Alternative to Dangerous Water?

[Frame57]

Whos knows? I have given up on these sims for other reasons than just the sonar issue. Seriously, how does my clunker of a diesel boat pick up sonar contacts 10 miles out almost constantly and classifies the distinction between a merchant and warship, they give the bearing, speed and whether or not the contact is closing or moving away. But NOOOOO, my Seawolf autocrew cannot do what a WW2 boat can do? In 1981 in the Med. My boat was awarded the "hook em" award. This was a naval award for given to the Archerfish for tracking an early Kilo class boat for weeks. Yep! The ultra quiet Kilo that everyone balks about was no match acoustically for a 637 class submarine. I know that we cannot have actual classified material divulged, but IMO DW and SC are not even in the ball park. Funny enough I think the old 688i sim is more accurate as far as sonar capabilities are concerned.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Whos knows? I have given up on these sims for other reasons than just the sonar issue. Seriously, how does my clunker of a diesel boat pick up sonar contacts 10 miles out almost constantly and classifies the distinction between a merchant and warship, they give the bearing, speed and whether or not the contact is closing or moving away. But NOOOOO, my Seawolf autocrew cannot do what a WW2 boat can do? In 1981 in the Med. My boat was awarded the "hook em" award. This was a naval award for given to the Archerfish for tracking an early Kilo class boat for weeks. Yep! The ultra quiet Kilo that everyone balks about was no match acoustically for a 637 class submarine. I know that we cannot have actual classified material divulged, but IMO DW and SC are not even in the ball park. Funny enough I think the old 688i sim is more accurate as far as sonar capabilities are concerned.

I think you hit the nail on the head Frame57 about classified stuff.

I would imagine they can't give it all away.

My guess it's a game version of a training tool.

As XXX said " It's all we got "

[Frame57]

From what I have gathered a Sub Commander actually worked with Sonalysts when they came out with 688i. Sonalysts made training SW for the Navy. I think the later sims were required to be scaled back for obvious reasons. This gives me an idea. Most of the WW2 patrol logs were declassified in 1972. So I will read some more of them to see if the sonar contacts are remotely close to what I get in SH4. Just to see if they were really that good or not.

[Ballast]

Originally Posted by Frame57

From what I have gathered a Sub Commander actually worked with Sonalysts when they came out with 688i. Sonalysts made training SW for the Navy. I think the later sims were required to be scaled back for obvious reasons.

IMHO this doesn't make any sense. SCS stated time and time again that the physics engine and the whole realism were upgraded in DW (and in SC before it) and from past threads we can see that it's been tested by several forum members. Moreover, Sonalysts now use an upgraded version of DW and NOT 688(I) for professional (US navy) training.
If you meant the DB than we can always use the values from the older game, for the 688 at least, but I don't think they were that accurate either.
And anyway, that's exactly what the creators of LWAMI tried to fix.

[Frame57]

Well I can assure youfrom experience that our 637 class boat while in the med bagged and tracked a Kilo. We were awarded what the Navy called a "Hook em" award and MUC. It was not uncommon for our ST's to make classifications out to 20K yards as my memory dictates. I still play 688i once in a great while and the autocrew performs far more efficiently than the autocrew does in either SC or DW modded or not.

[Dr.Sid]

To me it seems that SC had fewer features, right .. but you could see the care and love and future plans in it. DW has more features, it is for sure an upgrade .. but hasty, incomplete one. As if somebody said 'let's try to squeeze something from this old engine, but don't overdo it.
Actually I think it's almost impossible to gain profit from this kind of game. That's why I'm trying to do it without profit in mind

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

To me it seems that SC had fewer features, right .. but you could see the care and love and future plans in it. DW has more features, it is for sure an upgrade .. but hasty, incomplete one. As if somebody said 'let's try to squeeze something from this old engine, but don't overdo it.
Actually I think it's almost impossible to gain profit from this kind of game. That's why I'm trying to do it without profit in mind

I think it's very possible to gain profit from developing post WWII sub sim games.

The story of SH3 is a proof that sub sim works. If the masses like WWII sub sim I don't see why they wouldn't try a post WWII sub sim. On the condition that the game quality is as good as that in SH3 of course which company like Sonalysts don't have the commitment and perhpas time to invest in.

[Captain Nemo]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Well I can assure youfrom experience that our 637 class boat while in the med bagged and tracked a Kilo. We were awarded what the Navy called a "Hook em" award and MUC. It was not uncommon for our ST's to make classifications out to 20K yards as my memory dictates. I still play 688i once in a great while and the autocrew performs far more efficiently than the autocrew does in either SC or DW modded or not.

How do you know the Kilo didn't have you in it's sights also?

Seriously, I like both SC and DW, SC being my preferred option, but that's a personal choice. Whilst I agree that the Autocrew could be improved upon if you like to play the CO's role in the sim, I find manning the sonar quite rewarding. In fact the only Autocrew I leave switched on is TMA, which is just too much for me to want to learn. I have played SC since it came out in the UK and added the SCX mod when it was released, which greatly improved the sim no end. My only gripe is that sometimes the AI isn't as challenging as I would like it to be, but other than that a top notch sim in my opinion. Never played 688i so can't compare SC and DW with it.

Nemo

[Blacklight]

In fact the only Autocrew I leave switched on is TMA, which is just too much for me to want to learn.

It's relatively easy to learn....if there's like one or two contacts out there, but most of the time, there's LOTS of contacts out there. I've found it best to just let Autocrew handle this function and then concentrate on getting it the best data I can. I usually handle sonar myself but in a contact rich environment, I sometimes even turn sonar over to Autocrew or else I fall behind fast.

Doing your own TMA is fun if you're in a one on one battle.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Captain Nemo

How do you know the Kilo didn't have you in it's sights also?

Seriously, I like both SC and DW, SC being my preferred option, but that's a personal choice. Whilst I agree that the Autocrew could be improved upon if you like to play the CO's role in the sim, I find manning the sonar quite rewarding. In fact the only Autocrew I leave switched on is TMA, which is just too much for me to want to learn. I have played SC since it came out in the UK and added the SCX mod when it was released, which greatly improved the sim no end. My only gripe is that sometimes the AI isn't as challenging as I would like it to be, but other than that a top notch sim in my opinion. Never played 688i so can't compare SC and DW with it.

Nemo

Generally by their behavior. When they detect an American boat they will begin to act erratically.

[Molon Labe]

I think there is a problem of expectations here, which SCS is in part guilty of creating. SCS sims could fairly be described as "sensor sims." They simulate the function of ship stations--in fact most non-commercial sims made by SCS focus exclusively on individual stations and are used for training purposes.

It appears that many people who have come here from the Silent Hunter community are used to a very different kind of sim, where the focus isn't individual stations, but on the experience of command. These players are looking for a role-playing experience of being the skipper and would rather not concern themselves with playing the roles of the subordinate crew. The problem is, that's not what SCS sims are designed to be.

Autocrew is present for workload management and not much more. It lets you concentrate on some sensors while doing a good-enough job on the others so that you don't get completely overwhelmed. SCS also talks about autocrew as providing scalability, meaning they intended to allow players to cut certain functions out, restricting the scale of the player's experience to certain aspects. This was an irresponsible statement on their part, because they never put in the effort to make autocrew function in this way. Maybe there was a disconnect between the developers and the marketers on that. But the bottom line is that the products of the autocrew were NEVER meant to be a simulation of anything, so critiquing the fidelity of the simulation based on those products is unfair.

[jrivett]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

But the bottom line is that the products of the autocrew were NEVER meant to be a simulation of anything, so critiquing the fidelity of the simulation based on those products is unfair.

I have a lot of trouble with that statement. I mean, I understand your point, but I don't think that excuses how terrible the sonar autocrew is. I'm a software developer, and as such I know that shipping a product with a feature that is effectively broken is a very bad idea. At least, if you get bad reviews because of it, you have no right to complain. And the sonar autocrew is so utterly useless that it is effectively broken. I was prepared to man the sonar station in tricky or difficult situations, but assumed that the autocrew would be able to handle basic tasks with some degree of competence. In that I was seriously disappointed.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by jrivett

I have a lot of trouble with that statement. I mean, I understand your point, but I don't think that excuses how terrible the sonar autocrew is. I'm a software developer, and as such I know that shipping a product with a feature that is effectively broken is a very bad idea. At least, if you get bad reviews because of it, you have no right to complain. And the sonar autocrew is so utterly useless that it is effectively broken. I was prepared to man the sonar station in tricky or difficult situations, but assumed that the autocrew would be able to handle basic tasks with some degree of competence. In that I was seriously disappointed.

I don't think you did understand the point. DW shipped with a LOT of bugs and broken features, many of which continued through the 1.04 patch and some of which were never solved. They deserve to take criticism for that--including for not having autocrew that can do everything that was advertised. I'm not letting them off the hook for that.

BUT, that is still a separate issue from using autocrew performance as a measure for the fidelity of the simulation. Because the autocrew is not designed to simulate anything, it is simply illogical to criticise the product as if it does. This takes nothing away from the argument that they were wrong not to "finish" the product before shipping it.

[Frame57]

The sale point of these sim/games were clearly marketed as being a sub skipper, not a sonar/radar/helmsman/Ft or what have you. My skipper from the Archerfish just passed away at trhe age of 70. CPT. G.R. Plummer. We spoke about issues at times of what being a sucessful Sub Skipper was all about. He told me, "You have to have a great crew and equipment, a Submarine Commander has to have situational awareness 24/7, he relies on his crew for information that makes this feasable."

I get what these sims provide, seriously, what else is there to do with a sim of this nature? You have an autocrew that should walk the plank. You have no Weapons officer to advise you on the solution etc.. etc... you do it all or you rely on a disfunctional autocrew that cannot even get weapons presets right. These are anything but a Submarine Commander experience sim. But maybe one day one will come our way.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Originally Posted by Frame57

I get what these sims provide, seriously, what else is there to do with a sim of this nature? You have an autocrew that should walk the plank. You have no Weapons officer to advise you on the solution etc.. etc... you do it all or you rely on a disfunctional autocrew that cannot even get weapons presets right. These are anything but a Submarine Commander experience sim. But maybe one day one will come our way.

I have made this exact point with Dr Sid in reference to the ComSubSim. A captain has to let the crew, who are not dummies, do their JOB. Sure, have the option to jump in and do it, but for the most part, this CO relies on his crew to be professionals. Let them do THEIR job so you can do yours.

I can only hope that the ComSubSim becomes a reality and people can have the pleasure of handling a boat with a decent crew.