LAN Experience - Page 2

Molon Labe · 10-30-05, 08:41 PM

P,

It sounds to me like your friends need to learn to manage the link feature better. It is a very powerful tool when used properly. But, if you promote everything you see, and everyone else on your side does the same, you're going to get a lot of clutter.

AI platforms do a very good job of not promoting redundant link contacts, so if you are having that problem, it is because human players are doing it. Stick a boot in their asses. (Also, if you're getting overlapping linked contacts with different classifications, that's because you are getting the data from the other guys who classified it differently...its just their data...garbage in, garbage out.)

The idea of merging link contacts with ownship sensor data doesn't make sense. If the link data was in the form of, for example, bearing lines, then it might make sense to integrate that data for TMA. But, link data is in the form of a solution. Its something to check your own solution against.

If you have ESM bearings on the same contact from different platforms, all you need to do is ask the other player what their ESM bearing is. Then set your TMA range to the point on your bearing line where the other crosses. I guess it would be nice to be able to transmit the raw TMA data with a link and merge it, but even if that was in the game it would only save you about 2 seconds. Triangulation as it is now is not a time-consuming process.

Raising a mast at 30 knots...you get what you deserve. The warning feature is useful if accelerate while your masts are still up; it provides sufficient warning to order all stop and retract the masts. Of course you don't get enough warning when you put the mast up at flank; it gets broken immediately!

ESM data does provides the name of the platform AND the country that uses it.

I have to say, it seems that your friends just didn't have the patience to learn what they were doing. The only real gripe in that whole thing was the bug with radio antenna up and the floating wire out simultaneously, and that's a pretty minor bug.

Mau · 10-30-05, 09:20 PM

Agree with most of the thing here,

I think however that the Lookout should just confirm or put an Ident to a previos contact reported by the Surface radar, not to put another one on top of the SC radar.

After all it is coming from the same ship.

Molon Labe · 10-30-05, 09:37 PM

Which is exactly what happens when the contacts are merged at TMA.

darksythe · 10-30-05, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drEaPer

-> Read carefully. I get the impression you are a DW fanboy that doesnt really understand the whole point of my post. (No Offense! I love the game myself, else I wouldnt spend 2 days just making a video4fun, but I am always censorious )

Ouch that almost hurt.
Maybe it was a bug that when both were up it didnt know what to do.

Im going to save time and not put the rest of quotes in but say this much. If the persons teacher didnt tell him its a very bad nay stupid idea to be going 30 knots anywhere near the surface then the loss of masts was a deserved thing and a lesson learned. You cant put new people right in game on multiplayer and expect them to have fun right off the bat. This is a NAVAL COMBAT SIMULATOR. Not a game. that is why our Genre is limited in interest. It is simply not something easily grasped by most. It is a sim that is great if youve got a good bit of time to allocate to it. To that point ill help you relate. You say your a flight simmer... would you call FS09 (flight simulator 2004 for those who dont know) a game? I wouldnt, Would you call Falcon 4.0 Sp3 or Falcon AF a game? I wouldnt id call them Sims. When something is a sim it traditionaly entails that it is going to have a steep learning curve to it.

drEaPer · 10-31-05, 02:28 PM

Well, on the one hand that makes sense, but I assume thats not SCSs philosophy. Else we wouldnt need LWAMI mod and autocrew. Though you are right on that particular thing (30kts / raising mast) but that wasnt the only point I mentioned

A good simulation and a good interface are not mutually excluse, its just a poor excuse for missing features that you can do in RL with pen and paper. (like we still cant draw a simple line on the navmap, or cancel a TMA solution or draw a bearing line that doesnt dissapear.... you ever killed a buoys cause the scuttle button is still clickable when scrolling through the libary? Ever turned the filter in narrowband off, to see a vcertain profile, just to see how the game jumps back to the first entry as soon as you move the indicator... etc etc etc)
Since I worked in games dev I am very forgiving, cause I know you cant do a perfect software, especially not if it is for a small customer base, but nevertheless I think you are not opening your eyes wide enough cause you love naval sims and dont want to see the flaws.
Anyway, I didnt meant to cause trouble, I was merely trying to point out what this game needs to not scare non-naval-simmers away. When you look back, 688HK had alot of "atmospheric features" that DW is totally missing. Those features attract people. DW is a nice piece of software and everytime I play it I have fun butI feel sorry for what it could have been.

And as always, no offense meant

Molon Labe · 10-31-05, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drEaPer

Well, on the one hand that makes sense, but I assume thats not SCSs philosophy. Else we wouldnt need LWAMI mod and autocrew. Though you are right on that particular thing (30kts / raising mast) but that wasnt the only point I mentioned

A good simulation and a good interface are not mutually excluse, its just a poor excuse for missing features that you can do in RL with pen and paper. (like we still cant draw a simple line on the navmap, or cancel a TMA solution or draw a bearing line that doesnt dissapear.... you ever killed a buoys cause the scuttle button is still clickable when scrolling through the libary? Ever turned the filter in narrowband off, to see a vcertain profile, just to see how the game jumps back to the first entry as soon as you move the indicator... etc etc etc)
Since I worked in games dev I am very forgiving, cause I know you cant do a perfect software, especially not if it is for a small customer base, but nevertheless I think you are not opening your eyes wide enough cause you love naval sims and dont want to see the flaws.
Anyway, I didnt meant to cause trouble, I was merely trying to point out what this game needs to not scare non-naval-simmers away. When you look back, 688HK had alot of "atmospheric features" that DW is totally missing. Those features attract people. DW is a nice piece of software and everytime I play it I have fun butI feel sorry for what it could have been.

And as always, no offense meant

You've got some good points in there....but keep in mind these are pretty minor. Yeah, I've accidentally scuttled buoys, but its a preventable accident.

Also, SCS is receptive to making minor changes in the interface to improve functionality and reduce headaches. For example, in the re-released verision of the demo, they fixed the functionality of the TMA station to get rid of a few quirks which yours truly complained about when DW was first released. I think they've also fixed something with regard to the stadimeter station that someone griped about too. I think you should report these minor interface issues in the patch request sticky, and there is a good chance that some of them will be addressed in 1.03.

MaHuJa · 11-03-05, 02:10 PM

Their subs both had an ESM contact, so they went to PD to exchange their info. Then they wanted to merge them in TMA and found out that it didnt work. I told em that they can make a manual solution and merge that, but they werent really satisfied with that.

As someone said, see where the lines cross, and enter that distance into tma.

Another thing that made em upset, was that there is no warning when you want to raise a mast while u are too fast. They broke lots of masts, and were really frustrated that no warning came to tell em that it isnt a good idea to raise the mast now.

That's a simple one as long as somebody remembers to tell them the max speed for masts is 8 knots...

Though I'd suggest you stick a post in the suggestion thread that masts cannot be raised when too fast. With a message given somewhere (crew messages, blue button? and if possible spoken) of the reason.

Promoting stuff to the link also wasnt working well. Sometimes a sub didnt show up, but it was at 56ft with antenna up, other times the sub showed up but had no name next to it.

I have problems with those things almost all the time. From the lack of complaining elsewhere it would seem as if it was rather uncommon? I occasionally get a bearing line terminated in a unknown/unknown contact where the friendly sub is, and it's usually erringly numbered.

There *are* a few such problems with the link.

What made them also go crazy, was the fact that they couldnt tell the NavMap to merge their ownship contacts with the links data contacts. They just didnt understand why they should have so many stuff on their screen when they exactly knew that a certain Ownship contact was the same contact that is already on the link.

They asked for an option to tell the TMA: Take link No.XXXX as a solution for M02.

The "best" solution for this problem is that only the tma guy has show link contacts, and enters the information into ownship contacts - manual contacts where he has to. (Although that will be difficult before 1.02)

The thing about not merging a ownship contact with a link contact is partially a problem of the question "can you trust the link data?" - if I work on a solution of my own, and it matches the link solution, I can be fairly certain both are correct.

I told them it doesnt work that way but they were just annoyed by having the same ships multiple times on their nav maps and when trying to select a contact that was under another contact (link) they had to scroll in and out alot.

...Then it wasn't DW where clicking multiple times would select the next one below it? (Then where was that :hmm: )

They were also confused about the fact that a link contact has a different number for different players, and that made communicating harder.

This is a bug. It's part of the link problems I'm often seeing. By the low amount of complaining I'd guess few has them.

Later in one of the games we had another issue with the link: The SW was at 50 ft, floating wire antenna deployed and radio antenna mast up. The player promoted a contact and said:"Its on the link". We said: No it isnt.
After a while we found out, that you cannot promote a contact to the link when you also have your floating antenna deployed.
He retreived the floating antenna and re-raised the mast and it worked again.
I guess this is a bug.

Did I say the linking is buggy? In case I didn't, there are bugs of this sort with the link.

Then the 688 player found out about the UUV, jus to get more frustrated. He wasnt able to promote contacts to the link that were marked by the UUV, and he wasnt able to use the UUV in active mode.

The UUV in active mode isn't hard to use, but I believe that its range is that of a torpedo seeker. This might be his problem - if he expected it to have a range similar to ownship active, he's of course bound to be sorely disappointed.

What they also didnt like was searching the USNI reference for a certain ship, cause the ESM didnt tell em the country origin.

Navmap, contact, rightclick menu.

In the end they were just ranting about how clumsy the interface feels and that you get so little feedback from game so that I didnt managed to convince em to buy DW when it is available, which was my initial goal.

And I guess they're right. Somewhat. On the other hand, they've been quite unlucky to have all(?) the link bugs all show up so clearly at the same time.

Ummm... let's see how many of their complaints that you listed were not about the link...
1 Masts breaking without proper warning
2 UUV active not working (which may be the classic pebcak, it just not having the range they expected.)
3 Ship name to USNI entry link was too well hidden for them

As for the link bugs, I intend to do a bit of a "research project" on them soon, and stick a big post into the suggestion thread. Though I might postpone this until I have 1.02, although the provisionary readme didn't mention anything about it.

Molon Labe · 11-03-05, 03:26 PM

No need to even go to nav/reference to get the nation for the ESM.

The ESM station itself tell you this. For example: "CAS: Oliver Hazard Perry FFG (US)"

MaHuJa · 11-03-05, 08:40 PM

Except when it's too long to show the whole of it. Or whatever situation those players were in.

Molon Labe · 11-03-05, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaHuJa

Except when it's too long to show the whole of it. Or whatever situation those players were in.

It's always a 2-letter abbreviation. 99% of em are intuitive.
(Although I can understand if peolple don't make the leap from "DK" to Democratic People's Republic of Korea. That one I'll let slide.)

LuftWolf · 11-03-05, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Although I can understand if peolple don't make the leap from "DK" to Democratic People's Republic of Korea. That one I'll let slide.

Oh, so THAT's what that stands for...

moose1am · 11-16-05, 11:30 AM

I think it's always good to have people outside the game take a look at it and give their opinion. Especially if the developers wish to bring in more people into this game.

Flight Sim guys are nortorous for being pickey. They drive the flight sim developers bats. But they are also very quick to pick up on stuff.

I have not tried to play DW with anyone else yet. But I am sure glad to know that they found some bugs in the promoting links things. Hope the DW developers can fix those type of bugs before too many other people find them, get annoyed and decide not to buy the game.

Games like Fighter Ace have lasted over 6 years now as they constantly are improving the game and fixing bugs. They have a standing group of beta testers and they are constantly testing the game for bugs and fixing them on the go. Even though the game when though several owners it survived. Now the guy who originally designed Fighter Ace is back at the helm. He had taken the bull by the horns and in less than one year they have already have several updates to the game.

I remember when games went though OPEN BETA TESTING Phases and got a lot more input from a lot more people. This although hard to manage is something that would find a lot more bugs.

I hope that I am like most other in the fact that I hate games with bugs in them.

Here is what I wish for DW. Fixs the known bugs with this next patch 1.03. Quash as many of them as possible. Then work on the flight modeling of the P3C or PC3 Orion to make it flyable. I found that the auto pilot will fly the plane better than I can manually. That has to be due to the flight modeling. With over ten years of flight sim experience with many flight sims I can see that the flight modeling is not up to snuff. No biggie for me as I like the slower action of the subgame experience and can live with the auto pilot for now. But I know that others who are flight sim enthusiast would leave DW in a heart beat if they could not fly the planes manually. So this is something for the future of DW. But first satisfy the sub guys as they are the heart of DW and will always be the heart and soul of this game. Then an only then when time and money permits work on the flight modeling.

The main concept that I really wish for is multiplatforms in my online gaming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drEaPer

Hi

I just had a couple of LAN games with my mates, and I tried to get em into DW. They like sims but they rather play flight sims.
Since DW wants to be appealing to a wider range of people, I thought I should post what happened.

First I explained all the sub systems to em, and they quickly got the idea, they even unterstood TMA quite fast.

We played for about 6 hours, 4 missions. Always 688 or Seawolf.
They actually had fun but the fun ended when they felt that things got overcomplicated where there was no need for it.

Some examples:
Their subs both had an ESM contact, so they went to PD to exchange their info. Then they wanted to merge them in TMA and found out that it didnt work. I told em that they can make a manual solution and merge that, but they werent really satisfied with that.
Another thing that made em upset, was that there is no warning when you want to raise a mast while u are too fast. They broke lots of masts, and were really frustrated that no warning came to tell em that it isnt a good idea to raise the mast now.

Promoting stuff to the link also wasnt working well. Sometimes a sub didnt show up, but it was at 56ft with antenna up, other times the sub showed up but had no name next to it.

What made them also go crazy, was the fact that they couldnt tell the NavMap to merge their ownship contacts with the links data contacts. They just didnt understand why they should have so many stuff on their screen when they exactly knew that a certain Ownship contact was the same contact that is already on the link. They asked for an option to tell the TMA: Take link No.XXXX as a solution for M02. I told them it doesnt work that way but they were just annoyed by having the same ships multiple times on their nav maps and when trying to select a contact that was under another contact (link) they had to scroll in and out alot. They were also confused about the fact that a link contact has a different number for different players, and that made communicating harder.

Later in one of the games we had another issue with the link: The SW was at 50 ft, floating wire antenna deployed and radio antenna mast up. The player promoted a contact and said:"Its on the link". We said: No it isnt.
After a while we found out, that you cannot promote a contact to the link when you also have your floating antenna deployed.
He retreived the floating antenna and re-raised the mast and it worked again.
I guess this is a bug.

Then the 688 player found out about the UUV, jus to get more frustrated. He wasnt able to promote contacts to the link that were marked by the UUV, and he wasnt able to use the UUV in active mode.

What they also didnt like was searching the USNI reference for a certain ship, cause the ESM didnt tell em the country origin.

In the end they were just ranting about how clumsy the interface feels and that you get so little feedback from game so that I didnt managed to convince em to buy DW when it is available, which was my initial goal.

I just thought I post this here, cause those guys were seeing the game from another perspective than we do, after a while you just get very used to a game.

Well, I still love DW, but we want more people, so maybe this feedback is welcome.

see ya

sonar732 · 11-16-05, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N00be

How do you make the UUV go active?

Click on the UUV within' the FC screen. Then, select 'active'. I might suggest only using it when you are 99.9% certain of the location of your contact and have a tube flooded and doors open with MK48 ADCAP waiting.

FERdeBOER · 11-17-05, 04:33 AM

It's good to know "outside" opinions and I'm agree about the crew, it should be more "comnicative".

As for the rest, if in 6 hours they get use of DW comming from flight shims I pay them the next round

Maybe they will find the game more interesting if they play first with P3 or Seahawk, and then make the jump to subs. :hmm:

I played first with Red Storm Rising, then Fast Attack, then Sub Command, and now DW, not talking about a lot of WW2 simuladors (AOD, SH...) and still have things to learn about commanding submarines

so I don't surprise if they find the game hard at the begginning.
How many masts I would break since I learned to watch the speed? And how many times I'd run aground untill I get use to watch the depth? :rotfl:

And how many times I crashed trying to take off and/or land froma a carrier in flight sims?
And how... hehehe

I repeat is good to know what people think about DW, but they also need to look at it with different eyes

OneShot · 11-17-05, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FERdeBOER

I repeat is good to know what people think about DW, but they also need to look at it with different eyes

Amen to that, and DW is certainly no Flight Simulator ... :hmm:

11-03-05, 02:10 PM	#22
MaHuJa Sonar Guy Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: 59.96156N 11.02255E Posts: 385 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Re: LAN Experience Their subs both had an ESM contact, so they went to PD to exchange their info. Then they wanted to merge them in TMA and found out that it didnt work. I told em that they can make a manual solution and merge that, but they werent really satisfied with that. As someone said, see where the lines cross, and enter that distance into tma. Another thing that made em upset, was that there is no warning when you want to raise a mast while u are too fast. They broke lots of masts, and were really frustrated that no warning came to tell em that it isnt a good idea to raise the mast now. That's a simple one as long as somebody remembers to tell them the max speed for masts is 8 knots... Though I'd suggest you stick a post in the suggestion thread that masts cannot be raised when too fast. With a message given somewhere (crew messages, blue button? and if possible spoken) of the reason. Promoting stuff to the link also wasnt working well. Sometimes a sub didnt show up, but it was at 56ft with antenna up, other times the sub showed up but had no name next to it. I have problems with those things almost all the time. From the lack of complaining elsewhere it would seem as if it was rather uncommon? I occasionally get a bearing line terminated in a unknown/unknown contact where the friendly sub is, and it's usually erringly numbered. There are a few such problems with the link. What made them also go crazy, was the fact that they couldnt tell the NavMap to merge their ownship contacts with the links data contacts. They just didnt understand why they should have so many stuff on their screen when they exactly knew that a certain Ownship contact was the same contact that is already on the link. They asked for an option to tell the TMA: Take link No.XXXX as a solution for M02. The "best" solution for this problem is that only the tma guy has show link contacts, and enters the information into ownship contacts - manual contacts where he has to. (Although that will be difficult before 1.02) The thing about not merging a ownship contact with a link contact is partially a problem of the question "can you trust the link data?" - if I work on a solution of my own, and it matches the link solution, I can be fairly certain both are correct. I told them it doesnt work that way but they were just annoyed by having the same ships multiple times on their nav maps and when trying to select a contact that was under another contact (link) they had to scroll in and out alot. ...Then it wasn't DW where clicking multiple times would select the next one below it? (Then where was that :hmm: ) They were also confused about the fact that a link contact has a different number for different players, and that made communicating harder. This is a bug. It's part of the link problems I'm often seeing. By the low amount of complaining I'd guess few has them. Later in one of the games we had another issue with the link: The SW was at 50 ft, floating wire antenna deployed and radio antenna mast up. The player promoted a contact and said:"Its on the link". We said: No it isnt. After a while we found out, that you cannot promote a contact to the link when you also have your floating antenna deployed. He retreived the floating antenna and re-raised the mast and it worked again. I guess this is a bug. Did I say the linking is buggy? In case I didn't, there are bugs of this sort with the link. Then the 688 player found out about the UUV, jus to get more frustrated. He wasnt able to promote contacts to the link that were marked by the UUV, and he wasnt able to use the UUV in active mode. The UUV in active mode isn't hard to use, but I believe that its range is that of a torpedo seeker. This might be his problem - if he expected it to have a range similar to ownship active, he's of course bound to be sorely disappointed. What they also didnt like was searching the USNI reference for a certain ship, cause the ESM didnt tell em the country origin. Navmap, contact, rightclick menu. In the end they were just ranting about how clumsy the interface feels and that you get so little feedback from game so that I didnt managed to convince em to buy DW when it is available, which was my initial goal. And I guess they're right. Somewhat. On the other hand, they've been quite unlucky to have all(?) the link bugs all show up so clearly at the same time. Ummm... let's see how many of their complaints that you listed were not about the link... 1 Masts breaking without proper warning 2 UUV active not working (which may be the classic pebcak, it just not having the range they expected.) 3 Ship name to USNI entry link was too well hidden for them As for the link bugs, I intend to do a bit of a "research project" on them soon, and stick a big post into the suggestion thread. Though I might postpone this until I have 1.02, although the provisionary readme didn't mention anything about it.

11-03-05, 08:40 PM	#24
MaHuJa Sonar Guy Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: 59.96156N 11.02255E Posts: 385 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Except when it's too long to show the whole of it. Or whatever situation those players were in. __________________ Teaching DW newbies how to climb the food chain.

11-17-05, 04:33 AM	#29
FERdeBOER XO Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Spain Posts: 431 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 1	It's good to know "outside" opinions and I'm agree about the crew, it should be more "comnicative". As for the rest, if in 6 hours they get use of DW comming from flight shims I pay them the next round Maybe they will find the game more interesting if they play first with P3 or Seahawk, and then make the jump to subs. :hmm: I played first with Red Storm Rising, then Fast Attack, then Sub Command, and now DW, not talking about a lot of WW2 simuladors (AOD, SH...) and still have things to learn about commanding submarines so I don't surprise if they find the game hard at the begginning. How many masts I would break since I learned to watch the speed? And how many times I'd run aground untill I get use to watch the depth? :rotfl: And how many times I crashed trying to take off and/or land froma a carrier in flight sims? And how... hehehe I repeat is good to know what people think about DW, but they also need to look at it with different eyes __________________ Hay dos tipos de buques: los submarinos... y los blancos. There are two types of ships: the subs... and the targets.

10-30-05, 08:41 PM	#16
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	P, It sounds to me like your friends need to learn to manage the link feature better. It is a very powerful tool when used properly. But, if you promote everything you see, and everyone else on your side does the same, you're going to get a lot of clutter. AI platforms do a very good job of not promoting redundant link contacts, so if you are having that problem, it is because human players are doing it. Stick a boot in their asses. (Also, if you're getting overlapping linked contacts with different classifications, that's because you are getting the data from the other guys who classified it differently...its just their data...garbage in, garbage out.) The idea of merging link contacts with ownship sensor data doesn't make sense. If the link data was in the form of, for example, bearing lines, then it might make sense to integrate that data for TMA. But, link data is in the form of a solution. Its something to check your own solution against. If you have ESM bearings on the same contact from different platforms, all you need to do is ask the other player what their ESM bearing is. Then set your TMA range to the point on your bearing line where the other crosses. I guess it would be nice to be able to transmit the raw TMA data with a link and merge it, but even if that was in the game it would only save you about 2 seconds. Triangulation as it is now is not a time-consuming process. Raising a mast at 30 knots...you get what you deserve. The warning feature is useful if accelerate while your masts are still up; it provides sufficient warning to order all stop and retract the masts. Of course you don't get enough warning when you put the mast up at flank; it gets broken immediately! ESM data does provides the name of the platform AND the country that uses it. I have to say, it seems that your friends just didn't have the patience to learn what they were doing. The only real gripe in that whole thing was the bug with radio antenna up and the floating wire out simultaneously, and that's a pretty minor bug.

10-30-05, 09:20 PM	#17
Mau Sonar Guy Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 382 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Agree with most of the thing here, I think however that the Lookout should just confirm or put an Ident to a previos contact reported by the Surface radar, not to put another one on top of the SC radar. After all it is coming from the same ship.

10-30-05, 09:37 PM	#18
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Which is exactly what happens when the contacts are merged at TMA.

10-31-05, 02:28 PM	#20
drEaPer Navy Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 176 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Well, on the one hand that makes sense, but I assume thats not SCSs philosophy. Else we wouldnt need LWAMI mod and autocrew. Though you are right on that particular thing (30kts / raising mast) but that wasnt the only point I mentioned A good simulation and a good interface are not mutually excluse, its just a poor excuse for missing features that you can do in RL with pen and paper. (like we still cant draw a simple line on the navmap, or cancel a TMA solution or draw a bearing line that doesnt dissapear.... you ever killed a buoys cause the scuttle button is still clickable when scrolling through the libary? Ever turned the filter in narrowband off, to see a vcertain profile, just to see how the game jumps back to the first entry as soon as you move the indicator... etc etc etc) Since I worked in games dev I am very forgiving, cause I know you cant do a perfect software, especially not if it is for a small customer base, but nevertheless I think you are not opening your eyes wide enough cause you love naval sims and dont want to see the flaws. Anyway, I didnt meant to cause trouble, I was merely trying to point out what this game needs to not scare non-naval-simmers away. When you look back, 688HK had alot of "atmospheric features" that DW is totally missing. Those features attract people. DW is a nice piece of software and everytime I play it I have fun butI feel sorry for what it could have been. And as always, no offense meant

11-03-05, 03:26 PM	#23
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	No need to even go to nav/reference to get the nation for the ESM. The ESM station itself tell you this. For example: "CAS: Oliver Hazard Perry FFG (US)"