Bugs and Howlers that have to be fixed before release

[Seeadler]

If the community only responds to such matters after the release, then it's too late. In Germany we say: "then the child has already fallen into the well"

[quad5]

Hi all! Sorry for my english.
I many times lifted this problem!


It is necessary to correct! The deck at the bridge should be made more low!

Here is how was actually

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by JScones

Am I the only one that sees George Harrison here?

What!!!!! Don't the Devs know that he wasn't even born until 1943!!!! Come on Ubisoft. What kind of research is that? Did someone tell him that the propellers are turning in the wrong direction? maybe that's why he looks confused.

Wait...of course he's there. A Beatle is a bug isn't it....if you spell it differently and make it's legs go in the right direction. Don't let him near the soup!

[LukeFF]

elanaiba,

Something caught my eye in the promo video with the captain walking through the ship, and I just want to make sure it's how you guys really intend it to be: as the captain walks by the radio shack, one can see both one man at the sonar display and one in the radio/radar room. Nothing wrong there, of course.

My concern is that, will the watch system represent the "Port and Starboard" system of which I wrote you about some time ago (over at Submarine Sim Central)? In other words, will one watch be on duty at one time and the other off-duty? If so, then having two men in the radio shack on duty at one time would be perfectly fine, as typically U-boats carried 4 radiomen in their crew complement. Otherwise, using the American 3-watch system would lead to problems not only with the radioman complement but also all other aspects of the crew rosters as well.

[Ducimus]

Thread subject:
Bugs and Howlers that have to be fixed before release

Assuming SH5 is being built upon SH4, or at the least, code from SH4 is being reused in SH5, then my response is:

1.) Log book doesn't keep accurate info. Save file data doesn't write correctly, translating to all ships being sunk on a singular date.

2.) Sub physics underwater is screwy. When depth excedes 183 meters, submarine trim is FUBAR. (oddly, Crash speed is a factor here, was this intentional?)

3.) Storm conditions for wind in submarine cfg file do not effect the crew. In other words, if you cite a storm condition being in existance at a windspeed of 9 MPS, expecting the crew to don their wet weather gear - they will not.

4.) Damage zones for watch crew and deck guns needs to be reworked so that crew is not injured while submerged.

5.) Something's wonky with all crew messages that involved interaction with the exterior of the submarine. This includes:
* depth under keel vocalizations
* We're under attack sir!
* Depth charges in the water! (glaring oversight dev's)
* We've been spotted sir! (though this one could go away, it's just an example of a similar theme in missing functionality)

6.) Need an entirely new aircraft spawning/patrol subroutine.

7.) AI subroutines should be re examined. Between SH3 and SH4, something is not quite right. Can't quite place it.

8.) A return of Local time AND base time. (yes im that anal) :P


In addition to the above fixes, i would suggest the following in order to enhance the simulation aspects:


a.) Adding a boyancy model to player submarines. Either a slight positive boyancy, or a negative one. Submarines in WW2 did not sit motionless with their screws completely stopped and maintain depth for very long.

b.) Not using a singular 9KM AI_Visual sensor for all units in the game. Use multiple ones varying on unit type.

c.) Fix the issue of depth charges ignoring their max depth settings. This will allow historical depth charge detonation depths instead of the 300 meter behavior.

d.) Allow the battery mulitplier to be accessible and not hard coded

e.) Return of IsSurfaced and IsSubmerged submarine states. While on this subject, fix the uboat state of having just sunk a target so the crew cheers when a ship is sunk, not at every individual torpedo hit.

f.) Independant drive of port and starboard propulsion.


Im sure i can think of more, but those are the big ticket items off the top of my head.

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

5.) Something's wonky with all crew messages that involved interaction with the exterior of the submarine. This includes:
* depth under keel vocalizations
* We're under attack sir!
* Depth charges in the water! (glaring oversight dev's)
* We've been spotted sir! (though this one could go away, it's just an example of a similar theme in missing functionality)

Lets' face it, there are a lot of problems with audio messages in SH4. To add to the above problematic messages:

• Man the deck gun
• Man the AA gun
• Secure the deck gun
• Secure the AA gun
• Crash Dive

All of the above, save for the last one, are related to the infamous "yes sir, yes sir, yes sir" audio bug.

Might be more that I'm not thinking about at the moment.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

the infamous "yes sir, yes sir, yes sir" audio bug.

That one we fixed. The rest im unsure of, didn't want to spend more time in the graph files, but the "yes sir yes sir yes sir" but we identified, replicated, and fixed.

[Turbografx]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

Nope, I'm not peeved Re-read my post above.

I admit that details are important. Game breaking bugs are more important. Propellers turning the wrong way are the former, rather than the latter.

While that's true, this is an issue that was brought up (regularly) back when SH4 was released so it's understandable that people think it's high time it was fixed.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

3.) Storm conditions for wind in submarine cfg file do not effect the crew. In other words, if you cite a storm condition being in existance at a windspeed of 9 MPS, expecting the crew to don their wet weather gear - they will not.

It also needs to be separated from the guns being manned. That part should be tied in to the visual somehow - if water is washing over the gun, then that gun can't be manned. Not a bug, I know, but still a problem.

I think another one that should go away is "We've been spotted, sir!" The lookout would have no way of knowing that, unless the target ship turns toward you, and then he's more likely to report that.

8.) A return of Local time AND base time. (yes im that anal) :P

Or perhaps do away with base time and substitute GMT. When you're in base that is local time.

a.) Adding a boyancy model to player submarines. Either a slight positive boyancy, or a negative one. Submarines in WW2 did not sit motionless with their screws completely stopped and maintain depth for very long.

Or do it the way AOD did - tie it into the pumps being run, so if you're silent running you have to either live with the depth changes or live with making a lot of noise.

I'm pretty sure that you meant for your bouyance model to be variable - one time it's positive, another time it's negative, and very ocassionally it's perfect for five minutes - but I though I'd make sure.

I'd like to see "Yes, sir!" go away altogether. When an order is given, the man recieving it repeats the order, and that's it.

I would also like to see the Chief reporting the depth the way they really did it. Nobody is going to waste time saying "Current depth one, two, zero." He's going to say "One hundred twenty meters!" They put that in with a patch, so of course they didn't have the time or facility to add whole new voice routines. But now they do.

Also when you're inside the boat you shouldn't hear everything going on on the bridge. If a ship is sighted you should hear one man call down "Ship spotted!" You should then go to the bridge and be able to ask the Watch Officer "Where away?", and have him reply with the bearing and range.

[Ducimus]

You know, if people prioriitize stupid little minute like prop rotation or the position on the splash guard on the forward portion of a conning tower being two inchs too high or too low, then these same people need realize something and ask themselves a question.

They need to realize that developers time and resources is not infinate. They have to prioritize what to fix and what to put on a back burner. Point blank, you people are overly focused on visual appearance. So the question you need to ask yourselves is this:

Do i want a game that looks absolutely stunning, but who's mechanics are lack luster, broken, or shallow; or do i want a game that looks decent, with mechanics that are great, functional, and has at least some depth or complexity to it?

Originally Posted by Ducimus

You know, if people prioriitize stupid little minute like prop rotation or the position on the splash guard on the forward portion of a conning tower being two inchs too high or too low, then these same people need realize something and ask themselves a question.

They need to realize that developers time and resources is not infinate. They have to prioritize what to fix and what to put on a back burner. Point blank, you people are overly focused on visual appearance. So the question you need to ask yourselves is this:

Do i want a game that looks absolutely stunning, but who's mechanics are lack luster, broken, or shallow; or do i want a game that looks decent, with mechanics that are great, functional, and has at least some depth or complexity to it?

the very point that never seams to get through to most people

when you bring your car to the mechanic do you tell him about the loose ash tray or about the loose wheel causing vibration when you drive?

tell the devs 20 things they need to fix and maybe, just maybe, they can pick one or two and try to do something about it. now fill that list with 18 items of eye candy BS that might be important but dont effect game play then have only two things on the list that DO effect game play and think about the odds on wether the game play issue is going to be looked at because they are only 2 out of 20 things listed as complaints.

they respond to what gets the most complaints and not always what the most logical choice of whats most important to fix.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Point blank, you people are overly focused on visual appearance. So the question you need to ask yourselves is this:

Do i want a game that looks absolutely stunning, but who's mechanics are lack luster, broken, or shallow; or do i want a game that looks decent, with mechanics that are great, functional, and has at least some depth or complexity to it?

You hit the nail on the head there. Who gives a flip if the propellers turn backwards? It has absolutely zero effect on gameplay. You're not even supposed to see them anyways.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by JScones

Am I the only one that sees George Harrison here?

perhaps other member are also there

[THE_MASK]

The games not even out yet

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

That one we fixed. The rest im unsure of, didn't want to spend more time in the graph files, but the "yes sir yes sir yes sir" but we identified, replicated, and fixed.

I must've missed it, then.