no world map in SH4??? - Page 3

kapitanfred · 09-06-06, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Personally, I'm interpreting this as a revision of the 'world engine', which might be for better. If this means that instead of one big map, we'll get a number of smaller but higher-resolution maps between which we could transfer. I see no problem with that. Seriously, would you rather have the Atlantic (why?), or have a nicer map that looks much better near shores than SHIII (just think of the constant 1km square patterns now)?

No problem with 1km square patterns either. SHIV is in the Pacific and I doubt very much that the sub would travel up the river channels in any of the locations. As long as a map of the Pacific is available that covers from the Western part of North America to the Western region of Australia and one has the ability to transition in real time (if one wanted to) from one end to the other then that's fine with me. What SHIV could have is an active map that you can click on and more detailed smaller maps would appear at the location your sub is at that point in time.

Immacolata · 09-06-06, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kapitanfred

No problem with 1km square patterns either. SHIV is in the Pacific and I doubt very much that the sub would travel up the river channels in any of the locations. As long as a map of the Pacific is available that covers from the Western part of North America to the Western region of Australia and one has the ability to transition in real time (if one wanted to) from one end to the other then that's fine with me. What SHIV could have is an active map that you can click on and more detailed smaller maps would appear at the location your sub is at that point in time.

Sounds like the right idea. That is how naval charts are used anyways. Big ones with low detail, and several detailed charts of treacherous waters. A captain doesn't need a detailed map of the middle of the atlantic as long as the depth under his keel is sufficiently deep.

Reckall · 09-08-06, 05:37 PM

BTW. it is entirely possible that:

A) Either "15 screens" means that the map, at the minimum zoom, can be scrolled for fifteen times the area seen in a screen. This is an old way to explain how big the playing area is in a game. Or...

B) Splitting up the map was also done so to avoid the geographic distorsions caused by plotting a whole emisphere on a 2D map.

Safe-Keeper · 09-08-06, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Sounds like the right idea. That is how naval charts are used anyways. Big ones with low detail, and several detailed charts of treacherous waters. A captain doesn't need a detailed map of the middle of the atlantic as long as the depth under his keel is sufficiently deep.

Right, pretty much.

Quote:

A) Either "15 screens" means that the map, at the minimum zoom, can be scrolled for fifteen times the area seen in a screen. This is an old way to explain how big the playing area is in a game. Or...

It was specifically "a campaign spread over 15 maps". So no, no such luck.

Here's hoping they make the maps 1:1, smooth and sleek, so that jagged edges like the ones below will be history:

DaMaGe007 · 09-11-06, 05:16 AM

Sailing from dock to patrol area is an integral part of having a dynamic campain as you encounter random ships along the way. I think warping to the patrol area would be a big mistake.

They just need to address the time compression issues and/or make sailing between zones seemless if they are spliting things up.

Immacolata · 09-11-06, 05:46 AM

They could use the warp. Warp is a time and space compression. Why is it so important to make an uneventful crossing of 2000 nautical miles with empty ocean to stare at?

DaMaGe007 · 09-11-06, 06:06 AM

I think we are both right Immacolata I agree with you, warping being a massive time compression level, but encounters along the way need to be calculated or you remove the ship identification part which some like to play that way.
Also if you force warping to the front the 1x time comprssion people arent going to be happy.
I think there is room for both if they add some options to the options menu which simulaters used to thrive on.

EDIT:
Its also possible to argue that a sub sim should simulate the bordom part of submarine life, even if its at a high time compression level and therefore cut down, if you remove it it becomes a torpedo firing arcade game.

Immacolata · 09-11-06, 07:25 AM

What encounters? What was the odds of running into a japanese merchant 200 nm from san fran in 1943? Where did the japanese warships operate? I mean realistically, the operations are taking place from Pearl Harbor and then in in the western half of the pacific right?

DaMaGe007 · 09-11-06, 07:38 AM

This is true and hindsight is helping you with this view.
But at the time a submarine captain would be checking every vessel they came across along the way incase another attack force headed for america or an enemy vessel carying spy's ect.., the japanease werent on thier back foot for the entire war. Captains didnt have the hindsight and knowledge we do now.

Immacolata · 09-11-06, 09:33 AM

Boredom? Please. There is enough boredom already. I fail to see the logic in first demanding boredom and the ability to cross the atlantic, then use 4096 compression to do it. This is where realism becomes fetishism, and I cannot see it serve any purpose to have players forced on eventless trawls across the atlantic just because we weren't supposed to know. I know it matters a lot for some people to be able to dock in port, you know, the full patrol from first minute to last. But I sure hope that they do not waste precious time rendering half the pacific which only 0,001% of the playing public will use, while sacrificing fidelity and more detail in the actual ocean that people WILL be sailing in.

In a perfect world, sure, gimme the full ocean. Knowing that we live in an imperfect world and that the devs are probably on a minimal budget, I sure hope they do prioritize the full ocean lower than giving us more details in the important parts.

kylania · 09-11-06, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

In a perfect world, sure, gimme the full ocean. Knowing that we live in an imperfect world and that the devs are probably on a minimal budget, I sure hope they do prioritize the full ocean lower than giving us more details in the important parts.

They should leave a whole ocean structure in place for modders to fill out later, but concentrate only on the imediate patrol areas for the game at release. No reason to limit everything since we'll have more time to put into expanding SH IV than they'll have to develop it.

Immacolata · 09-11-06, 10:58 AM

That is very egotistical of you isn't it? Don't forget the tens of thousands of players who play the game out of the box. Should they suffer so that eventually you can make the game as you like? A compromise must be reached. The full ocean in SH3 made sense, due to the nature of the atlantic warfare. But is there any point in making the whole pacific ocean?

kylania · 09-11-06, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

That is very egotistical of you isn't it? Don't forget the tens of thousands of players who play the game out of the box. Should they suffer so that eventually you can make the game as you like? A compromise must be reached. The full ocean in SH3 made sense, due to the nature of the atlantic warfare. But is there any point in making the whole pacific ocean?

Suffer? What on earth are you talking about? The compromise is the same as in SH3. You design the game to support the entire ocean, but the devs themselves only populate around Japan and Hawaii for instance. So you can have your patrols to Midway and Japan and other big battles but you leave the game expandable by modders to flesh out the rest of the world by adding in new campaigns like we've done with SH3 by adding Indian Ocean or other oceans.

It's irresponsible to take a game franchise like Silent Hunter which has been expanded so well by the players here and limit it to a few pre designed patrol areas when the devs obviously have the technology for more. The tens of thousands of players you speak of will be able to blow up Yamato and set off from Pearl Harbor while the modding community can add in everything else the devs didn't have time for. There's no suffering, just forward thinking.

Charlie901 · 09-11-06, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylania

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

That is very egotistical of you isn't it? Don't forget the tens of thousands of players who play the game out of the box. Should they suffer so that eventually you can make the game as you like? A compromise must be reached. The full ocean in SH3 made sense, due to the nature of the atlantic warfare. But is there any point in making the whole pacific ocean?

Suffer? What on earth are you talking about? The compromise is the same as in SH3. You design the game to support the entire ocean, but the devs themselves only populate around Japan and Hawaii for instance. So you can have your patrols to Midway and Japan and other big battles but you leave the game expandable by modders to flesh out the rest of the world by adding in new campaigns like we've done with SH3 by adding Indian Ocean or other oceans.

It's irresponsible to take a game franchise like Silent Hunter which has been expanded so well by the players here and limit it to a few pre designed patrol areas when the devs obviously have the technology for more. The tens of thousands of players you speak of will be able to blow up Yamato and set off from Pearl Harbor while the modding community can add in everything else the devs didn't have time for. There's no suffering, just forward thinking.

Well Said!!!

Immacolata · 09-12-06, 02:53 AM

Kylania, I was also thinking that the big world would reduce the detail of the smaller world. Some claim that the Sh3 world was made up by 1km by 1km squares. Thats rather rough, and for the many islands and canals of southeast asia to be worth your while, they need to have a bit more than 1000m by 1000m fidelity. What if the world map is the reason for this? So in order to get us higher details in local environments, they have to forego the complete world map? A fair trade, isnt it? Focus on the experience that is given now, not what a modder eventually might make it or not make it to in 1½ years. If they are so good, perhaps they can design their own world map, too!

09-11-06, 06:06 AM	#37
DaMaGe007 Watch Officer Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 338 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I think we are both right Immacolata I agree with you, warping being a massive time compression level, but encounters along the way need to be calculated or you remove the ship identification part which some like to play that way. Also if you force warping to the front the 1x time comprssion people arent going to be happy. I think there is room for both if they add some options to the options menu which simulaters used to thrive on. EDIT: Its also possible to argue that a sub sim should simulate the bordom part of submarine life, even if its at a high time compression level and therefore cut down, if you remove it it becomes a torpedo firing arcade game. Last edited by DaMaGe007; 09-11-06 at 06:13 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-08-06, 05:37 PM	#33
Reckall Watch Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 19 Downloads: 66 Uploads: 0	BTW. it is entirely possible that: A) Either "15 screens" means that the map, at the minimum zoom, can be scrolled for fifteen times the area seen in a screen. This is an old way to explain how big the playing area is in a game. Or... B) Splitting up the map was also done so to avoid the geographic distorsions caused by plotting a whole emisphere on a 2D map.

09-11-06, 05:16 AM	#35
DaMaGe007 Watch Officer Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 338 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Sailing from dock to patrol area is an integral part of having a dynamic campain as you encounter random ships along the way. I think warping to the patrol area would be a big mistake. They just need to address the time compression issues and/or make sailing between zones seemless if they are spliting things up.

09-11-06, 05:46 AM	#36
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	They could use the warp. Warp is a time and space compression. Why is it so important to make an uneventful crossing of 2000 nautical miles with empty ocean to stare at?

09-11-06, 07:25 AM	#38
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	What encounters? What was the odds of running into a japanese merchant 200 nm from san fran in 1943? Where did the japanese warships operate? I mean realistically, the operations are taking place from Pearl Harbor and then in in the western half of the pacific right?

09-11-06, 07:38 AM	#39
DaMaGe007 Watch Officer Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 338 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	This is true and hindsight is helping you with this view. But at the time a submarine captain would be checking every vessel they came across along the way incase another attack force headed for america or an enemy vessel carying spy's ect.., the japanease werent on thier back foot for the entire war. Captains didnt have the hindsight and knowledge we do now.

09-11-06, 09:33 AM	#40
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Boredom? Please. There is enough boredom already. I fail to see the logic in first demanding boredom and the ability to cross the atlantic, then use 4096 compression to do it. This is where realism becomes fetishism, and I cannot see it serve any purpose to have players forced on eventless trawls across the atlantic just because we weren't supposed to know. I know it matters a lot for some people to be able to dock in port, you know, the full patrol from first minute to last. But I sure hope that they do not waste precious time rendering half the pacific which only 0,001% of the playing public will use, while sacrificing fidelity and more detail in the actual ocean that people WILL be sailing in. In a perfect world, sure, gimme the full ocean. Knowing that we live in an imperfect world and that the devs are probably on a minimal budget, I sure hope they do prioritize the full ocean lower than giving us more details in the important parts.

09-11-06, 10:58 AM	#42
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	That is very egotistical of you isn't it? Don't forget the tens of thousands of players who play the game out of the box. Should they suffer so that eventually you can make the game as you like? A compromise must be reached. The full ocean in SH3 made sense, due to the nature of the atlantic warfare. But is there any point in making the whole pacific ocean?

09-12-06, 02:53 AM	#45
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Kylania, I was also thinking that the big world would reduce the detail of the smaller world. Some claim that the Sh3 world was made up by 1km by 1km squares. Thats rather rough, and for the many islands and canals of southeast asia to be worth your while, they need to have a bit more than 1000m by 1000m fidelity. What if the world map is the reason for this? So in order to get us higher details in local environments, they have to forego the complete world map? A fair trade, isnt it? Focus on the experience that is given now, not what a modder eventually might make it or not make it to in 1½ years. If they are so good, perhaps they can design their own world map, too!