So you would like a Destroyer Command 2?
 

I would like to have a Destroyer Command II what about you?
Every change I get I have used to ask for DC II (on the forum of UBI SHIII).
They say that after the sales of SH3 would be good they would make a DCII and they also say that it is on the top of there list.
Why am I not certain of that maybe I am a old fart and don't trust those cooperate guy's but its quiet no word of any DC II yet the have announced a SH IV.
Maybe they lost there list? So I am thinking if you want DC II you have to do something for it. You (we) have to get there attention so head over to UBI and remind them that we want a Destroyer Command II. Best way is to reply on one topic and not have several topics about it!

POLL at UBI forum (SH III) http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=4441005903 Keep it at the top!

You are right :up: .

Would love a DC 2 with the ability to control BBs and CA, CL. It would be even better if you could control the 40mm AA guns with a fire director like the main guns

yup!
 

Just as long as they make it more bloody moddable. I hate how you have to have some sort of gnosis going (and all that specialized equipment and programs) before making a ship.

Mountbatten

bump :arrgh!:

I'd rather hve an upgraded subsim set in the Pacific Theatre.

'Course if they included playable DD's I wouldn't complain. :)

:ping:

I would love to see a DC2 with so many mods it really should be called DC20! Here is a very short (and by no means complete) list of some of the mods I would like to see:

* Realistic "round Earth" visibility beyond the current approx 12,000 yard limit
*Ability to order speed to the nearest .25 knot
*Enhanced real world wind, weather and current effects
*Enhanced ship dynamic response modeling
*A gunnery model that uses air resistance, projectile spin effects, muzzle velocity variation, etc.
*Realistic modeling of the differences in fire control directors, range finders, radars and computers (i.e., from the Mk I Mod 0 eyeball "That looks about right" method up through a Mk 13 Radar / Mk 38 Director / Mk 8 Rangekeeper / Mk 41 Stable Vertical combination)
*Multiple directors for ships that have them
*Incorporation of ship stability effects (have you ever seen your damaged ship list?)
*A realistic engineering plant
*An open system similar to MS Flight Simulator that easily allows third party add ons for ships, aircraft, scenery, navigation aids, etc.

Yes, I know this is a wish list, but none of it is too hard to do. Ubisoft, are you listening?

... Perfect statement! :yep:

There is a similar discussion going on at the moment at the SH IV forum. I don't cope with the common sub hype. What's more exciting than a big surface unit with her colours still flying ...?

GNBNA - encore
 

Check these links if you‘re interested and you‘ll see what sort of sim some people miss in a modern version :hmm: :

http://www.german-navy.de/games/gnbna/index.html

http://www.gnbna.8m.com/

@CBDR I agree, excellent list
We both know to our cost what a bummer this is. The KM mod had manual gunnery as one of its central planks but that little item drove a stake into its heart.Have you ever seen Tony Lovell's Dreadnought project
http://dreadnoughtproject.org/
go to forums/ simulation development/Naval Fire Control equipment.
Also download his "video chapters" from simulation section
It doesn't take you into the radar age but the attention to detail is mindblowing.
Could you tell us a bit more on your thought abouit this .

@HS

thanks for the link on GNBNA ... I've heard so much about this game but the site warns how difficult it is to get hold of a copy. I casually tried ebay.co.uk last night and incredibly there was a copy up for sale .... I snapped it up.

On the topic of will there be a DC2 ...... we were given the general impression by Florin in Holland last year, that this was way down UBI's list . It's nominally in there as a possible title but it would only follow SH4 which I belive is scheduled for 2007. On that basis ( even if Ubi commit to it) it is not likely to appear until 2009/10. On the other hand people have been known to change their minds.

This should be a good buy, horsa. GNBNA is one of the very few sims I frequently come back to. That's remarkable for a 1992 sim, isn't it. In the long run few things can beat a detailed and dynamic campaign system, combined with detailed influence on single ships (damage control, gunnery directors, floatplanes, etc.). - The later versions GNB2-5 are less interesting from my point of view since the gameplay is not as good and the quite realistic dynamic campaign system that was part of the original GNBNA is missing.

Unless you haven’t got an old 486 you probably will have to download DOSBox and amend the dosbox.conf file in the DOSBox folder before you get started with GNBNA on a modern PC. Read the DOSBox instructions/ tutorial carefully. It took me some weeks of try and error during my sparetime to get this brilliant game running on my WindowsMe machine (o.k. I’m not exactly an IT or PC genius ;) ). But it was worth the effort in my opinion. Should you have similar problems send me an EMail, perhaps I can help and prevent you from reinventing the wheel again.

Thanks. I anticipated this would be a problem so I'm glad I can turn to someone who's had a similar experience. :D

Horsa,

Here are my thoughts regarding what should be modeled for the ship's engineering plant.

* A realistic grouping of boilers by the compartment they are located in. For example, on a Fletcher class DD boilers 1A & 1B will be in the forward fireroom and boilers 2A & 2B will be in the aft fireroom.
* Incorporation of the correct number of cross connects between boiler groupings. On a destroyer there is usually only one cross connect between the forward and aft groups; on a capital ship there may be multiple cross connects.
* Realistic light off times for boilers, and the boiler supplies no propulsion power until it is actually on-line.
* The power required to propel the vessel is proportional to the cube of its speed, and conversely, the maximum speed available is proportional to the cube root of power available. For a four boiler ship, having one boiler on-line means the maximum speed available is about 60% of maximum speed; two boilers will get about 80% of maximum speed; three boilers will get about 90% of maximum speed and the fourth boiler is needed to attain maximum speed.
*Fuel consumption is proportional to power produced (reasonably true for most steam plants), modified somewhat by the plant line up. I ran some tests awhile back regarding the Fletcher's simulated endurance and it was way off.
* A bit more trealistic modelling of the numerous fuel tanks and their effect on the ship's stability, list and trim. On a capital ship it would be interesting for the player to counterflood to offset the results of a torpedo hit.
* For the real masochists: Since DC allows the player the man an AA gun, why not allow the player to operate a boiler (i.e., control fuel, air and water input to the boiler; produce steam at the correct pressure and superheater outlet temperature) or the main engine throttle (maintain ordered RPM without dragging the boiler off-line)?

Aside from the engineering plant, another feature I think would be used quite a bit would be a terrain modifier utility, similar to what X-Plane has. I can imagine some dedicated modders simulating the Panama and Suez canals, detailed ports, etc..

I have seen the dreadnought project site and you are absolute correct - it is a fantastic sight!