What I want to see in a perfect naval simulator.

TorpX · 09-04-15, 10:40 PM

Your list looks pretty comprehensive, but I'll add a couple items.

14. A spherical model for the earth, and a realistic horizon. Meaning that the shortest distance between two points is the great circle route, arctic regions are not 'stretched', and lines of sight are limited by the curvature of the earth's surface.

15. Realistic errors in firing solutions. (This is implied in 13, but I think merits it's own statement.) Range estimation, track estimation, plotting errors, and related factors preclude having the error-free, 'God's eye view', that we get in SH games, for example.

But, will we ever see all, or even most of these things?

sturmer · 09-05-15, 05:29 AM

no 16 (maybe) : having the ability to choose surface ships or subs.

Platapus · 09-05-15, 06:55 AM

And we want this to run on a laptop and cost about $50.00?

The terms "realistic" "world" combined with "detailed" "crew" and "detailed" "simulation" and the rest of the stuff all comes with cost.

Computational cost, programming cost, cost in difficulty of use.

The problem is that traditionally naval games, and sub games specifically have been single player games. The player starts the game/simulator and makes a certain level of decisions, hopefully with the objective of entertainment. But realistic and single player do not go together. There is a reason why "real world" commanders have large crews.. because there is no way one person can do it all... but in a computer game, most io the time one person (the player) has to do it all.

So there has to be compromises between two extremes

1. Either dumb down the simulation to the point that only the major (how that is defined) events are present at a level that a game player can handle

2. Get the computer to handle all the mundane tasks which further isolates the player and makes the simulator predictable aka unrealistic.

Programming such a game/simulator is always a delicate balance. How much of one and how much of the other tempered with all of the costs.

No one can play a truly realistic naval simulator by themselves and few would want to play a simulator in which the computer does everything.

So this is a great list. I would also add one more thing: an intimate date with Sandra Bullock since we are making an unreasonable list of stuff we ain't never gonna get.

Julhelm · 09-05-15, 07:43 AM

So far we have 15 points and not one of them is 'it has to be fun'.

Highbury · 09-05-15, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julhelm

So far we have 15 points and not one of them is 'it has to be fun'.

For alot of us here, having all those points in one package would make it fun

09-04-15, 10:40 PM	#1
TorpX Silent Hunter Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,975 Downloads: 153 Uploads: 11	Your list looks pretty comprehensive, but I'll add a couple items. 14. A spherical model for the earth, and a realistic horizon. Meaning that the shortest distance between two points is the great circle route, arctic regions are not 'stretched', and lines of sight are limited by the curvature of the earth's surface. 15. Realistic errors in firing solutions. (This is implied in 13, but I think merits it's own statement.) Range estimation, track estimation, plotting errors, and related factors preclude having the error-free, 'God's eye view', that we get in SH games, for example. But, will we ever see all, or even most of these things?

09-05-15, 05:29 AM	#2
sturmer Navy Dude Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Antwerp, Belgium Posts: 178 Downloads: 74 Uploads: 0	no 16 (maybe) : having the ability to choose surface ships or subs. __________________ "One Torpedo . . . one Ship" - Otto Kretschmer

09-05-15, 06:55 AM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,391 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	And we want this to run on a laptop and cost about $50.00? The terms "realistic" "world" combined with "detailed" "crew" and "detailed" "simulation" and the rest of the stuff all comes with cost. Computational cost, programming cost, cost in difficulty of use. The problem is that traditionally naval games, and sub games specifically have been single player games. The player starts the game/simulator and makes a certain level of decisions, hopefully with the objective of entertainment. But realistic and single player do not go together. There is a reason why "real world" commanders have large crews.. because there is no way one person can do it all... but in a computer game, most io the time one person (the player) has to do it all. So there has to be compromises between two extremes 1. Either dumb down the simulation to the point that only the major (how that is defined) events are present at a level that a game player can handle 2. Get the computer to handle all the mundane tasks which further isolates the player and makes the simulator predictable aka unrealistic. Programming such a game/simulator is always a delicate balance. How much of one and how much of the other tempered with all of the costs. No one can play a truly realistic naval simulator by themselves and few would want to play a simulator in which the computer does everything. So this is a great list. I would also add one more thing: an intimate date with Sandra Bullock since we are making an unreasonable list of stuff we ain't never gonna get. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

09-05-15, 07:43 AM	#4
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	So far we have 15 points and not one of them is 'it has to be fun'.