Yes, sure. I had in my mind that LWAMI improves the autocrew by altering some sensor-related stuff in the DB. But I could be completely wrong here and these enhancements are only influencing non-player platforms.

Yeah, it is a pity that DW does not have a good sensor-autocrew. I like more being a skipper, similar to the experience in 'Red Storm Rising'.

Sensors are in the DB. We can play with things like sensitivity, frequency, baffled areas, etc. Nothing that would have a direct effect on autocrew, though.

As I'm learning trying to mod the radars and ESM sensors for 3.10, we actually have more control over sensor properties for playable platforms than we do AI platforms.

I have a lot of trouble with that statement. I mean, I understand your point, but I don't think that excuses how terrible the sonar autocrew is. I'm a software developer, and as such I know that shipping a product with a feature that is effectively broken is a very bad idea. At least, if you get bad reviews because of it, you have no right to complain. And the sonar autocrew is so utterly useless that it is effectively broken. I was prepared to man the sonar station in tricky or difficult situations, but assumed that the autocrew would be able to handle basic tasks with some degree of competence. In that I was seriously disappointed.

I don't think you did understand the point. DW shipped with a LOT of bugs and broken features, many of which continued through the 1.04 patch and some of which were never solved. They deserve to take criticism for that--including for not having autocrew that can do everything that was advertised. I'm not letting them off the hook for that.

BUT, that is still a separate issue from using autocrew performance as a measure for the fidelity of the simulation. Because the autocrew is not designed to simulate anything, it is simply illogical to criticise the product as if it does. This takes nothing away from the argument that they were wrong not to "finish" the product before shipping it.

The sale point of these sim/games were clearly marketed as being a sub skipper, not a sonar/radar/helmsman/Ft or what have you. My skipper from the Archerfish just passed away at trhe age of 70. CPT. G.R. Plummer. We spoke about issues at times of what being a sucessful Sub Skipper was all about. He told me, "You have to have a great crew and equipment, a Submarine Commander has to have situational awareness 24/7, he relies on his crew for information that makes this feasable."

I get what these sims provide, seriously, what else is there to do with a sim of this nature? You have an autocrew that should walk the plank. You have no Weapons officer to advise you on the solution etc.. etc... you do it all or you rely on a disfunctional autocrew that cannot even get weapons presets right. These are anything but a Submarine Commander experience sim. But maybe one day one will come our way. :arrgh!:

Which makes me even more happy I paid only $8.00 new for it.

But I'm still happy with the purchase.

I think I will really enjoy it the more I get into it. :DL


Heck, I remember saying once " I'll never learn this manual targeting in SH-3 " :haha:

I have made this exact point with Dr Sid in reference to the ComSubSim. A captain has to let the crew, who are not dummies, do their JOB. Sure, have the option to jump in and do it, but for the most part, this CO relies on his crew to be professionals. Let them do THEIR job so you can do yours.

I can only hope that the ComSubSim becomes a reality and people can have the pleasure of handling a boat with a decent crew.

What you seem to be saying is that as long as someone gets something out of a game, it was successful. I would argue that if the vast majority of potential players were turned off by the crappy sonar autocrew, the game failed. And if it was aimed only at the small group of people who didn't care about that autocrew, then they marketed it very poorly, or even deceptively.

If the autocrew was not designed to simulate anything, what was it in fact designed to do? What is it for? And why on earth is it in the game at all?

I'm sure there's a guy somewhere who bought a dead Lada and thinks it's really spiffy for hauling gravel behind his mule. He may be right, but he's in the minority. Most people would agree that the Lada was a really crappy car.

I said nothing of the sort. DW was a commercial failure by any objective measure.

As I said earlier, to reduce the workload of the player.

I have to disagree. having a skilled crew would in fact represent a proper subsim. Unlike flying an aircraft in a flight simulator, operating a submarine is soley dependant upon the crew with the command of the skipper.

Is that me you're disagreeing with? I don't recall me or anyone else stating what aspects of submarine warfare a "proper subsim" would include or not include, so I don't know what to make of this statement.

I guess I could just treat is as a new issue.

In that case, I disagree with it. I think both the role-playing/cinematic style sim (e.g. Silent Hunter) and a station-based sim (e.g. 688I-DW) are equally "proper". As are RTS-style sims like Fleet Command, for that matter. It's up to the designers to decide what aspects they want to simulate.

IMHO this doesn't make any sense. SCS stated time and time again that the physics engine and the whole realism were upgraded in DW (and in SC before it) and from past threads we can see that it's been tested by several forum members. Moreover, Sonalysts now use an upgraded version of DW and NOT 688(I) for professional (US navy) training.
If you meant the DB than we can always use the values from the older game, for the 688 at least, but I don't think they were that accurate either.
And anyway, that's exactly what the creators of LWAMI tried to fix.

Well I can assure youfrom experience that our 637 class boat while in the med bagged and tracked a Kilo. We were awarded what the Navy called a "Hook em" award and MUC. It was not uncommon for our ST's to make classifications out to 20K yards as my memory dictates. I still play 688i once in a great while and the autocrew performs far more efficiently than the autocrew does in either SC or DW modded or not.

To me it seems that SC had fewer features, right .. but you could see the care and love and future plans in it. DW has more features, it is for sure an upgrade .. but hasty, incomplete one. As if somebody said 'let's try to squeeze something from this old engine, but don't overdo it.
Actually I think it's almost impossible to gain profit from this kind of game. That's why I'm trying to do it without profit in mind :o

I think it's very possible to gain profit from developing post WWII sub sim games.

The story of SH3 is a proof that sub sim works. If the masses like WWII sub sim I don't see why they wouldn't try a post WWII sub sim. On the condition that the game quality is as good as that in SH3 of course which company like Sonalysts don't have the commitment and perhpas time to invest in.