DW Pro

[SeaQueen]

Hi Guys!

I went to the Surface Warfare Association's expo today to check out all the cool gizmos the Navy wants to buy. They had everything from gas turbine engines to radars, to SM-3 missiles on display. They also had Dangerous Waters (the professional version) on display at the Sonalyst's booth. It was pretty cool. I got to talk to the guys to work with it, and they told me about some of the cool things they've done with it, including interfacing it to other wargames like MAGTF XXI. I also voiced some of my ongoing gripes with the civilian version, but it was still neat.

I also got to turn donuts in the ocean using the Navy's LCS simulator that they had on display. 50kts baby! VROOOOOOOM!!!! It was much more fun than the DDG simulator, where you'd give it some juice and eventually it'd move.

[LoBlo]

<------ *is jealous*

[SeaQueen]

<------ *is jealous*

In fairness it wasn't THAT cool. The place was very old-fart-in-a-suit heavy. I'm all about a nice suit and some cute pumps, but I thought it was a little bit uptight. Maybe that was just my impression. Actually, the first thing I noticed about the Sonalysts people wasn't that it was the Sonalyst's booth, but rather that they were office casual.

I totally geeked out with the General Electric guy when I asked about why the thermal efficiency of their turbines increased with their horsepower...

[jmr]

Any info from the Sonalyst people about whether or not they're going to do anything further in the civilian market? DW2 or something along those lines?

[XabbaRus]

So what else did they say about DW Pro and about your gripes with DW lite?

[SeaQueen]

Any info from the Sonalyst people about whether or not they're going to do anything further in the civilian market? DW2 or something along those lines?

Nope. Although, actually my impression was that there was actually a little more freedom to develop in the civilian market than the military market because they understand it a little better. They know about how much money the game will bring in and for how long and plan around that. With the military version of DW (all 18 of them) the attitude is "no contract, no development." That makes sense, because that's how it is in my company too. That's the war business in general.

[SeaQueen]

So what else did they say about DW Pro

DW Pro was neat. They used HLR to link it to all kinds of simulations, those designed specifically for the military and civilian ones. They said you could connect it to everything from Fleet Command to MS Flight Simulator. The other thing I liked about it was that they had a database editor for the Pro version. In my mind, that's the one thing I really wish DW had, because the existing database is really pretty limited. I mean... you can't even put out a full US Expeditionary Strike Group. There's only one type of Arleigh Burke... etc. If they put it out with the database editor, so that the community could add what they didn't have in there, it'd make the game have a longer run time, I think. He said they'd put out a ballistic missile defense version with the AEGIS console in it recently, and I thought that was pretty cool.

and about your gripes with DW lite?

Basically I just talked about how I didn't think the sonar model was very accurate and they said something like, "Yeah.. we don't even want to go NEAR anything the Navy MIGHT think is classified." They said theoretically they could make it better, and had done it better for the classified versions, although I'm a little skeptical, knowing the state of the art. I talked to one of their managers, not one of their development team, so of course he's going to tell me they can do everything I ask for, just give us money.

[Molon Labe]

um.... we do have a DB editor and the ability to add new stuff to it.


The ability to link to FC and flight sims makes me extremely jealous tho.

[SeaQueen]

um.... we do have a DB editor and the ability to add new stuff to it.

Fair enough. I just never really see anyone adding any new platforms, except playables at the expense of others. I guess the limitation is graphics. If I was creating a naval wargame, I'd go the Harpoon route of minimalism. But I guess that's a seperate discussion.

[Molon Labe]

um.... we do have a DB editor and the ability to add new stuff to it.
Fair enough. I just never really see anyone adding any new platforms, except playables at the expense of others. I guess the limitation is graphics. If I was creating a naval wargame, I'd go the Harpoon route of minimalism. But I guess that's a seperate discussion.

Fair enough to yours as well. I'll go yell at LW some more about the ballistic doctrines....

[goldorak]

The ability to link to FC and flight sims makes me extremely jealous tho.

*

DW and Falcon 4 ? :rock:

[SeaQueen]

Fair enough to yours as well. I'll go yell at LW some more about the ballistic doctrines....

Well... the thing is, I think early on people were way too worried about the techno-weenieness of the database and trying to decide what the specific numbers are for the various platforms. Personally, my first priority would have been to add in the glaring omissions. They have US LSDs but no LPDs? Only one kind of Arleigh Burke? How come there's only once choice of carrier air wing? Next I would have added near-future platforms because that is how you give the game longevity. A non-playable 774 class would be fine in my book. Add in an SSGN. Add in the F-35 variants. How about the LHA(R) class? At the time there was no LCS. LCS is a real warship now, but nobody seems to care. What about a DDG-1000 or two?

I'd rather see a variety of land-based ASCMs and ballistic missiles with anti-ship capabilities and cluster warheads than SSBNs that can shoot ballistic missiles. To me, these things are much more relevant.

Obsessing over "well... the beam pattern of the towed arrays doesn't look right" or "this boat is too quiet" or "this boat is too loud" because someone somewhere in some unclassified popular submarine novel read that someone did or didn't make a detection at X nautical miles is just kind silly to me.

[LoBlo]

I'd rather see a variety of ... ballistic missiles with anti-ship capabilities and cluster warheads

Are antiship ballistic missiles that proliferative? I thought they were all still experimental with the Chinese the main developer.

[SeaQueen]

Are antiship ballistic missiles that proliferative? I thought they were all still experimental with the Chinese the main developer.

The Soviets had them. The Chinese are believed to be developing them. A toy wargame is best developed around near future conflicts, hence I'd throw them in there for the sake of "what-if-ing." Maneuvering re-entry vehicles are old technology. The old Pershing II IRBMs had them.

I'm always shocked by how little military technology has progressed since the end of the Cold War. I mean... geez... the Kilo is 1980s technology and people are like, "Oh my god, it's so scary." Then the Chinese shot down that satelite and everyone was like, "Oh no! This is new technology!" Then we knocked one down with a leftover missile that wasn't even designed for the task, and didn't scatter space junk around the sky in the process. Hasn't anyone ever heard of the ASAT? That was 1980s technology too.

None of this is new. Everyone acts like it's the cutting edge of technology. If you want to see the cutting edge of technology, look at your iPhone or under the hood at Google. The US military is so far ahead of everyone else with what we had to fight the Soviets, that when the rest of the world comes out with something we've already had for decades people are stunned.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Obsessing over "well... the beam pattern of the towed arrays doesn't look right" or "this boat is too quiet" or "this boat is too loud" because someone somewhere in some unclassified popular submarine novel read that someone did or didn't make a detection at X nautical miles is just kind silly to me.

Some of the critisms are founded on experience and first hand knowledge. There are quite a few of us submariners who are trying to nudge this into something closer to a simulator and out of the long time scale arcade game realm. We just have to work with the framework provided by the developers.

[Molon Labe]

Fair enough to yours as well. I'll go yell at LW some more about the ballistic doctrines....
Well... the thing is, I think early on people were way too worried about the techno-weenieness of the database and trying to decide what the specific numbers are for the various platforms. Personally, my first priority would have been to add in the glaring omissions. They have US LSDs but no LPDs? Only one kind of Arleigh Burke? How come there's only once choice of carrier air wing? Next I would have added near-future platforms because that is how you give the game longevity. A non-playable 774 class would be fine in my book. Add in an SSGN. Add in the F-35 variants. How about the LHA(R) class? At the time there was no LCS. LCS is a real warship now, but nobody seems to care. What about a DDG-1000 or two?



I'd love to have those platforms as well, but we need models to do that. I'm always grateful for models we get, but considering I nor anyone else pays them for their work, we really don't have any business complaining about the free work that they don't do for us.

[XabbaRus]

Arleigh Burke exists as a model so can be used twice for teh different variants.

As for new models. Well I have no motivation at the mo. Even for Dr Sid's sim..

If there is a plan and a timescale for this I'd get back into modelling but the mod world is very fluid.

[SeaQueen]

I'd love to have those platforms as well, but we need models to do that. I'm always grateful for models we get, but considering I nor anyone else pays them for their work, we really don't have any business complaining about the free work that they don't do for us.

And that's fair. I guess this is part of why I don't like the idea of a graphics intensive naval simulation. Unless you have a bunch of people who like to make 3D model ships for fun, and they're constantly cranking out new things, it really limits the extensibility of the sim.

[goldorak]

[quote=Molon Labe]
And that's fair. I guess this is part of why I don't like the idea of a graphics intensive naval simulation. Unless you have a bunch of people who like to make 3D model ships for fun, and they're constantly cranking out new things, it really limits the extensibility of the sim.

C'mon SeaQueen, you can just as easily extend the database in DW. If you're worried about the 3d models, just do a basic one (hell even a cube ship would be ok).
Who cares, since you can always disable 3d view. The relevant part is to insert in the database all the information relative to a navy, its ships etc... The 3d model is really the last thing to consider.

[Molon Labe]

@goldie: That was actually my argument.

@SQ: can you elaborate a bit on how other sims were integrated into DW pro?

[goldorak]

@Molon Labe : would you mind calling me Goldorak, or Gold. I don't appreciate goldie.
Unless you're ok with me calling you Molie ? ;)

[Molon Labe]

@Molon Labe : would you mind calling me Goldorak, or Gold. I don't appreciate goldie.
Unless you're ok with me calling you Molie ? ;)

I'll think about it.

[LoBlo]

And that's fair. I guess this is part of why I don't like the idea of a graphics intensive naval simulation. Unless you have a bunch of people who like to make 3D model ships for fun, and they're constantly cranking out new things, it really limits the extensibility of the sim.

Its easy to do. All you have to do is copy the base model and change the weapon loadouts. The stopgap is that you have to create custom missions with the new platforms or they will go to waste. Personally I have a virginia, Ohio SSGN, Type 214, and Lada in the database I play, but haven't created any missions for them. And if you do, its a mission that you've created yourself, so has 100% predicatibility.

Or you could change existing missions to include different versions of the same platform (maybe a randomization factor for a virginia adversy, versus a LAi adversary, etc).

[SeaQueen]

C'mon SeaQueen, you can just as easily extend the database in DW. If you're worried about the 3d models, just do a basic one (hell even a cube ship would be ok).

Who cares, since you can always disable 3d view. The relevant part is to insert in the database all the information relative to a navy, its ships etc... The 3d model is really the last thing to consider.

Theoretically, you're right. In practice, it never seems to work out that way. If that's the direction the community chooses to go with the game, then why include the 3D option at all? If all you're going to do is add in hundreds of platforms that are only going to be represented by simple geometric objects, then the processor time for rendering them is best spent on other things. Part of what makes DW fun is that it does have cool graphics. It may not be the state of the art, but they're not bad and there's room to improve them by modding. I like being able to peer through the periscope and not have that process abstracted like it is in Harpoon. I like how in the FFG I can sit out on the bridge wing and look out with my binoculars. That's what makes DW unique.

[SeaQueen]

@Molon Labe : would you mind calling me Goldorak, or Gold. I don't appreciate goldie.

But... goldie is CUTE!

[SeaQueen]

And if you do, its a mission that you've created yourself, so has 100% predicatibility.

Missions I make for myself never have 100% predictablility. That's what dynamic positions and random start boxes are for. If you use them wisely, they can TOTALLY change everything.

Or you could change existing missions to include different versions of the same platform (maybe a randomization factor for a virginia adversy, versus a LAi adversary, etc).

That's one thing you can do. Personally, I've always felt like most scenarios were driven more by kinematics than the particular platform so I've always emphasized random positioning over randomized adversaries, but it still adds a layer of interest particularly when the platforms are very different. For example, if a scenario randomly picked Type 22 FFGs versus Arleigh Burkes then it would be fun because you don't necessarily know if the bad guy has VLA or not.

[Castout]

@Molon Labe : would you mind calling me Goldorak, or Gold. I don't appreciate goldie.
Unless you're ok with me calling you Molie ? ;)

I'll think about it.

I'm okay with Molie

[Zachstar]

Why would they make a DW2? If it isn't SH4 level graphics people will ignore it faster than DW1.

They are getting so much mula from the military that if I were them I would not dare try the market again. Especially in this economy.

Nope the best hope we have now is Ubisoft or Dr Sid.