Jump to content

Shipsimulator 2006

Bublik

By Bublik
in Cимуляторы

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
Laivynas

Laivynas

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted

Ну, а нам чего с этого? :)

Воду разве что у них спереть. :D

Best Regards, Dmitry.

 

"Чтобы дойти до цели, надо прежде всего идти." © О. Бальзак


 
edward1976

edward1976

Posted
Posted

Извините, господа и дамы, но поддержим отечественного производителя!

www.pt-boats.net

Посмотрите ролики.

10-го мая на выставке обещаются показать демо, и сделать её доступной для всех, насколько я понял.

Желаю такое склеить с пост-локоном. А они - со "Штурмовиком" изменяют... :-(

Dmut

Dmut

Posted
Posted

да мы и не против склеить локон с чем-нибудь вроде S.C.S Dangerous Waters, но как всегда проблема упирается в "человеко-часо-баксы".

"There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble." Sun Tzu

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic2354_5.gif[/sigpic]

Alfa

Alfa

Posted
Posted

Hi,

 

First sorry about replying in English.

 

да мы и не против склеить локон с чем-нибудь вроде S.C.S Dangerous Waters, но как всегда проблема упирается в "человеко-часо-баксы".

 

Indeed Ilya, but then less would do ;) .

 

In my opinion what Lock-on(or sequel rather) needs is not an "Operation Flashpoint" style of multi-focus, but rather an effort on the naval side of the sim similar to the one currently being pursued for the ground warfare aspect in Black Shark to support helicopter operations.

 

Such as:

 

* new dynamic sea implementation that supports "sea state" depending on wind conditions and associated physics for ships - i.e. sort of an "AFM"(in this case denoting "Advanced Flotation Model") that simulates their movements depending on sea state and size(displacement) of individual ship designs.

 

* upgrade to naval weapons systems and AI ;)

 

* implementation of ship's counter measures and ECM.

 

* upgrade of 3D models for currently implemented ship types and additon of a few new types - again much the same procedure as is currently being pursued for the ground warfare aspect in Black Shark.

 

....then "plug" these efforts into the flight sim through an upgrade to the aircraft carrier deck routines and naval fighters/helicopters themselves.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

JJ

Dmut

Dmut

Posted
Posted

Heh, I wish we could do whole your list, Jens, but who will need a Naval LockOn in 2015? ;)

:D:D:D

"There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble." Sun Tzu

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic2354_5.gif[/sigpic]

VirPilot

VirPilot

Posted
Posted
Извините, господа и дамы, но поддержим отечественного производителя!

www.pt-boats.net

Посмотрите ролики.

10-го мая на выставке обещаются показать демо, и сделать её доступной для всех, насколько я понял.

Желаю такое склеить с пост-локоном. А они - со "Штурмовиком" изменяют... :-(

После Корсаров 3 я трижды подумаю, прежде чем покупать игры от Акеллы.

Alfa

Alfa

Posted
Posted
Heh, I wish we could do whole your list, Jens, but who will need a Naval LockOn in 2015? ;)

:D:D:D

 

Hehe....well I guess the first item might be a little "heavy", but I was thinking that this would be for the sea environment what "SpeedTrees" would be for the ground environment.....but having more impact on the actual gameplay than those :)

 

However, as for the rest, I don't think this would be more development heavy than what is currently being done for the ground warfare aspect. Ships are more complex to model and simulate(combat + AI code) than ground vehicules, but remember that there are also a lot fewer ship types to concentrate on.....and even fewer weapons systems since these are of a "universial" nature and both Russian and US warships often employ different combinations of the same weapons and countermeasure systems.....and naval SAM systems(at least the Russian ones) even have a high degree of commonoligy with the land based ones. :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

JJ

WR259Leonid

WR259Leonid

Posted
Posted

VS4 - аркада. С более менее приятной графикой... РаелизЬма - нету. Лицензия валяется.

*Как сын "мореплавателя".

8831px.ru ну и vfat, конечно же)

luch4

luch4

Posted
Posted
Hi,

Such as:

* new dynamic sea implementation that supports "sea state" depending on wind conditions and associated physics for ships - i.e. sort of an "AFM"(in this case denoting "Advanced Flotation Model") that simulates their movements depending on sea state and size(displacement) of individual ship designs.

* upgrade to naval weapons systems and AI ;)

* implementation of ship's counter measures and ECM.

* upgrade of 3D models for currently implemented ship types and additon of a few new types - again much the same procedure as is currently being pursued for the ground warfare aspect in Black Shark.

 

Ветер, параметры кораблей... Да зачем нам вобще море? Мы с воздухом-то разобраться пока толком не можем.

 

Wind, ships' characteristics... Are you sure we really need sea? We cannot work it out with the air yet.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Alfa

Alfa

Posted
Posted
Ветер, параметры кораблей... Да зачем нам вобще море? Мы с воздухом-то разобраться пока толком не можем.

 

Wind, ships' characteristics... Are you sure we really need sea? We cannot work it out with the air yet.

 

Am I sure we need the sea?.......check my avatar please ;) :D . Anyway, I am not really sure what you mean by "needing sea" - could you elaborate?.

 

I definately feel that all areas: land, sea as well as air environment are important for the sim, and that just about anything relating to the sea is in need of an "overhaul".

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

JJ

luch4

luch4

Posted
Posted
I definately feel that all areas: land, sea as well as air environment are important for the sim, and that just about anything relating to the sea is in need of an "overhaul".

I just want to say that there is no necessity to upgrade naval units before air and ground onse. Yes, may be some upgrades for ships is wanted, but on the whole naval constituent of LO is dead-end road of it evolution. IHMO, of course.

 

Я только хотел сказать что нет необходимости улучшать морские юниты прежде воздушных и наземных. Ну, может быть некоторые улучшения для кораблей нужны, но в целом морская составляющая ЛО - тупиковая ветвь его развития. ИХМО, естественно.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Alfa

Alfa

Posted
Posted
I just want to say that there is no necessity to upgrade naval units before air and ground onse. Yes, may be some upgrades for ships is wanted, but on the whole naval constituent of LO is dead-end road of it evolution. IHMO, of course.

 

Я только хотел сказать что нет необходимости улучшать морские юниты прежде воздушных и наземных. Ну, может быть некоторые улучшения для кораблей нужны, но в целом морская составляющая ЛО - тупиковая ветвь его развития. ИХМО, естественно.

 

Why would the naval contingent of Lock-on be a "dead-end"?

 

I think naval aviation has far more potential than the land based one for future titles, yet it has been left pretty much untouched since Lock-on 1.0.....Flanker 2.5 even.

 

- JJ.

JJ

luch4

luch4

Posted
Posted
I think naval aviation has far more potential than the land based one for future titles, yet it has been left pretty much untouched since Lock-on 1.0.....Flanker 2.5 even.

Я придерживаюсь абсолютно противоположной точки зрения. Моя стихия - работа по наземным целям. Я просто не летаю над морем, поэтому не вижу необходимости в том, что Вы предлагаете. Мы можем спорить вплоть до коллапса Вселенной, но друг друга не убедим - просто Вам нравится одно, мне - совершненно другое.

 

I hold absolutely different opinion. My interest is destruction of ground units. I just do not fly above sea, and so I do not see any necessity in your proposals. We can dispute until Apocalypse, but don't convince each other. You like one, I like another.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Dmut

Dmut

Posted
Posted

ok, you guys understand each other and this is good and enough. time will tell how much of aerial, ground and naval parts will be in next project.

завязываем мужики с бесполезными спорами о будущем наших симуляторов.

"There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble." Sun Tzu

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic2354_5.gif[/sigpic]

Alfa

Alfa

Posted
Posted
Я придерживаюсь абсолютно противоположной точки зрения. Моя стихия - работа по наземным целям. Я просто не летаю над морем, поэтому не вижу необходимости в том, что Вы предлагаете. Мы можем спорить вплоть до коллапса Вселенной, но друг друга не убедим - просто Вам нравится одно, мне - совершненно другое.

 

I hold absolutely different opinion. My interest is destruction of ground units. I just do not fly above sea, and so I do not see any necessity in your proposals. We can dispute until Apocalypse, but don't convince each other. You like one, I like another.

 

Yeah I agree that we should just agree to disagree..... :wacko: :) .

 

- JJ.

JJ

  • 5 years later...
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...