SH3, SH4 and Lead Pursuit

[Sonarman]

Yes, its a shame when the artist and the customer are in tune "the machine in the middle" can't just allow them to acheive their full creative potential and stand back a bit and reap the rewards.

[scrapser]

Well from the last three posts, it's at least good to hear others are aware of the frustrating circumstances that exist with sims today.

1. The entity with the resources to make a decent simulation possible, doesn't have that as a goal (in fact, they could care less).

2. The entity that develops the simulation wants to see it achieve full maturity (as does the customer).

3. The gaming market (which has nothing to do with simulations) is the driving force behind this problem because that's where the money is.

4. The moving target in all this is hardware technologies that make everything so expensive to develop.

[Sonarman]

Very well put, in the case of Ubisoft management to their credit they did see fit to ressurrect the series in the first place which is a good thing in these "casual games are all" days. Plus I think they did try and make the best subsim possible with SH3 even holding it back for a considerable period to put in a dynamic campaign, also commendable.

Their commitment started to wain a bit with SH4 with tighter budgets and timescales, let's hope they have learned a lesson from SH4 and future games are given the time and resources they deserve to become a quality product. It seems to be a trend for Ubi to reuse the same engine for a couple of titles, i think the same thing happened with "Brothers in Arms". In some ways this is a good thing as SH4 is a solid base to build on and to throw everything away and start again from scratch would be a tremendous waste of resources.

Let's hope the Ubi management feel that way about personnel too as it would be tragic if our committed, passionate devteam were reassigned to something else or not allowed to continue to fulfill our dreams and I think theirs, of the perfect naval simulation.

[Rockin Robbins]

I just don't understand the painting of UBI as evil. They make any of this possible, and UBI has maintained a commitment to a game which can't be called a cash cow by any means. My brother is a NASCAR 2003 wizard. He took one look at SH4 and said that nothing that complicated could be fun.

Uh, folks, NASCAR 2003 was too real for the market. Obviously we're several steps up the ladder of complexity from that. This adds up to a game with only marginal commercial possibilities.

I'm glad UBI is the one who did the Silent Hunter Series. They've showed commitment to their developers and commitment to us. The game hasn't been perfect, but no similar game has ever been nor will one ever be. The first rule of business and war is a good plan today beats a perfect plan tomorrow. Business, imperfect as it is, works best at getting us what we want. Complaining about it suggests that someone knows a viable alternative. Out with it!

[peabody]

Originally Posted by scrapser

Has anyone thought of contacting Lead Pursuit to see if they might be interested in talking with UBISoft to buy these titles and do with them what they did with the Falcon franchise? It seems to me a solution like this is the only way a "finished" product will ever be realized. I know they did a lot with the modding community to make Falcon what it is today. It would be wonderful if they would be interested in doing submarine simulation as well.

You might want to rethink that idea. When was the last Lead Pursuit patch? And I don't count the newest just because the display didn't work with Vista, I mean improvements to the game or bug fixes. There are many, many bugs in F4:AF and they are doing nothing about it. We have tested and tested many items. For example the CCRP bombing isn't even close. Bomb ripple now is changed so if you attack a column, it drops the bombs behind and in front of your ripple point. The aimpoint becomes the center of the ripple. So if you want to hit the beginning you have to GUESS where to aim. If you drop 5 MK82s with a 100 ft spacing going 500knots 100 ft altitude the first bomb will hit 200 ft behind you and the third one will hit what you aimed at, and you want Lead Pursuit to fix SH4, it isn't broke that bad!! And we show them with pics and video and they don't care. It is the most stable on multiplayer is the only answer. That's because they won't allow modding so everyone is playing the same version. They didn't make any great leap forward, they just made a sim that is the same for everyone, instead of 5 different versions, like was on the internet. And Atari only allowed 'eye candy' improvements the modders were not allowed to touch the basic campaign engine or executable and Leap Pursuit didn't do much with it either so it is still the same as it was years ago. Take up a Raptor, full afterburner, stand it on edge and pull a high G turn, you'll be doing 150knots before you can blink twice. SH4 needs a "little" fixing not breaking.

Yes, we have noticed some 'bugs' in SH4 but don't be so quick to think Lead Pursuit is going to fix them because they will ignore them. At least Ubi allows modding. Lead Pursuit only allows certain modders, officially. I have had Falcon since Spectrum Holobyte owned it and I had an Amiga so I do know a bit about this. And don't get me wrong, I love Falcon, it's the only other game I play but it isn't because of Lead Pursuit. It was the same as it is now long before Lead Pursuit got their hands on it. A few minor improvements but nothing great. In fact they took some weapons out of the game. And they didn't 'work with the modders' they took what the modders had done without even giving credit and then said "Hand's off!!!"

Anyway enough about Falcon, Hey Ubisoft, the faucet is broken in the head, could you get you devs on it?

Peabody

[Fincuan]

Originally Posted by peabody

For example the CCRP bombing isn't even close. Bomb ripple now is changed so if you attack a column, it drops the bombs behind and in front of your ripple point. The aimpoint becomes the center of the ripple. So if you want to hit the beginning you have to GUESS where to aim. If you drop 5 MK82s with a 100 ft spacing going 500knots 100 ft altitude the first bomb will hit 200 ft behind you and the third one will hit what you aimed at,

If I remember correctly that's not a bug, it's a feature. Really, I remember there being a huge outcry at Frugal's when they changed that, and some LP representative, maybe Ed1, said they did it because it's like that in the real thing. I don't know if they're right about the real thing, but that's how it went.

[peabody]

Originally Posted by Fincuan

If I remember correctly that's not a bug, it's a feature. Really, I remember there being a huge outcry at Frugal's when they changed that, and some LP representative, maybe Ed1, said they did it because it's like that in the real thing. I don't know if they're right about the real thing, but that's how it went.

You're absolutely right they did call it a "feature", that's why I worded it as "changed".
And it can't be real, if you drop an even number of bombs, you can't hit your target. Say you drop 4, 2 drop before and 2 drop after the target. And in CCIP it would be impossible for one to drop 200 feet behind you, it would have to drop before you pickle the target, at that altitude they will come off the rails almost immediately.

Peabody