| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bill Nichols
Joined: 14 Mar 2001
Posts: 2657
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:30 am Post subject: Re: understanding the floating wire |
 |
|
| laglos wrote: | | ...Haven't done the SCX thing, not sure if I care much for the idea. |
Try it, you'll like it!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Konovalov
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2438
Location: High Wycombe, United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Molon Labe wrote: | | I'm not sure I could live without SCX. I mean, less Godlike torpedoes, improved CM effectiveness, more important acoustic environment, more realistic loadouts, MUCH better AI......what's not to like? |
I know that I couldn't live without SCX!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laglos
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 220
Location: Virginia, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Molon Labe wrote: | | I'm not sure I could live without SCX. I mean, less Godlike torpedoes, improved CM effectiveness, more important acoustic environment, more realistic loadouts, MUCH better AI......what's not to like? |
Okay, before I start here, everybody understand that I'm not just being contentious or angry (I always seem to come across that way). I've nothing against SCX really and fully intend on trying it at some point (if for no other reason than to gain access to a lot more custom missions). So please bear with my tone if it sounds bad and treat this as a devil's advocate type thing.
That said, here's my main points against SCX: First, it's kinda hard to find out exactly what it is to begin with. Everybody just knows; there's no "introducing SCX: what it is and why you want it" type document that I ever could find anywhere. On the other hand, the forums are chock-full of posts about bugs in this part, bugs in that part, you need this-and-this-and-this and install them all in this order and oh, sometimes it doesn't work (or goes south at some random point later) and you'll have to reinstall the whole shootin match. Swtiching back and forth between SCX and straight? Ha. Be a computer scientist. No disresepect to the SCX team here, but if they had paid as much attention to an installer/uninstaller as they did the 3D models of old obscure subs, the number of messages in this forum over the past few years would have been reduced by half.
And really, the main thing anyone really talks about is all the extra models that are there. And to me, the enjoyment I get from the game isn't based at all on what arrangement of polygons show up in the 3D view.
Next, there's the changes to the sensors, weapons, loadouts, and AI. You mention less godlike torps. Less godlike in what way? As a US sub driver, I find that my ADCAPS are less godlike than I expect anyway. I can hear the Kilo from miles away. My passive UUV can hear the Kilo from even farther. But my active ADCAP has gotta be within 2.5 miles or it can't see the ping returns? Better countermeasure effectiveness? You mean CMs don't work right in the stock game? I've had little problem with 'em, and the AI subs don't seem to either. The aforementioned Kilo gets one fired directly behind him on his course. I enable it 1.5 miles away, and, based on his evasion, he doesn't hear it until then. He drops a CM, turns 100deg into it and evades.
But the real point is....what's more real? We can all go into the database and fiddle with the detection ranges and all of that, but are we really making it better or worse from a realism point of view? Who's to say, and who can you trust? I've contracted for the USN; I've heard of Sonalysts. Who are Thomas and Ramius and Xab, etc, other than a few gamers who want prettier 3D and the ability to shoot more stuff (ok, that's a rhetorical question...I know they're much more than that and don't deserve such a slam...but only because I've been following the forum for so long. And even if I'm questioning their work, I definately appreciate it and their dedication to it. But the point remains. Is their opinion of a detection range more trusty than Sonalysts?)
Would love for anyone to blow my arguments out of the water here. I want to like the idea of SCX. It's mostly obvious that it is necessary for the full, true enjoyment of the game since most of the good mission designers went wild when designing their missions. Of course, the nagging question is, is it gratuitous? How many missions would work perfectly with stock but use SCX for some little surprise at the end? [yep, gonna install SCX just to see what the "unknown" group that the TLAM targeting goal adds in Dive At Dawn. no spoilers please] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsteed
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 771
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is very unlikely that anyone cares whether you install SCX or not. No one especially cares for your criticism of something you have never used. :down:
cheers,
jsteed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 1052
Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That said, here's my main points against SCX: First, it's kinda hard to find out exactly what it is to begin with. Everybody just knows; there's no "introducing SCX: what it is and why you want it" type document that I ever could find anywhere. |
SCX includes documentation that tells you what has changed. I'd be shocked if you couldn't get this documentation seperately on Ramius' SCX site.
| Quote: | | On the other hand, the forums are chock-full of posts about bugs in this part, bugs in that part, you need this-and-this-and-this and install them all in this order and oh, sometimes it doesn't work (or goes south at some random point later) and you'll have to reinstall the whole shootin match. |
SCX is no buggier than the original SC; some bugs are corrected. As for incorrect installation, all I have to say is RTFM (or in this case, the readme)
| Quote: | And really, the main thing anyone really talks about is all the extra models that are there. And to me, the enjoyment I get from the game isn't based at all on what arrangement of polygons show up in the 3D view.
|
There's a lot more to SCX than 3D models. This is definitely a case of don't-knock-it-til-you've-tried-it.
| Quote: | You mention less godlike torps. Less godlike in what way? As a US sub driver, I find that my ADCAPS are less godlike than I expect anyway. I can hear the Kilo from miles away. My passive UUV can hear the Kilo from even farther. But my active ADCAP has gotta be within 2.5 miles or it can't see the ping returns? Better countermeasure effectiveness? You mean CMs don't work right in the stock game? I've had little problem with 'em, and the AI subs don't seem to either. The aforementioned Kilo gets one fired directly behind him on his course. I enable it 1.5 miles away, and, based on his evasion, he doesn't hear it until then. He drops a CM, turns 100deg into it and evades.
|
In the original SC, it was nearly impossible to miss. The acquisition ranges were too generous, and the torpedoes were not very sensitive to thermal layers. SCX has changed this a bit to make multiplayer more challenging. CM's in the original SC were extremely ineffective and would almost never attract a torp...SCX has increased thier effectiveness a bit. SC's AI torpedo evasion sucked ass! They mostly just turned away and ran, shooting passive CM's even if they were getting incoming pings from the enabled torp. SCX includes more sensible evasion doctrines.
| Quote: | | But the real point is....what's more real? We can all go into the database and fiddle with the detection ranges and all of that, but are we really making it better or worse from a realism point of view? |
I don't know. But I do know that SCX is more playable because of the tweaks, and that counts for something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laglos
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 220
Location: Virginia, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsteed wrote: | | It is very unlikely that anyone cares whether you install SCX or not. No one especially cares for your criticism of something you have never used. :down: |
Didn't claim anyone would care, although most on this forum seem to help set newbies straight when they have misconceptions. And if I had misconceptions, I figured that someone would correct them, and the majority who didn't care would just ignore the post and not bother replying.
So thanks for your enlightening reply. Interestingly, it does serve to recommend SCU to me.....after 25 years in the computing field, I've learned that generally there's an inverse correlation between the skill level of an assembly language programmer and their level of diplomacy, tact, and social graces.
cheers back at ya,
laglos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laglos
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 220
Location: Virginia, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Molon Labe wrote: | | SCX includes documentation that tells you what has changed. I'd be shocked if you couldn't get this documentation seperately on Ramius' SCX site. |
Excellent. I didn't see it when I looked before, will take another gander around.
| Quote: | | SCX is no buggier than the original SC; some bugs are corrected. |
 ya got a point there, one thing about SC is that you learn to save often.
| Quote: | | SC's AI torpedo evasion sucked ass! They mostly just turned away and ran, shooting passive CM's even if they were getting incoming pings from the enabled torp. SCX includes more sensible evasion doctrines. |
Strange. I mean, I've seen some of what you're talking about, but I've also seen some hard-to-kill ones. Like the aforementioned Kilo. He didn't run; if anything he slowed down...shot a CM and turned 100deg into the torp. Which then missed.
| Quote: | | But I do know that SCX is more playable because of the tweaks, and that counts for something. |
Good answer, and I thank you for it. It's a hard thing, balancing playability versus realism, especially when *truly* real is classified.  Personally, when playing these sims, I like to feel that I'm playing something that is as real as it gets. There's a lot of games out there (most of 'em), that are highly playable but have nothing to do with reality. QuakeII, anyone? In 688 and SC, the whole thing is to come as close as possible to feeling like I'm really in command of a sub. But I'm weird like that; I'm probably the only one who has surfaced after a tough mission, ventilated, and (mentally) allowed non-duty crew to have a swim or some small-arms practice (while secretly planning a man-overboard drill).
Anyway, thanks. As I said in the other message, I'll likely be trying it out if DW doesn't start occupying all of my gaming time. It's just nice to hear other takes on the aforementioned reservations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaHuJa
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 447
Location: 59.96156N 11.02255E
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laglos wrote: | | Swtiching back and forth between SCX and straight? Ha. Be a computer scientist. |
While I might belong in that category, I can switch within 15 seconds. Longer if something slows down the copying, such as a fragmented harddisk. And it's utterly simple. (The only things that could have made it simpler would be a parameter -mod scxiic that would have it look in that directory for its files.)
In my SC directory, there is two extra directories.
@SC
@SCXIIc
To switch to one, I grab the folders in either and copy them to the main directory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OptimusX
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it means anything, it has been publicly stated that Sonalysts was "very impressed" with the SCX mod.
SC is a game that has been out for several years...and typically game companies don't spend the time and money to continually upgrade a game over the years...sure they'll patch it to make some tweaks here and there, but rarely continuous updates. That's just business...and Sonalysts have been putting their resources into making us a great new game: DW
SCX, the way I look at it, is a continuation of the original SC...with gradual enhancements, fixes, and tweaks from the labor of love and unpaid time. The time that Sonalysts can't pay for.
I admit that it is hard to find out exactly what SCX does, but take it from me that the changes are extensive for the sake of realism, with careful research from some of the greatest enthusiasts in the field. The physics of underwater sound propagation, for example, is not classified info like the subs themselves, and they have worked to make these kinds of physics more accurately represented.
The readme file does make a mention about the changes in AI torpedo evasion. Just read the before and after results of the AI evasion routine...and you'll find out that the old evasion script was pretty lame. lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sub Sailor
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 295
Location: Orofino, Idaho
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:36 pm Post subject: Try it |
|
|
Laglos;
Try SCX it is the best thing you will do with your clothes on. It is great and has completely transformed SC. It made SC a great Sim. Look at the scenarios, and I am going to get my courage up to use SCU. Bill, TLAM, and others have made some great scenarios for SCU, real cold war stuff.
Respectfully,
Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperCavitation
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 257
Location: Dallas, Tejas!!
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So, my copy of DW is still in the mail. Does DW have any of the SCX scripts in it? Or at least SCX's intents? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nitro
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 225
Location: Atlantic Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Every time I try to use SCX I crash as soon as I try to start an actual game. I can get into the frontend just fine, but as soon as I start a mission, it locks my whole PC up solid... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kirk
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:02 am Post subject: Long wire antenna |
|
|
| I was able to get it working at 140 feet at 3 knots. If that means anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tohardwoody18
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 44
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I was able to get it to work at 500 ft at 2 knots with sea wolf. Rember you can always make the floating wire longer using SCEdit.exe I did this play around and made it 1500 feet long and reaceved a message at 900 ft 2 knots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
