No, as long as DW or its succesors use Dirext X they will be compatible with Vista.
Now if they only use Dirext X 10 which is only Vista specific, it will only run on Vista and not Windows 200, Windows Xp etc...

Oooooohhhhh.... That Vista is evil! XP is the last Windows OS I use! PLease make DW compatible with Linux!:up:

Me too...I'd rather give up computers and go back to the stone age, then have a computer where big brother knows my every move, can spam me online and offline with junk (free marketing for them)...visit a supermarket website to buy oranges on Sunday and be spammed by Tropicana on Monday? No thanks!!

Bill Gates can suck a big banana...I hate the geek's guts! He's already got 30 billion dollars the greedy &*"£"£$*!! :down:

I also will be VERY HAPPY if I could run DW on Linux. I still have Windows for playing games...

On the other hand, we allways want more!

We forget the great improvevment that is driving, not only different subs with different characteristics, but also a surface ship, a helo and a plane!
And we want more playable!!! When 688i Hunter/Killer or Fast Attack came, did we asked for more and more playable platforms?
DW still has many things to improve so, I think is better making a great game with "few" controllables than a lot of controllables than doesn't works fine (I want my Akula to go up without breaking the TA... and without surfacing!).

The only think I would change is add more countries. It will increase a lot the mission design giving us the cahnce of creating more possible scenarios. SCS only wants us to create missions (a great mission editor I should say, despite still needs improvements), so please, wive us more toys to play with ;)

Ive heard that it wasnt possible, but now that I remember what u showed me, it is. What I mean to say is, that you cant create a brand new one, it has to be based on an existing platform. For example, if I remember, u modeled the Victoria, but it has to use Russian/Chinese torpedoes and missiles cause its based on the Kilo. Thats what im talking about. Sonalysts can say that they would not make money and lose clientele if they released mod tools, but that IMO is bull. Many games have released their mod tools, and still make lots of money, they dont lose money from it, especially if you license these tools to make money.

Thank God, the chinese torpedoes are used just by chinese. Given that, you can modify the torpedoes used by chinese kilos to make whatever torpedo you want and don't suffer any drawback from it. I kept the chinese torps cause I have no idea what torps the Victoria uses.

Oh, thanks for telling me. I dont know what the Vic uses either, id imagine its British. Dude, ur genius.

MK 48's (not ADCAPs)

JCC

Goldorak, you made a rather sweeping statement that you would not like to see some of the dw changes put into sc, but never explained why,so for the second time why do you object to this?

There is nothing to explain, Dw has features that will never be able to be included in SC short of someone stealing the source code.
How are you going to add multistation ?
How are you going to add an integrated naval battlespace ?
How are you going to add a new sonar model etc... ?

Lets get real, SC evolved into SCX/SCU because of illegal tinkering.
And this crippled not only the community but SCS as well.
No wonder they are trying to enforce a strict no mod policy on DW with regards to playable units.

Players should realize that they had a free ride with SC but now SCS is in command again and the future is with DW not with SC.
And if players are allways bitching why can't we mod this why can't we mod that and in repsonse they go back to sub command they are not supporting SCS and we as a whole will likely not see another game from them.
Is that what we want ? :roll:

Look this whole bitching on the mod capability of DW with respect to SC I've already seen it in exactly the same way with the Falcon 4 franchise.
In that community there are a lot of players and modders so pissed off at LP for having a very strict control (to say the least) on Falcon 4 that they prefer to not support F4 AF, go back to playing a dead game such as Falcon 4. Now how dumb is that ?
The only effect they will have is that of trying to kill the Falcon 4 franchise.
Really stupid thing if you ask me.

I say accept the fact that SCS controls DW, and be happy for the day they decide to release new playable units.
They are in control, not us its as simple as that.

Not necessarily. Us (i.e. the consumers) are in control. Without the consumer to buy/pay for the product, these companies wont even exist.

I have no sympathy for gaming companies because they'll drop you like a brick if they think there is a bigger market elsewhere. Just look at Oblivion, Bethesda, the company who "...made games they want to play" sold out to the console crowd leaving their long-time dedicated fans in the lurch. Anyone else read the near suicidal threads on their messageboard the day it came out? :lol: Rainbow 6 sold out as well. Ghost Recon too. Actually, nearly every quality franchise you can think of either just died or betrayed it's fan base.

So no.....games companies can lick my gonads. I will never be loyal to any games company ever again. Instead of buying a game blindly, I'll try the demo and then wait for it to go in the bargain bin (which seems to take shorter and shorter these days), buy it from Ebay or get it online from the far east. :smug:

I'm sorry but in this case SCS is definitely in control.
Their primary customer is the US Navy, not the computer gamer.
We got this game as an afterthough.
Just keep that in mind.
SCS is not Bethesda, not Blizzard, not EA, not Lionhead Studios, etc....

Wow, I never thought of it that way, but its a good point. I left Sub Command cause of SCX, and Ive been leaving major game developers cause all games now are the same. Sims are what is appealing to me more, especially these navy sims. Im trying to get my mindset away from modding and stuff, u all gotta know, im 16, I grew up playing FPS games and sims, and I feel like ive been brainwashed by all the game developers to support their linear all the same games. Ill give u a good example. Im in my 2nd last year of highschool, finishing this week. All of my friends have an Xbox or an Xbox 360, and they all have Xbox Live. Guess what their favourite game is, and they worship it like a god? Halo. I like Halo, it was good, but just good. It copied so many things from other games. If I suggest another game at all, they shoot it down and say Halo is better. I cant suggest even Dangerous Waters to people cause to them a sim is boring (it definitely isnt IMO). I cant stand all these mainstream games anymore that offer anything new, I need sims, which have more depth and more thought involved. I apologize for these comments trying to make DW an action game, but believe me, im trying to get my mind outta the gutter, and get back into the type of games that got me hooked to gaming as a child (oh US Navy Fighters, how I remember u so).

About the only thing I would love to see in DW would be the inclusion of a dynamic campaign. Not a series of missions loosely linked. I know you can kind of simulate a dynamic campaign through the use of doctrine but I am thinking more along the lines of what a game like SHIII has or even Aces of the deep..

Where you set out from port and patrol places and have incounters that way. Every game would be different.

And if that got boring you could always play the single missions for a challenge.

I don't know how possible that would be..I think it would require a whole new engine.

Overall I am quite happy with the amount of platforms available. I havent really played them all yet. And with Lwami the "realism" is getting better.

Not that I would object if SCS released an addon with more platforms.:cool:

I say I love the grey area...lol

Goldorak,that was a very comprehensive answer.I like playing submarine games which is why i would like to see sc be improved by anything that dw can offer.Both games are owned by the same company and sc is now very hard to come by so I cannot see SCS objecting to sc being improved.DW has many things to offer but at the moment is far from perfect.If I had wanted a flightsim i would have bought a stand alone one.The choice of the perry was also very limiting and just how many kilo's do you need?The response about scs losing its major customers if anybody can tinker with its code is a smokescreen.If a customer asks for an application for a training programme,he will not buy it and then start tinkering with it.All he requires is that it works and is fit for purpose.I dont know how much cbt you have done,but all the coures i have done on computer used the manufacturers stock software.
All the mods to sc have been FREE and scs are getting all this work for nothing!It is a shame they did not include an scu mod into the warship element of dw.
I dont think we will ever get a consensus but I am surprised that someone would be so opposed about trying to IMPROVE these games!
I

Well Captain Norman, you're exactly a case in point. There are more "trashy" games players out there for every war-simmer. And it plays into the hands of games companies, because it takes less time to make a demented game. Ghost Recon is a good case in point. The original and all it's expansions were very realistic (was and still am a big fan). But that was before consoles really took off. By the time GR2 was made, XBox was here and UBI realised they could make the console version cheaper and because of the fact consoles don't have keyboards...much simpler in the control department...oh, and linear. So what happens? They dump the PC version all together. The third comes out and yes the PC version was made (based on the console one)...but now, instead of being realistic, you have robot-like futuristic soldiers and other twaddle. Bah! :down:

The way I see it...games companies have no loyalties, right? Fine...then neither do I. They make very, very little (if any) money off me. I'm a bargain-bin scavenger, a distribution rights abuser (import games from the Far East) and an Ebay recycler....a general pain in the arse for their accountants. And proud of it. :smug:

Yes, a new engine would be needed... and very powerfull one. In SHIII you can go everywhere you want but, in exchange, the sound propagation physichs is very limited and simple. Also there is the time compression, I doubt the actual DW engine could compress the time more and still calculate everything with acuracy.

In DW, the water physichs is the most important thing, so the engine can create only a limited area. I suppose that a completely new engine would be needed to generating a whole ocean physichs... and we would have to buy the ultimate computer model!! :doh:

But yes, a more dynamic options will be great. For mission design, the creation of only a few almost real random groups makes the screen plenty of ships, triggers, scripts... and then hours of testing!

Yeah, Ghost Recon 2 and 3 sucked. Look at Gamespot. They absolutely loved GR3, and they absolutely dont like sims. Everyone these days wants a Halo. I dont want a Halo, I want something new. Consoles are rising in power, but PCs still provide the best gameplay experience, and developers need to know something: compared to a console gamer (minus myself :D ), PC Gamers arent stupid. We dont accept crap and ported games, we want new and innovative games. Thats what was great about SH3, I game I absolutely love and play to death. It had a true dynamic campaign, excellent gfx, sound, and gameplay, and it was challenging. U need to think and plan before you do something in it, its not a run and gun shooter.
Thank god for simulations.

I still find it hard to believe that any forum member would OPPOSE any improvement to the games we play.