Andy I see what you are saying.

Why don't you write to Jamie privately he might have something to say.

Thank you Xabba, Oneshot, and Co. for your posts above, I appreciate you explaining the situation - thank you again for your help, as always!


Andy,

You can compare DW (or any of our games) to Operation Flashpoint/Bohemia Interactive (or any game/developer which you think applies) and at the end of the day it all makes little difference.

OFP is one of the most modular and mod-friendly games ever to be released, and (my impression from what I have read in Developer PostMortems and the like indicated that) they architected the game from the ground up to be that way. They spent a considerable amount of time in development (4 years, I read? Correct me if I'm wrong) making sure that the game framework was what they wanted it to be. Albeit their initial development was with a smaller team than ours which affords them some flexibility in that regard. But even with that much time for a dev cycle OFP still shipped with its fair share of bugs (many of which were fixed in the last 5-6 years, of course).

My point is that DW has been released. Had we chosen to release 2 new platforms instead of 4 (while still including the SC nuke subs, of course) then maybe we could have invested some funds into the development of the architecture and the creation of community mod tools and editors. Or maybe if we had cut our team in half and lengthened the dev cycle by a year or so then we could have applied some resources on a "part time" basis to work on those sorts of tasks (and tools).... who knows? (but again, I believe the contractual obligations with our DoD/Foreign customers would prohibit some of that - because I know what those agreements ACTUALLY are, as opposed to your speculation in the posts above).

This is all hypothetical, of course, because (as I said) DW is done. For us to invest additional funds to create these new tools (even if it were done in 2005 when the game was initially released) would not be cost-effective.

And to be honest, Andy, you have no idea how many projects are built on the NavalSimEngine here in our company. Tens of millions of dollars of gov't funding for trainers, simulations, and visualization and analysis tools have been won by our company by using our game group's technology (NavalSimEngine, predominately) in the proposal/bidding and eventual implementation (heck, I don't even know all the projects which probably use it). So, I'm sure there are a few things which BIA could learn from Sonalysts in that respect too - don't you think?

Again, I would have loved to make a whole suite of tools which could be used to create all sorts of fun things for DW, but as it turned out the fact that we were finanically prudent and responsible in our development costs for DW will likely allow us to "fight another day" in this volatile PC Gaming/Simulation market when other developers would not have been able to sustain themselves.

To me, that's what's most important. ;)

Marcus Huse Jacobson then? :hmm: :know:

I have read Jamie's response a few times now and every time i read it i feel that he is saying good-bye.The sales of DW were poor and I am not sure how the NCP has faired but i would think that they were not great.SCS know what pays the bills and it is not us!Government contracts keep Jamie and his colleagues employed.The last thing SCS need is a free game that is better than their software-they will all be out of a job.
We will have to accept DW as it is now warts and all.One day they will move on and perhaps the restrictions on development will be lifted but I feel it will be a long wait.
Jamie I await your correction if my prognosis is wrong but I would be glad for you to blow it to pieces with a controllable t-boat.

I do not know the intricacies of Jamie's Company that's a fact. And I never made pretenses to such. I stated what is common in DoD. On a similar note contractors never see the inside workings of the military acquisition process no matter how much time they spend on base or hobnobbing with the decision makers. They have no idea of what the focus and desires are when a unit is putting forward a request. They know what is in the proposal. For various reasons what the contractor sees as a request isn't always what the military wants. I write from the military side of the house where I have been for 19 years. Most of the time as an operator, but now as an instructor charged with digital training for our candidates. There will be a National Geographic special sometime in March, it depends on the editing, and I discuss some of the training.

I never referenced OFP. You are off the mark. I am referring to VBS1. A product that was improved to no end because of the company's interaction with the civilian community. An action which in turn greatly benefitted the military community. It was not only beneficial but extremely cost effective. It also allowed VBS2 to develop into a product that, unlike other sims, now in beta has no equal.

I look at what Jamie wrote and I am mystified. I appreciate his response but again I am left shaking my head. Was there nothing to be released that would have assisted modders? I never pointed to the fact that his company should spend the money to develop tools. There are enough talented people in the community that simply releasing source material would likely be enough. The reason for not releasing anything is exactly what Jamie stated then somewhat retracted. Military customer implications.

I don't know if BIA could learn anything. I don't mean to sound pompous but look at their track record. The Australians, the New Zealanders, the Marine Corps, the Special Warfare Center here at Bragg, The Canadians, the British MOD. And now the big green Army is looking very closely at VBS2. A product which is simply amazing. Look at the editor:

http://www.vbs2.com/media/movies/rea...ditor_high.wmv

More here:

http://www.vbs2.com/site/downloads.html

Their customer interaction has been like no other company with which I have ever dealt. In coordination with their parent company they neatly divided up the civilian and military sides of the house. Their tool inclusion was a stroke of genius.

I am guessing that what is being implied is that only tools could have helped the mod community. No other code or anything else would have been of assistance at all. Several people have commented to me that their impression was that such modding even without assistance seems to be verboten.

Well, there is always Sub Command. SCXIIc and the wonderful work by that Team have shown that a modable product will outlive one that can't be modded every time. That's good for the gamer and it's smart marketing all around. So much for this topic.

The big difference between SCS and BIA in my eyes is the fact that BIA is solely concerned with Software Development while SCS is more than that - to prove my point take a look at this page : http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_021c.html . Since I'm nice I'll quote the important part (tho you should take a look at the picture on the page).

As you see - SCS is only a part of Sonalysts and not even the biggest. Add the various statements from Jamie and you should get the picture why SCS has made DW the way it is now and puts certain restrictions on modding.

Anyway, from my point of view I don't get the fuss about having lots of new playables ... sure it would be nice to control platforms from my own country (well actually there is one that Germany just recently has aquired) but would it really make a difference? I don't think so ... in the end you are again doing ASW. Yes, I already see the guy in the back waving his hands frantically - I know with new platforms we might get a Tico or even a Carrier, but lets get real this game is solely an ASW Simulator first and foremost, everything else is simulated only rudimentarily (no offense Jamie) and while putting in a Tico might look nice it would add more problems. Besides I have yet to encounter someone who has truly mastered all platforms and ASW in general. So why ask for more controllables when you have a problem with the existing ones? They won't get easier - quite the contrary.

Bottom line, you want to get more out of DW - help modding ... the stuff we are both allowed and encouraged to mod! Which means start building models, texture them, rework or substitute all the other textures in the game, play with the sounds, get to know the Database and expand it to include more Navies and vessels ... there is so much that can be done and will enhance the existing gameplay as well as make the game look better ... and the best - its perfectly legal and support by SCS.

Thank you for the link to Virtual Battlespace 1/2, I had heard of it previously but have not revisited their site in quite some time. Apologize for my confusion with that, but I think my statements probably still apply to their efforts on VBS as they did for OFP (or at least, to some degree).

Oneshot makes the point pretty succinctly in that our approach at Sonalysts is that we try to leverage our technical assets in as many ways as we can via multiple products, SBIRs, and proposals. Because of that, however, our team can get "spread pretty thin" at times as we work on multiple projects simultaneously and have to provide support to those new customers (in addition to the support I/we try to provide to our commercial customers).

Bohemia Interactive just takes a different approach with their team members (or so it seems). They work on a codebase as a team and refine it to a high-gloss shine with the intention of eventually selling to civilian and govt customers, eventually. They focus intently on that and can try to maximize their time and efforts on that ONE product-base (whether it be OFP, AA, or VBS series). Also, although no one likes to talk about this, being located in the Czech Republic has its advantages with regards to production costs (it's just a reality, not an excuse on my part).

In our case, our team (which consists of about 10-12 members) could be working on upwards of 5 projects for various customers, at the same time... it's just a different approach. Both are fairly profitable, I assume.

Also, there is nothing than cannot be modded in DW which wasn't modded in SC (i.e. SCX and other efforts). If anything, I've been trying to foster the mod scene moreso for this game than any of our past efforts. However, I just think that there were some intensely dedicated people who worked on the mods for SC and FC that put in a tremendous amount of time to yield the eventual results of those mods... I am confident that the same could happen with DW if a team was constructed with similar goals.

Oneshot, no offense taken whatsoever... DW is an ASW sim, no doubt. It could take quite a bit of modification to make it the "virtual naval battlefield" that everyone is hoping for... Which doesn't mean we aren't aspiring to do that, of course. ;)

I think at this point in the thread people are talking past one another. Maybe I missed something but one of the reasons stated here against modding DW is "we didn't have time/money to make the game mod-able". Aside from the contractual/legal constraints w/ DoD and foreign gov'ts (which is debatable as well), I still don't understand why SCS is *going out of its way* to prohibit modding, that others have shown is doable in the past without requiring any software architecture changes (or any other output from SCS for that matter). I don't see the community asking SCS for modding tools/editors, although that's a good idea in and of itself; what I see is the community merely asking permission to mod things other than the database and doctrine files.
As far as the "we didn't meet our sales quota so we can't afford an expansion pack" excuse - I had a feeling this was going to be the case from day 1, and it's a shame that it worked out that way too.
Like I said, I must be missing something because even after this whole thread it still doesn't all add up - There's got to be something more here than meets the eye.

Sexman's exactly right, you spoke my mind exactly. They're going out of their way to make it harder to mod, but, apparently, we cant mod because they'd have to go out of their way.

Actually I have to disagree on all points here. If SCS were going out of their way to prohibit modding they would not have worked with Ludger who made DWEdit and given him access to the database structure so he could write a tool that allows us to edit the database. They would not have released tools that allow one to export a model from 3DS MAX into J3D format, or agiven us teh tool to import that model into the 3d.grp file. Likewise they would not have let us have access to a decompress tool that decompresses all the .grp files.

Also I serisouly think you haven't looked at how SCU for SCXII works. It works by hacking teh .exe file and dll files so that unique subs could be played. IT did make acrhitectural changes to subcommand.exe file.

I personally am beginning to think people are getting a little ungrateful. Where did SCS say they were for definite going to release an expansion pack? You are acting as if SCS have gone back on a promise. Also as oneshot has said how many people here have mastered all the platforms? Go on who here can say they have and that a new platform would be a challenge? REally at the end of the day a new platform won't bring much new apart from a slightly different way of working the sensors. You are doing the same thing as in normal DW.

The tools to mod this and improve it are there, Luft is doing a good job trying to make realism better based on info we can get. I want to get the graphics sorted out so it looks better. We mod the game from within and improve what does need to be improved. Shouting at SCS and Jamie like this is counter productive.

If you are so unhappy about it why don't you write your own sim?

I am still waiting to be corrected by SCS:hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

Ah, Xabba, I figured I'd draw you out....
Let's see here - I never stated that SCS was not suppording modding; what I meant was that they are actively telling us we can't change the .dll and the .exe files, which we paid good $ for. That to me is BS; the only thing they could possibly object to is the distribution of such modded files, and I'm calling the issue out by asking why again. I'm asking this again because the "we can't do it because Uncle Sam won't let us" is a somewhat weak excuse (but nobody seems to know for sure).
I never said that they promised to release an expansion pack; I was objecting to the anti- .exe and .dll modding attitude when it seemed clear from the beginning that they would never have the funding to release an expansion pack.
I've gone on record here saying that I was thankful for the work that Luft (and many, many others) have done with this sim.
You are basically asking me to change my opinion about the value of extra driveables. This doesn't make sense. If I could/would/had time to program my own sim, I wouldn't even be here to begin with.
Once again I restate my thesis - the answers (from SCS and others who are against .dll and .exe modding) just don't seem intellectually satisfying enough. Why should the US Navy (or any other navy) care if we "hack" the .dll or .exe files?

so its highley unlikely to see ne new models that are accuret?

I am still waiting anddo not believe that I will ever be replied to!!:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: