![]() |
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).
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
I am still waiting anddo not believe that I will ever be replied to!!:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.