This is Not a Complaint

scrapser · 01-23-10, 10:45 PM

By "basic aspects" I mean the physics being modeled for the most part. Submarines must surface, dive, move forward, turn, etc. If there are sea states then the boat will be impacted by waves, current, wind and so on. For torpedoes it's the same thing as well as all the other ships and aircraft. The TDC calculations are pretty much trigonometry which is an absolute and you factor in any applicable variables. Sonar is sonar...radar is radar...what's so hard to write the code for such things?

The war campaign (if there is one) is essentially a constant. Historical encounters can unfold at the appropriate location, date, and time (this was done in SH3 with the Hood and Bismarck). A dynamic campaign could include these events mixed with random encounters of either merchant or task force convoys. For realism's sake, once you sunk a particular ship it would not reappear again. If the target in question was a carrier that participated in a historical battle and it hasn't occured yet then it would be kept out of play until the event occurs. If you don't sink it there, you could possibly contact it later. The historical battles don't necessarily have to end accurately unless you are really a diehard realist. But I think you get my drift here.

All this stuff is known and has been for years...so why are these things not long since settled in terms of developing the sim? To me they should be almost at the point of being taken for granted instead of a new programming challenge as they appear to be in each release. That is what I am talking about.

With each release of a new sub sim, it seems to me these things should be getting refined...not redefined (with errors).

conus00 · 01-23-10, 11:33 PM

Well spoken.

Dowly · 01-23-10, 11:44 PM

But the following is an complaint. Another 2 threads moved from SH5 section to here. What gives?

Raptor1 · 01-24-10, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

But the following is an complaint. Another 2 threads moved from SH5 section to here. What gives?

It's an invasion...

Safe-Keeper · 01-24-10, 09:17 AM

Quote:

By "basic aspects" I mean the physics being modeled for the most part. Submarines must surface, dive, move forward, turn, etc.

I have it on good authority that in SH5, the u-boats witll surface, dive, move forward and even turn.

There is even talk of letting them move backwards.

scrapser · 01-24-10, 10:09 PM

Go figure. I could speak my mind but I would probably get banned for it. But I guess that's saying enough in and of itself so no worries.

Thanks for the sincere replies to those who made them.

onelifecrisis · 01-25-10, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrapser

By "basic aspects" I mean the physics being modeled for the most part. Submarines must surface, dive, move forward, turn, etc. If there are sea states then the boat will be impacted by waves, current, wind and so on. For torpedoes it's the same thing as well as all the other ships and aircraft. The TDC calculations are pretty much trigonometry which is an absolute and you factor in any applicable variables. Sonar is sonar...radar is radar...what's so hard to write the code for such things?

Er, last I checked my SH3 boat could surface, dive, move forward, and turn. And it got "impacted by sea states". So, what's the problem exactly?

scrapser · 01-26-10, 12:01 PM

If you read my explanations you will see that I am using "movement" as an example of what I mean by "basic". I'm not saying it doesn't work. And all the attempts with humorous quips isn't helping this discussion.

I'll say it again. The basic physical behavior of the various objects found within the sim along with many of the other aspects should have long ago been defined.

For example:

Why is it a challenge to get the dive depths (crush depth) correct for each sub in each new release? Why is it a challenge to get anything they fixed or learned about in SH3 (post development) into SH4?

The actual parameters of WW2 submarines has been known since...WW2. I'm not sure why this topic is going over so many heads. I can only state it simply so many ways.

Basically what I am saying is everything they learned making SH3 should have been included in SH4 (with adjustments for the fact that SH4 has US Fleet boats and American aircraft...Japanese ships and aircraft, weapons, etc.). What is so difficult?

Even now people are noticing the flags on some German ships in SH5 are in the wrong place or out of proportion. Admitedly this is a small issue but it demonstrates my point. Sometimes I think the developers come down with amnesia each time they start a new project.

Lanzfeld · 01-26-10, 12:08 PM

I follow you and agree 100% Scrapser.

I don't think its amnesia but I think they are blinded by $$$. "How can I pump this title out as fast as possible with minimum effort? I will use as much stuff from the last title as I can. Textures, data, AI. There! Done!"

We lose...again.

JScones · 01-27-10, 01:34 AM

I hear you scrapser.

I guess it's just much cheaper and more lazy to recycle than reinvent. You know, as Homer Simpson would say "why don't you just take an existing product and add a clock to it?".

danlisa · 01-27-10, 03:32 AM

In the most simplistic way I can put this:

Cater for the U-Boat/War enthusiast and create an accurate and detailed simulation = Minimal sales.

Cater for the generic gamer by creating a game that partly appeals to both casual gamers and simulation geeks = More sales.

Create an 'on the rail' shooter at sea where the couch potatoes can button mash til their finger bleed = Massive sales.

The above demonstrates why we will never have a simulation that meets our high and exacting standards. There is no money in it.

01-23-10, 10:45 PM	#1
scrapser Captain Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 530 Downloads: 12 Uploads: 0	By "basic aspects" I mean the physics being modeled for the most part. Submarines must surface, dive, move forward, turn, etc. If there are sea states then the boat will be impacted by waves, current, wind and so on. For torpedoes it's the same thing as well as all the other ships and aircraft. The TDC calculations are pretty much trigonometry which is an absolute and you factor in any applicable variables. Sonar is sonar...radar is radar...what's so hard to write the code for such things? The war campaign (if there is one) is essentially a constant. Historical encounters can unfold at the appropriate location, date, and time (this was done in SH3 with the Hood and Bismarck). A dynamic campaign could include these events mixed with random encounters of either merchant or task force convoys. For realism's sake, once you sunk a particular ship it would not reappear again. If the target in question was a carrier that participated in a historical battle and it hasn't occured yet then it would be kept out of play until the event occurs. If you don't sink it there, you could possibly contact it later. The historical battles don't necessarily have to end accurately unless you are really a diehard realist. But I think you get my drift here. All this stuff is known and has been for years...so why are these things not long since settled in terms of developing the sim? To me they should be almost at the point of being taken for granted instead of a new programming challenge as they appear to be in each release. That is what I am talking about. With each release of a new sub sim, it seems to me these things should be getting refined...not redefined (with errors). __________________ Gaming Computer Specs: CM Stacker 930 DFI LP UT X58-T3eH8 i7 920 CPU TR 120 Extreme HS (lapped) 6 GB OCZ Platinum 1600 (8x175 = 1400) BFG GTX 295 Silverstone DA1000W PSU Sony GDM-FW900 24" Wide Screen CRT WinXP Pro 32-bit

01-23-10, 11:33 PM	#2
conus00 Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2008 Location: DB85 Posts: 804 Downloads: 166 Uploads: 0	Well spoken. __________________

01-24-10, 10:09 PM	#6
scrapser Captain Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 530 Downloads: 12 Uploads: 0	Go figure. I could speak my mind but I would probably get banned for it. But I guess that's saying enough in and of itself so no worries. Thanks for the sincere replies to those who made them. __________________ Gaming Computer Specs: CM Stacker 930 DFI LP UT X58-T3eH8 i7 920 CPU TR 120 Extreme HS (lapped) 6 GB OCZ Platinum 1600 (8x175 = 1400) BFG GTX 295 Silverstone DA1000W PSU Sony GDM-FW900 24" Wide Screen CRT WinXP Pro 32-bit

01-26-10, 12:01 PM	#8
scrapser Captain Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 530 Downloads: 12 Uploads: 0	If you read my explanations you will see that I am using "movement" as an example of what I mean by "basic". I'm not saying it doesn't work. And all the attempts with humorous quips isn't helping this discussion. I'll say it again. The basic physical behavior of the various objects found within the sim along with many of the other aspects should have long ago been defined. For example: Why is it a challenge to get the dive depths (crush depth) correct for each sub in each new release? Why is it a challenge to get anything they fixed or learned about in SH3 (post development) into SH4? The actual parameters of WW2 submarines has been known since...WW2. I'm not sure why this topic is going over so many heads. I can only state it simply so many ways. Basically what I am saying is everything they learned making SH3 should have been included in SH4 (with adjustments for the fact that SH4 has US Fleet boats and American aircraft...Japanese ships and aircraft, weapons, etc.). What is so difficult? Even now people are noticing the flags on some German ships in SH5 are in the wrong place or out of proportion. Admitedly this is a small issue but it demonstrates my point. Sometimes I think the developers come down with amnesia each time they start a new project. __________________ Gaming Computer Specs: CM Stacker 930 DFI LP UT X58-T3eH8 i7 920 CPU TR 120 Extreme HS (lapped) 6 GB OCZ Platinum 1600 (8x175 = 1400) BFG GTX 295 Silverstone DA1000W PSU Sony GDM-FW900 24" Wide Screen CRT WinXP Pro 32-bit

01-27-10, 03:32 AM	#11
danlisa Navy Seal Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Cornwall, UK Posts: 5,499 Downloads: 45 Uploads: 1	In the most simplistic way I can put this: Cater for the U-Boat/War enthusiast and create an accurate and detailed simulation = Minimal sales. Cater for the generic gamer by creating a game that partly appeals to both casual gamers and simulation geeks = More sales. Create an 'on the rail' shooter at sea where the couch potatoes can button mash til their finger bleed = Massive sales. The above demonstrates why we will never have a simulation that meets our high and exacting standards. There is no money in it. __________________

01-23-10, 11:44 PM	#3
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,052 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	But the following is an complaint. Another 2 threads moved from SH5 section to here. What gives?

01-26-10, 12:08 PM	#9
Lanzfeld Grey Wolf Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New Tripoli, PA Posts: 994 Downloads: 64 Uploads: 0	I follow you and agree 100% Scrapser. I don't think its amnesia but I think they are blinded by $$$. "How can I pump this title out as fast as possible with minimum effort? I will use as much stuff from the last title as I can. Textures, data, AI. There! Done!" We lose...again.

01-27-10, 01:34 AM	#10
JScones Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,501 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	I hear you scrapser. I guess it's just much cheaper and more lazy to recycle than reinvent. You know, as Homer Simpson would say "why don't you just take an existing product and add a clock to it?".