Petition to S.C.S for a SDK

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by Lagger123987

NEED MORE SUPPORT! Most of us need an esxtra ship, helo, plane, or sub to play on!

:rotfl:
Sorry .. it is really so funny.

[LuftWolf]

I still think that SCS should have released the seven platforms as individual simulations... then no one would complain that there aren't enough platforms to play! :rotfl:

Getting the platforms in one package is clearly too much of an overload for most people... "the most detailed sim of all seven platforms ever done in one package? clearly this is not enough for me!"

Cheers,
David

[Hawk66]

Regarding the wish of adding new plattforms: I don't wanna be a spoiler ;-) but I think the thread was about a SDK for DW.

You can add fancy graphics as much as you want, this simulation genre has no chance to attract the mass market. How many guys do you know (if they don't belong to the Navy or have jobs which are related to this topic) who are interested looking at radar gauges or watch a sonar display for hours?

World War 2 naval games are different, there is just more 'action' - that means you are able to shoot at your enemy more often and see instantly (more or less) the outcome ('nice' explosions etc.) of it.
In a naval sim which deals about the 'modern' times you often have to track your enemy for hours etc. and that's just not 'cool' enough for the majority.

So the only chance I see is to have a SDK. For SCS it's not worthwhile to add realism features or enhance the possibilites of the mission editor. With these kind of features they wouldn't get more customers as they have now. The casual user just does not take care about such things. But if I'm honest, I do not think it's wortwhile for SCS to provide a SDK too (from a financial point of view)

[IotaSigma]

I happen to be one those people who bought DW when first released and still ENJOY it. I don't have time to play it as much as I would like to, but I still play. I am not in the Navy nor do I work for the Navy, yet I really do like DW. I realize it is not possible to make DW ubber realistic do to the top secret nature of modern weapon systems, and I am very happy just to get a "taste" of modern naval combat.

BTW I own SH3, but play DW (1.40 + latest lwami mod) more often.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I still think that SCS should have released the seven platforms as individual simulations... then no one would complain that there aren't enough platforms to play! :rotfl:

Getting the platforms in one package is clearly too much of an overload for most people... "the most detailed sim of all seven platforms ever done in one package? clearly this is not enough for me!"

Cheers,
David

Well the problem with that is that their previous sim (Sub Command) had three playable nuke subs as it was. So you would at least need 4 to begin with. SCS is infamous for topping themselves from previous releases. I like your thinking though. Perhaps SCS could have made DW as a subsim only and just have the three nukes from SC and add the Kilo as a playable upon release. Then later add the "Aviation ASW add-on pack". Then a few months later release a "Surface Warfare: OHP add-on pack". Milk us with these new (already planned/funded?) releases along the way to build support and increase player/customer numbers.

Oh well. Water under the bridge...as they say. Sometimes I think it's getting increasingly harder to impress the rising expectations of sim fanatics. My opinion only. DW still makes me very happy. I'm just hoping, as I've said before, for more content in the future from SCS. After a few years with DW happily on my hard drive, I don't think that's hoping for too much.

[fatty]

It's strange, you know, Armed Assault is a realistic shooter completely open to community modding. Just look at all the awesome things that got churned out for Operation Flashpoint for an idea of what is to come. Yet the developers also make a version for military consumption, VBS2, which I believe is $1,500 a pop. The patches are still flowing so I assume they are doing all right with this kind of business model. I guess I will never understand SCS's logic but them's the breaks.

[OneShot]

Originally Posted by fatty

It's strange, you know, Armed Assault is a realistic shooter completely open to community modding. Just look at all the awesome things that got churned out for Operation Flashpoint for an idea of what is to come. Yet the developers also make a version for military consumption, VBS2, which I believe is $1,500 a pop. The patches are still flowing so I assume they are doing all right with this kind of business model. I guess I will never understand SCS's logic but them's the breaks.

Well as far as I understand it BI just used the engine of OFP for VBS1, same as with the ArmA engine for VBS2 (or the VBS2 engine for ArmA?). While this makes those games/sims essentially compatible (VBS1 & OFP / VBS2 & ArmA) BI has added a number of features to VBS which make it very useful for gov customers (whole Observer and Wargame stuff and whatnot as well as possible code improvement).

Now SCS has done the same. Their basic engine which is used for Dangerous Waters and whatever they call their gov sims is the same. They continually develop and fix the gov version and sometimes we find those fixes in the commercial version as well. They allow modding to a certain extend, tho don't provide any tools (except the mission editor, and support for some community stuff) to actually mod.

Yep BI allows more modding, at least overtly. You can add more playable stuff to it. However while in DW a playable platform is the central part of the game, actually "is" the game, in ArmA it doesnt make a big difference if you have a german or us uniform, or a M1A2 or a Leo2A6 tank (I hope you get my point here). While their Pro product ... VBS does offer some highfidelity added playable content, the main modules as far as I have seen are things that are not in the game ... working artillery, Observer function and all the nice goodies the goverment needs in training its forces. SCS does the same ... the stuff thats really important is only done by them ... because thats where the money is.

Cheers
OS

[fatty]

Originally Posted by OneShot

Well as far as I understand it BI just used the engine of OFP for VBS1, same as with the ArmA engine for VBS2 (or the VBS2 engine for ArmA?). While this makes those games/sims essentially compatible (VBS1 & OFP / VBS2 & ArmA) BI has added a number of features to VBS which make it very useful for gov customers (whole Observer and Wargame stuff and whatnot as well as possible code improvement).

Now SCS has done the same. Their basic engine which is used for Dangerous Waters and whatever they call their gov sims is the same. They continually develop and fix the gov version and sometimes we find those fixes in the commercial version as well. They allow modding to a certain extend, tho don't provide any tools (except the mission editor, and support for some community stuff) to actually mod.

Yep BI allows more modding, at least overtly. You can add more playable stuff to it. However while in DW a playable platform is the central part of the game, actually "is" the game, in ArmA it doesnt make a big difference if you have a german or us uniform, or a M1A2 or a Leo2A6 tank (I hope you get my point here). While their Pro product ... VBS does offer some highfidelity added playable content, the main modules as far as I have seen are things that are not in the game ... working artillery, Observer function and all the nice goodies the goverment needs in training its forces. SCS does the same ... the stuff thats really important is only done by them ... because thats where the money is.

Cheers
OS

Hi OS, thanks for your reply. I certainly do see your point - however in my mind if the military is willing to blow an extra $1450 a pop for VBS2 to gain an observer function and an AAR tool then it seems to me like they would do the same to pay for SCS' professionally built platforms rather than rip off our junky old mods

This topic has been hashed over so many times though and I respect SCS' decision none the less.

[XabbaRus]

Just so people know.

I have deleted a few replies here as they are essentially spam replies that offer nothing to the discussion here. If people have an issue with that send me a PM.

[LoBlo]

The thing that I would be most dying to do isn't create new platforms, but refining the audio, ship loadouts, and GUI for more realism. Most everything that I would want to do could be grouped into 3 categores:



Crew feedback modding to create more realistic crew audio

1. Depth reached feedback ("My depth is XXX feet[meters]")
2. Firecontrol audio feedback: "Torpedo 1 is active, sir", "Torpedo 1 acquire!", "Weapon reattack, torpedo 1" (whenever a torp loses its contact (ie CM)
3. Raise/lower periscope feedback:"Up scope 1", "Down scope 1"
4. Run aground feedback (if depth to bottom < 20 feet) "Captain, keel depth less than 20 feet.
5. Impossible depth feedback "Captain, that depth would put us below crush depth sir." "Captain, depth is below sea floor sir"
6. Emergency dive feedback. "Emergency dive, 30 degree down angle!"
7. Waypoint reached feedback for subs. "Navpoint reached, comming left/right to course xxx"

GUI mods for more realism/functionality

1. Broadband waterfall mod. Change the sonar BB display to be able to spherical array and TA at the same time (for example, setting the top to SA and bottom to TA) to make it possilbe to monitor both at the same time. Possible changing BB to a 4 display setup with left and right top SA (with ability to customize time scales) and left and right bottom TA.
2. Change platform sonar-profile library to behave more like the stadimeter (country menu dropbox) instead of linear scrolling
3. Make sonar profile library viewable even without a contact
4. Switch SW menus to be more efficent, less unneccesary/excessive clicking
5. More torpedo wire control options (depth, speed)
6. Emergency dive option in the navigation command menu
7. Waterfall display for the Gepard
8. No music when switching to the sonar suite (so that one can hear music on the other stations, but its automatically muted at the sonar station so to not interfere with sonar

Playable platform loadout changes for more realism, mainly the Akula ext tubes

1. add a large long endurce CM (complete with fake sonar signiture and everything) to Akula's external tube loadout.

Actually, if I knew how to modify .dll files I probably would have done the audio enhancements to my own game. But alas, a programmer I am not...

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Good ideas LoBlo and more in line with the sim as I see it was envisioned.

I have always said that this is a tactical management sim and not one of micro-management.

The crew will tell you things, and do things to help you do your job. More crew feedback and auto reaction is one of the biggest things I think this sim needs. A Helmsman is NOT going to slam a 7000 ton sub into the seafloor at ahead 1/3. A Throttleman is NOT going to allow cavitation to occur unless directly ordered to by the OOD. A radio or ESM operator is not going to raise an attenna unless they know you are going slow enough. The crew needs to do ITS job so you can do YOURS. They WILL tell you when you are about to make a mistake.

I wish they would release to us some way to ADD the thing LoBlo mentioned. To be able to add voice commands would be nice. A scripting language for the crewmembers would be ideal. We give them an order and they run down a doctrine file before they do something. They either agree that it is a valid order and ackowledge accordingly, or they fire off some verbal feedback as to why you are about to make a mistake. You can use a scripting language to trigger crew reactions based on game inputs. A Chief of the Watch is going to climb the ballast control panel and throw the chicken switches (EMBT Blow) if you are damaged. It is in the SORM to do that and I would expect the CooW to do his job without input from ME. I might have other things on my mind at the time and those few seconds it would take for me to drop what I am doing and initiate the EMBT blow could be the difference from the sub surfacing or smacking the bottom.

Will these things dumb the game down? Not at all if it is implemented right. Command decisions would still require YOU the CO to give the order. Fire a Torpedo? YOU have to give the order. Want to do something that the crew doesn't agree with? Give the order AGAIN and the crew then gives you an Aye sir and does it, consequences be damned.. you ARE the CO after all. Just like the current mods, they would make the game much more immersive and informative when you have a crew giving you feedback.

Alas, I do not see SCS doing anything to allow us, the community, to fix some of the errors that we see or add major functionality to the game. Even if this functionality could be moved to the goverment contracted side of their business. We could be essentially free coders for them and that is the point that needs to be made here.

[OneShot]

I'd love to have those options mentioned by LoBlo and BubbleheadNuke. Would be great if the crew would give you more feedback. Tho I'd extend that to all the platforms

Aside from that I'd love to see more functionality for the sensors the P-3 and the Helo carry. For starters ...

• MAD/SAD actually relates to the depth of the sub, so I can use the output in conjunction with some formula or other (doesnt have to be the real thing) to compute the depth of the sub.
• Some sort of TMA station where I can merge contacts ... actually just the option of merging contacts would be enough.
• Larger Grams and true Doppler function ...
• Templates for TACCO work, means for example you can push a button an place a set circle on the screen in the TACCO station where the AC should circle. Or Autocreate certain search patterns, stuff like that
• Graphical Tools for the NavMap (sort like SH3)
• True Maverick ... with the capability to use the Cam for targeting
• Harpoons (including the correct interface)

Alas, there are more things on the wishlist, but that should be enough.

Bottom line, before introducing more playable platforms, expand or fix the capabilities of the existing ones. I don't need three planes which essentially do the same job, just under different names. One is enough, thank you ... as long as it really does the job it should.

Cheers
OS

[Lagger123987]

Need more support and someone is suppose to email the company that make DW to release a SDK for this 5 year old game.

[azn_132]

Originally Posted by Lagger123987

Need more support and someone is suppose to email the company that make DW to release a SDK for this 5 year old game.

I dont think ull get that much support tho.

[Lagger123987]

Originally Posted by azn_132

I dont think ull get that much support tho.

YES I WILL! PEOPLE! VOTE FOR A SDK FOR DW!