rig ship for ultra quiet.....

:ping:

Yes, I hope the best for RA/Alfa Tau, as well. I'm always in favor of new mods and improvements to subsims. I am not a member of the Sonalysts company, so it's not my business to know their daily status. In light of DW's age, I advocated allowing RA/Alfa Tau, but of course, I have to respect their commercial decision. I do not know how mods affect their business. I trust them, if they think it will not be a problem, Sonalysts will be happy to allow it. If it costs them business with non-game customers, they may be reluctant to allow it.

thanks
Neal

Damn, it might be too late now that you have mailed them, but since SCS's main concern was the use of MODERN platforms you could have asked them if they would allow us to implement COLD WAR ones, i.e. those that no modern Navy uses like the Victor III, Alfa, Sturgeon, etc. :hmm:

At least they didn't say NO outright. Once the corporate lawyers get involved, though, I can guess what their answer will be...


(My fantasy: Sonalysts will decide to completely finish DW, update its graphics to the latest state-of-the-art, and fully support community mods, like what ThirdWire has been doing with their Strike Fighters series. Wouldn't that be nice?)

:know:

standing by for now.

Sonalysts just throw us a bone here. How about using digital distribution to distribute you know electronic content. How about an udaloy for 10$ ? You don't have to design a whole new game for that, just give us some new playables, either bundle them together and sell it, or sell them individually.
Forget retail, just use the frickkin' internet as independent developers do to distribute DLC.
You know, you could from time to time issue a patch to correct the bugs and crashes that still occur in DW, you could sell single models etc... The options are yours to make.

SCS could easily not make any statement one way or the other.

That way we would mod in our community yet their *official* customers (the US military) would still be dependent on their official releases for upgrades. IE, the US military would not be using the mods, but we as laypersons will.

Seems the ideal solution to me.

I don't think they are going to be silent. Because they responded to Neal mediation and told him that they were going to have a meeting over it.

ill believe it when i see it.

I agree with both the Subguru and goldorak here. And I have always wondered myself why Sonalysts couldn't commercialize some of those military playables and sell them to us by internet distribution. I remember Jamie Carlson saying that it sounds easier than it really is. But if they have built playable models for the military, what makes it so difficult to commercialize it and distribute thos already made playables for a fair price on the web? Never got an answer to that one. Here's hoping we get some answers from Sonalysts soon.

Yes, it is interesting that it seems SCS could never build their entertainment products more upon developements for the military. Eagle Dynamics has made that step with their new DCS line quite well. Recently they announced that they could port the A-10C they built for a US National Guard desktop simulator over to their commercial DCS line. Obviously with some adjustments to sensitive components, but still to their extremly high quality and realism standart.

But perhaps there also is a different philosophy about protection of data between the military branches. While detailed information about USAF aircraft are quite well available (flight manuals, tactical manuals etc.), even Eagly Dynamics was unable to optain the necessary documentation to simulate USN aircraft (for entertainment). So it sounds plausible to me that the USN would forbid SCS to use platforms developed for them in entertainment software, even if those are not necessary a classification problem. The information restriction of the USN just seem to be tighter than those of the USAF. Unfortunatly for us the USAF does not have ships and subs :)

The platforms in question are also much different. The A-10 is a 30 year old close support aircraft. There is nothing that remarkable/need to be classified about its performance. Submarines and naval combat systems/sensors are very different. I bet DCS would run into some trouble trying to get accurate F-22 performance data.

PD

Forgive me if I'm being boneheaded, but wouldn't the classified part be in the database values. Can you qualify a low polygon 3d model classified ? Really ?
If they are so afraid, why don't they let the community make the 3d model/s with the different stations and then SCS would fill in the blanks interfacing the 3d model/stations with the navalsimengine. Win-win for everyone. The modders are not sued because they haven't actually modified anything and SCS is the only one to know how to "integrate" the models with the navalsimengine.

Very true about F-22 and similar aircraft, the are still off limits for many years.

But consider that the A-10C is a very new development of the A-10 with a top moder avionics suite. That ED received permission to publicise the A-10C was quite a surprise, for both the community and ED. It was first estimated that this would not happen for the next 10 years. Other current frontline fighters that ED has the necessary documentation are the F-15C and F-16C. While these are not the newest generation anymore, they still form the bulk of the USAF.

Well in this case we are dealing with the Silent Service. How ironic isn't it ?