If I were Sonalyst I would make a DW expansion

[Castout]

You know DW is a game without competition now and in the near future.

Despite its rather obsolete graphics(yet sufficient) it is a FANTASTIC game of naval warfare with a strong technical simulation pull.

It's been 4 years and I still have it on my computer and am still playing it from time to time.

Now I can't help feeling that a couple more playable platforms plus updated 3D models for some of the AI only platforms will make this game really really much more tempting.

For example adding the Duke FF which is the British OHP equivalent, the Russian OHP equivalent which I think is the Krivak FF and more diesel subs both allies and red like the Australian Collins class, The German Type 212(Italian, German, etc) and the Russian new Lada class SSK plus the Nimrod maritime reconnaisance and ASW patrol aircraft, the Tu-95 bear maritime patrol and ASW plane. Can you just imagine the appeal?
A more ambitious expansion perhpas could include the Oscar II and Typhon and the Ohio, Trafalgar as playable complete with launchable nuclear ballistic missiles.
I'm sick of stupid dumb games that offers nothing but wowing graphics. DW like its predecessor SC is one of the very few smarter game out there.

I really can't see why this game is commercially failing. Perhaps an expansion which bring more playable platforms would make this game much more appealing.

I know about Reinforce alert mod or the Alfa Tau mod which add numerous playable platforms using preexisting interface but it's just not the same. :damn:

I'm sorry if this thread bother you as it seems that there have been many other similar threads asking/hoping for a DW expansion but I need to get this off my chest. And I know the income from PC gaming may not be sufficiently large to entice Sonalyst to commit its resources away from government project but this game rocks.

I would buy DW+expansion even if it costs me US$50.00. Just get it as bug free as possible. And as realistically as possible. I would even buy it at US$100.00 like SB Pro PE but get it done right.

Now I feel somewhat better having gotten this off my chest.

[Frame57]

Simulation "games" have always performed less in sales than your typical computer game. They take time to learn for one. At least we are doing better than the train simulator that is out there.:D

[Molon Labe]

FWIW, I would easily pay $100-plus for a simulation that was complete when it ships. I don't even care what genre--naval, flight, tank, tactical, operational, strategic--whatever! All features implemented, all major bugs squashed (I'm OK with it needing a patch or two), stable, and with a dynamic campaign engine. The closest thing I can think of to that standard is F4AF, but that's a sim engine that's something like 10 years old!

I really am at a loss to understand how the sim market failed so badly. The PC had so much potential and it's been wasted on FPSs.

Edit: OK, maybe not so much tank sims, gotta stay closer to the naval side of things

[Dr.Sid]

Hm .. so I should rethink making my sim free ? :rotfl:
Just kidding ..

[Sea Demon]

...............

I'm sorry if this thread bother you as it seems that there have been many other similar threads asking/hoping for a DW expansion but I need to get this off my chest. And I know the income from PC gaming may not be sufficiently large to entice Sonalyst to commit its resources away from government project but this game rocks.

.................


Ditto. I agree with much of what your wrote here Castout. I've written a couple of threads expressing the same type of frustrations. DW is a truly great game, and a long time resident on my hard drive since it's been released. I still play it very frequently. I see a major blow to modern naval simming if Sonalysts abandons commercial gaming projects. I don't see anybody else sufficiently filling the void.


I really am at a loss to understand how the sim market failed so badly. The PC had so much potential and it's been wasted on FPSs.
In regards to FPS's, I don't know how people haven't gotten sick of those games.

[FIREWALL]

Just curious.

Did Sonalyst promise any future upgrades or expansions when it first released DW or afterwards ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC they pumped out this game when goverment contracts were a little on the slim side.

Now that their back at work .... well you know the answer to that.

[MBot]

What is interesting is that Sub Command did actualy quite well. I think someone from Sonalysts said once that EA as a puplisher helped SC quite a bit to penetrate the marked and sell good. For DW they lacked such a strong publisher. I bet with a big name behind it, perhaps even the revival of the Jane's brand, a modern naval sim would do ok even today. The problem is just that no big publisher will go for it. Not because it wont make profit, but because they can make more profit with more mainstream game (which is also understandable).

Personaly I would gladly pay big $ for DW addon. Altough now I would actualy lean more to a successor for DW. The 688(i) is in dire need for a remake, it still has the station graphics from Sub Command and the same functionality as the old 688(I) H/K.

A "Jane's 688(I) Hunter/Killer II", now that would be my dream :)

[Molon Labe]

As far as the simulation goes, DW is leaps and bounds ahead of 688I. But, 688I was much better of a product for it's time because it was a complete package--and I think the Jane's brand probably helped with that. The little things matter, I think, and it puts a polish on the product that makes it look professional, and thus, feels more immersive. While I wouldn't want to go back to a single-platform only linear-campaign sim, I'd definitely like to see a modern sim that is as good today as 688(I) was when it was released.

[Dr.Sid]

Just curious.

Did Sonalyst promise any future upgrades or expansions when it first released DW or afterwards ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC they pumped out this game when goverment contracts were a little on the slim side.

Now that their back at work .... well you know the answer to that.



You're correct (AFAIK). They simply vanished without a word, and we only know from other sources that they got some juicy gov project.

[Hitman]

Adding new platforms (AI and controllable) has been something that modders have been able to do for a long time, just Sonalysts did not give permission and that was the end of the story (As far as subsim.com is concerned), but since it is apparently possible, I would like to know what would think Sonalysts of a proposal to make an authorized commercial add-on or expansion, featuring all those new platforms plus proper new interfaces :hmm:

May be a deal could be worked out with SA to provide us some of their editing tools (Not necessarily full access to the game code, which is a sensible area) and allow us doing the job properly, and then sell the expansion only via internet through subsim.com, giving them the share in the benefits previously arranged. :up:

A LWAMI wrapped up with new platforms and matching interfaces would be a best seller around here :yep:

[OneShot]

As far as new platforms go personally I would go for something really new and not something we already have just under a different name. Meaning the adding of a SSBN (or an SSB for the really adventurous), maybe a Tico or Arleigh Burke or even a FPBG (for those who like it smaller). Just adding another FFG or MPA or even a SSN just isnt worth it in my eyes ... the only benefits from that would be to make missions from a different viewpoint but with the same tasks we have now and the fact that people could play a unit from their own countrys navy. Those two reasons aren't enough (for me).

If you wanna improve DW and take it a step farther you need truly new platforms but doing that would involve a lot of work on the code to straighten out for example the aerodynamics and radar model next to other issues (otherwise a Tico for starters would be quite useless).

I can even live with the graphics of DW because the important stuff ... the stations look quite good ... the only thing thats below par is the 3D stuff and thats something I seldom look anyway, so thats only a nice to have (an improvement of it) instead of a must have as it seems to be for some people.

@Hitman : AFAIK right from the start people offered to sign all sorts of legal stuff to be able to get their hands on some of the tools and do the stuff you suggest or even simply hand over the things that have been done with the existing tools ... like the LwAmi Mod. But SCS wont go for it ... Jamie explained that in length somewhen long ago and the gist of it was that the legal ramifications and possible trouble would just be to great to make it a worthwhile endeavour (from SCS point of view). So unless SCS has reconsidered its position (and I dont think so) this - unfortunatly - wont happen.

[MBot]

As far as the simulation goes, DW is leaps and bounds ahead of 688I. But, 688I was much better of a product for it's time because it was a complete package--and I think the Jane's brand probably helped with that. The little things matter, I think, and it puts a polish on the product that makes it look professional, and thus, feels more immersive. While I wouldn't want to go back to a single-platform only linear-campaign sim, I'd definitely like to see a modern sim that is as good today as 688(I) was when it was released.

I agree that 688(I) H/K was a much better, completer product for its time than DW. I loved it so much :)

In terms physics DW is a lot more advanced than H/K, but in terms of user interface it stayed almost the same. The Los Angeles has still the exact same fuctionalities available as per 1996. I think only the sail view was added in DW. The abilities to control the sub or manipulate the sonar stayed exactly the same. The fact that fire control stayed the same is a real pity. In my opinion this has always be the weakest point of the series. It starts with weapon-show-truth (which for a sim of this calliber is especially hard to take), and goes to stuff like launch parameters, wire guidance or Harpoon plans for subs. I think Fast Attack did a lot better job in that regard.

That is why I would like to see a remake of the subs, first of all the Los Angeles, so much. If it would be only one platfrom in the initial release, I could live with it. Means more resources left for other stuff.

[Fish]

I think with Jamie Carlson we lost our support at Sonalysts.:-?

[Dr.Sid]

I think we lost it even before, but he was kind to mask it. Maybe they just didn't like the 'computer games company' sticker.
Even DW seem surprisingly unfinished in some aspects. Most things it does well are from previous games.

[Frame57]

I agree with Molon, I would pay that and more for a a good subsim (these are good but can be much better). Are you paying attention EA/Sonalysts????

[CapitanPiluso]

I think sim market is very small, and then companies decide to invest in other genres ( sports and fps ) which give instant action to the player and instant incomes to them.

[Castout]

Heck in its fullest potential DW could offer massively multiplayer-multi platform-multi sides with optional multi stations game encompassing near full spectrum naval warfare that is air to surface, air to underwater, surface to surface, surface to underwater, underwater warfare(sub vs sub).

The only thing lacking would be air-to-air warfare and land warfare.

What we need is more playable platforms(planes, helos, subs, ships), that's all at the minimum.

I think World of Warcraft is selling well otherwise why the hell they keep on churning out newer additions to the series?

I mean I really have no idea why it sells well but if world of Warcraft could sell well I really couldn't think why a massively multiplayer improved DW couldn't.

Everytime I sink something in DW I feel a point or two smarter. That's how rewarding it is. :D

[MBot]

Heck in its fullest potential DW could offer massively multiplayer-multi platform-multi sides with optional multi stations game encompassing near full spectrum naval warfare that is air to surface, air to underwater, surface to surface, surface to underwater, underwater warfare(sub vs sub).

The only thing lacking would be air-to-air warfare and land warfare.

What we need is more playable platforms(planes, helos, subs, ships), that's all at the minimum.

I think World of Warcraft is selling well otherwise why the hell they keep on churning out newer additions to the series?

I mean I really have no idea why it sells well but if world of Warcraft could sell well I really couldn't think why a massively multiplayer improved DW couldn't.

Everytime I sink something in DW I feel a point or two smarter. That's how rewarding it is. :D


I do not quite agree with the view that more platforms are needed for the sake of multiplayer. In my opinion, and perhaps I am wrong, the multiplayer aspect of DW has been grossly overestimated. It seems that only a small fraction of all players are playing multiplayer at all.

In my opinion, naval sims have only limited potential in multiplayer. Don't get my wrong, a fight against a human opponent is certainly fun. But there are some inherent limitations to the MP expierience. The first is scale. Most good SP scenarios take hours to complete and time compression is almost always needed. Naval combat is large and slow (compared to aircombat for example), and therfore is difficult to get right in multiplayer. I for one do not have time to spend 5 hours in realtime on a hunt for a sub. Then multiplayer removes much of the uncertanity of the hunt. At the beginning you know exactly what you will be facing (at least human controlled). This is already a major hinderance for the subs. A subs biggest advantage is to remain undedected, which in a MP session is impossible by definition. The sub may remain unlocalized, but its presence will always be known. There is some other stuff, but I don't want to go in too much detail. MP fights are certainly fun and good mission design can help over many problems, but in my opinion there are just some things in the very essence of modern naval combat that work against good multiplayer.

I would certainly love to see more platforms in the form of a DW addon. But for the reasons stated above I would also not mind if a future subsim would only have one playable.

[nikimcbee]

I still need to get off my duff and do my Chinese campaign.:oops:

[goldorak]

Sonalysts already lost the train. :nope:
Those that wanted an opfor pack already have it and they use it in multiplayer games.

[goldorak]

I think sim market is very small, and then companies decide to invest in other genres ( sports and fps ) which give instant action to the player and instant incomes to them.

The market may be small, it doesn't mean its not worthy of attention.
If everybody reasoned this way, we would only have harry potter novels in bookstores, briteny spears cd in music stores and adventure films in cinemas. :roll:
Even if the market is niche, it still is profitable.

[goldorak]

I do not quite agree with the view that more platforms are needed for the sake of multiplayer. In my opinion, and perhaps I am wrong, the multiplayer aspect of DW has been grossly overestimated. It seems that only a small fraction of all players are playing multiplayer at all.

In my opinion, naval sims have only limited potential in multiplayer. Don't get my wrong, a fight against a human opponent is certainly fun. But there are some inherent limitations to the MP expierience. The first is scale. Most good SP scenarios take hours to complete and time compression is almost always needed. Naval combat is large and slow (compared to aircombat for example), and therfore is difficult to get right in multiplayer. I for one do not have time to spend 5 hours in realtime on a hunt for a sub. Then multiplayer removes much of the uncertanity of the hunt. At the beginning you know exactly what you will be facing (at least human controlled). This is already a major hinderance for the subs. A subs biggest advantage is to remain undedected, which in a MP session is impossible by definition. The sub may remain unlocalized, but its presence will always be known. There is some other stuff, but I don't want to go in too much detail. MP fights are certainly fun and good mission design can help over many problems, but in my opinion there are just some things in the very essence of modern naval combat that work against good multiplayer.

I would certainly love to see more platforms in the form of a DW addon. But for the reasons stated above I would also not mind if a future subsim would only have one playable.

May I say ? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Multiplayer-multistation is what saved Dangerous Waters from completely going under the radar.
You know that the italian subsim community that was never that big to begin with, already has around 30 people learning the intricacies and enjoying multiplayer games ? And this is on a regular basis. And more and more are joining.
Damn, in the last year I tought more people manual tma than I would have been possibile.
We schedule not only weekly missions (not deathmatch type missions) but also long campaigns. We even play against the french naval community of mille-sabords from time to time.
The life and blood of the simulation is multiplayer, and Sonalysts even though they may have botched everything else in the game, at least were smart enough to give us multistation. A feature which to my knowledge is absent from all the "simulation" games on the market.
So excuse me but DW is well alive and kicking ass in multiplayer, even moreso with "special mods".

[MBot]

The life and blood of the simulation is multiplayer, and Sonalysts even though they may have botched everything else in the game, at least were smart enough to give us multistation. A feature which to my knowledge is absent from all the "simulation" games on the market.
So excuse me but DW is well alive and kicking ass in multiplayer, even moreso with "special mods".

That might be the impression when observing DW players on various forums. It is natural that people that hang out on internet forums also have a closer relation to multiplayer. But there must be hundreds or thousands of people that never visit a forum that play the sim in singleplayer (at least I hope so).

For successful games sales numbers are counted in 100'000s or millions. For DW I hope that sales were at least in the 10'000s. If only the people that participate in communities are the majority of DW player, then I can realy understand why Sonalysts had to abandon this market.

[goldorak]

That might be the impression when observing DW players on various forums. It is natural that people that hang out on internet forums also have a closer relation to multiplayer. But there must be hundreds or thousands of people that never visit a forum that play the sim in singleplayer (at least I hope so).

For successful games sales numbers are counted in 100'000s or millions. For DW I hope that sales were at least in the 10'000s. If only the people that participate in communities are the majority of DW player, then I can realy understand why Sonalysts had to abandon this market.


You got it all wrong here MBot.
A game to be succesful must bring a profit.
So it depends on how much money you spent on development and how much you sold at retail. A game can sell millions and still not bring a profit. You know why ? Because it cost ten million $ to develop.
SCS has to adjust their expectations to the market they are selling to. Spend 1 million $ (a hypothetical figure) for DW when it will sell in the low tens of thousands is just pure stupidity. Thats why you see a lot of recycled resources in DW (from SC and previous SCS naval games)
Now if you sell for the general gaming market, my dear friend you can kiss goodbye to every single bit of "simulation candy" we have in the game. But in the end the game could possibily sell in the millions. Would you be satisfied then ? :hmm:

The days where development of a simulation take years, cost several million dollars and bring syou (the hardcore gamer) and full package is way past us. The last dinosour of that era was Falcon 4. And we are not going back.

[MBot]

You got it all wrong here MBot.
A game to be succesful must bring a profit.
So it depends on how much money you spent on development and how much you sold at retail. A game can sell millions and still not bring a profit. You know why ? Because it cost ten million $ to develop.
SCS has to adjust their expectations to the market they are selling to. Spend 1 million $ (a hypothetical figure) for DW when it will sell in the low tens of thousands is just pure stupidity. Thats why you see a lot of recycled resources in DW (from SC and previous SCS naval games)
Now if you sell for the general gaming market, my dear friend you can kiss goodbye to every single bit of "simulation candy" we have in the game. But in the end the game could possibily sell in the millions. Would you be satisfied then ? :hmm:

The days where development of a simulation take years, cost several million dollars and bring syou (the hardcore gamer) and full package is way past us. The last dinosour of that era was Falcon 4. And we are not going back.

I agree with what you say. Still I think that my point stays that the majority of players are singleplayers stands. Unless DW was programmed in Sonalysts freetime, there is no way the couple of hundred people in the various communities could sustain the development costs.

The multiplayer communities tend to overestimate their importance, that is a phenomenon I often observed. Il-2 Sturmovik is a good example. Multiplayer is often considered as the backbone of the sim, I myselfe play it for years MP exclusively. In the better days, you could see 1000 people in the Hyperlobby at a given time. Yet, as the developer himselfe stated, only about 5-10% of all buyers ever touched multiplayer in the sim at all, not to mention play it regularly.



Btw, the days of Falcon 4.0 like sims are comming back :) It's called Dynamic Combat Simulator by Eagle Dynamics.

[goldorak]

Btw, the days of Falcon 4.0 like sims are comming back :) It's called Dynamic Combat Simulator by Eagle Dynamics.

I wish it were so. I'm still waiting on Black Shark btw. :damn:

[Hitman]

@Hitman : AFAIK right from the start people offered to sign all sorts of legal stuff to be able to get their hands on some of the tools and do the stuff you suggest or even simply hand over the things that have been done with the existing tools ... like the LwAmi Mod. But SCS wont go for it ...

Hummm yes but that was already long ago (An eternity in terms of videogames market :) ) and it would be worth trying again.

Jamie explained that in length somewhen long ago and the gist of it was that the legal ramifications and possible trouble would just be to great to make it a worthwhile endeavour (from SCS point of view). So unless SCS has reconsidered its position (and I dont think so) this - unfortunatly - wont happen.

Many new platforms can be added with existing knowledge, and as far as interfaces go, all of them can be revised and reworked also. I have done it myself with the new scope/binoculars for the Kilo, and as long as modifying the looks of current interfaces goes, it is possible.

Where we would need special tools is for:

A) Adding towed arrays to a diesel submarine, since there is no control for that in the Kilo

B) Adding more VLS for units like an Oscar, Ohio or similars.

If only we could get permission from DW to further mod the game adding playable platforms now they have abandoned its development, that would be already great.

For example, you could add a "Late Cold War" mode with following replacements:

- Victor III for the Akula
-Tango for the Kilo
-Sturgeon for the Seawolf
-Knox for the OHPerry

....plus a nice campaign. None of that would require special tools or editors.

Why don't we talk with Neal and see how we best could make an official petition to DW to allow us limited modification of the game, adding playables?

We can't lose anything, and circumstances have changed a lot in the last years. It could even help keeping the DW sales alive.:up:

[OneShot]

The most important thing hasn't changed ... DW being just a spin-off product of the still sold and maintained commercial version for the USN (and others) using the NavalSimEngine. Unless this situation changes I wont get my hopes up, but I would still be willing to sign a petition (or help in other ways). I just wouldn't really hold my breath because (at least as far as I remember) all the pertinent reasons are still there (even after this "long" a time) and thus the resulting descision most likely wont have changed.
Many new platforms can be added with existing knowledge, and as far as interfaces go, all of them can be revised and reworked also. I have done it myself with the new scope/binoculars for the Kilo, and as long as modifying the looks of current interfaces goes, it is possible.
Yes and no ... You can (legally) add new non-playable platforms which is "easy enough". You can even modify the interfaces to some extend (as you have done with the scope). But there is and has always been a clear line in regard to new playable platforms and to be frank, to truly get a new platform instead of just a different 3D modell and some changed parameters while using the same old interfaces (which is kinda useless in my eyes) we would need a bit more than what we have in terms of tools and more importantly (at least for me) permission from SCS.

[Hitman]

Yes and no ... You can (legally) add new non-playable platforms which is "easy enough". You can even modify the interfaces to some extend (as you have done with the scope). But there is and has always been a clear line in regard to new playable platforms and to be frank, to truly get a new platform instead of just a different 3D modell and some changed parameters while using the same old interfaces (which is kinda useless in my eyes) we would need a bit more than what we have in terms of tools and more importantly (at least for me) permission from SCS.

No sorry I explained it wrong then. I meant if we got permission to add new platforms (And not a commercial expansion) then we could do such a mod easily, even if we can't add some units for obvious interface limitations (TA in diesels and such). I never meant to add those units without agreement from SA, it was just an example of what could be done even without their tools.

The most important thing hasn't changed ... DW being just a spin-off product of the still sold and maintained commercial version for the USN (and others) using the NavalSimEngine. Unless this situation changes I wont get my hopes up, but I would still be willing to sign a petition (or help in other ways). I just wouldn't really hold my breath because (at least as far as I remember) all the pertinent reasons are still there (even after this "long" a time) and thus the resulting descision most likely wont have changed.


Yes, but if we get permission to add platforms without having full access to the code itself, then that wouldn't be a problem, right? :hmm:

I mean, there are out there mods that add playable platforms and yet they haven't had access to the real game code -the part SA is interested in protecting-.

I think that not allowing to add platforms was in the first time a way of protecting the commercial success of an eventual expansion, not security concerns about their code.

Besides, if we get permission to add for example only retrospective units, like Cold War ones from the 80s, that would again be no competition for a modern day naval program :hmm:

What I'm seeking is a personal agreement between SA and a few, chosen and named modders to be able to add a few, chosen and specific platforms, not a general permission from SA to anyone who bought their game to do whatever they like. I'm sure we could put together a team of serious people here for that.

[Molon Labe]

Heck in its fullest potential DW could offer massively multiplayer-multi platform-multi sides with optional multi stations game encompassing near full spectrum naval warfare that is air to surface, air to underwater, surface to surface, surface to underwater, underwater warfare(sub vs sub).

The only thing lacking would be air-to-air warfare and land warfare.

What we need is more playable platforms(planes, helos, subs, ships), that's all at the minimum.

I think World of Warcraft is selling well otherwise why the hell they keep on churning out newer additions to the series?

I mean I really have no idea why it sells well but if world of Warcraft could sell well I really couldn't think why a massively multiplayer improved DW couldn't.

Everytime I sink something in DW I feel a point or two smarter. That's how rewarding it is. :D

I do not quite agree with the view that more platforms are needed for the sake of multiplayer. In my opinion, and perhaps I am wrong, the multiplayer aspect of DW has been grossly overestimated. It seems that only a small fraction of all players are playing multiplayer at all. I think the idea of DW as an MMO is a bit of a rush because DW is nowhere near the full-spectrum that you'd need to pull it off (imagine a WoW with only one or two character classes), and because the MP architecture just isn't there. But I do think full spectrum massive MP is exactly what's needed....


In my opinion, naval sims have only limited potential in multiplayer. Don't get my wrong, a fight against a human opponent is certainly fun. But there are some inherent limitations to the MP expierience. The first is scale. Most good SP scenarios take hours to complete and time compression is almost always needed. Naval combat is large and slow (compared to aircombat for example), and therfore is difficult to get right in multiplayer. I for one do not have time to spend 5 hours in realtime on a hunt for a sub. You'd need a different MP architecture (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=124314&highlight=improvements) than what we have now. But if that architecture were to be built, then the short answer to the time issue is that you would simply log out when you didn't have time anymore (and the platform would revert to AI control). But I don't want to keep this limited to the MMO concept (which is always online and in realtime); you could still have a more conventional full-spectrum setup with dozens of players, but with the server only up at designated times (like weekends) when a threshold number of players were available for a scheduled session.


Then multiplayer removes much of the uncertanity of the hunt. At the beginning you know exactly what you will be facing (at least human controlled). This is already a major hinderance for the subs. A subs biggest advantage is to remain undedected, which in a MP session is impossible by definition. The sub may remain unlocalized, but its presence will always be known. There is some other stuff, but I don't want to go in too much detail. MP fights are certainly fun and good mission design can help over many problems, but in my opinion there are just some things in the very essence of modern naval combat that work against good multiplayer. DW as an MMO wouldn't have this problem. There would just be too many people, too many potential battles for you to know who/what your opponent is. The information you're likely to have is the Order of Battle--for the enemy's entire naval (air? land?) forces, plus intelligence gathered by your platforms/players as the simulation runs. Again, it needs to be emphasized that DW is incapable of anything like this without a radically different MP engine; the old "lobby" that you log into that a scenario is loaded from will have to be replaced with an interface that runs simultaneously with the simulation (http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/2h/images.gamezone.com/screens/26/3/94/s26394_pc_10.jpg) instead of simply before it.

[MBot]

I have played most platforms again in the last days, and while I think they are all cool, not each one provides the same amount of good gameplay. Here is my take on what platforms offer the most fun for me (from a pure SP point of view):

SSNs
The nuke subs are still the best for me. The core gameplay of the series, building situation awareness with limited input, still works best with the subs. They offer many different missions and a wealth of different tactics to achiev your goals. Also they offer some pretty challenging threats. The only thing I wished was improved for them was fire control. DW is great with for everything about sensors, but the shooting part looks a little bit lacking sometimes.

The Kilo
The Kilo comes next to me. In many ways it is simmilar as the SSNs, perhaps in too many. The defining part of being an SS, having a diesel-electrical propulsions, doesn't really play a large role in DW. Most scenarios in DW are too small in scale to make a difference, while the larger ones often don't work perfectly because of small time compression. Because of this the Kilo sometimes feels like it is just a crappy SSN. Still I think that a western diesel, combining the characteristics of a non-nuke boat with more competitive sensors and weapons might add some good gameplay to DW.

The Perry
I like the OHP because it has many detailed stations and is quite complex. Unfortunately it is less compelex on a second look, at least to me. The AAW and ASuW aspects of DW are a bit underdeveloped, so the main task of the OHP is ASW. In the end I think the gameplay in that regard is a little limited. It all boils down to controling your helicopter like in a strategy game, with managing the buoys being the most fun part. Developing a firing solution is easy with cross-bearings of two buoys and killing the target is a simple matter of telling your helo "drop torp here". The ASW equipment of the ship itselfe are a bit underwhelming. The torpedos, the only ASW weapons of the ship itselfe, are so inneffective against subs that they are rarely used. The towed array looks very complex for a start, but in the end is only used to get an initial bearing of a possible contact, which is the starting point of using your helo. I never do TMA in the OHP, using your helo and multiple buoys is always more effective. The active sonar doesn't offer that many possibilities and requires few finesses to use. I think a surface ASW unit was a great idea to add to the mix, but the OHP might have been a bit an unfortunate choice, because it relies so much on the helo (which can be used as seperate platform). I think there would still be a lot of potential for a plattform with more specific ASW equimpent, like wire guided heavy weight torpedos, ASROCs, ASW mortars, VDS or more fleshed out active sonar.

The Orion
Being a flight sim enthusiast I realy like the Orion. It is a great unit to play every now and then, but in itselfe it provides few gameplay and gets repetive quite quick. Every sub kill is basicaly the same. I think the pinpoint navigation of the nav map takes out a lot of the challange of that platform. Perhaps this is even the way it is today, but I think previously the navigation in the open water was a real problem. You would use radio-navigation to find your sono buoys and drop smoke buoys to mark positions. Navigation would be done from the cockpit using instruments and our eyes rather than a top down view on the nav map. From a pilots point of view this sounds like a lot of fun, but might be out of the scope of DW...
Another gameplay dampener for the Orion is that you are virtualy unoposed (not taking into account SAMs form subs in MP). You hunt your prey from a total safe position.

The Seahawk
This is the platform I play least. While I like the helo as a unit, I think it offers little good gameplay. Like the Orion it quickly gets repetive, also you can basicaly play it from the OHP anyway. Also it has the same problem as the Orion, you are never in real danger with it.


As you can see, I regard DW still as primary a subsim. I like the other units very much and they are great fun in between. But for themselfe they offer not enough to fill out a game. The subs on the other hand do, as we saw in 688(I) H/K and Sub Command. I think a addon (or successor) to DW should improve the subs even more, bascically redo the ones we have and add a modern diesel. More subs are not realy needed from a gameplay point of view. There also would be room for a ship that has a more direct approach to ASW than the OHP. Not necessary a better ship at ASW (absolutely speaking), but one that offers more interaction to the player. For the MPAs and helos, I don't think that much gameplay could be gained by adding more of those.

What is your view on that?

[Molon Labe]

I think your assessment is about right, MBot. Oh, and I checked out Digital Fight Simulator (http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?lang=en&end_pos=718&scr=default)... the modular concept they're working with is what I wish SCS had done with DW. It looks very promising.

[Hartmann]

I think sim market is very small, and then companies decide to invest in other genres ( sports and fps ) which give instant action to the player and instant incomes to them.

A company think that the market is too small for a sim or expansion and release the simulator with poor graphics but great gameplay.

the public and other people don´t like poor graphics and decide not buy the game .except hardcore simmers.

Also dangerous waters with a full globe scale and a dynamic campaign could make the game better.


:hmm:

[XabbaRus]

I beta tested DW and got into it but lost interest after SCS support dried up.

The AI wasn't much of an advance, the graphics I could live with as I could make my own ships.

The AI like I have mentioned was the big crunch as it was too predictable, even the autocrew who cheated when doing TMA instead of building it up slowly which I didn't think would be too hard to simulate.

Adding new platforms is really just a case of same game different cover.

This is what needs to happen.

Level one: A high fidelity single platform tactical sim like DW but updated, eg better sound physics, better AI - eg like what Sid is trying to develop.

Advantages : EVerything we have but better
Disadvantages : Doesn't exist yet

Level two: A theatre wide simulator in the mould of Fleet Command or Harpoon which can tie in with the above mentioned level one either real time multi player or single mission. Scenarios played single player could have tactical missions that could be generated and loaded into the level one tactical sim or uploaded to a server to be grabbed and played out. Results could be resent to the server and then loaded into this and the mission plays out based on that. In a real time MP environment the theatre commander can assign goals to units.

Advantages : Brings a good depth to the simulation experience.
Disadvantages : Would require good coordination and long missions in MP.

This kind of exists with Global Conflict Blue. In an abstract way it would be good if a land battle could be influenced by what happens on the sea.



Advantages : Would allow

[Molon Labe]

This is what needs to happen.

Level one: A high fidelity single platform tactical sim like DW but updated, eg better sound physics, better AI - eg like what Sid is trying to develop.

Advantages : EVerything we have but better
Disadvantages : Doesn't exist yet

Level two: A theatre wide simulator in the mould of Fleet Command or Harpoon which can tie in with the above mentioned level one either real time multi player or single mission. Scenarios played single player could have tactical missions that could be generated and loaded into the level one tactical sim or uploaded to a server to be grabbed and played out. Results could be resent to the server and then loaded into this and the mission plays out based on that. In a real time MP environment the theatre commander can assign goals to units.

Advantages : Brings a good depth to the simulation experience.
Disadvantages : Would require good coordination and long missions in MP.

I don't think "level one" and "level two" can be separated--at least with a brand new sim. If you wanted to "fix" DW then that sort of path makes sense, because you have to work with a NavalSimEngine that was designed to study specific scenarios with cumstom databases and doctrines. But if you're starting from scratch, then you can build a sim meant for consumers from the ground up. Once you decide to do that, even a single platform sim should be taking place in a theatre-wide battlespace from its inception.

I think the DFS model should be adopted by future naval sim designers. Create an engine (physics engine, campaign engine, multiplayer architecture) that can accept modules. Then create study-sim modules that plug playable platforms into the engine. Release a new module every few years or so.

[Dr.Sid]

Actually that exactly is what I plan to do except in smaller steps. Subsim with few subs first, the add more and more. I have global scope in mind. At least scenarios of scale of Fleet command should be possible, and even some massive multiplayer server could be built one day to allow indeed global conflicts.

For DW there are serious limitations to this, because it does not simulate round Earth so the mission area is limited to area so small it does not play role (and it is fixed in radar and other sensors where it plays role even at short range).

[CapitanPiluso]

I think your assessment is about right, MBot. Oh, and I checked out Digital Fight Simulator (http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?lang=en&end_pos=718&scr=default)... the modular concept they're working with is what I wish SCS had done with DW. It looks very promising.
I agree. Blackshark looks very promising indeed.
I wonder how will I take that big amazing cockipt full of buttons off the ground :o

[AirHippo]

I wonder if perhaps, as well as solving the problems MBot has identified - most of which I admit ignorance of, since I've never bothered with anything but the subs, and mostly play the various Akulas - an interesting addition from the point of view of DW fans would be to balance the playable units; in other words, to add the ability to play as former Warsaw Pact surface vessels and aircraft. All right, it's probably a bit gimmicky, but I think players might find the prospect of being able to tinker with an Udaloy, a Tu-142 and a Ka-27 enticing. At present, one problem with DW is it's a little US-centric, which the addition of matching platforms for the East might help remove. Well, nearly matching; I am aware that the OHP is an FFG and the Udaloy a DDG, but you get my drift ;)

[Tarrasque]

Hell, I'd be happy if they realised that the USA is not the sole nation in NATO. Give us some playable Trafalgars or some Type 22 or 23 frigates.

[AirHippo]

Also be nice, though I'm a little wary of adding Royal Navy units because that would necessitate Royal Navy voices. Given that the standard of the voice-acting for the Russian crew can hardly be called stellar, it wouldn't at all surprise me if we wound up with Royal Navy boats crewed entirely by blokes who talk like Prince Charles and can be heard sipping tea (or perhaps Pimm's) to add "authenticity". Of course, if they actually went to the trouble of having properly-done voice acting it could be an eye-opener for many; the sound of a broad scouser bellowing, "fookhin' SHOVE those fookhin' PLANES ya wankheh!" would doubtless be a revelation never to be forgotten!

[Robsoie]

I always dream of a Fleet Command-kind of game featuring nearly everything modern (i am not very interested in WW2 naval warfare) floating on the sea or roaming over and under it, in which unlike the Fleet Command you would not only play the global commander "point&click" but could get to be inside of -every- platforms with every positions simulated (like in 688/SC/DW).

And instead of having only separated/standalone missions you would have a huge dynamic campaign a la "Red Storm Rising", but instead of a small part of the world it could take place on the full world map with even some kind of diplomacy/4X concept threw into it.

So basically it would never ever play the same twice or the same as someone else.

Unfortunately i doubt this will ever happen one day due to the complexity involved and how much money it would cost to develop, but i would really spend money on buying this even if it was twice the usual price.

[Dr.Sid]

That's why it will be done for free. :88)

[Werewolf]

What is the "reinforce alert" addon????? :hmm:

[OneShot]

An illegal Addon with some "new" playable units ... tho not truly new as in the sense with all new interfaces and whatnot ... just the old stuff with a new 3d model and new db entries and as far as I understand one or two modified interfaces.

[Werewolf]

@Oneshot

Ah I see.......so being an "illegal" addon I reckon that noone knows where to find it then :lol:

[oscar19681]

you know what i dont understand? why they removed the 3-d command room from 688i h/k. They should have improved it insted of saying that nobody used it anyway.

[Werewolf]

@OScar

That's not true! I used it all the time! I totally agree with you on that! Altohough I am of the opinion that realism has priority over graphics then I find the lack of the feeling of actually being onboard a boat totally unacceptable. To hell with the arcade explosions and fancy external models, but a 3d environment is a must for my ability to concentrate

[goldorak]

For those that say that graphics is irrilevant they are way off.
Have a look at Dr. Sid's ComSubSim, even in its early stages, it presents a graphical coherence that blows DW out of the water.
ComSubSim doesn't have SH3/4 graphics, but the quality of the models, the water, tiny touches such as modeling the curvature of the earth etc... makes for a very rewarding experience.
Nobody ever asked SCS to use a Crysis-like 3d engine but for god's sake nobody was expecting a 10 year old graphics engine (16 bit only !!!! :damn: ).

[Dr.Sid]

I personally think the curvature of the Earth is much more important then other graphical issues :D This will allow the global scope. It's not just a graphics feature, it's the very basic feature of the whole engine. I think only few engines today can do it (only Orbiter comes to my mind).
I think the graphics are not the most important, and especially, game like this should run even on older computers. But DW is really way too old (16bits ? come on !).
But even weaker GFX engine should be used to it's full extent. Good models, good textures, good lightning. There are games which look awful with DX10 effects, and some other which look well with basic features (Warrock, Q3).

[Molon Labe]

I personally think the curvature of the Earth is much more important then other graphical issues :D This will allow the global scope. It's not just a graphics feature, it's the very basic feature of the whole engine.

/agree. Accurate radar horizon modeling FTW.:up:

[Werewolf]

Hear hear! to the latter remarks, I couldn't agree more

[MBot]

I agree, I think graphics are important. Not to the same degree as for FPS or flightsims obviously. But bad graphics can realy break the "I'm there" feeling. The station graphics are very important to me, as I spend almost all the time there. The OHP looks quite ok, but the Los Angeles interfaces, my favourite ride, look horrible. Ultimately what I would wish for a new sim would be detailed 3d interfaces and boat interiors. External graphics are not the most important thing, but obviously the 16bit colors are a realy imersion killer aswell.

But in the end I guess that is mostly academical anyway. Considering that Ubisoft has literally brought the Tom Clancy name, I guess our best hope for a new modern sub sim would be Ubisoft's 'Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising II'. There at least the graphics would be good...

[GrayOwl]

An illegal Addon with some "new" playable units ... tho not truly new as in the sense with all new interfaces and whatnot ... just the old stuff with a new 3d model and new db entries and as far as I understand one or two modified interfaces.

However, in original game from SCS - it is impossible to play. The weapon - does not fly there where it is sent by the player, all weapon practically too is identical - have the same sensor controls.
The aircraft does not fly and falls in water.
Any platform has no normal physics. Etc etc…

How it can have a name “Simulator” - if you will put in a database for the weapon his normal parameters - it ceases to work!

SCS really have sold to us not game and its Beta-version.
Unless they did not know what the game consists of one only of bugs?

In addition –Reinforce Alert- have removed many these "nursery of the bug" and as the silly algorithm of the original doctrines is completely altered.

And besides - is added hundreds AI of units (similarity SCX-2 mod)

[Robsoie]

That's why it will be done for free. :88)

I never heard about Comsubsim before, as i don't read this board as much as i used to in the past, but after giving a look to your signature, it sounds like a very impressive and ambitious project.

Best luck to you for this work on your Comsubsim, it should make a lot of people happy in the future if you manage to achieve this titan work.

[XabbaRus]

I'm doing some of the GFX for comsubsim.

I try to make my models with high enough polys to look good but not to drag the sim down. Efficient model making is the key. Also you can't beat good textures. They can really make a model look better.

[Dr.Sid]

I'm doing some of the GFX for comsubsim.

I try to make my models with high enough polys to look good but not to drag the sim down. Efficient model making is the key. Also you can't beat good textures. They can really make a model look better.

Amen to that :arrgh!:

[Castout]

@Oneshot

Ah I see.......so being an "illegal" addon I reckon that noone knows where to find it then :lol:

Italian DWX, the Alfa Tau is much better than the half completed Russian Red Alert DWX mod imo.

Of course I don't know where to download it and that's why I sent you PM.

[Werewolf]

@Castout

Thanks mate :up: I wanted to reply on your message, but your inbox is full so I cannot send to you :lol:

[Castout]

@Castout

Thanks mate :up: I wanted to reply on your message, but your inbox is full so I cannot send to you :lol:

Thanks for the telling. I had no idea my inbox was full there was no tell tale that my inbox was full.

[Werewolf]

@Castout

Well, that's what the message said, failed to deliver due to your inbox being full :lol:

[Werewolf]

@Grayowl

Erhm.....I've tried to send you a PM, but your inbox is full so I cannot.....guess this phenomenon is spreading across the forum :lol:

[Castout]

@Grayowl

Erhm.....I've tried to send you a PM, but your inbox is full so I cannot.....guess this phenomenon is spreading across the forum :lol:

Nothing to worry about that is why we have you here Werewolf. To check and warn people when their inbox is full. :rotfl:.

Cheers

[Apocal]

I really am at a loss to understand how the sim market failed so badly. The PC had so much potential and it's been wasted on FPSs.

I have two theories on that:

A) There was no failure per se. Sims as a genre simply failed to grow in comparison to FPS and RTS games. As those games became more popular, they raised the bar in terms of capital required to produce a marketable, profitable game so sims by and large were pushed out of the market.

B) Alternatively, the sim genre shot it's collective foot off by increasing realism and decreasing accessibility to the games. Essentially, the only people who could expect to be proficient at the game were those who'd played the previous iteration or invested dozens of hours learning. Most people are not going to stick with a game that requires hours of study. And the era of electronic manuals didn't help either.

Intertwined in all this is the fact that many FPS and RTS games legitimately did better at what they set out to do. I think we can all think of a couple of supposedly world-beater sims that fell flat on their face in implementation *cough* WW2OL *cough*.

Seriously, I think that the fact that WW2OL is still around is more a testament to the popularity of WW2 movies after "Saving Private Ryan" than any of it's own entertainment merits.

[Molon Labe]

B) Alternatively, the sim genre shot it's collective foot off by increasing realism and decreasing accessibility to the games. Essentially, the only people who could expect to be proficient at the game were those who'd played the previous iteration or invested dozens of hours learning.

Um, that's what makes a sim a sim.:dead:

[goldorak]

B) Alternatively, the sim genre shot it's collective foot off by increasing realism and decreasing accessibility to the games. Essentially, the only people who could expect to be proficient at the game were those who'd played the previous iteration or invested dozens of hours learning.

Um, that's what makes a sim a sim.:dead:

The options open to us are 2 : embrace the freeware/opensource development that frees us from economic/demographic constraints (look at the success of Orbiter, a real simulator not a game), even ComSubSim looks very promising.
Or else prepare to pay hundreds of $ for a simulation on a per episode basis as will be the case for fighter ops/steel beasts pro etc...

[Castout]

The options open to us are 2 : embrace the freeware/opensource development that frees us from economic/demographic constraints (look at the success of Orbiter, a real simulator not a game), even ComSubSim looks very promising.
Or else prepare to pay hundreds of $ for a simulation on a per episode basis as will be the case for fighter ops/steel beasts pro etc...
I prefer the second. But it must be good.

Open source is not going to cut it. The people have RL responsibilities that they need to attend to.

So Sonalysts make us a less than $200.00 naval warfare sim which is GOOD. :)

[LoBlo]

The options open to us are 2 : embrace the freeware/opensource development that frees us from economic/demographic constraints (look at the success of Orbiter, a real simulator not a game), even ComSubSim looks very promising. Or else prepare to pay hundreds of $ for a simulation on a per episode basis as will be the case for fighter ops/steel beasts pro etc...

I 2nd that, open source is the best... here's crossing fingers.

If SCS were to continue game work, I would just be happy with upgrades to the current sim in terms of fixed bugs (DSRV, torp behavior), and continuing to "smarten" the AI, sound engine (nonlinear speed versus sound), and increase emersion (more crew verbal feedback... up scope, depth reports, dive angle orders).

[goldorak]

Open source is not going to cut it. The people have RL responsibilities that they need to attend to.

So Sonalysts make us a less than $200.00 naval warfare sim which is GOOD. :)


I beg to differ.
Have you even tried Orbiter before stating that open source/freeware community driven games go nowhere ? :roll:
Orbiter is a first class Simulation software. If it were sold in retail it would have minimum a 1000 pages manual detailing an introductory course into orbital dynamics for starters. :rotfl:

The important point is having a focused development schedule. And its achievable in open source/freeware much better than in proprietary development. Have you seen how many ****ing bugs are still in DW ? They will never ever be fixed. You find that a good situation ? Me, not in the least.

[Castout]

I have every reasons to hope that open source could deliver the ideal naval warfare sim that we all hope for. But rather to disappoint myself I prefer not to expect too much from open software products especially in gaming.

It's not that I don't hope that open source would cut it but I would rather prepare for the worst when it comes to open source games.

I mean take a look at LWAMI. The people who created it have left it as it is without further development. There are people who are now trying to improve it though but they too inevitably will leave too sometime in the future. In open source development there is NO guarantee that the developers would stick to improve its products. People just come and go without any real sense of responsibility. Because they are not paid and because their involvement had been voluntary. And LWAMI is not a whole new game but rather a mod for an existing game.

I can live with DW with LWAMI installed. But DW is buggy without LWAMI. Buggy but was still playable. And I agree that nowadays commercial software products, games genre especially, do not gurantee quality.

[Dr.Sid]

There is no guarantee with free software, right. But as you see with DW, there is no guarantee with commercial software either.

[goldorak]

There is no guarantee with free software, right. But as you see with DW, there is no guarantee with commercial software either.


Sure, but free software lets you explore aspects which would not be considered in commercial software. Free software doesn't have to cater to the lowest common denominator, commercial games yes, because they have to sell.
Another things is you can improve free/open source software, you can't improve commercial games.
The naval sim engine is not realistic enough, tough luck. You can't do a thing.
The radar simulation is inexistant, tough luck you can't improve it.
Masts are not detected on radar, tough luck you can't improve it.
and so on....

If you start an open source software there is one guarantee, that the source code will always be available to be improved upon. And even if the project keeps a closed source kernel, there is always the possibility of making available and sdk/api (that's the route taken in orbiter and things have worked pretty well indeed).
Will there ever be a finished polished ComSubSim ? Who knows, but one thing is sure, right now even in its alpha stage ComSubSim models the handling of subs much much better than Dangerous Waters. Right now, the few models in ComSubSim are of much better quality than what you find in Dangerous Waters.

[Dr.Sid]

Well for such 'open' project 'finished' has no meaning. It can only become 'discontinued'. And if it gets open source, it can't even get discontinued.

[goldorak]

Well for such 'open' project 'finished' has no meaning. It can only become 'discontinued'. And if it gets open source, it can't even get discontinued.

Yes you could say that.
An open source project is never formally finished, but there comes a times when it is usable. And at that point it is considered "finished".
Of course people can still improve it afterwards but the main objective is getting the game "usable". :p

[Apocal]

B) Alternatively, the sim genre shot it's collective foot off by increasing realism and decreasing accessibility to the games. Essentially, the only people who could expect to be proficient at the game were those who'd played the previous iteration or invested dozens of hours learning.

Um, that's what makes a sim a sim.:dead:

Go back and play some sims of the mid-90s and earlier. Even with their "realism" I could pick them up and play within an afternoon. I'd be proficient within two or three days. Contrast to now. The bar for sims was raised, but not for the better as far as the bottom line was concerned.

[Molon Labe]

B) Alternatively, the sim genre shot it's collective foot off by increasing realism and decreasing accessibility to the games. Essentially, the only people who could expect to be proficient at the game were those who'd played the previous iteration or invested dozens of hours learning.
Um, that's what makes a sim a sim.:dead:
Go back and play some sims of the mid-90s and earlier. Even with their "realism" I could pick them up and play within an afternoon. I'd be proficient within two or three days. Contrast to now. The bar for sims was raised, but not for the better as far as the bottom line was concerned.

F4 was made in the mid 90s. 688I too. People don't pick that up in a couple days. And in comparison to F4, just as an example, I wouldn't consider something like Jane's USN Fighters to be a flight sim---it was just a somewhat realistic game. I don't think we're talking about the same sort of products.

[LoBlo]

Have you even tried Orbiter before stating that open source/freeware community driven games go nowhere ? :roll:

Not to play devil's advocate, but wasn't orbiter originally a project involving graduate work and PhD's? How many hydroacustic/physic's PhDs do we have in the subsim community?.... I think that's what makes a subsim more diffuculty than other sims... and how many "orbiters" are out there anyway; its kindof a phenomena.

Nonetheless, I think everyone is looking at Dr. Sid's work, including myself, and are excited by what's there so far and what it could mean(bravo). We're all pulling for it.

[Dr.Sid]

Well .. it's strange that freeware is so amateurish. I guess everyone makes some smaller stuff when he's on the college, then they start making it for the money.

Many people also thinks writing 3d games is easy. They get excited, they start, and they fail. There is many cases where you can see that those people really could not do it or missed some important skills.

So what actually ends as a freeware are only those first tries of pros or failures of amateurs. But generally there is no law of nature which forbids freeware to be good.

At least I hope so :lol:

[goldorak]

The author of Orbiter has a PH.D, but he did the game as a hobby on his free time.
Orbiter is not just the physics simulations, its the whole of the add-ons and the physics simulations.
And the add-ons (ranging from NASSP,AMSO, Mercury, Gemini, 2001 a Space Odyssey, Deltaglider etc...) were community created, because of a very well designed api.
This is Orbiter today, and it definitely is not a one mans job.

[Apocal]

F4 was made in the mid 90s. 688I too. People don't pick that up in a couple days. And in comparison to F4, just as an example, I wouldn't consider something like Jane's USN Fighters to be a flight sim---it was just a somewhat realistic game. I don't think we're talking about the same sort of products.

I recall F4 coming out in 1999. Never played 688.