I have tried but as you see no one yet bought it.

How can you consider " ultra-minor " errors, physics rules and the impossibility to order helos to use a sonar in a submarine simulations ?????? :o :o

If you aren't aware of how the earth and lives are governed by physics rules this doesn't mean everyone here live into a parallel dimension where fishes have 3 eyes and car flies on the sky singing " yellow submarine, yellow submarine ".

Then Goldorak , beeing you an IT person , you should be aware of how precise you must be when working on servers therefore I really can't understand how can you play a simulation without using the helo sonar :o :o :o how can you spot enemies from FFG ? FFG active ping ? :rotfl: :rotfl: elegant tactic this one :rotfl:

Boomer

Personally, I have a different definition of "simulation" from you. I believe that DW is a FANTASTIC simulator of modern ASW warfare and tactics. It is NOT a sailing simulator. Frankly it is NOT a study simulation of any one platform like SH3, Falcon4 or a host of other titles. Rather, it is simulation (maybe even a wargame) of small scale ASW, with an emphasis on sonar and TMA/triangulation.

This in no way lessens its value as a simulator, it just makes it a different type of simulator from SH, F4 etc. For example, Harpoon 3 is an excellent simulator of large scale modern naval warfare. However, it has no "physics" engine whatsoever (instant turns/acceleration etc), and the entire simulation occurs on a simple map with lines and circles. But, like DW, H3 is not attempting to simulate fully accurate physics, but rather the tactical experience. No one simulation can simulate all aspects of the real world...


Err....by ordering the helo to drop sonobuoys! ;)

Also, with regard to the helo dipping, I believe that the doctrine mod allows the helo to go dip on its own and report the info back to the FFG. I have no clue whether IRL the FFG actually orders the helo to dip or whether the helo operator would have discretion to do that on his own, so the doctrine fix may be 100% realistic for all I know.

All just my 2c anyhow.

I am, unluckily, used to have " hard " converstaion here and I am positively impressed by wombat778 that in this case have different opinions from me but they are expressed in a good way without insulting people.

I respect your opinions even if different from mine.

Nice to see that some educated men have remained :up:

Boomer

This has always been my viewpoint on DW. We tried to tackle many different facets of ASW warfare and it's my opinion that, given the inherent challenge of the undertaking, that we did an admirable job. DW is an immense game which includes dozens of ways to play (i.e. a scalable experience). A game this large will always be a work in progress, and I respect Boomer's opinion on his perceived shortcomings of the game.

I've even admitted that the FFG/Helo interface was not we had hoped it would be, and that we would like to improve upon in the future... not sure what else I can say to Boomer in this regard? :roll:

I always respect your opinions, Boomer.

I just don't agree with the way you present them sometimes... Of course, it is your prerogative to express your opinion in any way you see fit (with respect to Neal's established forum rules, of course).

And also, sometimes you just don't have all of the information... (see below)

In this case, maybe you should ask Joe what his involvement was. I think you'd be surprised at his level of participation in DW's development. He was a tremendous asset to the team (as were many in this community) during our development... :roll:

Lets see, Bow sonar in passive, TA, Ownship sonobuoys, Helo sonobuoys, and if all else fails stick your head in the water to see if you can hear anything. ;)

Isn't that insulting the rest of the crew? :hmm:

Pretty close from where I sit.

JCC

My problem with Bloomers remarks is why doesn't he speak English? :-j