@Dragon

Excellent list mate and too the point!!!!!!! We have a wide varity of fixes on your list. Now, if UBI were to say we can fix five of the bugs on the list what would these be?

Some of your bugs I do not have:

number del . key works for me
Dive planes no issue
Save game damage disappears....same in SH3 if I recall correctly, they never reappear after a save.

On your list these are my top fixes:
chronometer
multiply doors open
Fix the damage model and provide better damage assessment screen.
Better/smarter AI sensors

Some of the others do not affect my game play or pertain to higher res that I do not use. All in all a good list. It is lists like this that help developers get you what you want. Some of your CTD might be your computer. With exception of the "A" key CTD I know of no other key of key combination that will assure a CTD. I have had 1 CTD with 1.2. A defrag and internet junk clean up and none since.

I would go with those as well Hawk, i think a way of doing the patches is doing small ones but lots of them ie fixing 5 problems at a time till the tick list so to speak is done and dusted so instead of waiting weeks or months for one massive 300 meg patch you get lots of little ones at say 20 ish meg.

Who knows who UBI got for beta testers? Read a report on a review here a few days ago, a review done by a cable TV channel. (G4TV I think?) Anyway the reviewer was major pissed off at it, crusing around on the surface trying to take on convoys with the deck gun and complaining about how poorly the sub handled. Laughable, he obviously didn't know his *ss from a hole in the ground when it comes to sub-simming.

My point is, how do we know UBI didn't enlist similarly-incompetent beta testers? I don't know who they got, maybe 9-year olds that never heard of WW2 and are impressed by anything that explodes, but if they'd come here I'm sure they'd have gotten much better input that could have made a difference.

As far as SH4 being built on SH3 engine, sure that's a big time-saver. As a programmer I'm often assigned to write a new program that's similar to an older one, but far more full-featured and complex. I've often started out by basing the new program on the older one. And sometimes it works. But I've also found it can lead to dirty, inefficient code, and bugs that have you tearing your hair out trying to track 'em down. All depends on how high you're raising the bar. Frequently I've found it better just to start from scratch.

DH

well, thank you all for putting those lists together.

however i am glad the game is available and i have been having a blast playing it. i put SH3 on the self a long time ago as it got "boring", now with SH4 out i am enjoing the type of game again and am glad they didn't wait longer. the game is totaly playable

/shrug

Its good to see people putting down there thoughts. Also i have to agree SH4 is a playable game but it has its problems. Harry i know what you mean about using existing code ive heard of this prob before. I think the thing that annoys me as a retired submariner i can really see the potential in SH4 then another glitch comes along. Like you said christ knows who was betaing it or even doing it right. As to reviews ive seen a few really stupid ones in the UK to some one really needs to point out there submarines not bloody cruisers or DD's. Fair enough we have created the uber boot for sh3 but thats a pure a fun factor thing to exepct a sub of any type to do it stock theese guys are taking drugs or need some sleep:yep:

A good point of reference for a new patch could be if the devs use sh3 with GWX or nygm and see what is a good submarine game.

is difficult understand how they can make a buggy game using the code of sh3 and making too many mistakes.:doh:

I suspect about a lot of time expended with the graphic engine and other gameplay factors abandoned by lack of time.

To this point of yours I agree whole heartedly. As I understand it, one change here in this file screws up another file over there. Taking a few on at a time and assuring the desired results are obtained is the best way to go. Nothing worse than a patch clearing up a bug but introducing another bug. I can't say any new bugs were introduced with 1.2. My game plays better then ever and I got some nice fixes.

Yes, the game is totally playable. I really do not have major issues with any of it. On the same token, some simple principles of the submarine do need a fix, ie. chronometer, open all tubes. These things that make a sub a sub!

Warhawk, you know there's a fix over in the mods forum to have all tubes open at the same time, right? Very simple change to Commands.cfg and works flawlessly as far as I can tell. Has made a major difference for me, firing off a quick salvo! "Fire One! Fire Two! Fire Three!" and no more waiting 10 seconds for doors to open after each shot :up:

Chronometer I'd definitely like to see fixed. Also the IDL/torpedo track problem on the attack map. Hopefully in 1.3 - but I'm prepared to wait a while if that's what it takes to do it right...

All in all, I'm loving SH4 despite the shortcomings. And expecting that in a year, after all the patches and work by the mods, we'll have a kick-*ss sim that will make GWX look so-so.

Some intresting points harry but the way most gamers think is why pay 50 bucks upwards for a game thats going to take a year or more to fix. Back in the day you could install silent service 1 or 2 and of you went no patches same with elite i mean 17 years down the line and yes we have much better technology but the software side of it has went to hell in a handbag:yep:

Everything you say is true. SS2 was a fantastic game, I cut my sub-sim teeth on that one and have lusted after WW2 sub combat in the Pacific for many years on account of that game.

But let's look at the difference between SS2 and SH4. SS2 shipped on (excuse me, I forget the exact number, been too many years) somewhere between 1 and 5 DS-DD 3.25" floppy disks at under 1 meg each. The entire game was certainly well under 5 megs if even that large. When it came out I had a 100 meg HD which was of respectable size at the time. Most of the PC's at my office were still using 10 or 20 meg drives back then.

SH4 however, ships on a DVD weighing in at 3.83 GIGABYTES... Just a little bit larger, don't you think? (a tiny bit larger ;)) And a little bit more complex. You ask me, it's a miracle that something that big and complex can work at all.

About patches for SS2, how would they be distributed? The internet was in it's infancy back then and if you had a connection at all you were doing good. If you had a 1200 baud connection you rocked! Either way, you paid out the *ss for it, I was paying $6/hr for non-prime connect over a 1200 baud dialup connection. And I remember worrying myself sick over whether I could afford to d/l that 100k byte file I wanted.

About paying $50 for a game in 2007, well I was paying $50 for games in 1985 that were nowhere near as engrossing as SH4. According to the "Inflation Calculator" at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ well that $50 I spent in 1985 would cost me nearly $94 today!

To sum it up, I'm not so sure that it's a case of the "software going to hell in a handbag", more than it is a case of the user's expectations, and the hardware's ability growing faster than the software technology can keep up.

DH

Me too! Kinda getting fed up of the bitchers and moaners - too bad they have a larger audience. Applied patch 1.2 ... never had a CTD since and having great fun! I don't mind that it is not TOTALLY perfect sub-sim. That's what counts. >>> I <<< enjoy it. Playing it for hours on end with enjoyment.

Someone or some people need to put the "bitchers" in check, SOON! Getting fed up with them. :(

I think one of the big probs now Harry is the suits run the gaming business but back in the day the gamers ran it but times change oh and SS2 was released in 1990, 17 years ago.
Oh and monica this isnt a bitching thread this is a thread to let ubi know yes there is problems and yes we would like them fixed. On average 8 out of 10 sh4 players are expierencing problems to a major or minor degree, wouldnt you think that ubi have reason to fix the problems.
I am not going to bitch about SH4 its going to shape up to be a brilliant game once all those little nags are fixed and a lot of the bugs well its almost like there are dozens of of small bugs but no massive major bug and thats what can be annoying. All i'm asking is if you have something positive to be seen and by ubi to help get the game fixed the way sh3 was say it instead of atacking people who are having valid and ongoing problems with SH4:up:

Well as I mentioned they are bugs of copied from other threads. Actually I haven't had a single CTD whilst using patch 1.2.. only 4 patrols tho...

I don't really want to repeat myself but!

There are some many bugs spread all over the place in both this forum and over at UBI. We need a central point to collate the bugs so that we can all agree on which bugs are critical, which bugs can be fixed by modders, which bugs are seen by everyone. UBI moderators have stickied a bug report website http://www.sh4bugs.com which seems out of date (I couldn't actually get on it yesterday either.

My point is that we need to know what UBI intend to do with SH4 and we need to know where to put all the bugs so that the devs don't have to wade through thread after thread..... I suggested a NEW heavily moderated sticky earlier.. What do the moderators think about that?

Please add that the spread angle cannot be set on a per tube basis.

Once you change it it stays the same as you switch tubes requiring a last second adjustment.

I want to have my salvo set up and ready to launch.