Not necessarily. People say that Falcon 4 is the best aircraft sim out there, but to the pilot a true simulator is a full cockpit mock-up on a gimbal that precisely represents flying the airplane.

It could therefore be argued that a true submarine simulator would be a real submarine interior the 'player' could walk around in. Anything played on a computer is going to be less than that. Some hardcore players would insist that a true sim allows you to turn every single dial and control every single lever, but those are things a captain never does. Everything is governed by what 'feels' real to the individual player. Once again I quote Rockin Robbins: "Realism is in how you play, not in the game settings".

you mean my dream man cave? lol

:yep:

Actually I think the only real possible WWII simulator would be the set from Das Boot, gimballed pivoting full interior with all the controls in place.

Wow!...That is interesting how some people felt depth charged and got on the defensive!...They might have identified themselves with some details on the post and they did not like it.

So, they went on to blame the writer of the post as a 12 years old, etc.....

Nevertheless, I don't have the power to make anyone feel, they make themselves feel.

Hence, man-up and take responsibility for the way you feel about that post, don't blame me!....I am not 12 twelve and I already served my country!

Hooowhat?

true lol but considering that i would actually be living in it, it would need to be a little more high tech and have a little more tech in it:k_rofl:

NOW to adress Bios' post. CAN EVERYBODY CALM DOWN?
only 1 person said you posted like a 12 year old and then HB came to your defense. now like was said some people can't just play on 100% realism for their own personal reasons/preferences. but to condem them for what you consider as arcadish (atleast thats what i am geting out of your post as well) that may be a little harsh.

i will admit i misunderstood your post at first but after rereading it several times i think i got the full meaning but i admit i might still be missing something.

Btw, the DW manual, despite being a fat manual, doesnt explain anything "in depth", but rather what button does what. Being the interfaces quite self eplainatory, most part of the manual will not be much usefull to most players. It's a reference manual (together with the in-game manual).
But the game is delivered with training videos as well, and that is (IMO) more useful to quickly begin to actually do things. It still requires concentration and reasoning to make meaningfull (and successfull) actions. Then it's a matter of motivation. If one has it then he'll ask questions (for example in here); if not, he'll try another game.
People that want something to "just blow stuff up" simply bought the wrong game (even because they will be disappointed by the raw graphics in first instance) - he'd better buy one from the SH series :haha:.
If I'd try to play a fly simulator for fighters (the detailled ones) just to blow up things, I'd probably throw manual amd DVD in the cellar after 10 minutes as well. Then when everything is more or less understood, there is the need for triggers.
Virtual navies were excellent triggers to add variety to the games, putting in place players stats, rewarding medals, organizing clan-wars (!), promoting players and so on, adding a lot to the bare game itself. Maybe that will rise again :ping:

Of course I identified with it. I'm not a hardcore simmer and, had you actually read what I wrote, you'd know that and why.

So, thanks for not actually contributing anything to this conversation.

The return of Sonalysts into the fray might possibly include an eventual sub sim.
SH5 failed primarily by its online requirement followed by the game being buggy and arcade type missions. In short, Ubi managed to get its customers mightily oizzed off. SH III, on the other hand (with help of the super mods) has developed a large following for the genre.

Basically a new SH3 with a few features that, I think, would excite this group of veterans and would be a success.

I am assuming the developer would be pressed for cash, therefore limiting what it can do.
The benchmark being SH3 with GWX, but:

Better graphics and physics.
Ability to walk the deck, bridge and interior
Equipment failures
Navigation option with chart showing only entered plot (keep torpedo officers assistance as option).
Arcade option with frequent targets
Have a Bernard who requires supervision
Clouds and weather representing local climate, for example cumulous od a cold front, tropical or summer squalls.
To avoid AI overload, have player boat lead wolf pack.

In rel life patrols were boring but there was still work to do, This needs to be addressed in the game.

I like your vision Brag.

I would add:

Possibility to pilot and operate any freighters or commercial ship to experience what it was to be in a convoy hunted down by submarines.

Then, the possibility to take total control of a Destroyer ,ASW trailer, or Frigate class to hunt down submarines.
That feature was made possible in "Enigma Rising-Tide", and it was a very interesting experience.
Then a game called "Destroyer Command" WWII Naval Combat Simulation, was also about hunting down Submarines. Game which was designed to be used in Multiplayer to hunt down submarines from Silent Hunter II. It was unfortunately a failure as an online game due to code incompatibilities, yet a great concept ahead of it's time that could be revived today.

I honestly would like the plot solutions completely separate from the TDC. In these games 'realistic plot' always means you can only ever plot a solution for one target at a time, and have to go through all the motions of setting up a new solution if wanting to fire at a second target. When we were doing manual plots during my time in the navy we had no problems at all maintaining 4-5 different contacts using visual observations only. And in real life when doing a manual plot you can use dead reckoning to update your map contacts even if visual reference is lost. Yet in these supposedly realistic sims dropping down the periscope means contacts disappear from the map instantly, lol.

And that's not delving into other strange design decisions in these games like tying the TDC solutions to the periscope only, such that you need to operate the stadimeter to enter range. Or not being able to save presets for different tubes - surely the weapons officer can write down torpedo settings on a piece of paper so he can set them up quickly for successive shots?

And I have to say I disagree about having more work to do on patrols in-between battles. My greatest issue with SH games is how patrols are conducted in real-time with player controlled time compression. It means hours and hours spent for maybe half an hour of tense combat. And tbh I don't have the time to spend untold hours driving around the sea aimlessly - even less so now that I have kids in the house. It worked much better in Silent Service where you had a strategic transit part and a combat part.

I would actually prefer a U-Boat sim to eschew the 'patrol' aspect completely in favor of a strategic meta-game similar to what was in Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe where you basically get to be Dönitz and can direct the overall campaign.

Kinda like Falcon 4 too, where you can hop into the cockpit of any F-16 in the campaign.

I'd definitely like a new version of Destroyer Command. I actually have it now, but it's so clunky... I still prefer surface ships in SH4 to Destroyer Command. Give me a game that lets me play as a DE or DD or maybe even a CL and I'll give you hundreds of dollars in a Kickstarter.

Darpa Actuv!....Piloting a drone, that is the future!

...potentially the most serious part of the sim. more depth of immersion here would enhance the overall playing quality. crew management, cooking, shift change, repairs...

my god - Das Boot!

Like me for example. I've never been able to figure out manual targeting so I always tick that box off.

You should try Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations. It costs $80, and is supposed to be a successor to Harpoon. It uses NTDS symbology.