Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
We begin with a simple non-quantified observation: when things are released into the air they fall to the ground.
They progress to intuitive speculation: it is obvious that the heavier an object is, the faster it must fall faster because of the greater force exerted on it.
At some point the intuitive speculation is confronted by a crisis: a bowling ball and a ping-pong ball are rolled down an inclined plane. They both arrive at the bottom simultaneously! WTF!!!!! (Why, That's Funny) 
Now actual experimentation is done to measure this unexpected result and construct a mathematical model that will predict other analagous situations. When a method of making new predictions in order with the observed anomaly emerge, a new theory is born. Although it conforms with new observations, it may no longer solve old problems. It may not be grounded in truth, but only be an artificial construct that is useful for answering questions. Newton's law of gravity is one such analogy which in no way explains the reality of what is going on there.
This useful theory or paradigm continues until a new crisis emerges, requiring yet a new way of describing reality which answers a new set of questions.
Simulation progresses along the same line of wow this is great, I can do this to oh, shift I can't do that, to complete rewrite and new hardware back to the beginning. Each crisis results in a totally new underpinning of the simulation. But never will the simulation be reality. It will always be no more than a mathematical model, a mathematical description of reality. It will always have problems needing to be solved and problems that cannot be solved with the present paradigm. 
OK, I'm finally done so everybody WAKE UP!!!!!!! |
Sorry, I'm not smart enough to understand a single word of your psycho babble. The way I see it, if someone has a problem with differentiating reality from a game or "simulation" that's THEIR issue, not yours. Myself, I know the difference between reality and fantasy, but I am curious just how "real" this particular aspect (sonar) is in this "game". That's it. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry, I'll go crawl behind a rock and cry myself to sleep for having offended you in such a manner.
As far as mathematically modeling complex ocean environments, yeah, I don't see that happening in a game like this. I've used programs that generate sonar progation paths, basically using mathematical formulas to model sonar ranges based on user input. Knowing that it is possible, I also know it takes a LOT of input, and processing power to generate. However, just as in the game the thermal layer is simulated, how about under the layer, the detection range is significantly less than the surface layer? How hard is THAT to model? That's how it is in "reality". Or is that hoping for too much? Am I being too idealistic? Am I formulating new theories to match my desire for a specific outcome?
See, I thought these forums were open for people to talk about stuff related to, in this case, Silent Hunter 4. Should I not have started a discussion about sonar? Was it over the edge? Should we start pulling all threads that are considered "stupid questions"? My interest in sonar and USW/ASW tactics a no no for this forum?
Hey man, if you think people are delusional because they want to know just how "real" it can get, than feel free to stay away from this topic. It's as easy as that. It'll either start an interesting dialogue, or it will die. In the end, we still live our lives beyond Silent Hunter IV.
(Also, give me two months reading a thesaurus and I'll be able to edit this into $20 wording and sound very smart and sophisticated.)