PDA

View Full Version : The next SH should be WWI in the Atlantic. Here€s why



TheRealWulfmann
08-01-2005, 09:01 AM
Just here me out.

I say this for one main reason. It would, given the current game, be able to be done more accurately that any other possibility.

Consider that this game does not allow wolf packs. While many hard working modders have done fine work to improve this generally very good game, they have not been able to add the most important factor for the U-Boat in WWII. Without the packs the mods making things more real actually take things further from both fun and real as they reduce to next to nothing the single ships forcing one to attack convoys, now bigger and better defended but not with a pack of U-boats as it would have been but, you all alone.

Guess what, that is WWI on the nail head.

It started with many single ships and gradually convoys were enacted but there was never a wolf pack. The convoys were always attacked by single boats. Just like you are in this game, all alone.

Plus it would be a fairly simple matter (game dev wise) to add the models, edit the weapons etc, back date the ports and surroundings,.
Imagine the fun of the Dardanelles campaign, the North seas RN cruiser patrols and realistic convoy attacks, as they really occurred, with your lone boat.

90% of the game is done, add models a couple WWI boats and an even more accurate game the SH3 is created.
Since they would have little to do the number of models would be a big highlight. Besides the Revenge (backdated, of course)they could add pre-dreadnoughts, the larger classed ships for more numbers. (Majestic had 9 ships and King Edward VII had 8 ships) for the armored cruisers the Mammoth had 9 ships and the Cressy had 6 (but the oh so I want to CO the U-9 Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue squadron, thing). And so on for CLs, DDs etc etc. you get the point.

For little dev money UBI could use most of SH3 and make a WWI version that would actually be more accurate and realistically played than any naval sim to date. If they did it right,(I won€t hold my breath) there would be nothing for Real U-Boat to do.
You could start the war with a U-9 type (heh heh) and then move up to a U-32 class (The U-35 was the most successful submarine in history, Under four commanders it sank 224 ships of 535,900 tons in 25 patrols. The U-48 was WWII€s best with 51 ships and 310,007 tons) then on to the U99 type which had the familiar 4-1 TT with 12 fish and up to 16 by 1918.

Just a thought!
Wulfmann

Desslock
08-01-2005, 09:37 AM
i find WWI way less interesting.

A pacific scenario (with the possibility to choose between japan or the USA) would be more interesting i guess

Pr0metheus 1962
08-01-2005, 09:42 AM
I would welcome a WW1 U-boat sim. WW1 is far more interesting to me than WW2.

MhoramIdaho
08-01-2005, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Desslock:
i find WWI way less interesting.

A pacific scenario (with the possibility to choose between japan or the USA) would be more interesting i guess

Same here. I mean, as I recall, that's where SH started, and I'd really like to see a modern version in the Pacific. So at least we can fight for the winning side. That, to me, is the worst part of SH3, doesn't matter how well you do, you lose in the end. (Though that's good, I don't even want to think about changing THAT history).

TheRealWulfmann
08-01-2005, 09:57 AM
Well, I tooo would welcome a Pacific version and the fact the US did not use packs (There were a very few times we had some boats work together) would make the lone raider more appropriate.
However, the biggest flaw, IMO, for the Pacific is the war starts hard for the Yank Unterboater and gets easier. That is contrary to basic game playing and could only be corrected with maing it less real. I still would welcome the Pacific but believe a WWI U-Boat sim might be the best game play particularly without wolf packs.

How about a WWI SMS Emden sim, LOL. Anyone dare say they are as dashing as the legondary Kapitain zur see Muller? I have also been to Penang like him. He is rembered to have been there, I have not!!! LOL

Wulfmann

Pr0metheus 1962
08-01-2005, 10:02 AM
How can people be so sure that they would find WW1 less interesting? Is it because you don't know anything about it, or is it that you've read a lot about it and find it boring?

Somehow I doubt it's the latter.

GT182
08-01-2005, 11:43 AM
At least with a WWI sub sim there would be the Dreadnaughts of the German fleet on the bottom of Scappa Flo when we get into WWII. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TheRealWulfmann
08-01-2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by GT182:
At least with a WWI sub sim there would be the Dreadnaughts of the German fleet on the bottom of Scappa Flo when we get into WWII. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

That is just cruel!!!! I am reporting this to a modertor, LOL

Well that was after WWI but it does bring up the extra eye candy in German ports. I vote for the best looking warship of WWI, Derrflinger, and she could both dish it out and take it. If any ship deserved to be preserved purley on fighting spirit, it was her (and the USS Houston!!)
Imagine Derrflinger as a museum.

Wulfmann

WilhelmSchulz.-
08-01-2005, 12:49 PM
Yea Atlantic is nice but a Pacific Theaiter would be more acurate because we know more about it. And The war geting easer for the silent servece is wrong in 1943 sub losses where at there highest. And we didnt have it all that easy in 44 eather. So HA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Abihco
08-01-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by WilhelmSchulz.-:
Yea Atlantic is nice but a Pacific Theaiter would be more acurate because we know more about it.

How so, out of curiosity?

WilhelmSchulz.-
08-01-2005, 01:14 PM
Think About it we should have all the patrol logs, there are more U.S sub musemus for the graphis to compare to. And THERE ARE OWN GODAM SUBS!

Abihco
08-01-2005, 01:28 PM
No more coffee for you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I dunno. It seems enough information is around to accurately model either scenario. World War II and German weaponry are fairly well documented. The real limiting factor, as I see it, is that most Americans don't bother reading about or considering the war from more than the American perspective.

I'd agree with the view that the Atlantic theater provides more material for a naval simulation, but I enjoyed the hell out of Silent Service II back in the day.

lbhskier37
08-01-2005, 02:17 PM
Yeah I'm sure we would be hearing all about how fun the Pacific war is from the same people that don't take IXs right now because the trip to NY is too long http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Why don't we just have a sim for the gunner on a C3 cargo ship, sail around for months and maybe have a chance to shoot at something.

TheRealWulfmann
08-01-2005, 03:25 PM
Some good points and I, for one, am all for a Pacific version. But, my point on the WWI era sim is the game limits. The fact we do not have wolf packs, the not so long patrols of a WWI boat, the things that have not worked as well, all easily corrected in a WWI version more than any other including the German WWII.
It offers the most from a , forget the nation, game format..
I assume a Pacific one could have some empty patched were the TC could be 10240 which would help!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I like the idea of having both. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
If we ask we could receive, if we don't we won't.

That is a definite sort of !!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Wulfmann

StgShultz
08-01-2005, 04:31 PM
Isn't it just as bad that if you play on the Allies side its still a foregone conclusion that you are going to win?
Either way Axis / Allies the end result is the same - unless you don't mind changing history.

blue_76
08-01-2005, 09:26 PM
i'd like to see an expansion pack to sh3 that will add ww1. this will give us a good perspective on uboat technology progression. sh4 could take on a new theater altogether.. such as the cold war period.. or the japanese ww2 sub service.

stljeffbb
08-02-2005, 07:59 AM
I would very much like the idea of a WWI subsim based on SH3...I also like the idea of a WWI expansion pack for SH3...how difficult would it be to do a mod with the current version of SH3? Can the dates be altered in SH3 to an early enough time to make this happen?

Nonetheless, I would pay money for either a WWI subsim or an expansion pack for SH3...I encourage Ubisoft to do so.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

My Zwei Pfennig

-Jeff

Grey004
08-02-2005, 09:28 AM
I,too,like the idea of a WW I sim.

Not only would you be able to operate from the European ports like Zeebrugge,you would also have the opertunity,to operate from SW Africa and East Africa from the German Colonies.

Maybe even have the option,to command a surface raider,for the South Atlantic and Indian + Pacific.

There would even be the added danger,that when surface attacking using the deck gun,you'd come up against a "Q"ship.

Just a thought,so if you don't like the suggestion ask me to put my head in a bucket of water 3 times,and pull it out twice.

Svikael
08-02-2005, 10:06 AM
Hi, I also would like to see a WW1 campaign either as a MOD or as a completly new SIM. After playing SHIII since i was released, I´m amazed who the real it is (enviromental, sounds etc.) I remember Silent Hunter I.. the amiga version, I´ll have to take care not getting seasick while i´m playing SH III in a North Atlantic Storm. I think it´s a great SIM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mickalos
08-02-2005, 10:51 AM
I hope they don't do the pacific theatre. To me, it's the most boring phase of any war in modern military history that I know of, I won't be buying an expansion or SH4 if it's set in the pacific. It would be ideal if they had both allies (not just americans) and the jerries.

ShinyBaldy
08-02-2005, 10:51 AM
2nd that idea

much more appealing than the Pacific... I don't feel like mining, torpedoing lone ships in the middle of the pacific...

air cover, competant convoy battles, technological advancement from the allies makes the game more amusing in the atlantic.

WilhelmSchulz.-
08-02-2005, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by mickalos:
To me, it's the most boring phase of any war in modern military history that I know of. BORING http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif!!! Read some books about the silent servse in the Pacific. Then youl change your mind. Read Run Silent Run Deep by Edward L. Beach, he was a WW2 sub skipper in the pacfic so u know its acurate.I cant beleave u said its boring.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Poacher886a
08-02-2005, 01:32 PM
I hope they finish SH3 off with an expansion pack,and give us what they promised!

For SH4 anything but the Pacific.

joeap
08-02-2005, 02:21 PM
A question, how often did more than one u-boat attack a convoy simultaneously? I was under the impression that the wolfpacks were pickets who would attack a convoy one after the other once they found one (hence the contact reports we get now). Recall that the boats could not move fast enough to get into one big formation of 9 boats who would attack the same moment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I actually think that, except for the old technology WWI sub comabt would be boring as it was pretty much a barrel shoot until the convoys were intorduced...like the Pacific. There is a reason that I always liked surface or carrier scenarios against the IJN which could be a tough opponent. IJN ASW was dismal though.

Flakwalker
08-02-2005, 02:29 PM
If on the Pacific I will want not only the allies but also the japanese subs, some of the where really big, plus a conection with SH3 (merge install) to expand the operations.

If on the Atlantic, UK, and Italy submarines will be great, plus some german U-boat bonus like the XXIII.

On both cases, lots of new ships and warships will be apreciated.

Philipscdrw
08-02-2005, 02:30 PM
The Pacific Theatre has very limited appeal to me, but I suspect there are many people like our friend Wilhelm here who would pay for that. I like the sound of a WW1 subsim, especially if it could be a 3rd-party mod just requiring new ship models and subs - ah, now it sounds like a lot of work...

I'd hate to say goodbye to the TDC though. You'd get a lieutenant with a set of slide rules to obtain the firing solution instead!

WilhelmSchulz.-
08-02-2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
IJN ASW was dismal though. Though U may think that Jap ASW was "dismal", first reports of Jap sonar was much better then expected. And the IJN had help from the German Kregsmarine. Hell they know first hand what works and what dosent. And the Japanese optical industry was I hate to say it, Better then the U.S, therefore they could see beter at night. Tho the SD RADAR did evean the odds, they could see beter at night, we didint have to due to RADAR. I dont know wether the Japanese had RADAR tho. U.S sub losses resembeld (corect me if Im wrong) what the U-Boats expernced in late 40 early 41. So Id call it evean in ASW.

Faamecanic
08-03-2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Abihco:
The real limiting factor, as I see it, is that most Americans don't bother reading about or considering the war from more than the American perspective.


Oh B.S. .... I will AGREE that MOST Americans dont even consider history PERIOD (thanks to our fine public education system).

But I DISAGREE that Americans that DO study WWII history (and other war history) DO consider more than just "our side".

Look at all the Scale modelers in America...I know every one of them in my local club does extensive research when building a model. Be it Japaneese, German, Italian, British....

Heck, I started building that Revell Type VII Uboat...so I bought several books on Uboats. That also lead me to buy "10 years and 20 days"..a book written by Adm. Donitz. I have also read his actual war logs (the ones that have been translated to english anyway).

There are quite a few American gorgnards that know more about WWII history then a lot of West Point (the US Army Military college) grads do.

Faamecanic
08-03-2005, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
A question, how often did more than one u-boat attack a convoy simultaneously? I was under the impression that the wolfpacks were pickets who would attack a convoy one after the other once they found one (hence the contact reports we get now). Recall that the boats could not move fast enough to get into one big formation of 9 boats who would attack the same moment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I actually think that, except for the old technology WWI sub comabt would be boring as it was pretty much a barrel shoot until the convoys were intorduced...like the Pacific. There is a reason that I always liked surface or carrier scenarios against the IJN which could be a tough opponent. IJN ASW was dismal though.

In reading Adm. Dontiz's book (see above post)... He did use Wolfpack tactics when he could. And when a wolfpack COULD intercept a convoy is was usually devistating. BUT there were some major issues that kept Adm. Dontiz from using Wolfpacks to any great success..

1) Very little support from Gen. Goering for Air Recon. In fact in 1941 (after Hitler gave Dontiz a airwing) there was one month that dontiz had a whopping 2 (yes 2) sorties (patrols). This was due to the aircraft they were using being grounded to to problems.

2) When there was air patrols... there was a problem with navigational error. Pilot convoy/enemey reports were sometimes 80km or MORE in error due to wind drift, compass error.

3) Air Patrols were limited in distance. They could fly up to N. Ireland...but only have a short time until they had to return due to fuel.

4) Weather in N. Atlantic lead to frequent storms/low cloud cover.... so a lot of air patrols concentrated around the west of Spain. They had some success there...but the BIG targets were up in the N. Atlantic.

So...without good air patrols Dontiz was forced to use the picket line tactic. Basically, in Dontiz's own words "The lion was forced to wait for its prey in the underbrush. With his mouth open wide, hoping the prey would jump in".

Dontiz also had the problem of not having the 300+ Uboats he needed (100 at sea, 100 going out or returning, 100 in repair/drydock) to effecitvely gather the Uboats into a Wolfpack.

Yes he could vector the Picketing uboats into a target... but the idea of the Wolfpack was to hit the enemy fast and hard.. all at once.

With the picket line strategy it was mostly one uboat shadows the convoy and uses a marker beacon to bring the others in to attack. More times than not either the Uboat would have to attack before a significant numbers of other uboats arrived, or loose contact with convoy. Then it was more of a hit and run tactic, then the next Uboat came in and hit and run, repeat...

TheRealWulfmann
08-03-2005, 09:49 AM
Up until May 1943 U-boats sank 10.7 ships for each U-boat lost. After May 1943 more U-Boats were sunk than ships sunk by U-Boats. .87 ships lost for every U-Boat sunk. I would call that dramatic by comparison.
In the 1944 in the Pacific, the US Suds annihilated the Japanese surface ships, the sub program was cut back for lack of targets and subs began to be assigned other task such as search and rescue for downed allied pilots (Like President GH Bush was so rescued)
While Japanese ASW was not terrible and they had German help in ASW that is as relevant as saying the US had a missile program to rival the Germans because we had British help. Yes I have read extensively but Run Silent Run deep is one man€s good account. Try reading Silent Victory for a broader more relevant account on the whole thing. You will find it anticlimactic from the end of 43 on. Just some good ole running up the score. The tough times were past for the Yanks, the Germans were in hell by comparison.
Believe what you want but documentation backs my premise.

Wulfmann

Mylo42
08-03-2005, 01:49 PM
I don't know a **** thing about WWI naval battles, which is why I would enjoy a WWI sub sim. I always learn something from the games I play. As for "boring" or "exciting", that is going to be dependendant on who is playing. As it is with SHIII, I will sit in my sub for hours with nothing happening. I just sit back and read one of my books on U-boats. Many would call this boring, I call it emmersive, not to mention, educational.

edou20_nl
08-03-2005, 05:16 PM
i think they better could make a carrier hunter or something like that in where we could control a big naval force ,in battles like midway.

Faamecanic
08-04-2005, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by TheRealWulfmann:
You will find it anticlimactic from the end of 43 on. Just some good ole running up the score. The tough times were past for the Yanks, the Germans were in hell by comparison.
Believe what you want but documentation backs my premise.

Wulfmann

All you have to do is read Iron coffins to know that by '43 the German U boat arm was in VERY VERY bad shape.

Wulf...if you havent read Donitz's memoirs...you really should. VERY shocking. For example in 1940-1941 it wasnt uncommon for Dontiz to only have 14-18 Uboats on on patrol at one time!!! Due to lack of boats... But yet they still did heavy damage to British shipping.

Abihco
08-04-2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Faamecanic:
Oh B.S. .... I will AGREE that MOST Americans dont even consider history PERIOD (thanks to our fine public education system).

But I DISAGREE that Americans that DO study WWII history (and other war history) DO consider more than just "our side".

Look at all the Scale modelers in America...I know every one of them in my local club does extensive research when building a model. Be it Japaneese, German, Italian, British....

Heck, I started building that Revell Type VII Uboat...so I bought several books on Uboats. That also lead me to buy "10 years and 20 days"..a book written by Adm. Donitz. I have also read his actual war logs (the ones that have been translated to english anyway).

There are quite a few American gorgnards that know more about WWII history then a lot of West Point (the US Army Military college) grads do.

Lol, "tone" aside, we're in agreement. Sure, a lot of *us* Americans do study history and love doing so. But the bulk of *us* could care less beyond our sitcoms and McLard Sandwiches.

I gave my opinion on why I thought the Atlantic theater was more aptly suited for a sim such as SHIII, with the concession that I did really enjoy a Pacific-theater sim back in the Microprose Silent Service II days.

I have three kids. Anything earlier than Reagan is something foreign to them. That seems to be becoming the norm.

Faamecanic
08-05-2005, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Abihco:
Lol, "tone" aside, we're in agreement. Sure, a lot of *us* Americans do study history and love doing so. But the bulk of *us* could care less beyond our sitcoms and McLard Sandwiches.

I gave my opinion on why I thought the Atlantic theater was more aptly suited for a sim such as SHIII, with the concession that I did really enjoy a Pacific-theater sim back in the Microprose Silent Service II days.

I have three kids. Anything earlier than Reagan is something foreign to them. That seems to be becoming the norm.

Sorry if my tone came across a bit harsh... I have a tendancy to do that when writing. I just get kinda testy (cheeky for our UK friends) when people generalize "Americans" as being complete dunderheads... not all of us are like that.

I do agree that our US edication (Edit: ROFL, I complain about education systems, and gcant even spell it...darn fat fingers) systems has some SERIOUS problems. Even our universities have a lack of required history classes. Thomas Jefferson would be VERY disappointed in how little history we Americans learn. It was Jefferson that said something to the effect of "If we do not learn our history, we are doomed to repeat it".

I personally have LOVED history. Maybe that comes from being brought up the son of a US Army soldier and living in Germany for 6 years. While there I traveled (especially in my late teen years) all over. England, Spain, Italy, France, and the former East Berlin (that was a REAL eye-opener as to how good we Americans have it!!). I grew to appreciate the history and culture of other countries.

I dont blame the Americans for being stupid...I blame the terrible education system.

EFileTahi-A
08-05-2005, 08:34 AM
I think that a WWI sub sim would be truly interesting but not as getting my hands on those huge japanese war subs back on WWII in the Pacific Ocean as well playing with the US side in the same place....

Anyway, all these 3 options are truly welcome for me, give me something else then germans, am just sick of the atlantic (unless, it's set in WWI). Alternately, being able to choose the side we would fight for (Japan, US, German) would simply be too AWESOME!

Silent Service II was the most enjoyable game I ever played regarding its type. If only it had SH3's graphical engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yet, I dream to play a TRULY, I mean, TRULY Naval war game (with no arcady ****) set between 1500 - 1700. They simply don't existe...

TheRealWulfmann
08-05-2005, 09:50 AM
It is nice to see a broad sampling of positive ideas. Not just because I am a Yank, but I bet many others would want to man the USS Constitution in a war of 1812 sim evading the Royal Navy looking for a one on one to let them in on the impending ascendancy of a new power.

I really believe we must all remember the more models we ask for the more time, money and PC power required and that will not necessarily mean a better play. I would be happier with one or 2 US subs or 2 German WWI subs done so frigging well with AI more complex, more realistic and with the actual ships being correctly modeled and appearing when they actually did. By having fewer models done better the game won€t need to be a 256BIT, 12GHZ CPU with a 2048MB video card and 12 GB DDR8 RAM!!!
The more you ask for the more power needed to run.

Yes, If Donitz had half the 1943 subs in 41 it would have ended the war.
But he did not.
Partially because Hitler did not like the Jew loving Navy.
When he demanded they dismiss their Jewish officers they refused and the navy made a deal to recognize him as the legitimate leader of Germany but he had to agree to leave all Jews in the navy alone and all Jewish family members (Jewish women married to Gentile Germans) The Nazis kept the agreement but the navy suffered from appropriations until the time it was realized just how significant a contribution the navy could make.
Just a little way the German Jews inadvertently helped to defeat the Nazis.
More like Nazi hatred further sealing their own fate.
Imagine just how all conquering they would have been without lame racial hatred

Wulfmann

EFileTahi-A
08-05-2005, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by TheRealWulfmann:
(...)By having fewer models done better the game won€t need to be a 256BIT, 12GHZ CPU with a 2048MB video card and 12 GB DDR8 RAM!!!
The more you ask for the more power needed to run.


Wrong. The more detailed ships are the more resources will be required on order to process them. This is not about quantity but quality. I can make a simple 3D sphere consuming all your computer resourses and lagging like 1 Frame per second. Alternatively, I can create a few hundreds of spheres animating at 50 frames per second.

It is just a matter of building them with the right polygon count. The higher the poly count the perfect the sphere will be and more CPU time will be need to animate it, and vice-versa...

blue_76
08-05-2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by EFileTahi-A:
Yet, I dream to play a TRULY, I mean, TRULY Naval war game (with no arcady ****) set between 1500 - 1700. They simply don't existe...

that is also something i'd like to see. just imagine massive armadas of ships positioning for a great battle. no engines, no gramaphones.. just the flapping sails, the creaking hull and the pounding waves.. ok! back to reality! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
which reminds me.. i had a dvd stashed somewhere of 'the bounty'. i feel like seeing that again.

EFileTahi-A
08-05-2005, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by blue_76:
that is also something i'd like to see. just imagine massive armadas of ships positioning for a great battle. no engines, no gramaphones.. just the flapping sails, the creaking hull and the pounding waves.. ok! back to reality! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
which reminds me.. i had a dvd stashed somewhere of 'the bounty'. i feel like seeing that again.

Oh Blue, can you imagine scuh game with SH3 engine? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Grey004
08-05-2005, 10:13 PM
EFileTahi-A,

If you want to get that gutsy feeling,wait until possibly end of this year.

Akella,who made the Age of Sail series,are working on a new game called Age of Pirates.
If they've improved the engine they used for,
Pirates of the Caribbean,which rumour says they have,you'll be in for one hell of a surprise.
Aparently the same engine is to be used in,
Pirates of the Burning Sea as well.

rls669
08-05-2005, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by EFileTahi-A:

It is just a matter of building them with the right polygon count. The higher the poly count the perfect the sphere will be and more CPU time will be need to animate it, and vice-versa...

The way the game chugs when nearing a convoy, even in the map screen with no 3d being rendered, seems to indicated it's more cpu-limited than graphics limited anyway. AI and physics are cpu-intensive.

stljeffbb
08-05-2005, 11:12 PM
Hi Grey004

I really did like the original Sea Dogs....I like what Akella has done....I think they could do something really special....

-Jeff

blue_76
08-05-2005, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by EFileTahi-A:
Oh Blue, can you imagine scuh game with SH3 engine? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

now that would be a sim that i'd run 1x time compression all the way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

EFileTahi-A
08-06-2005, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Grey004:
EFileTahi-A,

If you want to get that gutsy feeling,wait until possibly end of this year.

Akella,who made the Age of Sail series,are working on a new game called Age of Pirates.
If they've improved the engine they used for,
Pirates of the Caribbean,which rumour says they have,you'll be in for one hell of a surprise.
Aparently the same engine is to be used in,
Pirates of the Burning Sea as well.

Interesting... I'll see if I can find more information regarding that.

Thanks buddie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EFileTahi-A
08-06-2005, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by rls669:
The way the game chugs when nearing a convoy, even in the map screen with no 3d being rendered, seems to indicated it's more cpu-limited than graphics limited anyway. AI and physics are cpu-intensive.

Yes I know that, were simply talking on diferent subjects. I was only explaining TheRealWulfmann fellow that fewer models are not the key to achieve performance, there are many other things to take in consederation. I was talking about 3D computation ONLY.

(The following info is for everyone else, not just for you. I'm posivite sure that you already know the following.)

NOTE: This is a simple "figurative" way to exaplain it to you of how does a game loop works, thus, it's not accurate..

The lagging issue happens with time compression at extremely high rate because the game's internal timer who triggers the function that computes the sorrouding vessels positions / AI will be called more often living less time for this function to end its loop before the redraw function (function who redraws graphics on screen) is executed.

The games main loop can be something like this using double buffer:

(Double buffer is a way of having two surfaces to draw graphics. The graphics are draw in a 2nd surface (backbuffer), and, the end they are copied to the 1st surface and showed to the user. Because drawing everything directly to the screen (using only 1 surface) will lead to terrible image flickering)

1 - Clear all graphics from the back buffer (normaly to black)
2 - Call the function who treats the water and draw it to the screen backbuffer (2nd surface)
3 - Draw the sky to the backbuffer
4 - Compute all AI vessles and draw their new position to the backbuffer
5 - Check for player input (mouse input, key presses etc)
6 - Play the sounds
7 - FINALLY show all graphics by copying making an image of the backbuffer to the
1st bufffer.
8 - Loop to point 1

So, if any of this points take too long to finish, point 7 will logically take longer to execute, because it won't execute until points 1 to 6 are done making no graphical updates until then...

Time compression will then speed the timers that trigger all these points so, if your computer is not fast enough to keep with the timer (time compression) it will simply lagg...~

If the game's loop can run 50 times in one second it means you have 50 Frames per second (extremely smooth animation) if the loop can only be executed once in one second, well, am sure you know what happens http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif then...

Grey004
08-07-2005, 02:27 PM
@ stljeffbb,
Hi mate,have you got the latest patch and mod for Sea Dogs, if not I can get you the,site address to pick them up.

GreyDog and a few other modders have extended the game play,with up to,I think its,twenty new missions.They all link up with the original game mission.
They have also added new ships and islands plus diffferent characters.

The download is easy , its a auto install.

I know this is OT,and I apologise to all in advance.

TheRealWulfmann
08-07-2005, 05:05 PM
EFileTahi-A, You are over complicating a basic premise.

It is simple math I am referring to. Doing a Japanese sub campaign would be an anti-warship campaign and that would require a huge increase in model numbers.
Attacking large task forces that have models much bigger than merchants will require a better system than a similar attack on convoys, IMO.
To add the classes of the US navy in sufficient numbers to avoid whining (Does that number exist??) and to do them with the detail and improved, better done, better that SH3 would not be a simple matter as you expressed. Or, you are alleging they could do it but chose not to in SH3?
So every class modeled and loaded would be no different than a few?
You are very correct in that done correctly the frame rate can be managed as compared to improper modeling. However, in the end, the models and every aspect of them must be loaded and once processed will vary with the hardware running them. That is taxing to most of the high end systems for SH3. To add 10 times the models in better detail and to insinuate that would not require additional power. That is fuzzy math to me and has not proven true in the CFS world I have been involved in.

Wulfmann

TheRealWulfmann
08-07-2005, 05:15 PM
EFileTahi-A.
Great explanation of a time loop.
What I dislike about this, is the simple fact I can tell I am near a convoy (even a close call with a pair of ships will cause a minor lag) but the more it lags the bigger a convoy is. If I go to 256 and it still lags, the convoy is over 50 ships or I am near 2 convoys. This is intel a U-Boat would not get in real life and getting it in the game is a cheat.

I still think a 256Bit 12GHZ CPU with 12 GB DDR8 RAM with a 2048MB VC and 10TB HD 64MB buffer would eliminate that, LOL.
Or do they just have the LODs off?

Wulfmann

EFileTahi-A
08-08-2005, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by TheRealWulfmann:
EFileTahi-A, You are over complicating a basic premise.

It is simple math I am referring to. Doing a Japanese sub campaign would be an anti-warship campaign and that would require a huge increase in model numbers.
Attacking large task forces that have models much bigger than merchants will require a better system than a similar attack on convoys, IMO.
To add the classes of the US navy in sufficient numbers to avoid whining (Does that number exist??) and to do them with the detail and improved, better done, better that SH3 would not be a simple matter as you expressed. Or, you are alleging they could do it but chose not to in SH3?
So every class modeled and loaded would be no different than a few?
You are very correct in that done correctly the frame rate can be managed as compared to improper modeling. However, in the end, the models and every aspect of them must be loaded and once processed will vary with the hardware running them. That is taxing to most of the high end systems for SH3. To add 10 times the models in better detail and to insinuate that would not require additional power. That is fuzzy math to me and has not proven true in the CFS world I have been involved in.

Wulfmann

Diferent views from different points:

- Technical view (resources management / hardware required):
Having more models means that you need more memory (primary memory) to store these models nothing else, as performance will then be measured in total polygon count, texture size, lights, shadows etc, not unique model count.
Processing 50 equal ships with consume as much cpu time as processing 50 unique ships as long their poly count is equal. The disadvantage of using 50 unique models will logically be the bigger amount of video memory required to use in models due the texture variarity (between some other things), unless all models use the same textures which I think it would not be a good thing to see or do.

Some other techincal view:
- You can have SH3 having all WWII of the world and still be able to run it on todays computers. You see, you don't have to load them all to memory, no game does this (unless it is short), models are loaded to memory ONLY when required. The only problem on this would be the amount of Hard Disk space required in order to store all this models.

From a developing view:
- Each model needs work. So many models translates in plenty of work, time, thus, cost.

rls669
08-08-2005, 02:01 PM
Wulfmann:

The models in SH3 are low-poly, and their animation is trivial compared to character models (simple rotating parts, no skeletal animation). Any decent sized user mod team for, say UT2004 will do as much custom modelling work as it would take to produce US and Japanese ships for a Pacific campaign. And note that the US destroyers and escorts are already done. Also, I don't see how a Pacific campaign would need a huge increase in model numbers. New models, yes, but more models onscreen at once, no.

To Efile:

Processing 50 identical ships does take less less resources than 50 unique ships -- this is a major feature of newer 3d engines. A mesh may be instanced, with only one copy held in memory but many copies placed in the scene and moved, rotated, or scaled differently. This is how UT2003 can support polygon counts 100X higher than UT99 (for example).

Now that I've said all that, the overhead for rendering ship models in SH3 is probably insignificant compared to the physics and AI for those units, and especially animating the ocean. So in the end it doesn't really matter much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WilhelmSchulz.-
08-10-2005, 06:26 PM
U know now that I think about it a WW1 in the Atlantic would be fun. But I want WW2 in the Pacific first.