That would be my guess too...

That makes no sense at all,
For starters, SH5 is a technically superior platform.
Then SH4 is a PTO theatre sim, so to make it an ATO sim you need to start from the ground up:

1) import all the Uboats and interiors,
2) ALL the ATO units
3) Import or re-script the entire 39 - 45 campaign over the atlantic, med, north, baltic, arctic and carribean seas!

And thats just the bare minimum!
This is partly why we never saw GWX4, because to do it properly, it was five times the work that SH3 platform required.

Now at with least SH5 you already got solid foundations for a U-boat sim already in place.
The type VII is already there, so it needs the other boats, plus the scripted campaign for 43-45 and handful of new AI units, (especially merchants and late war aircraft types)

The latter is much, MUCH less work.
So IMHO, going back to SH4 would be a giant step backwards for ATO modders.

+1 !

Correct. I'm not sure why some people continue to comment as if Dan was the PM, despite it being no secret who the PM was and that Dan was the Lead Designer (heck, just look at the name of this thread and read the article!).

Just ignorance I guess. But funny nonetheless when they try to be condescending to someone else for posting wrong information and they do the same themselves. Priceless. :haha:

Anyway, with the FACTS, it's clear that it's unfair to level criticism against Dan around the project management aspects of SH5. For that, the subject of this thread is the man. Unfortunately it's those who keep spreading the false information that leads to people continuing to blame Dan for the state of SH5. ;)

EDIT: Just noticed Dan's clarification around his role in SH5. Hopefully that puts the issue to bed once and for all. :yeah:

Not just legit, human nature. Denying people from doing so just shows ignorance of basic human behaviour.

For some people I don't think it would be melodramatic to suggest that they are following the Kübler-Ross model to a T. Some have just moved through it faster than others.

Interesting article.

What it does make clear is that money always corrupts software projects - usually detrimentally unless there is lots of it.

The problem stems from two issues:
1. It is generally acknowledged that the best way to produce high quality software these days is to do it iteratively. The only problem with iterative proceses is that the end date moves(!) This is one concept a lot of commercial people just don't get.

The reason for this is that unlike the requirements for building a bridge, software requirements are a lot more volatile. It is this volatility that needs to be managed and contained - but even when managed properly end dates tend to move!

Why?

Estimates - our point number 2.

All estimates are just that - estimates. They are not predictions! However, many commercial people lack a fundamental understanding of this and indeed go on to enshrine these estimates as fixed project end dates in stone.

At the beginning of a software project it has been proven that many initial estimates are as far out as +-40%!!!!

In iterative development you keep reestimating throughout the project lifecycle to continually refine your estimates - again many commercial people don't get this.

So, the first big problem with most commercial projects is that you are running against milestones that could be +-40% out (in most surveys projects were underestimated) - however, the publisher doesn't care - you signed a contract - they want X delivered on date Y or else!!!

Stacked odds? Now consider the other problem...

Development Lead to Project manager - we estimate that this game is estimated to take 2 years with a team of 10. Project Manager to Development Lead - you got to be kidding right? - Take 6 months off it and I will consider the plan.

Said manager then goes off to sell his modified and much more attractive package to the publishers.... (This is hypothetical btw - I'm not saying this happend in SH5's case... :D)

The above is pretty normal practice. The only way out of this is to work stupendiously long hours or cut quality/features. Many software houses are famous for the former. They lure 'green' students in with the 'coolness' of games development then screw them. I have never worked in the commercial games industry, but I know people that did and to be honest, they are completely taken advantage of and ripped off.

Some software houses/publishers are so rich, they can adopt iterative development and deliver only when they feel the game is ready. These games are invariably high quality or vapourware(!) If the former they normally sell for bucket loads and make the publishers extremely rich.

When this happens, other publishers see the publisher's success and try to emulate it but aren't willing to spend the same kind of money. So a good game is invariably followed by many poor clones. These clones do make money, but not on the scale of the original software.

I sometimes wish that games publishers knew a little less about bean counting and a little more about games development and games in general - but alas....

True.

False. SH4 is based directly on SH3's platform, with improvements, and ATO has already been done for it. All it needs is the little things, mods that have been done for SH3 and just need to be adapted.

Have you played Op Monsun? Already done.

Op Monsun. Already done.

Op Monsun. Already done.

Totally wrong. All of that was in the works for GWX4, and a whole lot more. The only reasons you didn't see it were the ones given in the 'GWX Retirement' thread.

As you do with SH4-UBM, which is very much more complete and adaptable.

And given the problems people are having making those happen, SH4 is actually the much better alternative for adaptation.

Actually SH5 is turning out to be much MORE work. Everything still missing from SH4 could be adapted without much trouble at all. SH5 is proving very resilient to adaptation.

The truth is I agree with you that SH5 is the much more advanced platform, and I believe that is the direction of the future. I just wanted to point out that every single thing you said about SH4 was wrong.

LOL. I love how you cite these as specifric problems with SH4, when SH5 has only one U-boat class (The VII series), a very limited selection of merchant ships and a campaign that got amputated around May 1943.

To be fair Steve, he does have a bit of a point. I hadn't thought about it before, but what' he's citing is the same reason I wouldn't bother importing a Gato into SH3. Only in reverse. So If I were in his shoe's, id be saying the exact same thing.

That said, while it is a bad situation (making a full on ATO mod in SH4), it's not as bad as he suggests, BUT it is ALOT of work. SH5 being the magnificantly polished turd that it is, has actually left me wanting someone (or some people) to make another Uboat mod for SH4, but there are no takers. Lurker, by himself, carried that torch for some time, and his work has gone largely unappreciated by uboat fans on subsim IMO. The majority of uboat fans don't even acknowledge SH4's existance.

Ok Steve - So Ive not played OP Monsun sorry! and maybe Ducimus is right and I need to take a look at Lurker's work.
But to be honest mate, I was talking about Stock SH4 compared to Stock SH5, and not about building on top of some one elses work - obviously that changes things.

Going back to GWX 4, I am confused why you need to correct me?
The reasons were:
We had too few people avaliable to complete too much work.

SH5 was 9 months away and as far we were concerned (at the time) - it pretty much made GWX4 redundant. Especially when you consider that at the rate we were going, GWX4 was not gonna be out before SH5 either.

At the time GWX4 was scrapped, No campaign files had been scripted, BigBoyWooly made some head way at the begining then had to leave due to some to personal reasons.
Privateer was frantically looking in to ways to port the campaign files from SH3 to SH4, but as brilliant as he is, it was a tall order for just one guy.

Much of the 3d work was done by REF who has since dissapeared and cut himself off from the entire subsimming scene, my guess is he burned out. Can his work still be used with permission? - no body knows since he wont reply to emails, pms - nothing.

What problems with SH4? - its not a Uboat sim, thats all. Ducimus has answered for me tbh, Assuming you started from unmodded, would you rather have to script 2-3 years of campaign layers for SH5, or the full 5-6 years for SH4 1.5? Big, big difference.

Hmmm, story of my "life" with SH4. You know TMO is like 2 gig's worth of data now? It nearly doubles the size of SH4 if you install with JSGME due to the file backup procedure it does.

Anywho, I and a few other modders know this pain all too well. I did start a Uboat mod, with a very narrow focus, (See screenshots Here, here, and here ) but, after putting up with exactly what you just said, for so long, and despite that narrow focus, I just don't have it in me to do anymore with it.

A shame you burned out mate, but I can totally understand.
Bearing in mind what you and steve have said, it rather sounds like its high time I spent some quality iphone toilet browsing time in the SH4 mods forum...
As it happens I still have a clean SH4 installed for testing DAT's. :)

Just wanted to add my unasked for .02. :) SH4 with Op Monsun is brilliant! Well worth the time to give it a shot. If we could have that working flawlessly in SH5? Heaven... :D

I took offense at the idea that stuff couldn't be imported into SH4.

On the other hand...D'OH!

I completely forgot that you were a part of the team. :oops:
In fact, you were doing some of the work I admired the most.:oops::oops:

I do apologize for that "little" gaff.

On the other hand I do stand by the other things I said, as I believe SH4 still has the potential to be SH3 with extra teeth, if only the people still working on SH3 would pay attention to it.

But I also agree about SH5. If they can figure out the things that still need figuring out it has the potential to outstrip them all. :sunny:

Why don't you make an installer? Seriously, I'll put one together for you if you want.