Of SH5's arcadeness - or lack thereof

[msalama]

1st off, what do you really want? This?

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/

...and if not, what? What should a proper subsim include to make it realistic? And if SH5 isn't, when released, what should be modded / moddable?

Now I of course know comparing DCS:BS to SHxxx is apples and Ladas, or whatever. But still, if realism is what you guys are striving at, then what _is_ realism exactly?

The abovementioned (see link) chopper game is however one of the really rare true simulators out there ATM. Now how should SH5 compare to it IYO, or at all?

...asks a punter crashing his Shark almost daily - plus occasionally firing up U-11's engines in SH3 / GWX too :)

[Platapus]

My idea of realism is to be put in a position where I have to make actionable decisions based on a close approximation of the information a real Sub captain had.

I am looking more for mental stimulation (problem solving) than in visual stimulation (glitzy graphic eye-candy).

I want a choice between

1. Allowing the computer controlled "crew" do is job
2. Allowing me to take the place of some of the "crew" so I can experience the simulation of doing their job.

There is a certain level of graphics that will enhance my enjoyment of the simulation, but there comes a point when additional graphical renderings start becoming eye-candy and not actionable (this will be different for each player).

So basically, to me, a simulation is focused on the actionable decisions that need to be made to complete the mission. For me a simulation is less on how realistic something looks, but should be for focused on how realistic something operates.

[capthelm]

i am beta tester for dcs .. and audio aid.

wait till you see the next project inline =sick :rock:

[onelifecrisis]

what _is_ realism exactly

Well, certain aspects are obvious. The subs IRL went at a certain speed, could dive to a certain depth (give or take), carried a certain number of torpedoes, and so on. They could take a certain amount of damage... blah blah blah... basically if accurate information is available then it should be in the game, at least on the highest realism setting.

But apart from that?

For me the ultimate realism would be achieved by partially randomising just about everything within realistic limits. With regards to information (such as range/bearing/depth reports for example) this should be done in such a way that the random element changes gradually over time, rather than being regenerated every time you get the report. That way I would not be able to get an accurate range reading (for example) by spamming the "report range to target" button and taking an average of the results. Apply the same logic to contacts plotted on the map, firing solutions, and basically everything else (including, notably, the behaviour of the AI and the handling of the sub) and you have IMO a nice level of realism right there.

By the way, I really don't know how SH5 has gotten the 'arcadey' label. Maybe it's 'PRG-like' but I really can't see anything that looks 'arcadey' to me.

[Heretic]

The irony is that now that we have the technology to make a really realistic sim, the development costs are too high to make one for the relatively small audience. Investors demand a profit and so pursue the mass market. The flight sim audience is probably still large enough to support it, but we've always been a niche. A good base to mod from is likely our only option in the future

[Iron Budokan]

By the way, I really don't know how SH5 has gotten the 'arcadey' label. Maybe it's 'PRG-like' but I really can't see anything that looks 'arcadey' to me.

It got tagged with that early on, iirc, from the first screenshots showing the periscope view. :hmmm:

[Heretic]

I think it's all about making the sub sims more accessable to the casual gamer. I think this 'arcadey' vibe that some folks are getting is this accessability layer. Sub sims have a lot of specialized concepts and terminologly that hinder a casual gamers ability to get into the game so they give up in confusion and frustration. It looks to me like the Devs have added a layer of concepts and terms that casual gamers are familiar with. Levels and power ups and that sort of thing they've seen before and understand the concepts. This eases their entry into the game and makes the learning curve not so steep. This doesn't necessarily mean the sim underneath has been dumbed down.

THIS IS A GOOD THING. A hobby that is inaccessable to new people is a dead hobby. Look at what happened to board wargaming. It got so complex, from catering to the hard core, that it shut out new members. It was in a death spiral long before computer games finished it off. We may be seeing the same thing happening with modelling. The kits are so complex and expensive, kids can't easily get into the hobby.

Hopefully that sim we all hope for is still there under that layer and can be accessed thru game options or at least modders. I haven't yet seen anything definitive to indicate it's not there.

Targeting sub sims solely to the hard core simmers means sub sims DIE.

[FIREWALL]

@ Heretic DRM aside, I think you made a very good point that's hard to argue with. :up:

[mookiemookie]

It got tagged with that early on, iirc, from the first screenshots showing the periscope view. :hmmm:

If you want to be a stickler, having any sort of HUD (with realistic dials and gauges or no) at all when in the periscope view is "arcadey".

[ichso]

But in that case you would need a button to ask for the current speed or something like this.
In real life you could just take a peek to the side at the gauges, in the game this would involve going away from the periscope screen and would be more complicated. So some readouts on the bottom bar are actually closer to a RL experience even when you don't have them in RL.

So some stylishly looking readouts are not unrealistic but rather unfitting. Its more a question of style, taste, immersion than of realism.

[Iron Budokan]

If you want to be a stickler, having any sort of HUD (with realistic dials and gauges or no) at all when in the periscope view is "arcadey".

I'm not arguing the point. It's valid. We had that in SH3. But the overall clutter that is apparent with this current iteration hurts the immersive quality, and rightly or wrongly, gives one pause.

:)

[mookiemookie]

I'm not arguing the point. It's valid. We had that in SH3. But the overall clutter that is apparent with this current iteration hurts the immersive quality, and rightly or wrongly, gives one pause.

:)

Hee hee...I was just trying to be pedantic. :up:

[Heretic]

Shift-Z hides the HUD. Then you can use the in game gauges. Can't get any more immersive than that.

[Nordmann]

It's not so much an issue of realism, but of themed aesthetics. While an interface is purely functional, it should be suited to the subject matter, namely the period in which the game takes place.

In my opinion, SH3 had the best GUI, especially with regards to the boat's mechanical systems (tube controls etc). SH4 was a step back, not as bad as SH5's 21st century style, but the trend began there. What happened to the almost photo-realistic panels while in the periscope view?

Most of this will hopefully be fixed with various mods, as with other games, but it's still a let down.

[Heretic]

If you look at it from the perspective of accessability I theorized above, it makes sense. If you're looking to expand your market to casual gamers, you want things to look familiar to them.

Making it the way we would like (and will quickly be modded to, I'm sure) says to the casual gamer, "This game is unlike what you're used to and quite complex to boot. Perhaps you should run along now and play something else." - not a good way to grow your market.


Of course, I'm just pulling this all out of my a** and have no special insight into anything.

[JU_88]

Me thinks SH-V will play nothing like an 'Arcade game' with all the realsim turned on.
Seems to be a term used by some the fanatics here, and imo a bit of an exaduration.

[Arclight]

Agreed, rather confusing term. I wouldn't dub the people that use it as such as fanatics, just people who feel SH5 is less of a sim then 3/4.

Personally I don't even see that; looks like good old SH to me. An interface does not diminish the "sim-factor"; it has no impact on mechanics, just on how you interact with the game.

1st off, what do you really want? This?
Yes. :D

A subsim with that level of fidelity would make me wet myself. :lol:

[marcel1980]

Im not that demanding to have 100 perc realism altough i prefer realistic simulations. Its more about what is not working now and what should :/ Right now, there's too many randomly outgoing situations where the crew isnt doing what you expect it to do, the systems are not doing what you expect them to do etc etc. Im not an absolute hardcore player who knows exactly how much hydrophones were on the sub and knowing their specs, but i dont want to see health bars and connecting dots either :/

[Ali Fish]

i think what it comes down to with silent hunter is how you want to deliver information to the user. i like the new take on the SH series. whilst much of it seems incomplete or a hinderance over what we are used to, they are going in the right direction in terms giving more realism (bar the crew morale problems), These UI screens here and there offer instant contrability, i can easily loose them, id rather have all the information given to me verbally. no screens for this that and the next. maintain an authentic viewable scene and deliver the information accordingly to what occured in RL. ask a question verbally then the answer is then reaveled accordingly. and there after provide the user functions to have access to the information that has been delivered. if that is viewable via some obtrusive menu screen then so be it. were not in RL. subtitles would work and a tracking system for those historic events. thats what i want. regards TDC, i would not be sure what to implement there other than a way to view those actuall controls at some stage on the ship with the understanding that much of these calclations are done by our brains and implemented by someone other than the captain.. Presently we are the Captain of our vessel,nobody else. It would be great to simply be the Weapons Officer or any other Officer status crew members. IF that all worked you might eventually have your ultimate co-op submarine sim. with X amount of officers jobs all being done by humans within your ship in game. Thats what id like ultimatly.

[Enchavado]

Agree with that last statement, worse even I spend 10 mins. trying to climb the stairs to attack periscope, which i could'nt, why the hell u have the attack per far away from your helping crew?.
BTW, can you tell me how to climb the **** stairs?

[RSColonel_131st]

I think SH5 has an awesome potential in the realism department namely:

To actually make you a captain of a crew, and not just the "do it all yourself" monkey we are in SH3 and SH4.

I like the notepad-style input for my TDC values in SH4 on the IXD2. But in reality, the captain would not "input" this data anywhere, nor would you push a button to flood the tube and fire an eel.

Realism in SH5 could mean that you as captain (for the first time actually seeing "trough your eyes") mostly do the brainwork, and the crew does the craft.

I'm actually surprised this was shipped without speech recognition. "Set torpedo running depth to 4 meters" makes more sense than going from periscope to attack map view and doing it there by hand on a dial.

Like Fish said, data presentation should move away from on-screen dials and symbols to the real 3d environment of the sub, or visual/audio cues from the crew.

Less button pushing, more interaction with crewmembers who do the button pushing, that would be a "captain sim" and in many ways more realistic than the captain doing everything himself.

The question is - can the AI crew be made intelligent and useful enough?

[tater]

You can have both with a sub (or ship) simulator.

The goal is realistic outcomes. IMO, the model for how the ships and sub behave, and what control the CAPTAIN has over the sub should be impeccable. That means control of each screw (and engine, and motor, if appropriate for the sub). That means independent control of dive planes. It means a model that can broach, etc. From a UI standpoint, OTOH, there is no reason for me to have to do anything more complicated than give an order. I don't need to have to find the right control to manually change the diveplanes, I need to just say "bow planes 5° down" whatever the entirely "UI" control is for that.

I want plotting to be realistic. Meaning I take observations, and my plotter plots them on the map. As pencil marks (with a time). When I have 2 observations for one target (I need to have to tell them which target I am observing, it should NOT be automatic), the plotted draws a line, and writes the speed down. No magical pencl marks that move in real time, and no requirement that I, the skipper, do that work unless I chose to push my crew out of the way.

AI behaviors need to be grossly improved. The engine needs to deal organically with REAL zig zag patterns. The lack of realistic zig zag behavior (NOT constant helming, but routine ZZs) is a stunning, fundamental failure. All the eye candy in SH5 doesn't offset this single missing feature.

Proper weather. Want eye candy that is USEFUL (unlike, say, a cook, or canned torpedo loading animations)? Model realistic weather. Not always to the horizon, but squalls, weather that you can steam into and out of. Contacts that are in the clear blue sky one minute (as you yourself are), then disappear into a squall.

In terms of crews, instead of magical special abilities to powerup your torpedoes (LOL), how about just skill levels represent a % chance to do their jobs right any given attempt? Then if your planesman is less skilled, he might broach your boat in front of an escort. THAT is what a skill level should do. Or each member on watch has his zone, and their skill represents their ability to spot—not just range, but the % chance within that range every XX seconds. All that makes more sense than "morale." I can only assume that's in SH5 because that one guy loses it in das Boot? :rolleyes:

The DM also needs to be as good as possible. Progressive fires, damage control, etc. Doing this right would also allow for a proper follow-on with surface units that actually work properly.

So under the hood, as exacting as possible, but the UI can be VERY accessible since as captain, your crew can do a lot of the work.

[tater]

Agree with that last statement, worse even I spend 10 mins. trying to climb the stairs to attack periscope, which i could'nt, why the hell u have the attack per far away from your helping crew?.
BTW, can you tell me how to climb the **** stairs?

This is an example of a bad UI, IMO.

You should hit a hotkey to go to the attack scope, then the game should walk/climb you up there as fast as a real skipper could do it. Ditto sliding down a ladder, etc.

[scrapser]

I think simulations are mistaken for games which in turn drives devolopment in the wrong direction. I understand the economic factors are there as well. If a company wants to make a game, fine. If they want to make a simulation, they need to follow a different set of rules because they are two different animals despite the fact they are both software.

For one thing, a company should make an announcement that they are going to produce a simulation and get feedback from the audience on what needs to be included before starting the project. As it is, they keep taking pot shots at what they think everyone will like and get mixed results with what they produce. Economically this is like playing Russian Roulette with their finances. No wonder there are problems.

Heretic is right. The technology is out there to produce some incredible simulations but the market is too small to support it financially. In essence, a good simulation today would only happen if a company wanted to volunteer the effort without expecting payment other than the satisfaction of having done the job.

[H-street]

I'm glad you made this post because after having played SH5 for a little now i can see that SH5 actually has the most potential to be the best subsim of all time.

and i think this exaclty due to loving games like Falcon 4.0 and Blackshark.

As I was playing SH5 i realized that one of the things that everyone loves about blackshark and FreeFalcon (Falcon 4.0 free mod look it up) and those kinds of games are attention to detail where you are put in the "pit".

Blackshark is the most complex game where the cockpit is concerned (at least in IMO), I actually got all excited to think if SH5 has the ability to be modded to the detail that blackshark has in its cockpit.

Imagine every knob, every switch,every lever on your submarine being operable? dang that just sounds awesome. IMO that is the awesome direction that SH5 has gone in..

if you play BS you know that the actual combat is nothing to write home about, its sevierly scripted, there is no enemy AI to speak of, there is no type of campaign besides the stringing together of missions etc.. but its study style sim of the blacksharks cockpit is somethign that IMO would translate over to Sh5 and be a huge hit. Its one of those things that would make Sh5 the subsim for the next decade.

and then that brings me to answer your real question, which IMO is the most important question.

What makes a good sim? (the members of the DCS forum are probalby tired of me spewing this same thing over and over)

If you have your falcon 4.0 manual goto the Appendix and read Appendix A by Gilman "Chopstick" Louie.



In Falcon 4.0, our goal is to design a F-16 simulator that will put the playerÕs head into the war, not just into the plane. We want to suspend your disbelief and to give you a better understanding of a pilot's role in a large-scale engagement. The secret to the Falcon series has always been balancing the campaign with the flight simulation.


Ask programmers and designers who work on combat flight simulations what simulation features are critical, and most will define a great sim by how accurate the flight model and avionics are. Create a set of rescripted missions along with a few videos and voil.É you have a simulation. Unfortunately, to create a great simulation, a flight model, avionics, enemy AI and good graphics are only the start. The purpose of the Falcon series is not just to simulate the aircraft but the entire fighter pilot experience. Our goal has been not just to replicate the flight dynamics, avionics and visuals of flight, but to include the elements that make up the combat environment.



The same philosphy can be applied here, the goal shouldn't just be to make every single little detail 100% accurate and in the end do as blackshark did where you have the most detailed and accurate cockpit but no War to use it in. A great sim is about putting you into the "War" so to speak. Giving you the same challenges a real sub captain might had etc. Flipping switches is nice but a Sim should be judged by its combat environment and how well it suspends your disbelief in the War and not solely on its accuracy of switches and knobs.

[EAF274 Johan]

Incidentally, I recently bought DCS Black Shark, and I'm mightily impressed by it.

If they wanted to make SH5 "accessible", then they failed miserably. A tutorial that teaches you nothing, documentation (the "manual" and in-game text) that barely explains the most basic functions... I'm pretty sure that someone who wanted a game where you can be Das Boot and shoot things up will have given up long ago. Compare this to other simulation titles, like Red Baron 3D, Strike Fighters/Wings over... and IL-2. At high difficulty settings they offer good realism, while at the lower settings they play very much as "point and shoot". Even DCS Black Shark has a separate "Game Mode".

Where realism is concerned, I expect a good game (not necessarily a simulation) to be plausible. I don't expect it to show all the switches in a vehicle or a scientifically researched physics model, but if I see e.g. a sloop blowing a ship of the line out of the water or a 767 doing an inverted loop, then it's no fun for me.

As for SH5, the RPG element they tried to build in could have been a nice addition to enhance the immersion, but it's so linear it gets old very quickly.

I agree with H-Street, most of all a good simulation should make you believe that "you are there". In that respect, I got tired rather soon of the highly regarded IL-2 and Lock On, while I still enjoy playing Red Baron 3D, Falcon 4 and Mig Alley.

[tater]

I'm probably in the minority, but even though I am a hyper grognard, I don;t care in the least about a "clickable" submarine. Not even a little.

I'm the CAPTAIN, I don't even have to pour my own coffee, a steward will bring me my java.

Again, what matters are outcomes and the realism of attacks, and how the good or bad decisions of the CAPTAIN alter those outcomes. Nothing in the sub—nothing—is more important than the observation and plotting paradigm, IMO.

Pretty much everything that you might want to click should actually be "clicked" by crew, not you. This idea of serially playing every member of the crew doesn't interest me in the least.

So IMO, it's wasted energy (for the devs, anyway) to make the sub clickable where there are far more pressing realism issues. For the sub these include bouyancy, dive plane, and port/stbd engine control. For the world, better weather, terrain (reefs, etc), and a world that is a sphere. For the surface units a FAR better DM (abstracted is FINE), zig zagging, AI improvements.

Everything else is fluff.

[RSColonel_131st]

Have to agree with Tater (again, it's getting repetive... ;))

Where in the past series, the challenge was to manipulate mechanical devices (knobs, buttons and so on...) to get a required result, SH5 offers an unique challenge in how you actually get your information. You're no longer a button press away from the next crew member but that crew member is now working for you.

In that regard, even the time needed to get from bridge to command room is a new degree of realism. You just can't be "everwhere at once".

I haven't seen much reports on what happens with boat damage, but again here there's a chance to represent realistic levels of information filtering down to you as captain, from different departments.

So ultimatly and of course only in my personal opinion, the realism challenge in SH5 will be to COMMAND a boat, not just "control" it.

Dangerous Waters did Speech Recognition, if ever there was a game that should have followed this example it's SH5. I want to scream "Damage reports!" into my mike and hear various compartments reporting back, then having to "half-blind" assign men and priorities to these repairs. Depending on skill level, damage reports and repair time estimates could even be off, leading to wrong decisions by me as captain.

That is the kind of first-person experience now possible with the technology. I wouldn't spend too much time on graphical interfaces for dials and gauges which we already had in their basic form in SH1.

[Bilge_Rat]

Dangerous Waters did Speech Recognition, if ever there was a game that should have followed this example it's SH5. I want to scream "Damage reports!" into my mike and hear various compartments reporting back, then having to "half-blind" assign men and priorities to these repairs. Depending on skill level, damage reports and repair time estimates could even be off, leading to wrong decisions by me as captain.

That is the kind of first-person experience now possible with the technology. I wouldn't spend too much time on graphical interfaces for dials and gauges which we already had in their basic form in SH1.

Did that, even went as far as training with the program so it would respond better to my voice, although I still had instances where orders would be misinterpreted causing me to scream into the microphone to be understood.

Of course, when the action got hot and heavy, I would scream so loudly at my screen that my dogs and wife would rush in to see what was wrong. My dogs would stare at me with a worried look, shaking their heads from side to side trying to figure out what was wrong..my wife would just shake her head and leave with an exasperated look...it sort of killed the immersion factor...

...there is such a thing as taking a simulation too far...:arrgh!:

[msalama]

A subsim with that level of fidelity would make me wet myself. :lol:

Yeah, but would a subsim with that level of fidelity really be more realistic from your viewpoint as a Kaleun? Because after all is said and done you're still the skipper, and thus never directly operate any of the machinery yourself anyway...

[msalama]

To actually make you a captain of a crew, and not just the "do it all yourself" monkey we are in SH3 and SH4.

:sign_yeah:

Was perhaps a bit stoopid from me to compare DCS:BS and SH5, BTW. Apples and oranges, b/c those Ka-50 jockeys really are one-man-bands IRL too...

[Arclight]

Yeah, but would a subsim with that level of fidelity really be more realistic from your viewpoint as a Kaleun? Because after all is said and done you're still the skipper, and thus never directly operate any of the machinery yourself anyway...
No, what I want is that kind of depth of simulation. Depth affecting your speed and chance of cavitating, hydrophones infuenced by thermal layers and surface noise, soundwaves bouncing off the seabed and mirror flat surface. Those are the things I want.

To be honest, manning stations like hydrophones or deckgun yourself, as a captain, is ridiculous; that's not your job. However, Silent Hunter has a bit of 'action-game' in it after all, and I find it fun to do. It doesn't bother me, but I would happily trade it for better AI and more realism.

[Charlie901]

The BEST OPTION IMHO is that the game should have had an "ARCADE" and "SIMULATION" option in the settings menu.

The former would give us everything the game shipped with and the latter could give the Sub Simmers more features that were in the previous titles in the way of playability and UI including an interactive TDC Computer.

Anyone who has played: Eagle Dynamics Combat Heli Sim, DCS: Black Shark, can understand exactly what I'm talking about.

[Chromius]

Well one of you needs to win the Lottery so you can start a Hard Core SIMULATIONS only software company, because thats what we need, and not run by corporate and happy to make enough to pay the bills and salaries and put out a decent product, with Profit not playing the major factor. If the company stays in business and everyone gets paid and doesnt run in the red, then mission accomplished.

[scrapser]

You see that's the problem...nobody does anything for the sake of doing it anymore (except modders of course). It has to be about making money (lots of it) or it's just not going to happen. The technology exists to make incredibly realistic simulations but the cost of using said technology to produce the sim results in a product too expensive for the average simmer. This is the sad irony of the times.

This is why I keep saying we need a new business model for the simulation market. The sim needs to be defined and priced out before anything is done to produce it. People are informed of what it will cost and they will either sign on or reject it. If there is enough of a market pool to make it worth while then the project goes forward.

Of course this all depends on coming up with a way for a very large number of people to sign on and actually commit money to the project. That's a very big hurdle.

[Chromius]

Yep you are correct, makes you sad doesn't it. How did the Ultima series start, how did apple/windows start, now its all about the money. Unfortunately it is now the key thing that factors into everything nowadays.

[DragonRR1]

A subsim with the level of realism evident in Blackshark would be incredible. I doubt, however, I will see that in my lifetime! Blackshark was developed (afaik) off of the back of the developer's real military simulators. This is why it is so realistic, the flight dynamics and KA-50 modelling were paid for by the military. The game itself, to the best of my knowledge, is basically a sideline for the devs. This is the reason why, for example, the AI is poor to non-existant and the current graphics engine is borrowed from the original Lock-on. They just couldn't afford the gamble of doing it all at once.

For a much larger company like UBI the economics of producing a niche market game like SH5 mean that the budget just isn't there to produce a true sim which would appeal to a very limited number of people.

My only real issue with SH5 aside from bugs and DRM is that I would have preferred that UBI allocated more resources to improve the realism rather than adding in RPG elements.