I miss Silent Hunter 1

[MarkShot]

I just installed SH3/SH4 on new PC. I also have SHCE and AOD running on the same system with DOSBOX.

Side note: You don't need a slowdown utility with DOSBOX, since you can arbitrarily control how many CPU cycles you allocate to your game.

I have yet to form an opinion on SH3, but certainly AOD has been my favorite subsim despite the crisper graphics in SHCE.

Now, here is the interesting thing. If you want to play SH3 totally realistic, then you need to give up the external and event camera. Doing that, you give up much of the eye candy which the game provides. The 3D crew gets old after a while as time passes by submerged. Thus, the two games are much less disimilar when played like that. You look at AOD (or SHCE for that matter) and you'll find all the major features there for a sub simulation. {A flight sim can have a wonderful 3D world and enhanced realism due to the graphics. However, a sub sim with a wonderful 3D world and realistic play are at odds with each other.}

So, for me the jury is still out on the more modern SH3/SH4. All with all come down to game play. How good is the hunt and how good is disengaging and evading the enemy? There is no reason to immediately assume that SH3/4 will be superior in this department. I have quite a few older games that blow away anything in the same category over the last few years in terms of quality game play.

The basic realities of the industry and hardware are:

(1) 10-15 years ago you could easily code very sophisticated game play with the number of CPU cycles available, but little could be done with graphics.

(2) As a result of #1, a much larger portion of projects focused on game play as opposed to art work.

(3) Increased CPU and GPU hardware often meant less time devoted on future projects to basics of game play.

(4) 2D is much simpler to code than 3D. Thus, as games went 3D, development became much more expensive and labor intensive. So, even less time was invested game play basics.

Thus, I will not be suprised to find after perhaps spending three months with SH3 that I may end up back in DOSBOX with AOD.

[Torpex752]

I have never encountered dumb AI, I wonder if the realism % has anything to do with it? I play at 100%, so I'm not picking on anyone but what % are those who encounter dumb AI playing at, just for curiosity?

Frank

[jdkbph]

I totally agree with the sentiment expressed here regarding the 3D systems interface found on most "modern" vehicle type simulations.

I hate it.

No... maybe that's too strong a word.

I *despise* it (there, that's better).

The 3D cockpit interface ruined Janes' F18 for me, and I hoped that game would represent the end of a failed experiment. Not to be. The 3D systems interfaces you find in many sims these days sacrifice accuracy, detail and ease of use for eye candy. Their only practical function, as far as I can tell, is to provide 5 or 10 minutes of marketing WOW! factor.

While it is commonly argued that the 3D interface contributes to the immersion factor - and on the surface (no pun intended) it sounds like a no brainer - I find that the opposite is true. A computer mouse is no substitute for coordinated head, body and hand movement, and a computer monitor cannot provide the necessary stereoscopic depth perception. The technology to do the latter may be there someday soon (and where's my flying car? I was promised a flying car by the year 2000, dammit!), but we are prolly decades away from the former... at least in the home/entertainment market.

So to summarize my rant... 3D simulation system interfaces suck! If game developers must waste time building them for my games (in lieu of investing resources in other more important areas, such as game play and software quality assurance) at least provide an optional 2D interface we can use to actually PLAY the game once we get beyond the initial "Golly Gee" stage.

JD

[jmr]

Originally Posted by MarkShot

Thus, I will not be suprised to find after perhaps spending three months with SH3 that I may end up back in DOSBOX with AOD.

It's been ages since I last played AOD but what I love most about SHIII and IV is having the ability to do manual plotting along with manually entering target parameters into the TDC. Again it's been awhile and you can correct me on this, but in AOD, EVERYTHING was done automatically for you, was it not? I recall very little player input in the whole TDC process.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by jmr

Again it's been awhile and you can correct me on this, but in AOD, EVERYTHING was done automatically for you, was it not? I recall very little player input in the whole TDC process.

You are fully correct. In AOD, there was only what we today know as "Auto-Targetting", even when playing at 100% realism.

In SHI, however, you could go *fully* manual on the TDC if you dared. And really, the TDC representation itself was more comprehensive and realistic than SHIV. Well, the *look* of the dials is more true to history in SHIV, but the *function* and dials available was more realistic in SHI. You also had a "BEARING, MARK" Button there. What was missing on the other hand was a Stadimeter, but you could get range nontheless by the increments on the periscope lines when knowing the masthead heights. So, while the *functioning* of the TDC in SHI was nothing short of perfect in terms of realism, it was hampered by the technology available back in 1996, which had the ships - while good looking - only rendered in 2D, so the AOBs of the ships you saw on screen changed ("jumped") visibly only in steps of some 15-20 degrees, which made manual targetting pretty tough. The way out of this was using the overhead "God's eye view" map, which would show angles accurately for every single degree, but at the same time provide you with, well, an unrealistic "God's eye view".

So, in the end, I think it would not have been bad to stick to the near perfect simulation of the TDC - that SHI provided - in SHIV, esecially now that we got the graphics power and technology to also use it in a realistic manner without the need to refer to a God's eye view overhead map to input proper data. You had a shortened number of dials in SHI while looking through the periscope, similar to what we have now in SHIV (still more dials though), but you *also* could raise the TDC screen alone which would fill your entire monitor showing also the other important dials all on one screen. That was some pretty good ****. Too bad we now only have this fake TDC output screen in the 3D interior instead of a usable 2D one as in SHI. Really, sometimes this rush for 3d and eye-candy is just pointless.

Still, there are only exactly two games which ever atempted to simulate the US TDC as it was on US subs in the PTO - and these games are SHI and SHIV. And in both, the main features of it are covered just about right. SHI did it better, but you could not really use it in a realistic manner cause of the gfx limitations. SHIV does the TDC itself more spartanic than SHI, but you can use it in a more realistic manner. So, in the end, I would call it a draw.

[Torpex752]

Originally Posted by heartc

You are fully correct. In AOD, there was only what we today know as "Auto-Targetting", even when playing at 100% realism.

In SHI, however, you could go *fully* manual on the TDC if you dared. And really, the TDC representation itself was more comprehensive and realistic than SHIV. Well, the *look* of the dials is more true to history in SHIV, but the *function* and dials available was more realistic in SHI. You also had a "BEARING, MARK" Button there. What was missing on the other hand was a Stadimeter, but you could get range nontheless by the increments on the periscope lines when knowing the masthead heights. So, while the *functioning* of the TDC in SHI was nothing short of perfect in terms of realism, it was hampered by the technology available back in 1996, which had the ships - while good looking - only rendered in 2D, so the AOBs of the ships you saw on screen changed ("jumped") visibly only in steps of some 15-20 degrees, which made manual targetting pretty tough. The way out of this was using the overhead "God's eye view" map, which would show angles accurately for every single degree, but at the same time provide you with, well, an unrealistic "God's eye view".

So, in the end, I think it would not have been bad to stick to the near perfect simulation of the TDC - that SHI provided - in SHIV, esecially now that we got the graphics power and technology to also use it in a realistic manner without the need to refer to a God's eye view overhead map to input proper data. You had a shortened number of dials in SHI while looking through the periscope, similar to what we have now in SHIV (still more dials though), but you *also* could raise the TDC screen alone which would fill your entire monitor showing also the other important dials all on one screen. That was some pretty good ****. Too bad we now only have this fake TDC output screen in the 3D interior instead of a usable 2D one as in SHI. Really, sometimes this rush for 3d and eye-candy is just pointless.

Still, there are only exactly two games which ever atempted to simulate the US TDC as it was on US subs in the PTO - and these games are SHI and SHIV. And in both, the main features of it are covered just about right. SHI did it better, but you could not really use it in a realistic manner cause of the gfx limitations. SHIV does the TDC itself more spartanic than SHI, but you can use it in a more realistic manner. So, in the end, I would call it a draw.

You are correct about the TDC vs grafics in SH1! I can honestly say that that TDC was/is the best TDC to date.

Frank

[Hartmann]

[Sailor Steve]

One of the things I do like about SH3 (and I presume SH4 is the same) is the ability to have realistic maps, in the sense of not seeing everything that's within range every time the periscope is up. I'm a huge fan of the 'Assisted Plotting Mod' for SH3, and hope to see one like it in SH4 soon.

On the other hand, Hartmann, those screens do bring out the nostalgia.

[jhelix70]

Those pics made me nostalgic

I miss the radar dispay. Clear, 2D panels and the radar actually worked properly.

[Chock]

I'm fully in agreement with probably most people who have messed around with computer games and simulations for years, in that there was perhaps more 'love' put into the gameplay in older games. I do believe that if 3D environments for the interior of a submarine are going to be added to a game, then they ought to have some functionality over and above mere eye candy.

Oddly enough, flight simulator developers have been slow to do this too, despite the more apparent requirement for it to add to immersion and the fact that flight sims tend to 'push the envelope' in terms of 3D graphics advances. In its current state, it is possible to 'walk' around the interior of your Boeing 747 in MS Flight Simulator, but without any passengers on board (although this is starting to happen) or any real reason to do it, it merely becomes wow factor eye candy.

One innovation that is good in this respect however, is Track IR, which does help tremendously with flight sims, and not just combat ones either. It is truly something to behold in the brilliant gliding simulator 'Condor'. A genuine advance not just for the sake of 'because we can do it'.

Those who were in at the start of SH multiplayer implementation will doubtless remember the shaky multiplayer performance that went with it, which was particularly annoying to behold when you'd spent a couple of hours setting up for an attack with a buddy, only to have your session bomb out. SH4 is massively more stable in this respect and so there is one advance that earlier subsims cannot match, given that most of them didn't even have the option. Although again it lags behind flight sims in that the current MS FS will allow you to link up online and have your friend as the co-pilot alongside you, which is great fun by the way. There were promises that this was going to happen in Microprose's B-17 2 some years ago, but sadly that never happened, nevertheless several current combat flight sims will let two or more people be in the same aircraft, and this seems to be something of a required feature of them these days. so it's not hard to see that future renditions of SH might allow you to be the XO or TDC operator on a sub while your buddy is the skipper - I bet that will lead to some Run Silent, Run Deep-style disagreements!

Back in the realms of submarine simulations and what might make them more involved so that they are a genuine advance on those of yesteryear, I should like to see more involvment with the crew (in either 2D or 3D). Having someone panic because of shell shock 'Johann style' or dealing with insubordination are just two ideas that might be fun. As would having your simulated XO make a tactical suggestion to you. Offering you a couple of choices in matters would also be nice to see, such as: 'Do you want to cannibalise the radar set to get your radio working?', or whatever.

There is still plenty of scope for sub sims to improve, that's for sure.

[MarkShot]

You are correct. AOD only has auto-targetting. SH1 had auto or manual.

However, the auto-targetting of AOD is not the fool proof long range solutions which you get in SH3 when you use auto-targetting or ask the weapon officer. Thus, missing quite frequently happened at long ranges. I am not sure if crew skill had an impact on this. There are three levels in AOD.

Although I can appreciate that there are those who prefer to completely manually calculate their solutions (doing everything off the map with plotting and math), I would be happy with falible auto-targetting similar to AOD. I like to play the role of the subs captain. I am responsible for the main decisions: when, where, and how to attack and how to disengage/evade following the attack. I don't feel the need to necessarily workout AOB or speed from screw turns or wake form. In real life, there was a whole tracking party/attack team which handled this. Although the captain did a lot of it when submerged with sightings, it was not a one man show. So, trying to do this all yourself while letting the game run in realtime is perhaps beyond realistic.

With that said, I think SH3's notepad approach to solution creation is a good game play/realism compromise. It forces the player to bring his boat in much closer if he hopes to sink anything. This increases challenge, since the window for successful disengagement becomes much smaller. (Generally, I begin disengaging as soon as my tubes are empty without waiting to see the results of the attack.)

[mcoca]

Originally Posted by Chock

As would having your simulated XO make a tactical suggestion to you.

You say that, and I get this image of Lieutenant Clippy, your XO. "It looks like you're attacking a convoy. Would you like help?" :p

Seriously, good idea, but that kind of thing would require a real investment in AI, or it would be seriously annoying.

[melin71]

Im too played silent hunter 1, silen service, and something many seems not remeber at all. a game called up periscope. i remember that game, to be very great. but that is VERY old game, i played that on my comandor 64 back in -84 or something like that. but very strange..i never play AOD...what i remember.

I too miss more interaktiv with the sub. and I allmost feel trapped. you got only 3 postioen in the sub. commander room, brighde, and tower. problem with this..less interaktiv are that you can play the game only with use of your map and periscope. you NEVER need too be in commander room or brige. becrouse..what shall you do there??.

But if you had to interaktiv with statioen and stuff in commander room. then we talking. if you had to walk to radio station for get latest message, and so on. if you want to see the map. you walk to the map tabel. that had greated a more interaktiv sub, you wants to bridge..you climb up for the ladder. no fast buttons to get to station. i think this should make at least me more the..im there feeling. problem with this...I guess....I will never see a game that will put me REALLY in a sub..i should not be surprised if we only get the bridge next version. maby if some other company starts to make sub games...maby.