One way or the other it would be correct for them to come here and state once and for all where they stand. Just say yes or no.

I don't understand completely yet why Sonalysts does not the same thing as AGSI (Harpoon) or eSim (SteelBeasts Pro) / Bohemia Interactive (Arma/VBS 2)

I doubt that one of the first two mentioned titles reach the number of sold licenses of DW or its predecessors.

Or is the NSE now itself classified?

Why not have an online meeting Sonalysts <-> community (or just some guys) to discuss all the open issues? All the recurrent threads and guessing might be gone.

Sonalysts might not gained any or much profit with DW but at least it helped them surely to improve the NSE for their government customers, so such an approach would be just fair and a respect to their customers IMHO.

Ive already moved on to another forum, waiting for something we are not likely to get is a waste of time. Back to work.

The problem is SCS provide extra platforms for the US NAvy at a cost.

Sure they come with extra bells and whistles but if the modding community adds units and interfaces and the navy just wants a tactical trainer, why go to SCS when you can have a free mod that will suit your needs?

Well two things,

The Navy DW version could have a license that FORBIDS using non approved and developed in house extensions (in house means developped by SCS).
So even if the Navy wanted to use those free mods they would be infringing on SCS license (or eula) and so could be sued.

Second, even if a mod is free it doesn't mean it can't have a license. Think at all the freeware/opensource software out there, every one of them has a license and they are valid in court. So if the license says, this mod can only be used in a non commerical way you bet the Navy can't use it.
I don't think their tactical trainer falls under the "fun" game category.

The point is this, IF SCS had wanted to clarify the license (and eula) of the game version and the Navy version of DW we wouldn't be in this mess.
Nothing forbids SCS to having 2 different licenses for the two different versions of DW.

I want to have the Navy DW version. . . . . . . . . . . .

Yeah me too, I have this nightmare that the Navy version has full DX 10 compliance, 32 bit color mode, full support for AA and AF. Full support for an SDK. Hundreds of playables, the simulator doesn't crash when playing the frigate, The radar model is good, the periscope and other masts are not invsibile to radar and leave a wake on the surface of the water.
Meanwhile we're stuck with a 1998 game engine with hurray 16 bit support.
It will be a miracle if the next windows os will be able to support it. :damn:

Aye - you said it. Now then back to RA.

:hmm:
To use modding with a the bugs and wrong loadouts in interfaces!?
And with completely absent physics in program kernel.:rotfl:

After training on such sim all fleet will sink...

No, not yet.

Well I don't dream of all those fancy stuffs....just a maximum level of realism which includes RL sonar performance and modeling, real weapons behavior and capability, real platform performance.

Me, I just want the real McCoy. Graphics and all. :yep:

Of course, the usually so open US Navy will be more than happy to have one of its contractors put highly classified and protected data into a freely commercial available product ... most excellent. Now if the other navies of the world could be as forthcomming, then all this guessing about the question "Are Akula's really up to par with a 688(i)" (for example) would finally be over. And thats only the tip of the iceberg ... you could test for "real" what a Mk48 ADCAP does to a Kilo compared to a Typhoon ... the possibilities are endless. If only those pesky people from the military and intelligence communities could be more open about their secrets - we, the honorable simmers, who have every right to have the most accurate information possible could finally rest, assured that our game does represent the reality.

While talking about reality ... how bout returning to it ? To reality I mean, instead of those fantasies ...

@ OneShot : loosen up a bit, while we are waiting for SCS's final judgement.
You wouldn't want to deny the poor simmers the "what-if" game before being send into oblivion by an army of lawyers now do you ? :rotfl:

>> Well ive been ordered to cease all comments on this thread. To those still around, please keep me posted. If you have questions about my work please PM. Ill be back if and when this is over.

I'm loose (or on the loose :|\\ ) ... and daydreams are ok, but some comments read like being made while on drugs (or maybe after some serious meditation) ... anyway, such stuff regularly brings out the sarcastic side in me. I just can't help it.

Besides, while I don't hold my breath in regard to SCS changing its stance on community made new playables I surely would appreciate it, if it actually happens.

Aside from that, while some people might believe that their anger (and thus their comments in regard to SCS) is "righteous" I for myself question that attitude (I dont remember seing the explicit right to mod DW or the definite promise of new playables on the game box - on the contrary, SCS made their stance clear before the release) ... after all its not advisable to bite the hand that feeds you or in this case to piss of the people you are asking to give up some of their money making options.

I'm not advocating to be an ass kisser but it should be common sense that if you are asking for something (which we do through Neal) you better behave unless you are in a superior position (which we are clearly not). I think thats called being diplomatic.

Think about it ...

Oh come on, be positive....in 70 years we will have FULL access to all that information :lol: Don't we already have all the secret documents about the WW2 Fleet boats? :lol:

No, joking aside....I understand that many people want the "real" thing, but what if the real thing would be dissapointing? I'm having weekly a lot of fun with some friends using my Kilo or my Akula against a 688i, a Perry, an MH60 and we are already leaving the Seawolf out and downgrading a bit sonobuoys to have a more balanced and playable sim....after all this is just a game and we intend to have a balanced fun. Where would that go if the US side were able to simply crush the enemy without effort? (If that's the "real" thing we don't know). And, if the "real" thing is more balanced...well we have that already, don't we?

Either way we seem to have the best possible solution, so I say:

Realism? Yes, much wellcomed....but not as much as to kill fun, thanks.

Realism should ALWAYS be the highest goal of any sim. Its why i own SB, ArmA, IL-2, each running the best realism mods and things out, oh, and GWX :arrgh!:. Thats why without mods such as LWAMI or now RA that i just wouldnt even use DW, which is why i have endless support for them, whatever the cost. If you build to the highest level of realism, you can always set it down for people who like it that way. But the enemy of all simulations is balance, make it like it is, or as close to as it is, or not at all.

The problem is : if you make it too realistic then it isn't going to sell a lot.
SCS should have decided upfront who were its potential customers for Dangerous Waters. The mass market or the niche market.
Of course that choice would have reflected itself on the price of the sim.
People spend what 100$/€ for a version of SBP, would such a price be viable for a naval sim ?
What happens when you spend 100 €/$ for a sim and find out that they won't allow modding. You're going to be 100x more pissed off. :rotfl:

are we ever going to hear back from them????:damn: :arrgh!: