| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you want a third-party, external replayviewer? |
| Yes, any external replayviewer would help. |
|
63% |
[ 21 ] |
| Yes, the featured mentioned would make it cool enough to use. |
|
15% |
[ 5 ] |
| No, I'll wait for SCS to make one. |
|
12% |
[ 4 ] |
| No, I don't use them. |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
goldorak
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 393
Location: Milano,Italy
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| LuftWolf wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, I'll wait for SCS to make one |
And people actually voted for this option too!!!  |
Didn't you know that patience is the virtue of the strong ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MaHuJa
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 447
Location: 59.96156N 11.02255E
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| goldorak wrote: | | Didn't you know that patience is the virtue of the strong ? |
I think it's not a matter of when, as would require patience, but if, which requires faith.
I'm not that much of a believer in the first place, and besides, it might take pressure off SCS to do something only they can do, say, add -real- harpoons to the P-3.
On the warping issue, it might be something the replayer can avoid interpreting, so to speak, and therefore "fix", but that depends; I'm thinking a "big position jump" (or a user option) could trigger "don't look at the positions, calculate them from courses and speeds" type functionality. This may, however, end up being at the cost of accuracy, etc.
I'm still needing someone for the frontend though. Ah well, meanwhile the _NeutralGenerator project is getting my attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nexus7
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A more efficent ReplayViewer would be a great improvement  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barleyman
Joined: 07 Jul 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MaHuJa wrote: | | I'm not that much of a believer in the first place, and besides, it might take pressure off SCS to do something only they can do, say, add -real- harpoons to the P-3. |
Ahem. SCS could add "keyframe" recording capability likely with a lot less fuss than additional weapon UI to Orion.. After all, datalogging code *is* already there. And if you record "keyframes" to separate file, why, you don't break the existing replayviewer either.
Why do you want to use P-3 as a strike aircraft anyhow? Has it ever been used in such a role? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 1052
Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DW is a simulation. The P-3 carries the harpoon iin real life; so should it in DW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why are people pushing so hard for something that is never going to happen.
You can add detectable masts to that catagory as well. 
It's much better to spend time worrying about things that are moddable or genuine bugs. 
SCS has shown zero inclination to reverse decisions that were based on "gameplay" or "USNI Reference data", whereas Jamie takes very seriously and the SCS team works hard to resolve genuine bugs when they are reproducable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barleyman
Joined: 07 Jul 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuftWolf wrote: | Why are people pushing so hard for something that is never going to happen.
You can add detectable masts to that catagory as well.
It's much better to spend time worrying about things that are moddable or genuine bugs. |
There's one major difference between properly functioning replayviewer and detectable masts.
One issue is hit by every single person who plays the game, including gaming press who actually reviews the game. Another is one of these fairly obscure things that should be addressed but will not have big impact even if they are.
Btw, what "gameplay" factor influences the decision to omit genuine improvements to the replays in last ten years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was referring to the harping about harpoons and such.
Yes, the replay feature needs to be addressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaHuJa
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 447
Location: 59.96156N 11.02255E
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Barleyman wrote: | | One issue is hit by every single person who plays the game, including gaming press who actually reviews the game. Another is one of these fairly obscure things that should be addressed but will not have big impact even if they are. |
Ummm... mind explaining which is which?
Replay problems hits only those who use them, which I suspect isn't quite everybody (I've been lax with them myself, but that may be partially because of the problems..)
As for detectable masts... that would affect most players, but how many would actually notice without being told?
(First thing they'd need to do, is make sure the "mast raising" is transmitted in other cases than same platform player. Perhaps making sure AI used masts properly. Then, they'd have to add a field in the masts database for how radar visible they are.)
I usually recommend keeping masts down when you're not actively using them, regardless of detectability, because that gives you the ability to emergency maneuver, without fear of breaking masts because you forgot them or they weren't lowered quick enough...
LW, I seem to remember you tried adding an extra emitting (counterdetectable) sensor to the masts? What did go wrong with that? Considering the CIWS radiation is only detectable (to a player, at least) at very short ranges, something similar must be possible for other emitters... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MaHuJa wrote: | | LW, I seem to remember you tried adding an extra emitting (counterdetectable) sensor to the masts? What did go wrong with that? Considering the CIWS radiation is only detectable (to a player, at least) at very short ranges, something similar must be possible for other emitters... |
That was actually Amizaur, and I completely forgot about that...
I think the problem was that any sensory modality that was chosen provided instant detection of the mast as soon as it was raised... that or it didn't work at all. I maybe mixing up the results of this work with the results on work done to make missile transients automatically detected, as it was some time ago that this was done.
I think it's something to look into again, thanks for reminding me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barleyman
Joined: 07 Jul 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MaHuJa wrote: | Replay problems hits only those who use them, which I suspect isn't quite everybody (I've been lax with them myself, but that may be partially because of the problems..)
|
Yup. Because they're such a gigantic PITA, they get used a lot less than they should be. They'd be perfect for after-successful-mission gloating session or in the aftermath of 60 seconds of stark terror before death..
For the masts.. It's kinda like the sub accelerating too much. Some people felt it's the end of the world, but it really didn't affect the tactics you'd generally employ very much.
Should the masts be picked up by radar? Absolutely! Should they be difficult to pick up and only at shortish detection ranges? Absolutely!
So.. You shouldn't be able to monitor contacts on ESM/Visual with impunity, but with realistic detection ranges etc it shouldn't really change much.
Of course if you SEE helo on scope, you're probably screwed emitter distance inverse square -wise. |
|
| 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
|
