[Catfish]

Hello,
good to hear of the team! Looking forward to the sim - graphics look great - greetings from Germany,
Catfish

[rik007]

The screenshots look great to me.

Please add spectacle!
-------------------------
Exploding ammunitionships, Burning tankers, fast-sinking cargo ships loaded with heavy tanks, possibly breaking up. But for all: a random sinking process for torpedoed ships as a visual spectacle and reward for the u-boat commandant.

And do not forget sound! Gradual reffing up the sound in line with the changing speeds etc.

Good luck and be sure I will run to the shop to get my hands on this beaty!
!

[Manuel Ortega]

Great news! Hope they listen to all great ideas of Subsim members.

[u-47]

A Dynamic Campaign, tell us SHIII will have one of those so we can all sleep at night.

[Mancuso24th]

Hi guys!

I´d like to say THANK YOU for keeping our submarine dreams alive, in the name of the 24th Flotilla "Geweih" (Spain). We encourage you to complete a work that becomes the epitome of the WWII sub sims. Keep on! Ahead flank! :wink:

Greetings.

Mancuso

http://www.24flotilla.com

[comsubpac1941]

Hay Development team at UBIsoft, Where is the Pacific campaign?

[Overseas]

Be sure I, from Paris - France, stay very concerned by the various and future SH-III announcements. Their contributions to the sub community hopes is highly appreciated !

[F Warder]

I also say thanks to the team at sh3. Exploding ammo ships and vivid grafficks are fine and well but I would opt for spending the time to make the multiplayer functions work properly as this is the most important aspact of the game to me. It would be nice to play without all the problems encountered with SH2. Just my 2 cents worth.
Respectfully
Fred Warder

[Floater]

Just one point here.

I notice from the survey that someone did in this forum that very few people regard the ability to mod the game as a high priority, yet so many people are asking for features that potentially could be added by modders if that potential were there.

One of the main reasons why SH2 is still alive is that there are so many excellent modifications available, including graphics mods which are incorporated despite the difficulties of the JRF format of 3D models. The graphics modelling aside, SH2 is pretty open (though not documented sufficiently) which enables people to add their own contributions that keep the sim alive.

People, when you're looking for priorities, don't discount the importance of an open setup. As others have pointed out, the success of the Microsoft Flight Simulator series has been dependent on the works of third parties, bringing in new models, scenarios, locations and so forth. SH3 could surely benefit from this too.

All I ask is that the software be designed so that the Subsim community can make modifications to suit individual tastes and carry on the project. For example:

1. Hitman is about to release an excellent Pacific mod for SH2 with US submarines. Will the same be possible for SH3?

2. The Betasom team have released some completely new units for SH2 and DC, despite the JRF format, and this is a very rare event. How will this be possible under SH3?

3. Many people have worked in the dark, trying to get other features for SH2/DC (such as better sounds, resupply, dynamic and extreme weather, minelaying, realistic detection, manual TDC, etc, etc), and have been hampered by the limitations of the game engine.

Surely, for the longevity of the SH3 product, openness must be a prime concern. Only by allowing modification and third-party improvement will the sim achieve the goals we all desire, and on the way generate maximum revenue for the publishers and developers.

Please, guys, keep the whole thing open, and maintain a dialogue with the modders.

[R Hardman]

I think your refering to the poll where we only had one choice. However you still can get a good idea of what everyone wants. If I were the company developing this I would read this poll as follows;

1) dynamic campaign* and improved AI is a must and the focus of effort (Gear this game for single play first)

2) Stable multiplayer and graphics are to be priority but not the focus of effort.

3) Use open architecture for all reference files but not at the expense of propriatary code.

4) Once all the above is completed and the game close to going beta, teams will work on the mission editor.

*Career Mode seems to be a redundant question in the poll.

All in all I thought the poll could have been a little better but I agree with you 100% the open architecture is needed. Most sims now days do allow this due to current programming languages. But how much moding would be needed like Des5 and ACES if SH2 had the dynamic campaign and AI right? But on the other side of the coin lets not forget that the future Pacific Campaign for SH2 could only be possible with open architecture. :wink: Programmers always face this. When I'm programming relational databases my first priority is not allowing users to do everything they want or ask for. It's getting the database to function correctly with a excellant user interface (AI). Good point Floater.

[Floater]

Sure, a dynamic campaign is the clear winner on that list, and I'd like to try playing one. I don't even know what it's like.

The point you make about your experiences writing relational database software is interesting. Through the Kriegstanz project, I've been concerned with both functionality - which, as you say, is paramount - but also with leaving it open to modification by other people (ask me for the source code, and you can have it!). But that's only because I'm mainly doing it for the community we have here. The same standards wouldn't apply to a commercial games developer, and it's not fair to assume they would. Comparing the world of business to the world of, let's say fun development, is unrealistic.

My plea is that the team Ubisoft are employing recognise that the ability to modify the game should be incorporated into the design. I know you know this, but I'm clarifying the issue just to make sure.

For example, SH2 is commonly derided for not having a dynamic campaign. It could pretty easily have a dynamic campaign if only we could access and set up the data. We can alter various parameters - we can do all sorts - but the hard part is working out how well a particular mission went. We don't have the documentation for the "Results.dat" file (which provides the outcome of a campaign mission), nor can we alter certain factors such as crew experience, or carry other variables from mission to mission. Other than that, a dynamic campaign would be possible.

SH2 isn't as open as it could be, but it's not bad. Let's hope SH3 is at least as open.

Getting back to your point, though (yeah, I've been rambling), as you say, it's the functionality that counts. There's no point making features available for modification if they don't work in the first place. We've seen that in SH2 in, for example, resupply. It's there, but it doesn't work properly. Mods can't fix that.

Here's hoping that SH3 will be: (a) open, and (b) working enough.

[R Hardman]

[Transhectadon]

open, open source is not applicable for a sim player changing code to suit oneself, in fact, open source for anything is a non or dead-issue. it seems subsim players are somewhat envious of their game programming brothers. sh3 will be excellent with better graphics as the new screens suggest, and I think Ive only asked for one simple thing since I arrived here - a camera/view of your moving torpedo. ive also read some debates about physics here too which is interesting - most actual uboat crewmen would have known little about it though.

[Asterix]

[applesthecat]

I don't know the first thing about source code, modes, or any other programming. Computers were never my forte. In junior high in 1980, I dismissed computers as a fade for math nerds. I got a D in grade 10 math. In grade 11, I got an F. Don't ask what I got in grade 12.

I hope SH3 works nicely out of the box.