This is Not a Complaint

[scrapser]

I asked a similar question in a different thread but I will rephrase it here. Why can't these sub sims ever come out with the most basic aspects done right? More importantly, there have been two (soon to be three) releases over the past few years and several others in years past. To me it just seems logical that a knowledge base should exist by now and the core architecture should have long since been established.

It really doesn't matter if it's the Germans or the United States or what theater is used for a setting. Subs are subs, each with their unique qualities. Merchants, escorts, and high value platforms are also basically the same with variations as are any aircraft involved. So why is it each time a new sub sim is released we have to go through another shakedown cruise and hope and pray the company deems it worth it to fix the mistakes and/or lean on the modding community to otherwise clean up the mess?

I'm sorry people I just don't get it. I'm not complaining about SH5 which has yet to be released but given the history of these sims I'm not holding my breath if you know what I mean. It would be nice if someone in the know could enlighten me and anyone else who ponders this question. I'd love to pose it to UbiSoft-Romania directly and get their feedback.

[Onkel Neal]

Good question, and don't get the wrong idea, complaints are fine, as long as they are written with the kind of sound thinking behind yours. :yep:

[Platapus]

Why can't these sub sims ever come out with the most basic aspects done right?

When you can come up with a universally accepted definition of "basic aspects" (no less the most of which) and "done right", it might make it easier to answer your question.

Ubi can't do everything.

So Ubi has to make decisions. Some of these decisions are purely economic, some are altruistic, most are someplace in the middle.

Ubi has to make a "product" that a lot of people will buy. Their decisions (economic or altruistic) will be based on that goal.

They will make the best decisions within their operating environment. We will never know all the rationals for their decisions and most of us would probably not understand them if we did know about them.

These decisions will aspects of the game like appearance, playability, re-playability, and a whole bunch of other aspects one of which might be some level of approximation of reality.

It is a guarantee that not everyone is going to be thrilled with every decision Ubi makes concerning SH5.

Ubi "getting it right" is different from my opinion of "getting it right". It may be different from your opinion of "getting it right".

Now, from a customer viewpoint, I also have to make decisions. Ultimately, my decision will be economic, i.e., do I buy or not buy. But that is not my only decision. Another decision I will be making is what my impression of SH5 will be before I buy it.

Ubi has chosen to release specific information about SH5. Their choice.
UBI also had control on what information they are choosing to release. I can't believe that Ubi is totally oblivious about how potential customers (me) will react to the limited information that Ubi chooses to release.

My impressions of SH5 prior to release is totally dependent on what Ubi chooses to release. I have no other source of information.

I fear that Ubi is releasing the "best of SH5" in their press releases. If this is true, then what Ubi is considering "best" or "getting it right" is not in agreement with my opinion of "best" or "getting it right". Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is as worthless as the next person's.

But it is the opinion that Ubi is allowing me to make based on their control over what is released about SH5.

[scrapser]

By "basic aspects" I mean the physics being modeled for the most part. Submarines must surface, dive, move forward, turn, etc. If there are sea states then the boat will be impacted by waves, current, wind and so on. For torpedoes it's the same thing as well as all the other ships and aircraft. The TDC calculations are pretty much trigonometry which is an absolute and you factor in any applicable variables. Sonar is sonar...radar is radar...what's so hard to write the code for such things?

The war campaign (if there is one) is essentially a constant. Historical encounters can unfold at the appropriate location, date, and time (this was done in SH3 with the Hood and Bismarck). A dynamic campaign could include these events mixed with random encounters of either merchant or task force convoys. For realism's sake, once you sunk a particular ship it would not reappear again. If the target in question was a carrier that participated in a historical battle and it hasn't occured yet then it would be kept out of play until the event occurs. If you don't sink it there, you could possibly contact it later. The historical battles don't necessarily have to end accurately unless you are really a diehard realist. But I think you get my drift here.

All this stuff is known and has been for years...so why are these things not long since settled in terms of developing the sim? To me they should be almost at the point of being taken for granted instead of a new programming challenge as they appear to be in each release. That is what I am talking about.

With each release of a new sub sim, it seems to me these things should be getting refined...not redefined (with errors).

[conus00]

Well spoken.

[Dowly]

But the following is an complaint. Another 2 threads moved from SH5 section to here. What gives? :shifty:

[Raptor1]

But the following is an complaint. Another 2 threads moved from SH5 section to here. What gives? :shifty:

It's an invasion...

[Safe-Keeper]

By "basic aspects" I mean the physics being modeled for the most part. Submarines must surface, dive, move forward, turn, etc.I have it on good authority that in SH5, the u-boats witll surface, dive, move forward and even turn.

There is even talk of letting them move backwards.

[scrapser]

Go figure. I could speak my mind but I would probably get banned for it. But I guess that's saying enough in and of itself so no worries.

Thanks for the sincere replies to those who made them.

[onelifecrisis]

By "basic aspects" I mean the physics being modeled for the most part. Submarines must surface, dive, move forward, turn, etc. If there are sea states then the boat will be impacted by waves, current, wind and so on. For torpedoes it's the same thing as well as all the other ships and aircraft. The TDC calculations are pretty much trigonometry which is an absolute and you factor in any applicable variables. Sonar is sonar...radar is radar...what's so hard to write the code for such things?

Er, last I checked my SH3 boat could surface, dive, move forward, and turn. And it got "impacted by sea states". So, what's the problem exactly?

[scrapser]

If you read my explanations you will see that I am using "movement" as an example of what I mean by "basic". I'm not saying it doesn't work. And all the attempts with humorous quips isn't helping this discussion.

I'll say it again. The basic physical behavior of the various objects found within the sim along with many of the other aspects should have long ago been defined.

For example:

Why is it a challenge to get the dive depths (crush depth) correct for each sub in each new release? Why is it a challenge to get anything they fixed or learned about in SH3 (post development) into SH4?

The actual parameters of WW2 submarines has been known since...WW2. I'm not sure why this topic is going over so many heads. I can only state it simply so many ways.

Basically what I am saying is everything they learned making SH3 should have been included in SH4 (with adjustments for the fact that SH4 has US Fleet boats and American aircraft...Japanese ships and aircraft, weapons, etc.). What is so difficult?

Even now people are noticing the flags on some German ships in SH5 are in the wrong place or out of proportion. Admitedly this is a small issue but it demonstrates my point. Sometimes I think the developers come down with amnesia each time they start a new project.

[Lanzfeld]

I follow you and agree 100% Scrapser.:yeah:

I don't think its amnesia but I think they are blinded by $$$. "How can I pump this title out as fast as possible with minimum effort? I will use as much stuff from the last title as I can. Textures, data, AI. There! Done!"

We lose...again.

[JScones]

I hear you scrapser.

I guess it's just much cheaper and more lazy to recycle than reinvent. You know, as Homer Simpson would say "why don't you just take an existing product and add a clock to it?".

[danlisa]

In the most simplistic way I can put this:

Cater for the U-Boat/War enthusiast and create an accurate and detailed simulation = Minimal sales.

Cater for the generic gamer by creating a game that partly appeals to both casual gamers and simulation geeks = More sales.

Create an 'on the rail' shooter at sea where the couch potatoes can button mash til their finger bleed = Massive sales.

The above demonstrates why we will never have a simulation that meets our high and exacting standards. There is no money in it.