[brandtryan]

So if we use definition #5 above--the question then, is what "system" is the computer system trying to emulate? This is at the heart of all "realism" and "simulation" debates.

For example, pre-9/11 I was fortunate enough to fly a real simulator in a training center for commercial pilots. Obviously they simulated every mechanical/electrical/hydraulic/navigation/avionics, etc. systems. But they ALSO simulated "scenarios" that might happen, e.g., flame-out, landing gear failure, even now I hear, terrorist attacks. Now the problem is, these "scenarios" can't really be called "systems", unless you call the entire human condition a "system" (OK, getting deep here. Hey, new bumper sticker "Submariners are Deep!"

Anyway, back to SH5. Hopefully what we'll end up with, is a high-fidelity simulation of the submarine's systems, as we had in the past titles. In addition to this--they are trying to bring in a lot of "scenarios" to make the whole title more conducive to the human condition system. That is, where to attack, what to attack, when to attack, how to deal with other humans, with their own "human conditions", etc.

In fact, I think the airlines would say that their goal of having their simulators, is more about the extraneous systems, that is, a terrorist, or a terrible storm, or a mechanical system FAILING, than it is about teaching pilots the systems of the aircraft. After all, they can do that in the real thing--but they CAN'T have a terrible storm appear, or ask them to land the aircraft with no gear. Believe me, the cost in electricity to run those simulators is probably more than fuel, etc. to do training in a real aircraft. (I think they said their electric bill for a month was five figures or more because of the simulators). In addition to being able to actually fly the simulator for 5 minutes or so (take off from Laguardia, cruise around,and then land) I got to sit jumpseat during two pilot's tests. The tests were centered around things going wrong, both internal systems, and "human condition" systems--not whether or not the engine startup sequence was perfect.

Anyway, going off point here. So a simulation is one system trying to represent the characteristics of another. SHV is trying to represent the systems of the Type VII submarine, and specifically, the external conditions from a particular time in history. The developers attempted this in all of the titles, but I think the focus is now on those external systems, more than ever before. One could say they have the sub systems down pretty good--and that they would be frivilous not to bring that knowledge forward in any new titles, albeit, as an option for the hard-core gamer. Their focus on the external things, just like the real flight simulator I was in, will hopefully bring a new audience into the genre--as it is these sort of things (experiencing WW2, killing things, sailing, etc.) that the masses seem to spend their hard-earned cash on. Plus, it's a bonus for the hard-core guys, AS LONG AS THE SUB SYSTEMS ARE KEPT IN TACT, OR EVEN ADVANCED FURTHER.

Creepy PS: when I took off from Laguardia, I asked my bro-in-law if I could fly in between the Twin Towers (remember, this was pre- 9/11). He said go ahead, but if I hit one of them, it would NOT be a pleasant experience in the simulator--would get thrown around in cockpit, etc.

I turned 90 degrees, split the towers, and then came in for a decent landing--ok, I bounced once--but I did land safely. Hardest part was having to reverse engines, which I wasn't used to--as fighter aicraft (my only experience in sims) don't have a need for this feature.

Whew, long winded. Oh--and don't forget the adage: "If you try to make the perfect simulator, you end up building the thing itself"