I like the new patch

[Boomer Ang]

I like the way it fixes majority of bugs I have been dealing with since last year, I love the way it moves trough my HD directories giving me the smell of special game and the atmopsphere of a real modern simulation and also letting' me the sensation that money spent for DW are a big deal and not a waste of own resources, I like playing both in SP both MP sessions challenging mates via tactic games supported from strong simulation... :huh: :o

Wait ! Wait a while ! I am waking up from a nice dream :sunny: I was doin'.... where is my ...but where is all that stuff I have just been playing with.. where ? Where ? I am almost scared how real it seemed that damned dream..... :stare: :o

I have just came back to reality, no patches since months and motnhs, no game to have fun with , ooooppsss, ok I have a new demo to have fun with , definetely cool.

Boomer

[XabbaRus]

Boomer did you buy the game?

[Fandango]

ok I have a new demo to have fun with , definetely cool.

Amen

[Deathblow]

Does anyone know which bugs the 1.02 demo has fixed?

[Bellman]

Click to clear bug/fault/cheat on Kilo BB is not now possible at long ranges. IMO.I havent observed it occuring
at ranges above 20 nm appx. ( yet. ) Whether it still exists at ranges below, but approaching, 20 nm is a close call as sonar
traces may be deemed (by some)to be present. Magic emanations ?

If you are not aware of this it was carried over, and overlooked by the Beta testers, from SC. By carefully, but tediously,
clicking at bearings a couple of degrees apart, followed at each selection by clicking the 'assign tracker' button,
contacts could be found which gave no other trace whatever on BB or NB.

No SS statement, on this, and other issues, so perhaps they hold their fire pending initial field reactions
and any last minute pre-launching adjustments ? That seems a very sensible way to proceed.

[Bellman]

:sunny: Lifting thoughts from criticism my first impressions are very favourable:-

The graphic adjustments are subtle and running the game seems a smoother sophisticated experience.
I am sure that a lot of little things have been tweaked, adjusted and balanced. The aggregate is impressive.
Cant put my finger on why but its just a more pleasant ride now. Not one for 'rubber-knecking' at the scenery
but she feels a real 'drivers car' now. :|\ :rock:

[Boomer Ang]

Boomer did you buy the game?

Several months ago yes, Battlefront can confirm my order if you don't trust me.

If you need their confirmation I can provide details to them to track my order but this doesn't solve issues :yep:

It is a tour I have made to see what happened and discover nothing new...

Cheers

Boomer

[Jamie]

Well, we can't release the v1.02 Patch until the Retail build (which is also v1.02) is approved by Gamespy (they are reviewing it currently)... Then the game will be considered GOLD for RETAIL and we can construct the v1.02 Patch that will be released to the public...

This is the tentative README we have assembled for the v1.02 Patch. Some things may still change, but this is the majority of it...


Dangerous Waters Update Version 102 Build 3XX (English)
================================================== ======

-------
NOTES:
-------
Save game files which were created with prior versions, will no longer be compatible with this
version of Dangerous Waters.


-------
FIXES:
-------

- "Screen flashing" has been fixed (when running in full-screen exclusive mode). Also, a
noticeable increase in frame rate should result from this change.

- Corrected the speed vs OS noise bug in the submarines ("Sound vs. Speed" fix).

- Air to Surface missiles can no longer attack submerged subs

- Fixed active sonar detection range problem

- The stadimeters on all 4 subs now remember which platform was selected last time when
a player re-enters the screen. Also, the list is now circular returning to the first entry.

- Kilo BB sound cheat bug was removed.

- MH-60 Dipping Sonar sound cheat bug was removed.

- Kilo speed bug (where speed increased to 18 knots when diving and ordering ahead 2/3)
was fixed.

- The speed lock buttons were changed to behave so that they will stay locked whether the
autocrew TMA is enabled or disabled AND the player can still enter speed, course, bearing
and range values even with the locks on. Autocrew was taught to honor the locks as he
generates a solution.

- The way that TMA on submarines handles "manual solutions" is improved AND manual solutions
can now be handled for the first time by the FFG TMA.

- There was a problem where the FFG's acoustic display would stop displaying data from either
helo's buoys when the player synchronized with the 2nd deployed helo. This bug was fixed.

- Corrected a problem with the FFG Towed Array which caused loaded "save games" to ignore changes
in the contact list.

- Fixed a problem where the FFG's AI helo had its loadout restored when a saved game was
loaded.

- Fixed the buoy waypoint list so that a loaded "save game" now gives correct waypoint count.

- Fixed a problem where the scenario loader would crash when reading an encrypted scenario file that
had Dynamic Groups.

- Fixed a problem where the FFG would get a lower ordered speed (thus causing the FFG to slow down for
no reason) when a player first went to the Bridge Screen.

- Fixed a problem where the compass rose would disappear when the player left the bridge while on a bridge
wing and then returned to the bridge wing.

- Fixed an SSN21 Display bug where the value that was labeled SNR on the Demon Screen was actually signal
strength instead of the actual signal-to-noise ratio.

- Fixed a problem where the ambient noise continued to play after the MH-60's dipping sonar was damaged.

- Fixed a problem where FFG controlled by an MP player (who was not the host) was able to set waypoints
for its helo, but the helo would not delete the waypoints after each was reached.

- Fixed situation where AI subs would track a surface target and might not ever attack that target
if it was initially detected outside of firing range.

- Change was made to the Sonobuoy/GRAM screens (all platforms) to fix an issue in which buoys that were
labelled as "out of range" would sometimes transmit data when the MODE was cycled.


I thought Boomer had given up on DW and on SCS? Yet here he is again, taking pleasure in another set of "parting shots" at us and our lack of customer service and satisfaction (according to him)...

Oh, how I have missed him though. :cool:

[LuftWolf]

Boomer,

Maybe you should try our mod, and also realize that such complaining is now out of style here. ;) :up:

Then again, you'll probably just start complaining about our hard work too, so on second though, don't download our mod. :zzz:

[XabbaRus]

Nah Boomer I believe you I just couldn't remember.

[Bellman]

:sunny: Thanks for bringing us up to speed Jamie.
Good to receive confirmation of the removal of the Kilo BB Sound cheat and an improvement in the way that
TMA on submarines handles "manual solutions" :|\

[Hellcat]

Solid list SCS, nice to see the biggies covered.

cheers

[Driftwood]

ASROC launch transients/crew warnings PULLLLEEEEEEEEEESE!!!!!! :dead:

[Boomer Ang]

I gave up with DW and I also assume DWX men did the same.

Anyway as I stated months ago occasionally I come back to check what's going on on my 45 euros .....I don't even remember how many months ago...almost a year I think

Sadly, I notice the Seahawk , even on 102 readme fix list , is still a rebel and can't be ordered to dip its sonar where and when the FFG want this to be done.

I assume the rebel state of FFG helos is not intended therefore helos without sonar control are hostile rebels and not allied. I consider helos unplayable.

I don't want to mention how platforms physics won't be fixed, I still remember FFG loosing 20+ knots while hard ruddering at flank speed :lol: or subs aceleration to flank within few seconds like dragsters... :huh:

- If someone is startt to thinking that these are my opinions only, I encourage him to use the search function on old posts in this forum looking for real Canadian Navy FFG men ( and others helo real ex-pilots ) who witnessed what I am saying. ( I believe XXXX has already started this search :up: )

- if anyone ( old friends I have here ) may say I am lacking sex , well , :) these are not your own businesses.

Please correct me if helos and physics have been fixed, it's quite a while I don't join here.

Boomer

[goldorak]

Instead of continualy critising DW for its shortcomings why don't you give a try on the LW mod ?
How come many people are enjoying DW now more then ever with the LW mod and you are still bitching on minor issues.
I really think you never gave DW a chance, nothing will make you change your opinion, either with the LW mod or the future DWX mod.

[XabbaRus]

I gave up with DW and I also assume DWX men did the same.

Anyway as I stated months ago occasionally I come back to check what's going on on my 45 euros .....I don't even remember how many months ago...almost a year I think

Sadly, I notice the Seahawk , even on 102 readme fix list , is still a rebel and can't be ordered to dip its sonar where and when the FFG want this to be done.

I assume the rebel state of FFG helos is not intended therefore helos without sonar control are hostile rebels and not allied. I consider helos unplayable.

I don't want to mention how platforms physics won't be fixed, I still remember FFG loosing 20+ knots while hard ruddering at flank speed :lol: or subs aceleration to flank within few seconds like dragsters... :huh:

- If someone is startt to thinking that these are my opinions only, I encourage him to use the search function on old posts in this forum looking for real Canadian Navy FFG men ( and others helo real ex-pilots ) who witnessed what I am saying. ( I believe XXXX has already started this search :up: )

- if anyone ( old friends I have here ) may say I am lacking sex , well , :) these are not your own businesses.

Please correct me if helos and physics have been fixed, it's quite a while I don't join here.

Boomer

You make too many assumptions. ie DWX.

Boomer if all you are going to do is throw mud in the face of SCS then why bother coming back. 1.02 is getting the killer ones sorted out, about other stuff I couldn't say.

Grow up.

[Bellman]

Goldark.:lol:
BA = A Lurker and a Flusher ? :rotfl: :-j

[Mau]

There was not a fix already in one of the MOD for the Helo dipping?
And yes that would be great to change that outstanding speed that we are loosing on the FFG when we do a hard turn.

I am not complaining here....

I cam imagine it is feasible to change that last one since the speed of the sub (unrealistic acceleration was done either with the MOD or the 1.02)

As well I`ll be looking at tables of real life FFG hard turns (how much speed you lose..)

Thanks

Mau

[Jamie]

There was not a fix already in one of the MOD for the Helo dipping?

The FFG's influence over it's helos was a facet of the game which we recognize needs improvement. The issue with the ability to control the MH-60's from the FFG is that we have two options as I see it:

1) Modify the layout of the ASTAC station and specifically the Helo Control panel (art and code changes).

2) Create a new right click sub-menu on the NAV screen when the MH-60 is selected (only available when a sync/link is present).

We would prefer to do both... But the ASTAC change will require some re-thinking and we did not want to rush it for the Retail release.

But I did want you to know that we do recognize the shortcoming, and would very much like to improve upon the current implementation.

- Jamie

[LuftWolf]

Jamie! :up: :up: :rock: :rock:

Thanks, those are tops on my mind! :rock: :rock: :arrgh!:

[Mau]

Yes thank you for that answer Jamie!!

If possible and less complicated for now or in the very near future, the right click option from the Nav window would be great.

Thanks
Mo

[Mau]

As per the speed loosing on a hard turn...

Speaking with one of my fellow teamates (he is a navigator so he is seeing the sun a lot more often than me in the Ops Room), he confirm that on our frigate if at a speed of 30 knots we are conducting a hard turn (30 deg of helm), let say for a TCM, we will not go lower than 25 kts. This is for a two shafts modern frigate.

Now for a single shaft warship, he said that we should loose a little bit more speed but not that much more. He add as well that on one side you might loose more than on the other because of the way the propeller is turning. But lets not go there.

So what I propose here is that the FFG will not loose more than 6-7 kts on a 30 degrees of helm.

Would it be possible in a next Mod? Jamie, Luftwolf, Amizaur what do you think?

Mau

[LuftWolf]

Would it be possible in a next Mod? Jamie, Luftwolf, Amizaur what do you think?

I believe we would have to do some serious tinkering with the FFG parameters... Amizaur has a better sense of the phyics than I do.

We would have to do some serious looking at the DB to figure it out, but it would probably be possible by tweaking the imputs into the physics engine, in other words the FFG physical specifications. :hmm: :ping:

[Krasch]

Thanks Jamie, for staying on the FFG helo dipping sonar. I also think the right click/link info is the way to go, let the helo do its job. Adding the new art to the station will only distract me more when I here "VAMPIRE" :doh:

One other thing, I have recently bought some new games for my PC and no one supports thier products like SCS, especially the responses from you Jamie in these forums. I can't thank you enough.

Cheers,
Krasch

[JoGary(sco)]

Jamie,
Why have not the mobile mines and subroc doctrins been fixed. Amizaur has posted the fixes and they both have been well tested. All that was needed was for you guys to add them to the doctrin folder of the patch.

[XabbaRus]

Have you tried Demo 1.02?

[LuftWolf]

All that was needed was for you guys to add them to the doctrin folder of the patch.

The mobile mine fix requires changes to the database as well.

Xabba, I believe JoG is talking about the 1.02 demo. ;)

[Boomer Ang]

As per the speed loosing on a hard turn...

Speaking with one of my fellow teamates (he is a navigator so he is seeing the sun a lot more often than me in the Ops Room), he confirm that on our frigate if at a speed of 30 knots we are conducting a hard turn (30 deg of helm), let say for a TCM, we will not go lower than 25 kts. This is for a two shafts modern frigate.

Now for a single shaft warship, he said that we should loose a little bit more speed but not that much more. He add as well that on one side you might loose more than on the other because of the way the propeller is turning. But lets not go there.

So what I propose here is that the FFG will not loose more than 6-7 kts on a 30 degrees of helm.

Would it be possible in a next Mod? Jamie, Luftwolf, Amizaur what do you think?

Mau


Thanks even for your sentence Mau. In the past in this forums several navy men witnessed the same thing. :up: :smug:

I have never been on a Navy frigate,I have only been on turistic ships like Calais-Dover cruiser ships :) and boats that make tourists trips inside European rivers like Danubio,Reno,Senna,Tamigi etc.. :D so my experience in terms of reality inside FFG is definetly exagerate :D :D but after playing DW FFGs for not more than 3-4 minutes I subito realized physics were not of this solar system. :sunny:

I subito felt the same Star Trek spaceship physics applied instead.

Not to mention how 10000 tons of subs accelerate and decelerate like American dragsters that brake with parachutes...

I still wonder why experts that produce this kind of game could have done such dramatic mistakes while reproducing physics in this kind of game.

I also wonder what kind of simulators Sonalists give to the United States Navy :D are they tested from Bush himself ? :D


Boomer - the black sheep --


P.S. X Xabba : I don't consider reporting very basic physics rules " mud in the face " ........because I assume DW should be a simulation game not a shoot'em'up like Space Invaders

[LuftWolf]

Not to mention how 10000 tons of subs accelerate and decelerate like American dragsters that brake with parachutes...

Like most of the "Earth-Shattering I Won't Play This Game Until They Fix This SCS Is the Worst Game Design Company in the Whole World" Bugs, this can be changed by altering a single value in the database. In this case, the "drag" value.

Do you guys think we should do this for the next version of the mod? That is, slow down the acceleration of the subs?

I still have to test to be sure that this doesn't create some other kind of funny effects, but this seems like a fairly straightforward issue. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Well, ok, it does look like in this case it is a bit more difficult to do. I can get some effect with the drag, it seems to plateau, and there is a point at which there is no more effect, so I can't get it anywhere near "realistic" just using drag, so it's not even worth doing at this point, and as Deathblow pointed out, it would be make deceleration even faster than it already is (even though I thought at first it didn't), so we need to look at some things further, but it seems there SHOULD be SOMETHING we can do about it.

I stand-by what I said about certain other "bugs" that are really just database issues. Basically, anything that can be altered by changing the database, I don't consider a "bug". ;)

[LuftWolf]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Well, I found the obvious answer... we can just change the mass of the submarines so they act more like real subs in the water.

Currently, the masses in the database are around what the actual masses of the subs are in RL. Evidently, the engine itself isn't coded so that this would be enough by itself to provide correct performance, perhaps to make it easier for submerged and surface/air objects to cooexist in the same space, without having drastically different physics for the water and the air. That is, it's "ok" for submerged objects to behave as if they are in the air (with limited drag), but definately not ok for air platforms to perform as if they are in the water.

So, it looks like the answer is to increase the mass of the subs to make the performance more realistic. Obviously, this would be a HUGE workaround of the physics engine, and would require *a lot* of testing under different conditions to get right, but it is definately possible. This would change the acceleration, deceleration, and the turning performance of the subs as well. This last one, the turning, may not work out right, so as I said, we have to look at it very closely.

:rock:

[LuftWolf]

Well, if I set the mass of the SW to 30,000 tons, it takes about 2 minutes to get up to 38kts (our max speed for the SW in the mod) and about another two minutes to get back down to 3kts.

Is that good enough for the critics? :-j :smug:

[Amizaur]

Unfortunately we can't change acceleration by database editing. Many people tried (including, jsteed, Ludger and me) and failed.
Of course would be wonderfull if you succeeded :) but don't be too optimistic. Months ago I tried to increase the weight already...
Results are... well, make Seawolf 10x heavier, take it to 2000ft, speed up to 35-40kts and make emergency surface. ;) That's why I abandoned this idea :-). IIRC heavier sub maneuvered slower too, which is unacceptable as many people said that subs maneuver little slower than in real life already.

And... Luftwolf, I think you know that there is no need to change acceleration now ? ;)

Boomer, take your copy of DW, and measure what time it takes a Kilo Im to accelerate to 18kts. Then take new 1.02 demo and measure the same. Then stop complaining as I did :P

[LuftWolf]

Well, I'm impatient! :88)

In regards to the FFG turning issue, I'm not sure there is much we can do about that without making the FFG a dragster as well... the FFG's are already about to do a donut with the diameter of the circle being basically a boat length and a half.

Is an FFG really able to do that at 23 kts??? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

well, make Seawolf 10x heavier, take it to 2000ft, speed up to 35-40kts and make emergency surface.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

LOL, that's funny as hell!!! :lol:

Well, ok guys, we can't do that so easily. :88)

:oops:

And it seems SO simple. :hulk:

[JoGary(sco)]

yes i have tried the pathced Demo. I am pretty sure the mines and subroc are still same. I noticed a few changes to the subroc database. They have had Visual and Pasive SL removed. not sure why or what that will mean. Also noticed that some of the Thrusts have bben removed from playable subs, anyone know what they do? The kilo is only one still to have them.
When Amizuar first started on the moblile mines doctrin he manages to get them working with doctrin fixes alone. I still have copies of them on my HD. They wherent perfect but way better than what we have.
Yeh i agree that problems that can be fixed in Database and with new Doctrin ar not really a game bug but it still doesnt help us who cant or dont want to use the Mods. I love what u guys have done with the LWAMI Mod but for someone like myself who now plays in a Virtual Fleet it no good. We who are in virtual fleets need to rely on SC to fix doctrin and Databese when needed.
Anyhow, they could have fixed the Subroc with just changing a few lines. I may be missing somthing but i fail to see what. :damn:

[JoGary(sco)]

Seem that whenever someone thinks of somthing Amizaur has already been there :up:

Of course would be wonderfull if you succeeded but don't be too optimistic. Months ago I tried to increase the weight already...
Results are... well, make Seawolf 10x heavier, take it to 2000ft, speed up to 35-40kts and make emergency surface. That's why I abandoned this idea :-). IIRC heavier sub maneuvered slower too, which is unacceptable as many people said that subs maneuver little slower than in real life already.

:sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

[Driftwood]

Yeh i agree that problems that can be fixed in Database and with new Doctrin ar not really a game bug but it still doesnt help us who cant or dont want to use the Mods. I love what u guys have done with the LWAMI Mod but for someone like myself who now plays in a Virtual Fleet it no good. We who are in virtual fleets need to rely on SC to fix doctrin and Databese when needed.
Anyhow, they could have fixed the Subroc with just changing a few lines. I may be missing somthing but i fail to see what. :damn:

JG, It's my belief that if we can "make our case" (which will certainly require the services of our resident attorney :D and he knows who he is) we may be able to institute the use of the mod in our fleet. It may be a long shot since organizations in general can be resistant to change but it's worth a try! :up:

dw

[Molon Labe]

Yeh i agree that problems that can be fixed in Database and with new Doctrin ar not really a game bug but it still doesnt help us who cant or dont want to use the Mods. I love what u guys have done with the LWAMI Mod but for someone like myself who now plays in a Virtual Fleet it no good. We who are in virtual fleets need to rely on SC to fix doctrin and Databese when needed.
Anyhow, they could have fixed the Subroc with just changing a few lines. I may be missing somthing but i fail to see what. :damn:

JG, It's my belief that if we can "make our case" (which will certainly require the services of our resident attorney :D and he knows who he is) we may be able to institute the use of the mod in our fleet. It may be a long shot since organizations in general can be resistant to change but it's worth a try! :up:

dw

LOL, I doubt it. I'd be all in favor of approving the mod for gameplay, but considering that SW turned down SCX IIc I don't see them adopting LW/Ami.

[Driftwood]

You always miss 100% of the shots you never take. :up:

[Molon Labe]

You always miss 100% of the shots you never take. :up:

EDIT: Ok, no, Fish started the discussion on the SW forums. But I jumped on it damn quickly!

I don't mind trying, I'm just not optimistic.

[Bellman]

ML I don't mind trying, I'm just not optimistic
Knowing SWs- you are a 'realist' ;)
Good luck with your advocacy Fish et al never moved them beyond 1.8 in SC. :down:

[goldorak]

What are the virtual fleets out there that use the LW mod ?
Sw doesn't, Naval Command HQ doesn't at least that is what is written on their main page, what about the other fleets ?

[Molon Labe]

ML I don't mind trying, I'm just not optimistic
Knowing SWs- you are a 'realist' ;)
Good luck with your advocacy Fish et al never moved them beyond 1.8 in SC. :down:

And they really lost out on it. SCX IIc was top-notch, I'm not sure how I ever managed to play SC without it!

[Amizaur]

Me too. I have played SC 1.8 for... one day :D , next day I found and upgraded it to SCX2c :P

[LuftWolf]

Virtual Military Command members are allowed to use LWAMI until the hyperrealistic USMORS mod for DW becomes available. :rock:

[goldorak]

Virtual Military Command members are allowed to use LWAMI until the hyperrealistic USMORS mod for DW becomes available. :rock:


Is the USMORS mod going to be freely available or only for members of the Virtual Military Command ?

[LuftWolf]

I'm not sure. :hmm:

Someone with more experience in VMC should answer that question.

[Boomer Ang]

Before speaking of course I tried ( several months ago ... ) to tweak drag and mass values, via Ludger last editor, obtaining only the effects you mentioned, therefore I reached the sentence that physics rules have been curved by SCS to Alpha Centauri constellation system.
This despiting excellent tries made by you, I always think games should be DeVelOpeD and TesTeD from modders and fans, not from people who Ignore even the basics physics rules. :roll:

Same speech with FFGs , I remember before playing DW FFGs , I was always used to take 2 strong pills in order to be able to deal whith the physics effects of DW FFG and subs... :dead: :o :D later on,in order to forget about what I have seen, I was forced to drink an huge glass of old Whiskey. Three days later I restarted everything from scratch and then and so on for weeks..then I was forced to give up playing DW... :arrgh!:


Anyway I am very glad to see that after Thom and Bros someone else still tries to revert games as they should be :yep:

Cheers

Boomer

[Driftwood]

I'm not sure. :hmm:

Someone with more experience in VMC should answer that question.

I took a look at the VMC website the other day and from what I saw there didn't appear to be much activity there. The members list seemed kind of short too.

[LuftWolf]

It's not the size that matters...

And the website does need to be updated.

It is deceptive on the forum, as there are many more individual boards than are actually used at this point.

Like I said, someone with more experience than I should answer this, but since it is a group dedicated to hyperrealism, and their has been an absense of a realism mod up until recently, (the USMORS people are very thorough in their work), I could imagine that some group members are taking a break.

That's my guess.

In any case, I'd rather be in a fleet that focuses on accuracy and make way way in that, than play a thousand "SS-N-27's From Heaven" deathmatches... but that's just me. ;)

[Driftwood]

I just want to be clear that I was making an observation and not a judgement regarding VMC. From what I read on their page(s) it certainly sounds like an interesting group. :up:

[LuftWolf]

I didn't think anything negative... no worries. :|\

[sonar732]

Something else to consider with the multiple boards on the VMC website is the expandability of future operations. It's too bad that my family commitments keep me from participating... :roll: :lol:

[Boomer Ang]

Sonar732, I hope the next sub game produced by the pc game world, not necessarily SCS, will call you as external consultant,beeing you an ex real sonar men maybe you could avoid disasters made on DW,beeing them physics rules or impossibility to use command helo to dip their unkwown device called...." sonar " , quite usefull in a submarine simulatxxxx , game.

Boomer

[goldorak]

Sonar732, I hope the next sub game produced by the pc game world, not necessarily SCS, will call you as external consultant,beeing you an ex real sonar men maybe you could avoid disasters made on DW,beeing them physics rules or impossibility to use command helo to dip their unkwown device called...." sonar " , quite usefull in a submarine simulatxxxx , game.

Boomer


Just sell your copy so you will never have to bear again with the "oh my god look at scs is such disgraceful software company for having produced such a pos"
Don't like DW, sell it and get over it instead of continually nitpicking ultra-minor errors that don't compromise gameplay.

[XabbaRus]

Yea I second that....

[drEaPer]

while we'RE at it: does the ai helo use the dipping sonar and reports findings whem you set the control from ship to helo + accoustics ?

[goldorak]

while we'RE at it: does the ai helo use the dipping sonar and reports findings whem you set the control from ship to helo + accoustics ?

No, the ai helo doesn't use the dipping sonar, you can just as well instruct it to drop a buoy.

[LuftWolf]

If you use Bill's corrected Helo Dipping doctrine and have the helo on Helo control, I believe it will.

[Boomer Ang]

Sonar732, I hope the next sub game produced by the pc game world, not necessarily SCS, will call you as external consultant,beeing you an ex real sonar men maybe you could avoid disasters made on DW,beeing them physics rules or impossibility to use command helo to dip their unkwown device called...." sonar " , quite usefull in a submarine simulatxxxx , game.

Boomer


Just sell your copy so you will never have to bear again with the "oh my god look at scs is such disgraceful software company for having produced such a pos"
Don't like DW, sell it and get over it instead of continually nitpicking ultra-minor errors that don't compromise gameplay.


I have tried but as you see no one yet bought it.

How can you consider " ultra-minor " errors, physics rules and the impossibility to order helos to use a sonar in a submarine simulations ?????? :o :o

If you aren't aware of how the earth and lives are governed by physics rules this doesn't mean everyone here live into a parallel dimension where fishes have 3 eyes and car flies on the sky singing " yellow submarine, yellow submarine ".

Then Goldorak , beeing you an IT person , you should be aware of how precise you must be when working on servers therefore I really can't understand how can you play a simulation without using the helo sonar :o :o :o how can you spot enemies from FFG ? FFG active ping ? :rotfl: :rotfl: elegant tactic this one :rotfl:

Boomer

[wombat778]

How can you consider " ultra-minor " errors, physics rules and the impossibility to order helos to use a sonar in a submarine simulations ?????? :o :o

Personally, I have a different definition of "simulation" from you. I believe that DW is a FANTASTIC simulator of modern ASW warfare and tactics. It is NOT a sailing simulator. Frankly it is NOT a study simulation of any one platform like SH3, Falcon4 or a host of other titles. Rather, it is simulation (maybe even a wargame) of small scale ASW, with an emphasis on sonar and TMA/triangulation.

This in no way lessens its value as a simulator, it just makes it a different type of simulator from SH, F4 etc. For example, Harpoon 3 is an excellent simulator of large scale modern naval warfare. However, it has no "physics" engine whatsoever (instant turns/acceleration etc), and the entire simulation occurs on a simple map with lines and circles. But, like DW, H3 is not attempting to simulate fully accurate physics, but rather the tactical experience. No one simulation can simulate all aspects of the real world...


how can you spot enemies from FFG ? FFG active ping ? :rotfl: :rotfl: elegant tactic this one :rotfl:


Err....by ordering the helo to drop sonobuoys! ;)

Also, with regard to the helo dipping, I believe that the doctrine mod allows the helo to go dip on its own and report the info back to the FFG. I have no clue whether IRL the FFG actually orders the helo to dip or whether the helo operator would have discretion to do that on his own, so the doctrine fix may be 100% realistic for all I know.

All just my 2c anyhow.

[Boomer Ang]

I am, unluckily, used to have " hard " converstaion here and I am positively impressed by wombat778 that in this case have different opinions from me but they are expressed in a good way without insulting people.

I respect your opinions even if different from mine.

Nice to see that some educated men have remained :up:

Boomer

[Jamie]

But, like DW, H3 is not attempting to simulate fully accurate physics, but rather the tactical experience. No one simulation can simulate all aspects of the real world...

This has always been my viewpoint on DW. We tried to tackle many different facets of ASW warfare and it's my opinion that, given the inherent challenge of the undertaking, that we did an admirable job. DW is an immense game which includes dozens of ways to play (i.e. a scalable experience). A game this large will always be a work in progress, and I respect Boomer's opinion on his perceived shortcomings of the game.

I've even admitted that the FFG/Helo interface was not we had hoped it would be, and that we would like to improve upon in the future... not sure what else I can say to Boomer in this regard? :roll:

I respect your opinions even if different from mine... Nice to see that some educated men have remained

I always respect your opinions, Boomer.

I just don't agree with the way you present them sometimes... Of course, it is your prerogative to express your opinion in any way you see fit (with respect to Neal's established forum rules, of course).

And also, sometimes you just don't have all of the information... (see below)

Sonar732, I hope the next sub game produced by the pc game world, not necessarily SCS, will call you as external consultant,beeing you an ex real sonar men...

In this case, maybe you should ask Joe what his involvement was. I think you'd be surprised at his level of participation in DW's development. He was a tremendous asset to the team (as were many in this community) during our development... :roll:

[Zepheron]

how can you spot enemies from FFG ? FFG active ping ? :rotfl: :rotfl: elegant tactic this one :rotfl: Boomer

Lets see, Bow sonar in passive, TA, Ownship sonobuoys, Helo sonobuoys, and if all else fails stick your head in the water to see if you can hear anything. ;)

[Fish]

I am, unluckily, used to have " hard " converstaion here and I am positively impressed by wombat778 that in this case have different opinions from me but they are expressed in a good way without insulting people.

I respect your opinions even if different from mine.

Nice to see that some educated men have remained :up:

Boomer

Isn't that insulting the rest of the crew? :hmm:

[John Channing]

Pretty close from where I sit.

JCC

[carlan2uk]

My problem with Bloomers remarks is why doesn't he speak English? :-j