Community subsim
 

Imagine we, community, would make subsim (or naval sim). Main features would be:
- Realism and playbility priority .. graphics and effect are secondary
- Both multiplayer and singleplayer
- can do anything we want
- freeware

Now please try to reply these questions:

1) Do you know about any such project in progress now ?
2) Should it be more subsim or more universal naval simulation ? Let's take DW as the borderline of subsim.
3) How would you participate ? I mean do you know something ? Can you do something ? All count, from programming and modeling to web-design and betatesting, don't forget about real bubbleheads mentoring (or navy people in general). And mostly .. are you willing to invest your time in such a project ?
4) Try to convince me and others it is not possible.
5) Do know any other important question which must be asked ? Ask !

Please avoid these replies:
- that you consider this cool .. I think everybody wants some more subsims.
- that you consider this stupid .. give reasons instead.
- don't argue in area you don't understand well ..
- try to be constructive, except for question 4. We want to find the reason it is impossible, if there is one.

Danger from the Deep
 

It's more like Silent Hunter clone - it's still in early stages of development, but looks very promising and is playable:
http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/

I dunno I agree that graphics and effects should be secondary. I'm greedy. Why can't we have it all?

It's secondary .. it does not mean we don't want it. If there is enough people, enything is possible.

Wow .. danger deep looks really professional ! I'd like to have current subs, maybe cold war subs and maybe future subs. I love those sonar screens with strange patterns .. WW2 subs did not have them :-) We can get some suggestion from them.

The thing is, that with modern naval combat, so much is done over the horizon. I'd rather have them spend the money on a really good radar, sonar, model, along with a really good AI, then blow me away with graphics when I'm just going to be disappointed with the content. For example, Janes Fleet Command. F-14s carrying Harpoons? Uhm... no.

I want my simulation to be a fun, playable, SIMULATION where I can learn something about naval operations. Someone wrote that ever since Doom the game industry has basically been making the same video game over and over again, and I think there's a lot to be said for that. Games were more fun and original when the screen shots weren't the main marketing device.

I agree with Dr Sid. First should come the mechanics of it, second the gfx.

I'd be ahppy to work in the gfx department. In fact from my point of view I'd rather a programmer or a group of programmers worked on the mechanics of the radar/sonar models and AI first as this would be the most complicated. It seems there are plenty of third party gfx engines that can be used to integrate into a sim.

You would need properly detailed panels or as near as dammit with respect to ease of use.

If GFX were the last thing to be implemented it would give time for decent models.

One thing I am not bothered about is being able to walk around the ship like in SHIII.

At the most a 3d command centre like in 688i H/K where you could move fromstation to station but nothing more.

I think it is something that would be interesting to acheive. A road map would be needed to state what it is that is going to be achieved.

Didn't the NWP take care of that?

We definately could use something on the level that Harpoon 4 was going to be! On that note, will it be a Fleet Command/Harpoon style game with the nuts and bolts focused on the coding; or will it be an enhanced Dangerous Waters with a mixture of coding and graphics?

Once y'all decided on the style of game...go with it!

EDIT: Don't forget the press release from 2003...it gives promise as the code is already written.

EDIT2: Just realized that going with Harpoon 4 coding wouldn't work as they wouldn't like the freeware style of gameplay. Also, maybe you could talk with the Global Combat Blue people since it's freeware and colaborate with them?

I tried running global conflict blue and had major speed problems.

Maybe I'll try again.

Well .. fleet command and harpoon really are nice games .. but different games. You command .. it is real-time-strategy.

In DW you search, detect, ID, aim and shoot. It's simulator in the computer game sense, even if it is multistation.

Well maybe we can have both .. somebody can be an admiral on his flagship giving orders .. commanding both AI and humans .. all you need is the possibility of passing commands from one ship to another, which is trivial. Also driving big ships with many weapon systems would need more commanding and less 'doing'.

Anyway I personally like sims much more then strategies .. and I like subs .. and subs usually don't cooperate with other units. I like creeping in the deep, watching sonar screens, getting puzzled over TMA and so on ..

The last thing that I've seen states that the B-52H can carry 12 of the 'D' version.

Maybe you could combine this. For instance...you are controlling a fleet and an unknown submerged contact comes up. As in Fleet Command, it shows which platform aquired it. You click on the platform and have an option to look at a LOFAR display for you to identify.

Dunno, haven't seen the version.

They are different games, but the thing I liked about Harpoon is that it was a really earnest attempt at making a detailed simulation with a lot of thought put into it. From the perspective of an operations research geek, Harpoon makes the most sense. If it's a freeware, not for profit game, then it should be for geeks. It should be the kind of game that could only be produced if money was no object.

I know you're imagining a tactical level sim, but Harpoon plays well on the tactical level, even if some stuff is abstracted. I know what you're saying, though. In DW you can actually look at the sonar screen, do your own TMA and peer through the periscope. There's none of that in Harpoon.

I think if you made the sim, though, the more limited it's goals are the better off you are to start off. Pick a single platform, the 688I class, for example, and try to make the best possible model you could of that. Really get into it in gorey detail, then worry about other stuff and build on it.

Also, pick a single theatre in a well defined time frame. It could be the Cold War in 1985 or a hypothetical conflict some time in the near future. I'd suggest something historical though just because it's easier to get data, but whatever works for you is good. I would actually stay away from the goal of trying to model every navy all over the world, for any conflict.

SQ: sure .. the first version will have one or two subs, simple environment. Anyway some basic idea what it should look like in the end should exist.

sonar732: Hmm .. that's a good idea. Simply 'you can' approach. No admiral on flagship, but rather 'god' able to see everything and able to man any station on any ship falling under his command. Certain limits could be switched on for specific mission. Like commanding just one platform, or commanding the fleet but being unable to leave your flagship. Also with multiplayer you could allocate ships to players .. you two handle ASW, you command the aircrafts and I'll command the carrier's protection fleet.

XabbaRus: I'm sceptical about 3rd party GFX engine. Sim has quite specific requirements. I know some nice engines for 1st person shooters, and some even for real-time-strategies. But they all have limits.
On the other hand subsim engine does not need much. It's just different things. We need to display scenery from 20km height to 500m depth. It would be great to have unlimited mission area (limited to whole world). We need to display water, sea-bottom, rocks, clouds, ice, maybe some marine life. And boats, sure. No human,no trees (or just very basic), no animation is needed (I don't call rotating screws and turrets animation).
I don't know engine which could allow that. Anyway I don't consider making such engine to be a problem. It needs smart terrain model, good level-of-detail management, and some playing with water reflectivity so it looks cool.
Uh .. I forgot explosions ! :rotfl: I'd say it's doable.

Really good sonar model still bugs me more. It needs to be really fast. It must handle all platforms listening all other platforms with high time compressions. Sure .. it is no problem to write simple and fast simulation .. but we want realistic and fast one.
I'm already testing some ideas here. Currently I have some nice sound wave tracing program, which can demonstrate layer, deep channel, convergence zones .. but it is too slow to be used in simulation.

Out of curiousity, what is the program called?

What you're using definitely isn't the way to go. Computational acoustics is a universe all of it's own, and there's no chance you'll ever be able to use a scientific model like what you're describing to do it. You'll need something simpler.

The simplest thing to do, in my mind, would be to create TL v. range curves based on spherical or cylindrical spreading, and then add bumps to it because of various environmental factors. I suspect this is what DW does, actually.

It's my own program .. it's just simulation of beam bending based on different speed of propagation. You give it speed vs. depth, sound source position and it draws 2D map (distance vs depth) of sound transfer effectivity. I'll make some user interface and will post it somewhere.
It's really simple .. while I use more or less real sound speeds, I also multiply the bending effect so it is more visible. It by no means gives realistic data. Sure it can't be used .. but maybe some sound propagation effectivity maps could be computed with this and then used in simulation.
Anyway it seems you know something about it. Can you list most important phenomenons ? Let's walk thru that, let's discuss tactical importance of such effects and let's talk about their implementation, both accurate and fast.

From http://www.navalwarfare.info/files/N...tryClssSer.rar

NWP F-14 loadouts:
US
F-14A:
AAW1: Gun, 2xAIM-7, 2xAIM-9, 4xAIM-54
AAW2: Gun, 4xAIM-7, 2xAIM-9
RCN: Gun, 2xAIM-7, 2xAIM-9
STK: Gun, 2xAIM-7, 2xAIM-9, 2x1000lb LGB

F-14B:
AAW: Gun, 4xAIM-54, 2xAIM-9, 2xAIM-7
RCN: Gun, 2xAIM-9, 2xAIM-7
STK: Gun, 2xAIM-9, 2xAIM-7, 2x1000lb LGB

F-14D:
AAW: Gun, 4xAIM-54, 2xAIM-9, 2xAIM-7
RCN: Gun, 2xAIM-9, 2xAIM-7
STK: Gun, 2xAGM-123, 2xAIM-9, 2xAIM-7
STK2: Gun, 2x2000lb LGB, 2xAIM-9, 2xAIM-7
STK3: Gun, 4xJDAM (possibly typo), 2xAIM-9

Iranian versions come equipped with combos of Sparrows, Archers, and some Pheonixes and Sidewinders.

No Harpoons.

I think a clear idea of where we want to be is needed.

I say keep it at the tactical level for now.
An idea I had was like this

Develop single player operation of one or two submarine platforms to start. There should be single missions and a campaign. The campaign could either be dynamic like IL-2 FB or maybe EECH or a set of missions kind of like we have in DW.

Then what would be a possible is if later on in a multiplayer environment (depending of course on SP working) you had a commander who would have an over view who would send orders to individual units. This I think is a pipedream and would need a persistent online Multi MORG whatever type space.

Then add new platforms as time goes by. I do think though it should be kept to the searching and shooting level.

Anyway maybe Dr Sid could list a proposal of what he would like to acheive and then we could comment on it.

It is doable and I think it could be fun.