX/SCU simply because SC v1.08 had no significant bugs (at the moment the only one I remember is the TMA contacts scroll down list). On the other hand I had to ask myself why some features are missing, even back then, and that was not the lack of platforms... but for example why would a torpedo not supply me with his knowledge, since there's a wire attached...

From this point of view, i would figure that the most difficult part is to find a compromise between supplying a realistic simulator and not hurting classified fields, and without hurting the common sense of what's realistically to be doable.

Finally, before new platforms are added, I'd rather prefer to see the bugs fixed too, as those would afflict the new platforms anyway...

My 2 cents...