And why exacly does the full 3D interior add nothing to gameplay?

[oscar19681]

I dont understand why some people think that it doesnt add anything to gameplay. In my view i allways thought that the limited boat acces in sh-3 was unrealitic. Even more so in sh-4 since you could only have 2 compartments. Why would it be unrealistc to check the engine room yourself after the chief engineer says its busted or damaged. Remember the scene from das boot uncut version? The captain speaks to johan in the engine room to concerve oil in the engines. I though this was an exeptional scene cut from the normal das boot version. Also i wanna know what its like be depth charged from the ward room for instance. So give some credits for the devs for making it possible and for adding the missing link that was missing all allong!!! I mean you cant tell me when looking at the damage/ cutaway view screen in sh-3 that you never wondered what the rest of the u-boat looked beyond the 3 comparments in 3-d? I Mean why visit a real u-boat from the inside when you can have a interactive 3-d interieur that not only functions as a ultimate museum but also depicts what it was like in all its faccets for the good and the bad.

[Hitman]

I don't think anybody thins it does nothing. I believe many people say that they have played good, inmersive submarines games despite not having a 3D interior, and others say that they would have preferred that programming effort to be invested in other things. :salute:

[GoldenRivet]

i think having the 3D interior will contribute to realism greatly.

for example:

Instead of hot keying to the periscope, valuable time has to be spent ascending the ladder into the conning tower and actually interacting with the scope.

[CaptJodan]

I gotta admit, in my view the interior is a big selling point for me, though I'm hoping they don't arcade the game down as some fear here in order to give it to us (that scope, ick!). I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea...most people are concerned about racking up the tonnage, but it's a big thing, especially during an otherwise "boring" DC attack, to be able to see more than the control room. A couple of additional reasons I'm excited about this:

1. I don't foresee myself getting the chance to tour a U-boat anytime soon in my life. I'm nowhere near any museums that have them. Closest boat I have is the USS. Drum. A great tour to be sure, but not a U-boat. This gives me the chance to walk through one in some fashion.

2. I remember back when we transitioned from SH2 to SH3. What a huge, huge difference. From no 1st person vantage point of almost any sort all the way to an active control room with swinging meat! Swinging meat man! You got DCed, and the meat swung! (It's like the rolling pencil in the TB-3 in IL-2) This was a huge immersion factor I enjoyed (and still do enjoy, thanks to OM for SH4), and to expand on that immersion is a big thing.

3. People work miracles around here as long as the core of the game is relatively solid. If the convoys aren't moving about right, or the torpedoes don't have a big enough bang, or the boat seems unusually rugged, this community will hunt down these problems and fix them. Vanilla SH3 and 4 didn't exactly come out of the box as good as they ended up either, but MOST of the core of those games was good enough to make these games great with the help of this community. In contrast, SH2 was something of an exercise in futility. Mods improved it, but...come on. If the devs can make the core of this game not resemble some kind of 1st person shooter or PT Boats while dropping the ball on the convoys and other things that the community can fix, then I'd be happy*. The interiors seem to be a core feature that I'm glad is added. I hope if they sacrifice something else in order to put those interiors in, then they sacrifice something we can change.

*Note, I'm not exactly looking to give modders more work. Just that there are always compromises with a game, and no game is 100% perfect out of the box (these days, far, far less than 100%). I take comfort in the fact that the SH series at least has the ability to be modded. Some games aren't, or are limited to skins and such.

[Carotio]

I concur that I have got the same feeling from time to time when reading posts, but just because some won't visit the extra compartments very much, doesn't mean that others won't.
I remember when SH3 was out, people asked for them to be added in a add on. It never came. SH4 came, with fleet boats, but still no extra interiors.
Now they add them plus they give them some functionality, how much, I don't know though. They will not be 100 % realistic modeled. There are way too many details to make then, and too few systems would be able to handle it.
I'm pretty cool that there are extra compartments, and if they are only 75 % correct modeled, then so be it, as long as the working parts work correctly.
The central room f.i. is very small and narrow, but in the game there's plenty of room. Just an example of what is acceptable. But it would be nice if it's corrected.

[Onkel Neal]

I gotta admit, in my view the interior is a big selling point for me, though I'm hoping they don't arcade the game down as some fear here in order to give it to us (that scope, ick!). I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea...most people are concerned about racking up the tonnage, but it's a big thing, especially during an otherwise "boring" DC attack, to be able to see more than the control room. A couple of additional reasons I'm excited about this:

1. I don't foresee myself getting the chance to tour a U-boat anytime soon in my life. I'm nowhere near any museums that have them. Closest boat I have is the USS. Drum. A great tour to be sure, but not a U-boat. This gives me the chance to walk through one in some fashion.

2. I remember back when we transitioned from SH2 to SH3. What a huge, huge difference. From no 1st person vantage point of almost any sort all the way to an active control room with swinging meat! Swinging meat man! You got DCed, and the meat swung! (It's like the rolling pencil in the TB-3 in IL-2) This was a huge immersion factor I enjoyed (and still do enjoy, thanks to OM for SH4), and to expand on that immersion is a big thing.

3. People work miracles around here as long as the core of the game is relatively solid. If the convoys aren't moving about right, or the torpedoes don't have a big enough bang, or the boat seems unusually rugged, this community will hunt down these problems and fix them. Vanilla SH3 and 4 didn't exactly come out of the box as good as they ended up either, but MOST of the core of those games was good enough to make these games great with the help of this community. In contrast, SH2 was something of an exercise in futility. Mods improved it, but...come on. If the devs can make the core of this game not resemble some kind of 1st person shooter or PT Boats while dropping the ball on the convoys and other things that the community can fix, then I'd be happy*. The interiors seem to be a core feature that I'm glad is added. I hope if they sacrifice something else in order to put those interiors in, then they sacrifice something we can change.

*Note, I'm not exactly looking to give modders more work. Just that there are always compromises with a game, and no game is 100% perfect out of the box (these days, far, far less than 100%). I take comfort in the fact that the SH series at least has the ability to be modded. Some games aren't, or are limited to skins and such.

I like the way you approach this. Having a fully playable U-boat gives the long time subsim player something quite new. Sure, this may narrow the scope somewhat in some regards, but it does expand the Role Playing element of the game, a new frontier. Some people have asked, "Why U-boats? It's been done in SH3." The full interior element of SH5 gives you a different flavor, and different gameplaying experience. For me, no matter how much I like a particular game, such as SH3 or SH4, I really relish something new. I don't think SH5 will fully supplant SH3 in every way, but it will be an upgrade in some areas, and that's definitely worth a look.

[Randomizer]

Just opinion but this is a feature that I suspect will get tiresome after the first patrol, when all the scripted dialog has been heard or read and all the compartments have been explored.

FPS games generally have a world or at least a city/battlefield to explore, in a U-Boat you have five perhaps six compartments and a sameness that will lead to boredom pretty fast, probably faster than the Modders can generate new faces and text. Provided of course, that such mods will be possible.

My style of play in SH3 sees me spend TC time on the map screen and attacks/evasions in the control room, on the bridge or at the periscope. I cannot see this habit changing since commanders are likely to be at those positions doing what needs done. Visiting the hydrophone is rare, that's why there is an operator to report contacts. Improving that particular reports/returns dialog would be a huge improvement but I have never seen this on anybodies wish lists. In-game cooks seem to have greater priority.

For me, the ramped up external graphics and the ability to travel about the boat really will add nothing but game loading time at the expense of hard drive space. But to each his own.

Good Hunting

[Méo]

For me, the ramped up external graphics and the ability to travel about the boat really will add nothing but game loading time at the expense of hard drive space

Some were whining because this feature was not in SH3, now some are whining because this feature is in this time...

:nope::nope::nope::nope::nope::nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Before SH3 we never even had 'limited compartments'. Some old-time players are still of the opinion that no matter what SH3's 3D views brought to the game, Aces Of The Deep still had the better gameplay, and is still the greatest sub sim of all time. I disagree with this, partly because modders were able to fix some of the troublesome parts of SH3, and partly because the 3D harbors and interiors really did increase the immersion, the feel of being there, dramatically.

I'm with Hitman. It does look like a major step forward, and maybe it will drastically change the way we play the game. But if, for all this, the things we've been complaining about for five years now - the broken AI, the bizarre behaviour of enemy ships, the lack of wolfpacks and everything else - then the gameplay will not be improved in spite of it all, and it will still be broken. That is what the complaints are really about.

[Onkel Neal]

in a U-Boat you have five perhaps six compartments and a sameness that will lead to boredom pretty fast, probably faster than the Modders can generate new faces and text.



Perfect, SH5 will also simulate historically realistic boredom :D

I hear what you are saying. Yeah, you may be right. But another way to look at it; in SH1, Aces, SH2-3-4, and many subsims, the main game consists of leaving port, ramping up TC until you encounter something, then go to the bridge and scope, intercept and fire torpedoes, then evade. That is the gamplay pattern, and it could be considered repetitious too? :hmmm: I'm not displuting what you say, but I think adding the RPG and full interior could add to the cycle of gameplay that already exists in an SH game.

Before SH3 we never even had 'limited compartments'. Some old-time players are still of the opinion that no matter what SH3's 3D views brought to the game, Aces Of The Deep still had the better gameplay, and is still the greatest sub sim of all time. I disagree with this, partly because modders were able to fix some of the troublesome parts of SH3, and partly because the 3D harbors and interiors really did increase the immersion, the feel of being there, dramatically.

I rarely disagree with you and I sure ain't doing it here :) I remember when SH2 came out with no control room screen, all you had was the background to the periscope. Does that make a difference? Well, does to me. Every step you can take to bring the player into the game is a good one. Does that mean that AI and realism are not as important? Not at all, but nothing wrong with trying to do a good job on both. Does anyone want to go back to pre-SH3 and no crew? Pre-SH2 and very limited views on the bridge?

[Onkel Neal]

PS: I played Aces last night while my daughter occupied my game rig playing Bioshock. Aces was great 15 years ago... it's barely above arcade now compared to SH3&4 :03:

[mookiemookie]

I feel it doesn't add to the gameplay because when I think of the object of the game, its to get out there and sink tonnage in spite of the Allies' countermeasures. Developer time is a limited resource, and to spend it modelling rooms that, in my opinion, don't further the ends of the game, is wasteful. With unlimited time and resources, hell yes I'd love to see a fully modelled and detailed U-boat. But at this juncture, I'd like to see that time spent on things like adding real life destroyer attacks (plaster, pineapple, raspberry, creeping attack, et al) or things like carriers having to turn into the wind to launch planes, or a realistic tide system, or a accurately modelled globe, or wolfpacks. All of those things make a heck of a lot more impact than seeing the sights inside my boat.

[Sailor Steve]

I rarely disagree with you and I sure ain't doing it here :)
Sure you are, and rightfully so.

No, I didn't like SH2's total lack of interface either, especially since AOD and SH1 (and Silent Service) at least had a view of the control room from which we could click the various functions to get to those screens. I also consider SH4 to be a small step backward in that regard, as I really liked clicking on the officer icons to access their orders and reports, rather than a technical-looking emblem.

But I still stand by my opinion. If the major gameplay functions are still broken and can't be fixed by modding, then all this new stuff is nothing but a waste of everybody's time.

[Méo]

Perfect, SH5 will also simulate historically realistic boredom :D

I hear what you are saying. Yeah, you may be right. But another way to look at it; in SH1, Aces, SH2-3-4, and many subsims, the main game consists of leaving port, ramping up TC until you encounter something, then go to the bridge and scope, intercept and fire torpedoes, then evade. That is the gamplay pattern, and it could be considered repetitious too? :hmmm: I'm not displuting what you say, but I think adding the RPG and full interior could add to the cycle of gameplay that already exists in an SH game.

Agreed, very good points!

I don't think SH5 will fully supplant SH3 in every way

I hope you're wrong on this and I hope you don't say that after seeing SH5 in the last subsim meeting. :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

Sure you are, and rightfully so.

No, I didn't like SH2's total lack of interface either, especially since AOD and SH1 (and Silent Service) at least had a view of the control room from which we could click the various functions to get to those screens. I also consider SH4 to be a small step backward in that regard, as I really liked clicking on the officer icons to access their orders and reports, rather than a technical-looking emblem.

But I still stand by my opinion. If the major gameplay functions are still broken and can't be fixed by modding, then all this new stuff is nothing but a waste of everybody's time.

Somehow this discussion seems to have gone from "why does having full 3-d interior add nothing to gameplay?" to "adding 3D interiors means gameplay will be broken". If the major gameplay functions are broken, yeah, there is no game.

[Randomizer]

Some were whining because this feature was not in SH3, now some are whining because this feature is in this time...

:nope::nope::nope::nope::nope::nope:
Ahhhh. The joys of selective reading. There was no whining on my part, I was not complaining that the features are included merely that I cannot see using them. Are you saying that the new graphics will not increase load time on an older machine nor take up more H-D space? And you know this how? Perhaps you missed the part about "...to each his own"?

I'm with SS on this, outstanding graphics without the features he mentions has an arcade flavour about it, however I will reserve specific judgement on SH5 until release.

Good Hunting

[Méo]

Are you saying that the new graphics will not increase load time on an older machine nor take up more H-D space?

Every new game does that, only evolution.

Edit: look, I didn't mean to insult you, to me the full 3-D interior is a good thing, even if I would have prefer to see Wolfpacks first.

[Sailor Steve]

Somehow this discussion seems to have gone from "why does having full 3-d interior add nothing to gameplay?" to "adding 3D interiors means gameplay will be broken". If the major gameplay functions are broken, yeah, there is no game.
I didn't mean to turn it into an argument, and certainly Oscar's original post is strictly about the 3D First Person aspect itself, and not compared to other things. That said, his question was "Why will it not add to gameplay?", and part of the problem is the way different people react to the word 'gameplay'. To some 'gameplay' refers specifically to how the game functions, that is does it operate realistically. I'm one of those, and to us all the rest is fluff. Good fluff, for sure, and I love anything that adds to the ease of immersion. I still tout SH3 over SH4 just because of the harbor traffic mods, so I can't claim I don't appreciate eye candy. Or ear candy, since DBSM, which I translated from SH2 to SH3, is certainly not required for good gameplay. Nor is having the merchants you sink be given names, and we all know where I stand on that one.

So I definitely want to see this, and hope it works well, and hope the other things get fixed as well.

I think where most of the people who will disagree with Oscar is in the idea that immersion and gameplay are not the same things. Yes, this will add greatly to the immersion, and that is very important. But gameplay? I disagree, but only in the semantics.

[Steeltrap]

Another point to consider is how does the 1st person aspect integrate with broader gameplay?

Suppose you have a choice of going to a damaged compartment in person and improving damage control, the trade-off being a delay in broader commands etc. That would mean the view/option was directly affecting gameplay, so is no longer solely 'eye-candy'.

While that example has issues of its own in realism (and I'm not attempting to advocate it), it can show that this might bemore than simple prettiness.

So perhaps we should wait to see how the 1st person is used before drawing any conclusions.

Cheers

[mookiemookie]

Another point to consider is how does the 1st person aspect integrate with broader gameplay?

Suppose you have a choice of going to a damaged compartment in person and improving damage control, the trade-off being a delay in broader commands etc. That would mean the view/option was directly affecting gameplay, so is no longer solely 'eye-candy'.

But that doesn't quite make sense to me. Why would the presence of a commander in a compartment equate to an increase in damage control efficiency? Unless he was an engineering specialist before becoming a commander, that makes no sense.

[FAdmiral]

I, for one, would give up all the 3-d eye candy even if partly
functional to go back to the good ole days when SH2 played against
Destroyer Command. That NEVER got old like going on endless patrols
would do. The game needs to be programmed out of the box instead
of giving the box more compartments to look into.....

JIM

[IanC]

I'm just trying to imagine playing in a fully explorable boat, walking through the compartments, heading up the ladder to the bridge... That must add to the immersion, big time.
I bet after hours and hours of playing this way, we develop a much deeper sense of attachment with the boat and crew, than with any previous subsim.

[Steeltrap]

But that doesn't quite make sense to me. Why would the presence of a commander in a compartment equate to an increase in damage control efficiency? Unless he was an engineering specialist before becoming a commander, that makes no sense.

As I said in my post,

While that example has issues of its own in realism (and I'm not attempting to advocate it), it can show that this might be more than simple prettiness.

So perhaps we should wait to see how the 1st person is used before drawing any conclusions.

My point here was not that the example I gave made sense and/or should be implemented, rather it was an attempt to say it's technically feasible they might make moving around in first person do something other than simply provide pretty graphics.

I am of the opinion that the mechanics/gameplay are the important parts - this is meant to be a simulation, after all - so my preference is to focus all efforts on that IF there's a resource constraint forcing a choice between accurate simulation and 'pretty internal views'.

Not to say some level of views aren't important to the general 'feel' of the sim, they are. It's a question of degree.

If walking around the boat doesn't alter gameplay, then I, too, tend to feel there's little point in it.

I've expressed this view consistently throughout discussions on SH5.

Cheers

[IanC]

If walking around the boat doesn't alter gameplay, then I, too, tend to feel there's little point in it.
Cheers

Like I just finished saying, you don't think it would add greatly to the immersion? But try hard to imagine it, the boat rocking back and forth, you walking through men at work, heading for your bunk, then up to the bow to see the progress of the torpedo loading, etc...
I personally think immersion (sense of being there) is very important in a simulation.

[mookiemookie]

Like I just finished saying, you don't think it would add greatly to the immersion? But try hard to imagine it, the boat rocking back and forth, you walking through men at work, heading for your bunk, then up to the bow to see the progress of the torpedo loading, etc...
I personally think immersion (sense of being there) is very important in a simulation.

As I said in another thread, anytime someone mentions "immersion" it means "yeah yeah yeah, you're right it adds nothing but it's something I want to see."

The presence of accurately modelled destroyer behavior, planes that can surprise you by dropping out of volumetric clouds, having to deal with mechanical breakdowns and a BDU that issues realistic orders does a heck of a lot more for "immersion" for me than watching a computer generated depiction of some schmoes in the bow compartment load a torpedo.

[Steeltrap]

Like I just finished saying, you don't think it would add greatly to the immersion? But try hard to imagine it, the boat rocking back and forth, you walking through men at work, heading for your bunk, then up to the bow to see the progress of the torpedo loading, etc...
I personally think immersion (sense of being there) is very important in a simulation.

To be fair, the sentence before the one you quoted in my post is...

Not to say some level of views aren't important to the general 'feel' of the sim, they are. It's a question of degree.

So I didn't say it doesn't matter, it's a question of how much it adds and how it does it versus what development opportunity was lost by choosing this path.

Cheers

[IanC]

To be fair, the sentence before the one you quoted in my post is...

Not to say some level of views aren't important to the general 'feel' of the sim, they are. It's a question of degree.

So I didn't say it doesn't matter, it's a question of how much it adds and how it does it versus what development opportunity was lost by choosing this path.

Cheers

I got ya. Sorry, didn't mean to 'over snip' your quote. I don't see that much would be lost, unless of course they did something stupid like say 'let's skip this x realism feature and concentrate on the interior.' I guess we'll know soon enough.

[Steeltrap]

I don't see that much would be lost, unless of course they did something stupid like say 'let's skip this x realism feature and concentrate on the interior.' I guess we'll know soon enough.

I imagine most people feel this way to some extent.

For my part it's a 'nice to have'. The realism nuts here - most of us, I guess! - worry about the 'nice to have' being put before the 'game breaker must have'.

Cheers

[Méo]

The presence of accurately modelled destroyer behavior, planes that can surprise you by dropping out of volumetric clouds, having to deal with mechanical breakdowns and a BDU that issues realistic orders does a heck of a lot more for "immersion" for me than watching a computer generated depiction of some schmoes in the bow compartment load a torpedo.

But in an interview, Jürgen Oesten (who spent nearly 600 days at sea) says:

As far as submarine commander is... of course, the main thing and the most important thing is the crew, the training of the crew, the experience of the crew and the mentality of the crew...So why everything that goes inside the boat should be ignored?

BTW, I didn't see anything from the devs that state that their MAIN FOCUS is to create the full 3-d interior.

Think about it, in SH3 there was what... 2 compartments?

Now there is what... maybe 2, 3 or 4 more compartments... it's not like creating the whole Fallout 3 world. :shifty:

[JScones]

Wow, so many good points all round here (well, apart from the now all too common threadcrap :roll:)!

I don't know what I think now!

Focusing on the original question, I wouldn't say it adds nothing. Indeed, I would consider it complementary to the main task, which, at the macro level is pretty much as Neal states, at least in SH3 (ie goto AM52, sink ships, return home). Where I tend to disagree with Neal though is that at the micro level every engagement tends to be different, requiring different tactics, different skills, different, well, everything. To this end, I can't help but think that walking through the boat will become more repetitive much quicker than sinking ships. How many different ways can I interact with "Torpedo Guy" versus an enemy Destroyer?

Of course, the "boom" crowd would disagree - they're likely to be the ones who set everything to auto and as soon as they see an enemy ship, no matter what the solution, will press the fire button...effectively turning every engagement into the same thing. So the 3D view may add more for them than for me.

Where I will find the feature not adding to gameplay is if implementing it comes at the price of more "core" features, as others have already raised here and at various times over the last five years. Then I don't care whether "Radio Guy" massages my feet and gives me a neck rub, no amount of 3D interface will make up for it...for me.

[kptn_kaiserhof]

in theory i agree that 3d compartments are just eyecandy

but fact it adds immersion and the more immersion a game has

the more a person stays inerested

[Sgtmonkeynads]

What if they are not just eye candy this time around though.
What if the engines are down and you have to actually go back there and do something to fix the problem.
I've been dc to point where all my engineers were killed and no one else could make the engines work,,
or your cook dies, and you are the only one on ship that knows how to get the soup just right.
or will the crew starve to death, because it is no one Else's job to cook?

[oscar19681]

Ha! i made it into the articles/reviews on the subsim site! Any warhol was right when he said everybody will be famous for 15 minutes in there lives.

[hyperion2206]

The presence of accurately modelled destroyer behavior, planes that can surprise you by dropping out of volumetric clouds, having to deal with mechanical breakdowns and a BDU that issues realistic orders does a heck of a lot more for "immersion" for me than watching a computer generated depiction of some schmoes in the bow compartment load a torpedo.

Agreed! While the graphics might be cool for a short while and perhaps make you feel like you're on a U-Boat they don't make the game more realistic (realistic=challenging). I mean it's great that you can personally go to the engine room, but that doesn't help you if BDU sends you to the coast of the US with youre type II boat.:yeah:

I might be wrong but I can't imagine that the devs have been given enough time and money to make the new graphics and to upgrade the AI of the enemies.

[oscar19681]

I feel it doesn't add to the gameplay because when I think of the object of the game, its to get out there and sink tonnage in spite of the Allies' countermeasures. Developer time is a limited resource, and to spend it modelling rooms that, in my opinion, don't further the ends of the game, is wasteful. With unlimited time and resources, hell yes I'd love to see a fully modelled and detailed U-boat. But at this juncture, I'd like to see that time spent on things like adding real life destroyer attacks (plaster, pineapple, raspberry, creeping attack, et al) or things like carriers having to turn into the wind to launch planes, or a realistic tide system, or a accurately modelled globe, or wolfpacks. All of those things make a heck of a lot more impact than seeing the sights inside my boat.

Have carriers turn into the wind to launch planes? Uhm how exactly would this be a priority over a full 3-d intereur when mentioning developer time is a limited resource?

[Sailor Steve]

What if they are not just eye candy this time around though.
What if the engines are down and you have to actually go back there and do something to fix the problem.
I've been dc to point where all my engineers were killed and no one else could make the engines work,,
Then you are in real trouble, because in the old European navies (especially the British and German) the engineers were not part of the command structure. They were considered something like wizards, and command officers were given no engineering training. The kaleun who could fix a diesel engine was a rare thing indeed.

or your cook dies, and you are the only one on ship that knows how to get the soup just right.
or will the crew starve to death, because it is no one Else's job to cook?
I'm sure that you might be well able to cook, but anybody can open a can of beans and burn it. They won't starve, even if you're the one who's dead.

[oscar19681]

I, for one, would give up all the 3-d eye candy even if partly
functional to go back to the good ole days when SH2 played against
Destroyer Command. That NEVER got old like going on endless patrols
would do. The game needs to be programmed out of the box instead
of giving the box more compartments to look into.....

JIM

Nobody is stopping you from reinstalling sh-2 and destoyer command. And hell maybe you will injoy it some much that you will skip sh-5 alltogether! Personally i never played silent hunter 1 but silent hunter 2 was a huge letdown for me. The 2-d screens. The limited zoom in the exterieur view, The feeling of being the only one on the u-boat etc etc.

[mookiemookie]

Have carriers turn into the wind to launch planes? Uhm how exactly would this be a priority over a full 3-d intereur when mentioning developer time is a limited resource?

Because that's true to life warship behavior, which should be a priority over watching Marcus cook soup in the galley. One adds to the gameplay and the ultimate mission of the U-boat, the other is fluff.

[Randomizer]

Have carriers turn into the wind to launch planes? Uhm how exactly would this be a priority over a full 3-d intereur when mentioning developer time is a limited resource?
Perhaps because it is reasonable warship behavior and several carriers were successfully attacked by submarine when they did turn into the wind to launch. HMS Courageous and Ark Royal spring to mind off hand.

Having targets that behave like targets did is more important to my subsim experiance than any eye candy, particularly a 3-D expose of a submarine interior. But to each his own.

Good Hunting

Edit
@Mookiemookie
I was drafting my response as you hit send... Great minds think alike, heheheh?

[AVGWarhawk]

I feel it doesn't add to the gameplay because when I think of the object of the game, its to get out there and sink tonnage in spite of the Allies' countermeasures. Developer time is a limited resource, and to spend it modelling rooms that, in my opinion, don't further the ends of the game, is wasteful. With unlimited time and resources, hell yes I'd love to see a fully modelled and detailed U-boat. But at this juncture, I'd like to see that time spent on things like adding real life destroyer attacks (plaster, pineapple, raspberry, creeping attack, et al) or things like carriers having to turn into the wind to launch planes, or a realistic tide system, or a accurately modelled globe, or wolfpacks. All of those things make a heck of a lot more impact than seeing the sights inside my boat.

I would have to agree here. Concerning SH3 I went to the capt quarters probably 10 times all told. The premise of the game is to work your submarine like a captain sinking ships. This is what I spent my time doing when I'm able to fire up the game. However, some stated that having to walk through the compartments and not just clicking the hot key to get to the scope or bridge does add to the game. It adds the element of time. For those that have the time to play real time it could be very exciting. For those that like to kick around the boat talking with the crew now can. It is not all bad and does add something for some.

Funny thing is a lot asked for full scale compartments from bow to stern. Now that it is done these folks will be happy. I'm sure for each this addition will be useful for all in some form or another.

[Ducimus]

>>And why exacly does the full 3-d interior add nothing to gameplay?


Let's say that both SH3 and SH4 have a bit more going on in the interiors then just a conning tower, control room, or radioroom. How much more, a couple more rooms, or a fully rendered interior, take your pick.

Now, how exactly is Sh3 and SH4 played? Where do you end up spending most of your time? Do you REALLY walk around the interior, smelling the "roses" as it were, the entire time. Or do you hit the shortcut key to the nav map , and hit time compression a bit more then you might realize? Point being, i'll wager that for many people, the majority of the time is spent at the nav map, and the periscope. Swapping between the two via hotkeys. Sometimes, you just get in a hurry!

My overall point being, fully rendered 3d interiors, while i admit is a wanted item in my own wish book, you can completely bypass. What you then end up looking at, is things that deal more with a simulation. Ocean current maybe? What if i want to control more aspects of the boat like what desial engine i put on battery charge? How about dive planes? Maybe i want more control over the saftey, negative, or trim tanks? I don't expect to be able to turn every little knob or dial, but from a simulation standpoint, there is a lot missing. If one was to look at sub sims in the same light as flight sims, there is alot more then can be done in terms of simulating the operation of a submarine, 3d interiors while great, do not do this. They add to a role playing element, (or immersion as people like to call it), but they do not add to the gameplay of a simulation.

On an abstract side note, there are alot of people out there who play MMORPG's, but the first thing they ask about that game is "soloablity". They spend the entire game soloing, which is counterintuitve to a game that is "massivly multiplayer". In other words, they're looking for their gaming fix in the latest and greatest title, even though it isn't really the game genre their looking for, when a sinigleplayer RPG would be more their speed such as fallout 3 or oblivion. Could it be the same here, but in a different context? There is so much emphases placed on graphics and Immersion, and so little placed on the details of a simulation by many people.

[mookiemookie]

Having targets that behave like targets did is more important to my subsim experiance than any eye candy, particularly a 3-D expose of a submarine interior. But to each his own.

Regarding the Courageous:

Courageous served with the Home Fleet in the Channel Force at the start of World War II. On 17 September 1939, under the command of Captain W. T. Mackaig-Jones, she was on an anti-submarine patrol off the coast of Ireland. Two of her four escorting destroyers had been sent to help a merchant ship under attack. During this time, Courageous was stalked for over two hours by the U-29, commanded by Kapitänleutnant Otto Schuhart. Then Courageous turned into the wind to launch her aircraft. This manoeuvre put the ship right across the bow of the U-29, which then fired three torpedoes. Two of the torpedoes struck the ship on her port side, and she capsized and sank in 15 minutes with the loss of 518 of her crew, including her captain.

(emphasis mine)

So what's that about aircraft carriers turning into the wind not being important? :hmmm:

[floundericiousWA]

I think adding the time factor for reaching the conn would be valuable. I think realistic time delays for order implementation, particularly when you can see it, would be good.

This may be crazy, but imagine if your nav map was viewable without needing to "change screens"? If you could be walking past and see your current position, position of contacts, etc. without needing to change to "map view," as it were. If you wanted, you could "dock" at the map view so you can focus.

What if you could be walking to the torpedo room, look over at the map on the way, then go forward or aft, and tell the crew which torpedo tube to load first or send the XO to do it, it could give you more control (at the loss of having one of your command officers out of reach for a short time).

If you could actually order crew forward or aft to change c.g. and see them moving about...if you could "train" crew members by spending time with them inside the ship.

[Deep Dive]

One asks "How can an air conditioner not add to the value/desirability of a car?"

Well it won't if the engine is not working how it should be or the electric system is malfunctioning all the time

I DO want an addition of a fully explorable interior which will add to the immersion big time ONLY IF the TDC , AI behaviour , Dynamic campaign are properly build and as bugless as possible

If this is the case i say YES

If all the above are sub-standard even a Tomi :salute: engine room will be just useless for me

[Tarnsman]

Im eagerly looking forward to a full 3-D interior, but its not the make or break for me in SH5. Im looking for a step forward in the game play, I would have been more excited if they made SH5 BOTH a Uboat and ASW Escort multiplayer sim. Tha would have been groundbreaking and would put to bed alot of concern over AI and wolfpack emulation. And really brought Silent Hunter into the 21st century.

I congratulate Ubi for persisting with the Silent Hunter franchise, its a great title with a great following and I think a lot of other titles should have been developed over the years the same way. But a full 3D interior should have been done A Long Time Ago, basically with SH3. Subs are relativly small known quantities, once 3d modling was developed in games it should have been a nobrainer -- a couple more rooms a couple more guys and this could have been in SH3. But better late than never.

Im going to buy SH5 like I have since SH2. Im sure Im going to love it, (Ive even grown to like SH4 despite the interactive step backward).But and this is a big but-- I think we should lobby for a ASW Escort add on with multiplayer interoperability. I would poney up another $50 bucks for that and buy SH6 Pacific War in 2012 too.

[CaptJodan]

A lot of the issues I keep seeing goes back to issues we've had with SH3 and SH4. Do the convoys act right, does Damage control act right, where BDU sends you, etc are all issues that the modders have done a great job in addressing.

Do I think that the modders should have to "complete" a game because the Devs fell behind on the most basic of points of the game? Not at all. I wish that wouldn't happen. But I also don't expect everything to be perfect from any game I buy. It never is. That's why I love modders (and tend to loathe games where the devs don't allow modding or make it nigh impossible).

There's always going to be someone complaining that their pet issue hasn't been addressed. Wolfpacks, manual dive planes, accurate convoys, torpedo behavior, apparently airplanes that dive out of perfectly modeled clouds and....:hmmm: carrier's turning into the wind.

Some are legitimate concerns. SH5 should bring something new to the playbook of those who's only goal in playing is sinking ships. Wolfpacks, for example, have been left out far too long. I'd also be good if SH5 was an EVOLUTION of previous incarnations, rather than trying to be a REVOLUTION (and thus taking out things that served us well in previous sims. SH4 did this, including taking away being able to talk to the person in charge of a certain element of the boat, regulating it to keys on the bottom).

SH5, in my view, needs to offer something new both for the graphically inclined, as well as the "gameplay inclined", and I hope they're doing that. If they were to implement a Wolfpack code, even if it didn't live up to everyone's expectations, we'd still have a wolfpack code that the community could work with and modify to be more realistic. Convoys, bad BDU assignments, a damage control model of some kind...all of these will be in the game in some form, and even if they are broken (as they have been in most of the board's opinion, hence the mods), they can be tweaked and changed.

By the same token, if it's not hard coded possible in the game, then chances are you won't see it. It'd be a shame if some of the game's hard code won't allow for Wolfpacks. But with the 5th title in the series, I'd be disappointed if, after getting a couple compartments, that wasn't expanded. I was pretty disappointed that SH4 didn't expand into more compartments as it was.

I'll admit to being one of those weird sub sim nerds who was overjoyed by RFB and other mods (as well as other SH3 mods) that allowed the camera to be unhinged and allowed me to wonder inside the boat in the few compartments we had and, more importantly, outside the boat. I'd "climb" down on the deck and look over the bow, or go back and look at the AA guns from different angles. In SH4, with the sheers being in the way, you almost had no choice but to move around just to see the other side of the boat, and that was fine by me. And in the few compartments we were given, I did walk around inside the boat with the free cam as well, finally being able to see more than the one spot I'm glued to, especially during a DC attack. I realize that's not everyone's cup of tea.

I guess the bottom line of this unhealthy tirade is this. I would hope everyone here might remember that there are going to be core issues wrong with SH5. Things like convoy activity, size, destroyer behavior, (possibly) BDU deployment, etc are not going to live up to everyone's expectations...or are unlikely to anyway. They certainly haven't yet. I'm not sure if enough time by the devs could be devoted to make these issues perfect, even if we went back to an SH1 interface. But these are fixable issues, and they may have NOTHING TO DO with whether the new compartments were put in or not. As for putting in new gameplay features that make a huge impact, like Wolfpacks, I am with the crowd on this one. There needs to be something new (and hopefully pretty major) that will improve gameplay. But I would never advocate getting rid of the interiors to concentrate on more minor gameplay issues that modders could be able to work with.

[oscar19681]

Because that's true to life warship behavior, which should be a priority over watching Marcus cook soup in the galley. One adds to the gameplay and the ultimate mission of the U-boat, the other is fluff.

Allthough is support a feature like this you got to ask yourself how many times will you actually find a carrier in a single career? Once , twice? Maybe not at all!! Then ask yourself how many times will you use the 3-d interieur? Well your whole carreer! Now for the last time you must ask yourself. What feature will be most usefull in the long run? Surely i respect your input but again why devote so much time for having carriers turn into the wind to launch planes (which most likely will be spawned insted of really taking of the carrier in game) for something you will only encounter once or twice in a career. Surely i can put up a poll to see which of the 2 featurs is most desired.

[Onkel Neal]

Do I think that the modders should have to "complete" a game because the Devs fell behind on the most basic of points of the game? Not at all. I wish that wouldn't happen. But I also don't expect everything to be perfect from any game I buy. It never is. That's why I love modders (and tend to loathe games where the devs don't allow modding or make it nigh impossible).

There's always going to be someone complaining that their pet issue hasn't been addressed. Wolfpacks, manual dive planes, accurate convoys, torpedo behavior, apparently airplanes that dive out of perfectly modeled clouds and....:hmmm: carrier's turning into the wind.

Some are legitimate concerns. SH5 should bring something new to the playbook of those who's only goal in playing is sinking ships. Wolfpacks, for example, have been left out far too long. I'd also be good if SH5 was an EVOLUTION of previous incarnations, rather than trying to be a REVOLUTION (and thus taking out things that served us well in previous sims. SH4 did this, including taking away being able to talk to the person in charge of a certain element of the boat, regulating it to keys on the bottom).

SH5, in my view, needs to offer something new both for the graphically inclined, as well as the "gameplay inclined", and I hope they're doing that. If they were to implement a Wolfpack code, even if it didn't live up to everyone's expectations, we'd still have a wolfpack code that the community could work with and modify to be more realistic. Convoys, bad BDU assignments, a damage control model of some kind...all of these will be in the game in some form, and even if they are broken (as they have been in most of the board's opinion, hence the mods), they can be tweaked and changed.

By the same token, if it's not hard coded possible in the game, then chances are you won't see it. It'd be a shame if some of the game's hard code won't allow for Wolfpacks. But with the 5th title in the series, I'd be disappointed if, after getting a couple compartments, that wasn't expanded. I was pretty disappointed that SH4 didn't expand into more compartments as it was.

I'll admit to being one of those weird sub sim nerds who was overjoyed by RFB and other mods (as well as other SH3 mods) that allowed the camera to be unhinged and allowed me to wonder inside the boat in the few compartments we had and, more importantly, outside the boat. I'd "climb" down on the deck and look over the bow, or go back and look at the AA guns from different angles. In SH4, with the sheers being in the way, you almost had no choice but to move around just to see the other side of the boat, and that was fine by me. And in the few compartments we were given, I did walk around inside the boat with the free cam as well, finally being able to see more than the one spot I'm glued to, especially during a DC attack. I realize that's not everyone's cup of tea.

I guess the bottom line of this unhealthy tirade is this. I would hope everyone here might remember that there are going to be core issues wrong with SH5. Things like convoy activity, size, destroyer behavior, (possibly) BDU deployment, etc **may** not going to live up to everyone's expectations...or are unlikely to anyway. They certainly haven't yet. I'm not sure if enough time by the devs could be devoted to make these issues perfect, even if we went back to an SH1 interface. But these are fixable issues, and they may have NOTHING TO DO with whether the new compartments were put in or not. As for putting in new gameplay features that make a huge impact, like Wolfpacks, I am with the crowd on this one. There needs to be something new (and hopefully pretty major) that will improve gameplay. But I would never advocate getting rid of the interiors to concentrate on more minor gameplay issues that modders could be able to work with.

I think you hit the nail on the head. :up:

We diehards always nitpick each game, often past the point of being realistic. SH5 may be designed to help new players get into the game, and some will say the game is arcade...even though the game has realism options that turn off the assists and make it as realistic as anyone could want. Funny, I remember bugging Florin for a "no maps update" option, so rivetcounters could play without the automated map showing where every ship is. Some months later, I was having a discussion about manual TDC with someone on IM. He was telling me how he using the manual TDC and scores hits 85% of the time. When he explained his process, it was clear he was using the automated map. I mentioned this and he said, "Oh no, I cannot play without the map updates." :haha: Oooo-kay... I think I can hit 85% of my shots if I use auto map. Point I'm trying to make is, while we do want a realistic sim, it has to have some options for assists. Not many people play the game at 100% realism.

Anyway, we know the cycle that's coming. Game will be about to come out, everyone getting excited. Someone will get a pirated copy and play it 45 minutes, then post a thorough thrashing of everything it does wrong. Half of his observations will be greeted with RTFM :D The rest of us get the game, start getting used to it. But I promise you, a lot of people who play computer games will probably think the game is fantastic. I know some serious gamers who acknowledge shortcomings in a game like SH4 but also feel impressed by the gameplay and environment. And these aren't Nitnedo kids, either ;)

We will probably find some things we don't like about it, like Jordan said, no game will ever match our expectations :oops: I'm hoping the game will be as good as SH3 and be much more finished than SH4. I am inclined to agree more now with the "don't support unfinished games, it encourages the game company to release them that way" group now, after SH4. Yet SH3 and SH4 were significantly upgraded by official patches and ended up as pretty good subsims, and great platforms for mods.

[TarJak]

I'm always amazed at the volume of discussion on something we haven't seen.

On topic, from my perspective having the additional compartments will likely add to immersion if there is a level of interaction necessary in the game to make certain things happen.

I use DD's great Open Hatch mod in SH3 and sometimes open or close the hatch depending on the situation, I sometimes use Shift+F2 to move around the boat between the two compartments to see what is happening with the Hydrophone and Radio Station. I sometimes click on the conning tower rim to climb up there and use the attack scope or move up to the bridge. This adds to my immersion and being able to go further and see and do more is likely to add even more enjoyment to it.

Is any of this necessary to gameplay? and do I do it all the time?, no because I don't have to and sometimes using the hot keys to get to stations is faster particuarly when the pressure of attack or defense is on.

Having the option to do it however adds to the enjoyment and isn't that what gameplay is all about?

[Weather-guesser]

I'm hoping the game will be as good as SH3 and be much more finished than SH4.


That's all I ask. Wunderbar! :salute:

[paul_kingtiger]

The first person view transforms this from a Submarine simulator to a Submarine Captain simulator!

I think that when you turn up the realism it'll be where you want it to be, and the modders will polish off the rest.

[Rosencrantz]

I'm not against better/enlarged interiors, but still I'm pretty much with Steve and Ducimus. I liked what Ducimus wrote about handling the boat and so on. I'm not a flight sim expert, but I have played them. Took me some time to learn how to trim Me-109. This makes me think, why can't we have - not with SH5 but somewhere in the future - a simplified version of U-/Fleet Boat trimming system; just to take one example. Fuel consumption is already in, we would need only the tanks. Same is true with torpedoes and even center of gravity. What is missing is water density, suplies, dive and trim tanks, and maybe crew positioning. And of course trimming system itself. Maybe a simple 2D screen would be the best choice for handling the tanks. "Pump from auxiliary to after trim, five hundred pounds!"

And I'm not saying the trim and drain systems are the number one for the SH678. There's probably many other more important things. :03:


Greetings,
-RC-

[Ducimus]

I do have one additional thought, though i was saving it as a rebuttle. That thought being, fully rendered interiors is nice and all. I really dig it, really i do. But there is something inheirantly wrong with the game as a simulation when a most basic element crucial to the operation of a submarine - compressed air - is not in play. (No, it's not, emergecy surface only doesnt count) This has been ignored in both SH3 and SH4, if SH5 doesn't fix this most BASIC aspect, while putting in all this work into the interiors so people can pretend to be Jürgen Prochnow, well.... i'll be at a loss for words.

[The General]

Well, I'll be at a loss for words.I guess there's a first time for everything :O:

[mookiemookie]

Allthough is support a feature like this you got to ask yourself how many times will you actually find a carrier in a single career? Once , twice? Maybe not at all!! Then ask yourself how many times will you use the 3-d interieur? Well your whole carreer! Now for the last time you must ask yourself. What feature will be most usefull in the long run? Surely i respect your input but again why devote so much time for having carriers turn into the wind to launch planes (which most likely will be spawned insted of really taking of the carrier in game) for something you will only encounter once or twice in a career. Surely i can put up a poll to see which of the 2 featurs is most desired.

Ok, I'll one-up you on that. I'll go out and buy the U-995 virtual tour CD. I'll set it up in first person view. There you'll have a complete and total mockup of a U-boat with complete photographic realism. Your burning desire for "immersion" will be completely sated.

Then on the other hand, we'll create a U-boat sim with accurately modelled weapons and systems, but is light on things like detailed galley or true-to-life forward torpedo room. However, submarine targets like convoys, wolfpacks and single ships will act exactly as they did in real life, airplanes will jump you like they really did, plus you'll receive real life orders from BDU. But you won't be able to watch your guys load torpedoes. You'll have to take their word for it.

You want to put that poll up? I bet my sim will win. You want immersion, go buy the U-995 CD. You want a sub sim, you model real life the way it was.

[mookiemookie]

while putting in all this work into the interiors so people can pretend to be Jürgen Prochnow, well.... i'll be at a loss for words.

HAH! They can't pretend to be Jürgen Prochnow. He had to worry about compressed air. In the SH series, compressed air isn't used up during depth changes and torpedo firing. We have an almost unlimited supply of it.

[Méo]

The way I see it, there are 2 ''types'' of simulations:

1) The Hardcore simulation where the emphasis is put on every technical details and controls.

2) The more accessible simulation that tries to reconcile both sub simmers and casual gamers.

Obviously, SHV (like its predecessors) is the second type of simulation, so let's face the truth.

And what can we do? What is the solution? :timeout:

At the end, they are free to do whatever they want with their title.

The only thing is that we have to wait before tearing it apart.


Edit: From Community Q&A:

Will SH5 allow the ability to command a sub fleet or squadron from a naval base thereby determining duty rosters, assign commanders their boats, and establish objectives?

Our focus is to create the perfect German submarine experience, with the highest detail current technology allows in real time. Silent Hunter is not about surface ships, is not about strategic decisions. What truly means Silent Hunter is life of a captain, his boat, his crew, a desperate battle for survival they themselves may not understand or agree with, sinking ships, live a drama on the high seas.IF this is really their FOCUS and if the game is more stable than previous SH then it will be enough for me. (of course with wolfpacks) :03:

[Tarnsman]

Jurgern Prochnow? I would be happy to pretend to be Kurt Jergens! I try to be Clark Gable but my 1st Ofc in SH4 wont give me enough Sh*&! But I do think he was right about the crew giving him a captains jacket before I stole his command. They glare at me all the time.

I will say this: if Marcus serves me food with crap growing on it -- I'll put his head in the soup pot.

[Buddahaid]

Having played many subsims, starting with AOD/COAD, to SH, then SH2, then SH3, and then SH4, I've seen the genre develop over the years, and each new title added something more to the overall realistic simulation. Sure, some backwards moves, but a general progression toward realism. I would expect SH5 to continue this trend. I've heard much praise of AOD's gameplay and it was good, but the game was also much simpler overall, and had a horrible map view that I found confusing. The part where your sub stays centered and the world moves by gave no sense of distances travelled. SH had a fixed bridge freeboard and a flat sea. SH2 had scripted missions but much better graphics. I found SH3 much better, but wanted a US fleetboat sim. SH4 gave me that, but was unplayable on release. I've already ordered my copy of SH5 and feel confident it will please me by continuing the upward trend.

[sergei]

Immersion. That's the key.
Regardless of the technical details (which I want, by the way).
If it immerses me in role of a Kaleun then I'll be happy.

[Méo]

of the technical details (which I want, by the way).

Don't get me wrong, I want it too.

I guess we just can't have everything in one game.

Maybe modders will do some miracle...

Like paul kingtiger said, I hope SHV will be a good/great game, which the modders will turn into a legendary game.

[Steeltrap]

Neal

I used to use map contacts ON but otherwise full manual targetting. Why? Because I simply could not use the stadimeter effectively with the crappy resolution, so I got hugely frustrated with wildly fluctuating/inaccurate range estimations that then created all sorts of plotting problems.

As other have said, and I have in other threads, that's a case where a simple 'range: mark' and 'bearing:mark' should auto-plot based on the observations. It depends on the accuracy of the tools you have, so the stadimeter being effective is central. To date I've never found it so.

[kapitan_zur_see]

Ok, I'll one-up you on that. I'll go out and buy the U-995 virtual tour CD. I'll set it up in first person view. There you'll have a complete and total mockup of a U-boat with complete photographic realism. Your burning desire for "immersion" will be completely sated.

Then on the other hand, we'll create a U-boat sim with accurately modelled weapons and systems, but is light on things like detailed galley or true-to-life forward torpedo room. However, submarine targets like convoys, wolfpacks and single ships will act exactly as they did in real life, airplanes will jump you like they really did, plus you'll receive real life orders from BDU. But you won't be able to watch your guys load torpedoes. You'll have to take their word for it.

You want to put that poll up? I bet my sim will win. You want immersion, go buy the U-995 CD. You want a sub sim, you model real life the way it was.


mookiemookie's idea of a subsim...:

>Welcome - Silent Hunter 5 console command v.1.05 rev 85469 type VII
Loading Situation...........*
Type your commands.

>/Where "Captain"
>Captain@Deck
>CD..
>Captain@Attack_Periscope
>CD..
>Captain@Control_Room
>Message incom. #18 Sonar_Room : "Contact, Bearing 105, Moving Away"
>Look Battery_level
>Unknown Command
>Check Battery_Level
>Batteries 98.52%
:O::O:

[Onkel Neal]

Neal

I used to use map contacts ON but otherwise full manual targetting. Why? Because I simply could not use the stadimeter effectively with the crappy resolution, so I got hugely frustrated with wildly fluctuating/inaccurate range estimations that then created all sorts of plotting problems.

As other have said, and I have in other threads, that's a case where a simple 'range: mark' and 'bearing:mark' should auto-plot based on the observations. It depends on the accuracy of the tools you have, so the stadimeter being effective is central. To date I've never found it so.


Really? I've found the resolutions sufficient for using the stadimeter, especially considering in real life, the whole arrangement was far from precise. I tried practicing and checking the map for accuracy, I'm usually in the ballpark. But the point really isn't what one should do, but what one wants to do. If you do not find the ranging system to your liking, then map contacts ON is a valid option. :yep: Some people argue that the captain only observes the target through the scope and calls out the bearing, ranges, heading, speed and someone else on the sub marks this all down on the chart. Definitely a valid playing choice.

[mookiemookie]

mookiemookie's idea of a subsim...:

:O::O:


:rotfl2::rotfl2:

>FIRE TORPEDO TUBE 1
>THE TORPEDO MISSES. THE DESTROYER IS ALERTED TO YOUR PRESENCE AND ATTACKS. YOUR SUB SUSTAINS DAMAGE AND YOU ARE PLUNGED INTO TOTAL DARKNESS. YOU HAVE BEEN EATEN BY A GRUE.

[Mikhayl]

It could work, look at the success of Dwarf Fortress :)

[Méo]

mookiemookie's idea of a subsim...:

:O::O:

This is a nice feature and one we have in plan. However, it is regarded as less important than other features...

:O::O:

[elanaiba]

LOL!

[Méo]

BTW elanaiba, if you are just a "virtual actor", is GKane a "virtual politician" ?:O:?

Just Kidding. :D

[floundericiousWA]

:rotfl2::rotfl2:

>FIRE TORPEDO TUBE 1
>THE TORPEDO MISSES. THE DESTROYER IS ALERTED TO YOUR PRESENCE AND ATTACKS. YOUR SUB SUSTAINS DAMAGE AND YOU ARE PLUNGED INTO TOTAL DARKNESS. YOU HAVE BEEN EATEN BY A GRUE.

ROFL :rock::rock:
YOU HAVE BEEN EATEN BY A GRUE
That u should have an umlaut, herr kaleun! :har:

[Skybird]

Nothing speaks against the developer putting both ways into SH5. The 3D interior, fully interactive, and the keyboard-activated quick station access known from SH3. If they are wise, they implement both and leave the choice to the players.

Even the best 3D interior, after some time becomes repetitive. For some people earlier, for others later. Leave it to the players when they want to prefer skipping the procedure to run through all the same screens time and again in order to reach the periscope.

I hope the work on the 3D environment does not come at the cost of not nsufficiently working on the AI. For me, the AI is the crucial item, this and stability and no serious bugs. But with my old rig I am probably out of the show anyway.

[Hitman]

Wov, even Skybird is coming out of the GT forum to give his opinion :D beware mate, this could be addictive and make you leave the GT forever :O:

[Nicolas]

For me it's great to not have a limited 3d interior, and the station should be 3d too, that would be fantastic, i would like to have an option to disable the 'jump to station' that i really hate, and have to walk or run, it needs more 'smart' ai crew of course. I cant believe why someone would not see how nice it will be, if done well. If the gameplay is good it will add a lot to inmersion.
I think If they put first person style into the game, its a must have the full access to the whole submarine. I wonder how they will do that. It's a new concept in simulations isn't?

[Randomizer]

Nicolas' post brings to mind a question that I hope will not offend.

SH5 appears to have (at least) two AI engines running simultaneously, that for the interactive 3-D crew on your boat and the AI which will manage the other objects in the SH5 world, aircraft, merchants, warships and what not.

Which has had developmental priority I wonder?

With finite resources available if the developers manage to have a solid and challenging enemy AI while creating an interesting and variable crew AI they may well have succeeded in pulling a very large rabbit out of a probably limited sized hat.

On the otherhand if the crew constitutes purely reactive entities with severely limited scripts and actions that aspect of the game might get very old very fast.

Good Hunting

[Sailor Steve]

LOL!
Dan, check your PMs please.

[Jimbuna]

For me it's great to not have a limited 3d interior, and the station should be 3d too, that would be fantastic, i would like to have an option to disable the 'jump to station' that i really hate, and have to walk or run, it needs more 'smart' ai crew of course. I cant believe why someone would not see how nice it will be, if done well. If the gameplay is good it will add a lot to inmersion.
I think If they put first person style into the game, its a must have the full access to the whole submarine. I wonder how they will do that. It's a new concept in simulations isn't?

But if you are forced to repeatedly 'run' to your station in an emergency situation, how would you feel if you had the ability to run 'through' your crew or alternately repeatedly bounced off those that were in your way?

[Nicolas]

bad... but not bouncing they must get out of the way!

[Onkel Neal]

Wouldn't it be cool that if you sucked at running through the boat, or getting off the bridge, then your crash dive time would suffer and your boat would be more likely to get bombed?

[Webster]

Wouldn't it be cool that if you sucked at running through the boat, or getting off the bridge, then your crash dive time would suffer and your boat would be more likely to get bombed?

the devs did say "dont get caught on deck or you wont be able to dive untill you get inside"

maybe its wishfull thinking but i imagine that means you need to be at the correct station to give the orders

[zinosumatra]

Accurate physics modeling and precise adherence to canon within a simulation are intellectually compelling. Tonnage notwithstanding, immersive virtual environments lend themselves to complementary actual environments and compel one's emotional sensitivities with waves of nostalgia and imaginative possibility. Are we not, as humans, dual-natured beings? Do we not respond in varying proportion to intellectual as well as emotional impulsion? I submit to all subsimmers, those empassioned aficionados of bygone affairs, savants of obsolete technology, should we foresake the heart to spare the mind? Or, rather, shall we advocate for a more holistic simulation and be further enriched for the experiment?

I enjoy the thrill of the hunt. But, I also enjoy skimming the waves listening to period music and sipping on Johnny Walker whilst enveloped in red ambient lighting, so as to preserve night vision.

As I have posted some time ago, so it has been coded. Where my prediction fell short, I'm sure mods will supplement such shortcoming. Without further ado, I freely quote myself, circa November, 2008:

I agree completely. For all the improvements to gfx, interiors are rather scant. It would be ideal if Ubi upped the ante in immersion. In a 3D modeled environment, it would be nice to have free range of motion. Could you imagine pacing about from bow to aft? Observing reloading of tubes or crew wanking off in their bunks to pass the time?

When props churn overhead, you'd always have the hotkeys at the ready to snap you back to station.

Ok, let me see if I can follow up and perhaps restore some dignity (doubtful :D). Stationary crew who are at their posts or just flipping though magazines (no, not those kind) in their bunks would suffice. But, in all sincerity, I'd like to see dynamic growth of beards as time elapses. After two weeks at sea, two weeks of facial hair should be evindent, except for the occasional pretty boy who is mocked dynamically in surround sound for his pretentousness. Hell, I might even feel compelled to skip a shower and forego the razor to join in the revelry! :smug:

Godspeed, SHV. Many happy returns. :salute:

[Jimbuna]

bad... but not bouncing they must get out of the way!

I suspect people would be dissapointed either way.

The devs would be on a losser whichever way the game handled the event.

[floundericiousWA]

the devs did say "dont get caught on deck or you wont be able to dive untill you get inside"

maybe its wishfull thinking but i imagine that means you need to be at the correct station to give the orders


Who's going to be holding bernard's leash? When we shout AAAALLLAAAARRMMM!!! He better be the first one down the ladder!

[Lanzfeld]

Who's going to be holding bernard's leash? When we shout AAAALLLAAAARRMMM!!! He better be the first one down the ladder!

Don't you mean "Dive, Dive, Dive!!!!"? :har:

[kptn_kaiserhof]

bernard is a pain

[Lonecrow]

I like the 3d nature of the game. I actually RUN to the stations in the middle of a battle if I have to, it makes it feel more real.

Also I think you have to run to the crew members to get certain things done.

I loved how when I got hit, the water was pouring out everywhere totally helps with the whole immersion of the game. I'm 100% behind the 3d part of the game. I just wish there were more things to interact with. I also would like to see if I went to a port I could actually destroy buildings /lighthouses with the deck gun and actually see people on the shore shooting back and a lot of other little realistic touches.

people jumping overboard... life boats... screaming...

The more real the better!!

[sergei]

Another Zombie thread?
Gods, they're everywhere :DL

[IanC]

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5840/88012353.jpg

[krashkart]

Welcome to Subsim, Lonecrow. :salute:


........... brraaaaaaiiiinnzzzzz ......... http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img110/1235/zombiexv8.gif

[sergei]

Oh, where are my manners?
Didn't notice. :oops:

Welcome aboard Lonecrow :DL

[Karasunx]

Isn't the point of a simulation to simulate an experience to the best of its ability? Shouldn't a U-boat simulator allow you to experience all aspects of commanding a submarine. There's more to it than just finding ships, plotting solutions, sinking the ships. Silent Hunter 5 does have it's flaws but it's also a first attempt at expanding the horizons to an actual sub-sim experience. The crew interaction is limited, but wasn't that part of life aboard a submarine. Depsite its shortcomings, I think SH5 is a step in the right direction for future Silent Hunters to expand and refine. The 3d interiors add a lot to the gameplay, and are far beyond just being eye-candy, in fact I think it adds to the realism in ways that numbers and coding cannot. Yeah there are lots of bugs and the AI isn't what it should be, but it's not like that can't be fixed via mods and patches. For me, sitting on the captain's bunk, listening to the gramaphone, and talking to my men is more an accurate simulation of u-boat life.

It's exciting to see where this is going, and what will be next in the line of sub sims. Nothing new every came out flawless, and SH5 is the same. It could almost be said that #5 is the first of a new generation, a new way of looking at an old idea. I know this is all simply opinion, but it is just a simulation of something that took place in life and even life isn't perfect.

[tonschk]

. Silent Hunter 5 does have it's flaws but it's also a first attempt at expanding the horizons to an actual sub-sim experience.

.

:rock: I totally Agree :yeah:, the ultimate realistic idea here is to turn off the User Interface and command the sub walking/running from here to there giving orders to the crew , perhaps turning valves/electrical switches , pushing/pulling hatches and NOT with magic teletransportation from one place to another like was in SH3/SH4 with the user interface

.

[Sardaukar67]

:rock: I totally Agree :yeah:, the ultimate realistic idea here is to turn off the User Interface and command the sub walking/running from here to there giving orders to the crew , perhaps turning valves/electrical switches , pushing/pulling hatches and NOT with magic teletransportation from one place to another like was in SH3/SH4 with the user interface

.

I thought that in serious submarine simulation, you had crew for that stuff... Running around doing chores is..well..bit "arcadish". :nope: After all, one is supposed to be sub captain, not some mechanic's flunkey.

[Karasunx]

I think what Tonschk means is ultimately the best simulation is one without a user interface where all your info is reported by your men or looking at the dials and telegraphs yourself. Perhaps voice recognition would be a step further along those lines to immerse you even more in the role of Kaptain and not really bogging you down with chores or unrealistic tasks. One of the biggest drawbacks to SH3 was the crew management, I really didn't think it was my job to tell my men when to go to bed or see the medic. Unless they had crabs, a whole army of them.

[Sailor Steve]

One of the reasons I still play SH3 is the mod that makes the interface gone until you want it. The dials are huge, taking up approximately 1/4 of the screen but they are slideouts, as are the rest of the info bars. SH4 never got that mod. I hope SH5 does before I'm ready to play it.

I prefer the guages to SH5's new interface simply because the modded ones look like the real ones.

[Lonecrow]

Thanks.. I'm enjoying this so far.. I just hope by the time I finish it I won't be bored. So far almost every encounter has been exciting. Right now I've been having a hard time sinking that 1 carrier in the first missions. I spend 2 hours stalking it and getting discovered and trying to get out ahead of it and in position but it takes such odd patterns.. what a challenge. Very realistic in many aspects but also some crazy bugs and odd things. I hope modders go nuts this game has a huge potential.. The water and graphics are so realistic I have to say I've never found a simulation this nice looking before.

[ottoramsaig]

I just wish the crew were more animated to reflect crash dives, attacks, battle stations. Think of how cool seeing a bunch of crewmen huddled in the bow compartment during the crash dive. It seems to me that my crew is on prozac. I would also like see a full compliment of crew members (42 I Believe). I watched U571:down: and I did like the smokey dark atmosphere. Did they actually use red light at night in the U Boat? I could see using it in the conning tower but not the whole boat.

[mobucks]

i think having the 3D interior will contribute to realism greatly.

for example:

Instead of hot keying to the periscope, valuable time has to be spent ascending the ladder into the conning tower and actually interacting with the scope.


yup

i wish more was added tho how much variety to daily life on the sub could there be? So a lot feels left out they really could have gone the full 9 yards and had fully animated ... everything. of the crew.


haha i gotta re-get this game i put in for a refund the day i got it off Impulse online and it finally went through the day before the patch. fml.

[U-Bones]

Addition is more gratifying when there is less subtraction in the equation.

I like the 3D just fine, needs some TLC, but ok, fine addition. But - '44 -II -IX puts a pretty big dent in it, for starters.

[smilinicon]

Instead of hot keying to the periscope, valuable time has to be spent ascending the ladder into the conning tower and actually interacting with the scope.


pfffff... valuble time is spent most messing with a very funky mouse response.

[Tontoman]

As the crew animation was never the best (and maybe it's a pain to due with the SH game engine) I never wanted a ton of crew animation. It's not going to be the level of Half Life or anything I'd bet due to the game engine. I'd go for the SH3 level with reactions to depthcharges and add on some for damage\repairs. Of course if time and money wasn't an issue, sure go the whole nine yards :woot:

I also personally never liked the first person controls where you have to move to each room to issue commands. Always seemed gamey in other games and that's what you have sub comms for anyway. So I don't need room only commands to be there for the new rooms.

But having the rooms animated (with basic crew animation at their stations) would be cool. Like the rocking meat in the comms, torp loading in torp room, and the room chatter. In SH3 I used to move around just for a change of scenery while running underwater.

Also room damage animation with flooding is something I would have given my left nut for :DL. In that case having the captain there could be coded to improve the repair rate etc. In Das Boot it's the freaking crazy water pressures blowing into the rooms that I love so much. Having that and hearing the pings, the swoosh of the destroyer blades etc would have made all the rooms and animated damage so perfect for me.

[THE_MASK]

Well , i think a big piece of the game that needs fixing is the crew animations and dialogue expansion . Sure there are other things that need fixing like sub nets and mines etc , they need fixing as well . Maybe we can ask TheDarkWraith when he is finished with the AI and UI .

[Steeltrap]

Wouldn't it be cool that if you sucked at running through the boat, or getting off the bridge, then your crash dive time would suffer and your boat would be more likely to get bombed?

Apart from the rather glaring fact that you would never get on a patrol without doing all the extensive training in the Baltic. As Peter Cremer put it in U-333, "including being able to dive the boat to a depth of 20m in 25 seconds".

If you're a klutz who can't get down the hatch soon enough, you'd never make it through training. The whole purpose was to make it "routine" in the real sense of it. Having to navigate with mouse/keyboard is daft IMO.

[Dowly]

I love the 3D interiors. It's a small but a welcome change of scenery when you're on a 1xTC patrol and take a walk around the boat before going back to bridge/bunk. Could use more crewmembers tho. :hmmm:

[tonschk]

I love the 3D interiors. It's a small but a welcome change of scenery when you're on a 1xTC patrol and take a walk around the boat before going back to bridge/bunk. Could use more crewmembers tho. :hmmm:

:salute: I totally and Completely Agree :yeah:

.