A few questions about the game

[smack]

I know the game, its like Sub Command on steroids (improved). I own Sub Command and was just wondering about a few details that I found irritating or unrealistic in the previous game.

Thanks for the tips, you don't sound very enthusiastic about it, I hope you are not one of the people who has the game and it is "dangerously" collecting dust on the shelve lol.

[AirHippo]

I realise you probably can't answer this, BN, but would I be particularly wide of the mark if I were to suggest that the reason you'd prefer to keep the shafts rotating, even if only at very low revs, would relate to lubrication? Specifically of the propeller shaft bearings, turbine spindle bearings etc. Just curious, and I understand you may be incommunicado.

Incidentally, smack, the screw could also be made to rotate - albeit in reverse - by the flow of water past its blades. As you say, simple physics; if the screw is not being rotated in one direction to cause a flow of water in another direction, the process can work in reverse providing there's no brake on the shaft. Just a thought.

While on the subject, I should here provide a note of caution. Optimum realism is all very well, but what we have access to, as civilians, is never going to give us true realism. Short of conducting a simultaneous, worldwide electronic raid on every Navy on earth's records and information, we're never going to get true "realism", merely a pale approximation. Furthermore, a submarine simulation is already a complicated business for the player as it is. I don't bother with SC or DW multiplayer, because I'm more interested in commanding the sub as and when I choose than in spending hours bouncing between stations.

[Hitman]

I'm no expert here, but I think a stopped (blocked) propeller would make noise if the sub is still moving or a water current flowing through the blades. A propeller where the shaft is disconnected from the engine (Like a car with transmission in neutral gear i.e. no gear) would leave the propeller free to rotate as the water flow impulses it, but in this situation again it might produce small noises.

In any case, it's just a graphics thing, the real effect of stopping the engine in the enemy sensors is present anyway.

[Frame57]

"Give me angles and dangles or give me death..."

[smack]

Originally Posted by AirHippo

I realise you probably can't answer this, BN, but would I be particularly wide of the mark if I were to suggest that the reason you'd prefer to keep the shafts rotating, even if only at very low revs, would relate to lubrication? Specifically of the propeller shaft bearings, turbine spindle bearings etc. Just curious, and I understand you may be incommunicado.

Incidentally, smack, the screw could also be made to rotate - albeit in reverse - by the flow of water past its blades. As you say, simple physics; if the screw is not being rotated in one direction to cause a flow of water in another direction, the process can work in reverse providing there's no brake on the shaft. Just a thought.

While on the subject, I should here provide a note of caution. Optimum realism is all very well, but what we have access to, as civilians, is never going to give us true realism. Short of conducting a simultaneous, worldwide electronic raid on every Navy on earth's records and information, we're never going to get true "realism", merely a pale approximation. Furthermore, a submarine simulation is already a complicated business for the player as it is. I don't bother with SC or DW multiplayer, because I'm more interested in commanding the sub as and when I choose than in spending hours bouncing between stations.

Of course, I am not saying go through every CIA/KGB file and help make the game more realistic lol. What I mean is graphics wise. Silent Hunter 4 has the best graphics for a sub sim so far, the game is 6GBs and it looks pretty good (aside from the bugs). So why can't they make the same size (or bigger) sub sim with modern subs? Use different engine for the graphics ect. I mean when you compare the sea realism, SC and DW look like a games from '92 compared to SH4. So why not make the game bigger, add more things, get amazing graphics and realism like in SH4 or better with most of the bugs fixed and sell it (and downloadable patches of course).

Its a better market strategy to just make a big game with the best you can do and sell it, because people will be interested. When you make the game small like SC, not many people buy it and it takes longer for them to learn about the product, I accidentally found SC like 6-7 years ago, it was virtually an unknown to me whilst I knew command and conquer and was looking for that. So as a customer if you mentioned SC to me a few years back I would have thought you were asking me about a movie...

My point is that Ubisoft got it right, make a huge sim as realistic as possible and continue the series, each one is a bit bigger and has more cool options and realism, in this way you keep people interested and people know about it since the graphics are impressive. As mentioned above, the graphics of the SC and DW are not at that level. I am waiting for the next game, just hope I am not too old by then lol.

I hope people catch my drift on this lol....


As for the damn propeller... It sounds logical to stop, but there are propellers that rotate ect... so there is no point in arguing something that in both cases is true. Some propellers keep turning, while others stop. I was pissed about the fact the damn propeller didn't slow down, so when I am going 25 kts and then stop the propeller is still going with the same #'s of rotations/sec, which is not what happens in real life, I think some of the guys from DW need to spend some more time on this forum, I see a lot of great ideas by many people. The more input from us, the better!

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by smack

My point is that Ubisoft got it right, make a huge sim as realistic as possible and continue the series, each one is a bit bigger and has more cool options and realism, in this way you keep people interested and people know about it since the graphics are impressive. As mentioned above, the graphics of the SC and DW are not at that level. I am waiting for the next game, just hope I am not too old by then lol.

I hope people catch my drift on this lol....

You're talking about emersiveness, not realism.

With the exception of the flags issue on the wishlist, the graphical blemishes you've complained of have no impact on the sim and are entirely cosmetic. If they were fixed, the simulation would not be any better, but you would have a better feeling of "being there."

Spitting hairs I suppose, but maybe it'll keep people from wasting time arguing about things they don't really disagree about.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

[
You're talking about emersiveness, not realism.

Emersiveness is as important as realism (now I agree that the kind of emersiveness of a modern subsim is different from that of a WW I or WW II subsim but that doesn't change the issue).
Even if we use 2d stations, the amount of detail that goes in representing those stations is as important as the kind of information they convey to the player. 3d also has a role to play, albeit much less prominent than what you would find in a WW I/II subsim.

Look at these images (2d not 3d) and I dare you to tell me how they wouldn't improve the emersiveness of dangerous waters if we actually by miracle had something like this.

[kgsuarez]

I actually prefer the dated graphics of DW to those of SHIII/IV for a few reasons. My computer is old and can't handle advanced graphics very well, so a smaller game runs a whole lot better. And, call me crazy, but I really enjoy the nostalgia that dated graphics evoke. These days there are too many games that look fantastic but play horribly.

I set my graphics to the lowest possible setting...

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Emersiveness is as important as realism (now I agree that the kind of emersiveness of a modern subsim is different from that of a WW I or WW II subsim but that doesn't change the issue).

It is for a lot of players, and I'd like to have more of it too. I never said it wasn't important, I just said that it's silly to have people arguing about something they agree on because they're confusing concepts.

Look at these images (2d not 3d) and I dare you to tell me how they wouldn't improve the emersiveness of dangerous waters if we actually by miracle had something like this.

I think not having the text on the stations written in English for a US platform pretty much destroys any emmersiveness that was possible. For the most part though, I'd put realistic stations more in the realism column than the emmeriveness column, because the interface determines what information is available, what actions can be performed, and how they can be performed. There are certainly elements of both, though. For emmersion in stations, you'd want to do it 3D, have the ability to move though the ship, have ambient sound, be able to see crew members, see the lights flicker when the ship gets hit, etc.

[goldorak]

[QUOTE=Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by goldorak

It is for a lot of players, and I'd like to have more of it too. I never said it wasn't important, I just said that it's silly to have people arguing about something they agree on because they're confusing concepts.

Ok

I think not having the text on the stations written in English for a US platform pretty much destroys any emmersiveness that was possible. For the most part though, I'd put realistic stations more in the realism column than the emmeriveness column, because the interface determines what information is available, what actions can be performed, and how they can be performed. There are certainly elements of both, though. For emmersion in stations, you'd want to do it 3D, have the ability to move though the ship, have ambient sound, be able to see crew members, see the lights flicker when the ship gets hit, etc.

Oh c'mon Molon Labe I was making an example. Of course the stations are written in english, they represent the stations of a 688/688i. Obviously if we had the same quality stations for the akula they would be in russian (and toggable in english for gameplay purposes), if they were to represent a french sub they would be in french and so on.
We obviously disagree on what constitues realism and emersiveness in a simulator.
For me, the realism aspect is linked to the game engine, how well does it adheres to reality. How realistic is the sonar model, how realistic is the modeliing of physics and so on.
Emersiveness (either in the 2d variant or 3d variant) is linked on the other hand to the interface. And therefore to how the relevent information is represented and conveyed to the player. Here are improtant the artistic sense of the 2d station, of the 3d model of the sub, of the environment, the sea, the sky, the stars, the coastline, the ports with the buildings etc...

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I think not having the text on the stations written in English for a US platform pretty much destroys any emmersiveness that was possible.

It's just the German version of the game. Fast Attack definitely had English text in the American version.

And I agree, the Fast Attack interfaces hands down kick the snot out of DW's.

PD

[Molon Labe]

Yeah, I was being a little flip with the language thing. Considering I've never been aboard a 688 and have no way of knowing which version of the stations look more realistic, it's the only possible way I could have responded to the question asked directly to me. So :p:p:p:p:p,

[smack]

goldorak is right, Emersiveness is Realism. You can not have 1 without the other. As I mentioned have you seen the SH4 water graphics? WOW I mean you can not tell the difference between a real ocean and the one in the game (well in the game its better lol). The game is 6Gigs (not that big) and has more detail than SC and DW combined.

Every detail counts, its called SIMULATION, which means emulates reality, and you can't pretend you are really in a sub, when things like the propeller and the floating wire and graphics aren't realistic. I remember playing the old games of the '90s, they were horrible, and after looking at SH4 and comparing it to DW, I mean the difference is amazing. I give Ubisoft a lot of credit, because they almost perfected the graphics. What we need is realism, for those who play without the 3D it is their choise, for the rest of the 3D enthusiasts like myself we want realism in the surroundings.

The ther thing that I noticed was that the sea barely changes as a result of weather in the DW clips and snapshots, in SH4 the water has almost as real property and movement and transperency as real water. Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt that what Simulators are for?

Comparison:

DW



SH4




I say find a new engine for the graphics and lets make the game much better.

I went to see an Indy Simulator down the board and downloaded the DEMO. The Demo's water effects were better than the DW ones, and the DEMO was far from complete from an independent group. So c'mon, people at sonalysts can do better than that. I might buy both DW and SH4 (SH4 just for the graphics and realism).

I am no expert but what SH4 did with 6Gigs is beyond me, I wonder what engine they used.


Anywayhope to see more graphical improvements for DW soon.

[MBot]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I think not having the text on the stations written in English for a US platform pretty much destroys any emmersiveness that was possible.

Considering I was 13 years old when I picked up Fast Attack, I was quite happy to have the text in german. Learning something as complex as submarine warfare in a language you do not understand is not very fun.

I think Fast Attack is a great example how to create a better "I'm there" expierience by using authentic graphics. It might not be perfectly realistic, but it has the same look as the real 688(i). In that regard it is vastly superior to the generic station graphics of HK/SC/DW. Also Fast Attack, while overall having less depth than DW, actualy has more "station realism" in some regards (no weapon-show-thruth, great fire control).

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Originally Posted by Hitman

I'm no expert here, but I think a stopped (blocked) propeller would make noise if the sub is still moving or a water current flowing through the blades.

Ding ding ding ding.. give this man a cigar!

The water flowing over the stopped surface fo the blade makes one heck of a cavitation noise. Move the flat of your hand through water rapidly and you will get the idea.