A BIG "What IF..."

[krazyfrenchman]

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Let's pretend that a last patch is taking shape as we speak along with SH4's add-on</span>.
Which of the following entries (choose 2 only), with the inclusion of a third one of your choosing (taken from the list underneath or elsewhere), <span class="ev_code_yellow">would you firmly want to see added in that patch?</span>

<span class="ev_code_red">RULES</span>: Quote the two entries that you selected.
For your conditional entry (the third one), set it in italic.
The entry of your choosing cannot be about the addition of any ship, submarine or aircraft.
Explain your selection.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">ENTRIES</span>
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>That Truk and Tarawa be historically modeled in the game along with the reefs and shoals surrounding them. Which also means the inclusion of indigenous "Japanese" anchorages (of varying sizes) in the mission editor.<LI>Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.<LI>The inclusion of a (functional) night periscope/ST radar: an array embedded within a Type 4 periscope (the strip under the "window" of the observation periscope), it used the SJ A-Scope to provide range and could pinpoint, once the periscope faced a certain direction, the bearing of a target (± 3 degrees) [available from July 9 1944]<LI>The adjustment, as per US Submarine literature, that the battery sets' capacity from 1935 were meant for a submarine to go from 2.0 to 2.5 knots for 48 HOURS. Main boats before the Salmon class had it for 36 hours at 2.0 ~ 2.5 knots OR 10 HOURS at 5 knots. Right now, a boat can barely reach 14 hours at the same speed...<LI>That a checkbox option be added to the Gameplay setting menu enabling/disabling navigation map & attack map tracking updates, line drawing and tracing by their respective Executive & Weapon Officers (XO & WO).<LI>A correction to the Men of the Watch not calling the bearing of spotted aircrafts (they do it for ships however...) when they see one; life-saving information to the player is disregarded here.<LI>Better enemy port defenses and its correspondingly better reaction time (i.e. gunplatforms, floatplanes, gunboats, subchasers, etc.).<LI>That aircrafts (but for the floatplanes at any moment, and the night fighters circa mid-1944 to end of the war) cannot spawn and attack during sunset and if already attacking must return to their bases once the sun begins to set.<LI>That:
--the default torpedo setting be FAST instead of slow;
--clearing out the information entered in the TDC by pressing a key (setting everything back to "point blank solution") be implemented.<LI>That:
--a fix be brought to the following as there are no resting area for AA GUN crews, Deck GUN crews, Damage Control Team and injured crew. They do not rest appropriately, nor do they restore their fatigue points correspondingly;
--character nodes and crew presence within the control room and the conning tower be historically implemented in Battlestation mode and Normal mode (as per Ducimus_Rapax findings). [/list]
Thank you all for your time

[krazyfrenchman]

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Let's pretend that a last patch is taking shape as we speak along with SH4's add-on</span>.
Which of the following entries (choose 2 only), with the inclusion of a third one of your choosing (taken from the list underneath or elsewhere), <span class="ev_code_yellow">would you firmly want to see added in that patch?</span>

<span class="ev_code_red">RULES</span>: Quote the two entries that you selected.
For your conditional entry (the third one), set it in italic.
The entry of your choosing cannot be about the addition of any ship, submarine or aircraft.
Explain your selection.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">ENTRIES</span>
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>That Truk and Tarawa be historically modeled in the game along with the reefs and shoals surrounding them. Which also means the inclusion of indigenous "Japanese" anchorages (of varying sizes) in the mission editor.<LI>Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.<LI>The inclusion of a (functional) night periscope/ST radar: an array embedded within a Type 4 periscope (the strip under the "window" of the observation periscope), it used the SJ A-Scope to provide range and could pinpoint, once the periscope faced a certain direction, the bearing of a target (± 3 degrees) [available from July 9 1944]<LI>The adjustment, as per US Submarine literature, that the battery sets' capacity from 1935 were meant for a submarine to go from 2.0 to 2.5 knots for 48 HOURS. Main boats before the Salmon class had it for 36 hours at 2.0 ~ 2.5 knots OR 10 HOURS at 5 knots. Right now, a boat can barely reach 14 hours at the same speed...<LI>That a checkbox option be added to the Gameplay setting menu enabling/disabling navigation map & attack map tracking updates, line drawing and tracing by their respective Executive & Weapon Officers (XO & WO).<LI>A correction to the Men of the Watch not calling the bearing of spotted aircrafts (they do it for ships however...) when they see one; life-saving information to the player is disregarded here.<LI>Better enemy port defenses and its correspondingly better reaction time (i.e. gunplatforms, floatplanes, gunboats, subchasers, etc.).<LI>That aircrafts (but for the floatplanes at any moment, and the night fighters circa mid-1944 to end of the war) cannot spawn and attack during sunset and if already attacking must return to their bases once the sun begins to set.<LI>That:
--the default torpedo setting be FAST instead of slow;
--clearing out the information entered in the TDC by pressing a key (setting everything back to "point blank solution") be implemented.<LI>That:
--a fix be brought to the following as there are no resting area for AA GUN crews, Deck GUN crews, Damage Control Team and injured crew. They do not rest appropriately, nor do they restore their fatigue points correspondingly;
--character nodes and crew presence within the control room and the conning tower be historically implemented in Battlestation mode and Normal mode (as per Ducimus_Rapax findings). [/list]
Thank you all for your time

[krazyfrenchman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by krazyfrenchman:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>That Truk and Tarawa be historically modeled in the game along with the reefs and shoals surrounding them. Which also means the inclusion of indigenous "Japanese" anchorages (of varying sizes) in the mission editor.<LI>Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.

<LI>That a checkbox option be added to the Gameplay setting menu enabling/disabling navigation map & attack map tracking updates, line drawing and tracing by their respective Executive & Weapon Officers (XO & WO).[/list] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I chose the above because it would principally enhance the immersion within the game. It would be true to what U.S. skippers encountered at sea. As for my third entry, it's because a captain did not do every single thing on his boat; so the WO was there to plot the capitain's torpedo solution and the interception route. I am tired to fall on a 25% chance of intercepting a convoy while I am within interception range, I can barely use the instruments at my disposal to do it, especially on the attack map and that you have to be quick (with everything else on the boat to watch). It should be actually prepared before your eyes step by step once e.g. you order your XO to plot an intercept course to a radio-reported convoy. That would be way nicer! Furthermore, it would show me every bits of how to actually do it on the navmap/attack map.

[Maverick_U2007]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am tired to fall on a 25% chance of intercepting a convoy while I am within interception range, I can barely use to instruments at my disposal to do it. I should be before your eyes and that you can order your XO to plot an intercept course to a radio-reported convoy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot understand you saying this when your 'list' seems to want total realism??.

Men only became a 'Skipper' of a boat when they had made it through all the ranks and one fundemental part of that was to know how to do just about everything on the boat, this included 'plotting'.

I am sorry to say this but there are plenty of explanations, online tools and all the information that anyone would want to 'learn' how to plot an intercept course. I play at 100 % realism and ok I have not had a 100,000 tonne patrol but have sunk my fair share of shipping and have done all the plotting myself.

Sorry Krazyfrenchman you can't ask Ubi for everything if you're not prepared to put a little time and effort into your 'submarineship'.

Maverick

[andy3536]

You can't have total realism, this is a game and one that isn't made just for you!

Put up with what you have or stop playing.

The best thing for you i think is to come into some money, buy and do up a submarine and go out and sink some ships yourself.


Of corse, if your lucky this might all be included in Silent Hunter 7 (patched to 1.5) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[krazyfrenchman]

Gosh, there we go again! Alright, I will say only this once: <span class="ev_code_yellow">IF YOU ARE POSTING JUST TO TRASH ON MY THREAD, REFRAIN FROM DOING SO!</span> D@mn it, why can't people read and play by the rules for once instead of just going for the big leap and homer in on everything I do. Read then post only if it's relevant to what you read. Period. If you want to criticize, I strongly invite you to PM me. You will see that I can hold my own about my entries, and logically at that.

Now, let's resume what's at hand. My goal is only to get a comprehensive look at things from as many people as I can, the above two notwithstanding.

[longam]

Looking forward to the new add-on and after a few months of playing with a mod or two I'll be doing something else. This simulation has played itself out in my book and needs a rest for me.

[andy3536]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by krazyfrenchman:
Gosh, there we go again! Alright, I will say only this once: <span class="ev_code_yellow">IF YOU ARE POSTING JUST TO TRASH ON MY THREAD, REFRAIN FROM DOING SO!</span> D@mn it, why can't people read and play by the rules for once instead of just going for the big leap and homer in on everything I do. Read then post only if it's relevant to what you read. Period. If you want to criticize, I strongly invite you to PM me. You will see that I can hold my own about my entries, and logically at that.

Now, let's resume what's at hand. My goal is only to get a comprehensive look at things from as many people as I can, the above two notwithstanding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I hate to break it to you but you are posting your opinion on a public forum, it's understandable is it not that others should post thiers?

Do you just want a long list of other poster agreeing with you?

It'll be a short thread then......

If you just wanted to post a statement about where you think the game should go then this is not the place, write the devs a letter or email directly.

When you put it on a public forum people are liable to put thier 2 cents in.

Total realism is not somthing most want, and they are trying to sell the game to as many as possible.

[krazyfrenchman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by andy3536:
I hate to break it to you but you are posting your opinion on a public forum, it's understandable is it not that others should post theirs?

Do you just want a long list of other poster agreeing with you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Who said that I wanted them to agree with me? Regardless of anybody's opinion, the point for everyone posting in my thread was to actually go with what I enticed them to do. Being in a public forum is something, but not even wanting to at least try the exercise at hand and purposely displaying your opinions in a way that truly disregards the intention behind the thread is a definite insult in my view. I do not do it to others but a handful of others do it to me purposely because they cannot face the fact that I am only compiling data and opinions about a specific subject; they just want to hit me in the nuts before it even begins, it ain't right or fair. Please, do as you wish but do not post here if you cannot or do not want to help me on the matter.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Now, I want this thread to go back on tracks. Thank you.</span>

[dgrayson]

That Truk and Tarawa be historically modeled in the game along with the reefs and shoals surrounding them. Which also means the inclusion of indigenous "Japanese" anchorages (of varying sizes) in the mission editor.

--the default torpedo setting be FAST instead of slow;

A conditions report in the Captain's log that would provide:Sunrise time, moonrise time, moon phase and sea conditions. All information a Captain would have. Like it was in Silent Hunter 1.


Dave

[ElAurens]

Proper modeling of Truk is an absolute must have.

Proper battery life would be my second wish.

My third would have to be a playable IJN submarine career.

[triad773]

My response:
- That Truk and Tarawa be historically modeled in the game along with the reefs and shoals surrounding them. Which also means the inclusion of indigenous "Japanese" anchorages (of varying sizes) in the mission editor.

- The adjustment, as per US Submarine literature, that the battery sets' capacity from 1935 were meant for a submarine to go from 2.0 to 2.5 knots for 48 HOURS. Main boats before the Salmon class had it for 36 hours at 2.0 ~ 2.5 knots OR 10 HOURS at 5 knots. Right now, a boat can barely reach 14 hours at the same speed...

- Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.

Good stuff KF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am a relative noob to this sim, but long in the tooth on some other WWII sims. Truk was a major base for the IJN and I think it'd be great to have that as a (more historical) target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Cheers

Triad

[cpt-rusty]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by krazyfrenchman:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.<LI>Better enemy port defenses and its correspondingly better reaction time (i.e. gunplatforms, floatplanes, gunboats, subchasers, etc.).[/list]
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I chose the above because they would improve greatly the gameplay and atmosphere, mostly the *better enemy ports defenses*, true it is a good training area for beginers but atleast major military ports should have adequate defense, or at least some of the docked ships should, depending on their status undock, or fired back without moving...

[shadow_858]

For me, KFM, the points you make about the aircraft are the important ones. Getting a bearing when an aircraft is spotted would be great instead of "Aircraft Spotted, Sir". Also, although a mod luke TM addresses the night flights to some degree, as you point out, it would be good to see that coded into the game.

My additional suggestion would be the ability to set a depth using the number pad. So if you wanted to dive to say 190 feet, you could accurately set that depth rather than get close to it by clicking on the depth meter. Also, the compass should have a lubber line in order to show a more precise heading

[Anti_Ship_Fella]

well if it was up to me....Num.7 and num.2.....thats the game quality stuff......and i would like to see that in the game really....many ppl are looking for real sims so.....<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens: My third would have to be a playable IJN submarine career. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> i agree Elaurens thats a great suggestion.....imean....many ppl want well.....multicolor sims if you see what i mean we need more options like Jap-Ger-USA.....

[Sparhawk81]

Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.

The adjustment, as per US Submarine literature, that the battery sets' capacity from 1935 were meant for a submarine to go from 2.0 to 2.5 knots for 48 HOURS. Main boats before the Salmon class had it for 36 hours at 2.0 ~ 2.5 knots OR 10 HOURS at 5 knots.

Properly model the engines of the Fleet Boats: they should have 4 diesel and 4 electric engines, but now they only have 2 diesel and 2 electric (like U-Boats), split in 2 sections each (so that in the damage control they seem 4 engines per kind). I would like to truly have 4 diesel and 4 electric engines

[Celeon999]

Well, having japanese submarines would be great but i understand that this just would not fit into the dynamic campaign or would at least not be historical accurate if it would be adapted to the SH-IV tonnage war principle.


But i approve of this :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That:
--a fix be brought to the following as there are no resting area for AA GUN crews, Deck GUN crews, Damage Control Team and injured crew. They do not rest appropriately, nor do they restore their fatigue points correspondingly;
--character nodes and crew presence within the control room and the conning tower be historically implemented in Battlestation mode and Normal mode (as per Ducimus_Rapax findings). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[shadow_858]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shadow_858:
For me, KFM, the points you make about the aircraft are the important ones. Getting a bearing when an aircraft is spotted would be great instead of "Aircraft Spotted, Sir". Also, although a mod luke TM addresses the night flights to some degree, as you point out, it would be good to see that coded into the game.

My additional suggestion would be the ability to set a depth using the number pad. So if you wanted to dive to say 190 feet, you could accurately set that depth rather than get close to it by clicking on the depth meter. Also, the compass should have a lubber line in order to show a more precise heading </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I see that there is now a mod out that deals with my compass request....at least for Trigger Maru users. Cool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[klcarroll]

Personally, I think threads like this can serve an important purpose: ...If the discussion stays "polite", it provides a good format for letting UBI and the people in Game Development know just how technically "deep" the user base wants their simulation to be.

This factor is particularly important right now, when the Devs are under considerable pressure to create games scenarios that favor the more "casual" gamer! (A move I am NOT in favor of!)


klcarroll

[RedTerex]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[Crash_Moses]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

That Truk and Tarawa be historically modeled in the game along with the reefs and shoals surrounding them. Which also means the inclusion of indigenous "Japanese" anchorages (of varying sizes) in the mission editor.

Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.

That a checkbox option be added to the Gameplay setting menu enabling/disabling navigation map & attack map tracking updates, line drawing and tracing by their respective Executive & Weapon Officers (XO & WO).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[capt_frank]

Why not just release the game code, or at least enough of it so that the community could MOD it according to the communities' wishes.

Hell, I'd even give it a go...then maybe I could finally have a WO that could tell me a target's true speed!

[krazyfrenchman]

I think that most of the entries from the list are hard-coded stuff that just someone who worked on designing the game would know. Besides, as long as we get enough people to read the thread and actually participate as it is intended, that would be a d@mn good start! Keep on coming people!

[Ducimus_Rapax]

First id like to state that my perception of what id like to see fixed is different. My perception is, "What can't be fixed by a modder?", as i would rather the devs spend their time on things that I, or another modder cannot fix. I also recongize that it is impossible to get every annoyance ironed out of an incredibly complex program like a submarine simulation.

Since my first two choices are restricted, i choose as thus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The adjustment, as per US Submarine literature, that the battery sets' capacity from 1935 were meant for a submarine to go from 2.0 to 2.5 knots for 48 HOURS. Main boats before the Salmon class had it for 36 hours at 2.0 ~ 2.5 knots OR 10 HOURS at 5 knots. Right now, a boat can barely reach 14 hours at the same speed...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Battery nonclamature is hardcoded.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That Truk and Tarawa be historically modeled in the game along with the reefs and shoals surrounding them. Which also means the inclusion of indigenous "Japanese" anchorages (of varying sizes) in the mission editor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emphasis on Reefs and shoals. Navagation was a hazard faced by US subs in many areas, and is currently not much of a gameplay element at all, when it arguably should be.



Personal choice:
Fully fleshed out crew voices, and reassigment of some voices from one crew position to another.

I recognize crew layout is SH3 legacy. Without major code reworking (im guessing) getting an accurate US sub crew layout is nearly impossible. So work with what we have instead, and shoehorn it to fit. Take most of the vocalizations out of the CE, and spread them as appropriate to other positions that are the best "stand ins" for the approrpiate US navy position. (repositioning characters ive already done, so this would be the feather in my cap)

Furthermore ALL crew vocalazations should be present, from a cough, to a cheer, to every command issued. When orders are repated, they should be repeated as they would have been, not a shorthand version (IE, Rudder, rudder).

[tambor198]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

<LI>Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.
.

<LI>That aircrafts (but for the floatplanes at any moment, and the night fighters circa mid-1944 to end of the war) cannot spawn and attack during sunset and if already attacking must return to their bases once the sun begins to set.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The options above are the ones I would most like to see changed in the SHIV.


As for a third option, I would like a little more detail shown to historically accuracy. For instance, when all submarines in the Asiatic Fleet moved to Fremantle because of the Japanese advances ComSubAsiatic was changed to ComSubSoWesPac. Just some historical points like that need to be improved.

[Whisperer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That Truk and Tarawa be historically modeled in the game along with the reefs and shoals surrounding them. Which also means the inclusion of indigenous "Japanese" anchorages (of varying sizes) in the mission editor.
Historically realistic convoy sizes and types of escorts protecting them on a biannual "standard"; so every six months, historical "improvements and changes of Japanese escorting doctrine" will be noticeable. They would also follow historical convoy routes and use immediate evasive maneuvers when alarmed. Conversely, a lot more solo merchant vessels or groups of two merchant vessels, unescorted.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What i would like to see further implemented in the game are more minor and major upgrades to engines, batery's, Hull coating, Conning tower emblems (yes, i know that it was not general practice to have one of those on a us sub in the US Navy. but that's the nice thing with renowm upgrades if you dont like'm you can chose not to waste your renown on them).

[krazyfrenchman]

There has been roughly twenty members who posted as per the entries' rules thus far...
WE need A LOT MORE if WE ever want to make any sort of impact to "twist" arms at the Sales Department.

Thanks so far for those who took time to drop by and post in.

[klcarroll]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why not just release the game code, or at least enough of it so that the community could MOD it according to the communities' wishes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

@Capt_frank;

Your suggestion makes sense, ....but I have to point out that the "Hardline Bunch" at SubSim have been pushing for the SDK for SH3 for something like a year now; .....And UBI has shown no indication that their request has been heard! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

klcarroll