Originally Posted by Nippelspanner
Since this is the dw discussion thread, how many of the actual creators are following this topic?
I wonder, because I recently started digging in the mod and found some (minor/aesthetic) bugs I'd like to report. I'm aware of the Russian forum, but it is a little inconvenient there if one doesn't speak Russian.
Further, I'd like to help the RA team if possible/wanted.
For my own purposes, I worked on re-designing the rather chaotic/inconsistent USNI database among other things.
I've also started to "clean up" the database by giving the sensors their real names. I've noticed a lot of duplicate sensors that could easily be avoided.
Example: 2 submarines both use sensor an/tb-16d in rl, but in the sim we might have one for sub 1, one other (with same specs) for sub 2 etc.
This is unnecessary and only clutters the database among other possible problems.
This is by no means meant as an attack, it is just meant as constructive criticism with the goal to make ra better and more fleshed out.
Also, some boats could really use an upgrade. The 688 Flt 1+2 for example use adcap for ages now, and the 688i uses the an/tb-29a since the early 2000s, as far as I know, yet ingame it still has the tb-23.
Btw,, here are some examples:
- Thresher -> Permit (class was renamed in 63 after the infamous Thresher incident.)
- Yasen class -> Severodvinsk class
- Snang -> Shang class
- SSK -> SS (term SSK was retired)
Etc.
In general one issue is the inconsistent use of terms. Sometimes correct and full NATO designations are used (e.g. Mk48 Mod 4), sometimes Russian designations, sometimes wrong/fantasy ones.
I think it would be much better to stick strictly to one system, which logically should be the NATO designations, these everyone is, or should be, aware of in a military simulation.
In the long run I will adjust my game to the above standards and if the RA team - or anyone - is interested, I'll gladly share my results.
|