Ship Simulator
English forum => Ship Simulator 2008 => General discussions => Topic started by: Master Captain on May 11, 2007, 20:28:51
-
In future versions of SS, I would like to have the option of starting and stopping the engines. Do you think it would be a good idea? KM
-
I would really like to be able to start and stop the engines. Your on the cruise ship and you will be leaving in 30 mins so you as captain give the order to start them.
Great! ;D
-
THAT WOULD BE FREAKIN SWEEEEEEEEET! I could be like "I want 2 start the engines now" and then it happenes! I know I freaked out there a bit but it's cus that is one great idea ;D :D
-
Hi, However starting engines on a steamship takes about 24 hours or more depending on its size and boiler type,I dont want the computor on for 2 days waiting for the steam pressure going up. No seriously it's a good idea. I would like to have that fuction,however not on a steamer.
-
Yes, but a huge smoke-cloud from the funnel should be a must!
Heater-Greatings ;)
-
Agreed huge smoke cloud needed when starting an engine. I also not on a steam engine, it would take too long. KM
-
Well perhaps we should not rule out steam ships starting up altogether. Perhaps if it were just sped up so that we don't have to wait for the pressure to slowly build up.
-
Hi, However starting engines on a steamship takes about 24 hours or more depending on its size and boiler type
Even if it does the shipsim doesn't need to be THAT real
-
Well perhaps we should not rule out steam ships starting up altogether. Perhaps if it were just sped up so that we don't have to wait for the pressure to slowly build up.
I agree, what would probably take 24 hrs in real life could be sped up to 10 or 12 seconds
-
Starting the engines is certainly the job of the engineers, if there is one on board, depending on the type of the ship. For small ships, pushbuttons would indeed be enough, with the huge cloud of smoke! :D as long as the (becoming) compulsory filters are not installed.
For big ships, and not only steamships, it is a more complex and long task not to be simulated now?
At a certain point 8) of development of ShipSim (2012?), an engine room simulator will even allow revving up/down in a realistic manner, according to a simulation of torque and temperature control parameters, or at least like the controls in Poc3DSim ::), but in a more realistic way.
Regards
Luc
-
I agree, that would be a great idea. In flightsim, when using PMDG or LDS, it would take 10-15 minutes to get FMS loaded and everything started up...if doing it correctly.
CHANGED "shipsim" for "flightsim"
-
I really like these ideas. KM
-
Hello cargohauler,
My understanding is that you use FS terminology?
LDS Large Display System
FMS Flight Management System
Could you tell me what PDMG means?
Googling for info, I found http://www.wideview.it/
with Key2Mouse program for all people who look for a solution to separately control both engines.
The price seems reasonable (US$ 19.95 excluding taxes), and in demo mode there is a limit of 10 minutes.
(I didnt try it, though)
Regards
Luc
-
I like the idea of Starting up a boat with engine sounds. ;)
-
I think this idea should be in cus its just a normal thing that all boats do. No matter the time. It NEEDS to be in shipsim 2008
-
LucATC...I believe you are mistaken by what I mean.
LDS is Level D-Simulations which is a software company that builds realistic plane models with an FMC, and basically almost everything in a real plane.
PMDG is the same. 8)
FMS=Flight managment sytem 8)
By the way, I meant flightsim, not shipsim :D
-
Startup sound of the engines is a must. Just a button or a key to turn...
-
the tale of the engines start: that makes the simulator still however... ;)
-
But I want more smoke out of titanic funnels:D Its no good now just look like a diesel ship.
-
and also at the other ships: if a large cruiseship leaves see you always much smoke, now you see almost nothing, also at the cargo vessels that the only suggestions are (concerning the engines and smoke) which I have for shipsim, furthert: Great! ;)
-
But I want more smoke out of titanic funnels:D Its no good now just look like a diesel ship.
I want that as much as you
-
Never heard about sea water scrubbing? Its a question of time, when it was forbidden to use high sulphur fuels. We just have the very first sulphur emission control area (SECA) in the Baltics and no doubt, the other areas around Europe will follow soon.
Beside that, I like the heaters greeting very much, when the master puts the levers on the desk!
Cheers
-
In future versions of SS, I would like to have the option of starting and stopping the engines. Do you think it would be a good idea? KM
Yes, it adds to the realism. Also, you can simular engine failures and such . . . I like it a lot!
-
Yes, it adds to the realism. Also, you can simular engine failures and such . . . I like it a lot!
that is smart, cus that is another thing that happens to ships.
-
that is smart, cus that is another thing that happens to ships.
Yes - I can see a lot more mission possibilities in the future.
-
Yes, it adds to the realism. Also, you can simular engine failures and such . . . I like it a lot!
I never thought of engine failures too, then get out a tug and pull the ship back to port to be fixed, great idea AriesDW. KM
-
See! Now we are all thinkin!
-
yup, I can see that too ;D
-
I'm glad i posted this topic, because everyone seems to like the idea, lets keep it movin, everyone! :) KM
-
Be sure to stir popularity of this topic so that you may get developers attention.
-
yea i had Mark move it to SS 08 feature suggestions, but i forgot that we are all locked out because we have no SS 08 License key yet, so its moved back here. KM
-
I love the idea nice thinking :) :)
-
Great idea! A part of me thinks: why didn't some-one thought of this before?
Engine-failure for example isn't that strange. It's not like common or something, but it does happen, just like rudder-failure.
Good thinking, lads! :D
-
Agreed in future SSs we should have controllable failures in free mode, and uncontrolable failures maybe. Kinda like Flight Simulator. KM
-
Yes, but than you should see the meters of the engine.
Like RPM, temperature, oil pressure. So that you can avoid problems.
I like the idea verry much.
-
Agreed in future SSs we should have controllable failures in free mode, and uncontrolable failures maybe. Kinda like Flight Simulator. KM
Yes, I would like to see SS get to where it has the same degress of controlability as MSFS
-
Yes, but than you should see the meters of the engine.
Like RPM, temperature, oil pressure. So that you can avoid problems.
I like the idea verry much.
Another great idea, being able to see vital engine gauges, ie: oil pressure, fuel, temperature, etc. KM
-
If publication is scheduled for mid July, I suspect it is too late to ask for change...
Personally, I'd like to see fully operational combinators (including propeller pitch etc), stern lateral thrusters and bouyancy tanks. But it IS a game after all. A ridiculously addictive game I might add...
Stuart
-
I'd love if it would be like FS2004 or any flight sims wher eyou have to turn on the electrical or disengage stuff. and turn the key on or wait for the power to "boot" up the ship like a tanker
-
If publication is scheduled for mid July, I suspect it is too late to ask for change...
Personally, I'd like to see fully operational combinators (including propeller pitch etc), stern lateral thrusters and bouyancy tanks. But it IS a game after all. A ridiculously addictive game I might add...
Stuart
That is just wut this game NEEDS. and the rudder on the Titanic should move. I hope other people did see that.
-
Hello all,
I vote YES, but i have this week engineroom simulator,
and i been impressed about engines i will still waiting;)
-
Engine Room Simulator? Are you training for a job? KM
-
That is just wut this game NEEDS. and the rudder on the Titanic should move. I hope other people did see that.
yep, just like in virtual sailor where the rudders and props are visible when you throttle up
p.s.: VSTEP needs to have weather objects like moons and more planes and helios moving about
-
having the helicopters and other things, will take alot of work and time. KM
-
I think they should first work out the other kinks in the system that crash the game. I have that problem and I don't know wut to do about it. But on the engine topic, its a no brainer that shipsim should have engine start ups.
-
If publication is scheduled for mid July, I suspect it is too late to ask for change...
Personally, I'd like to see fully operational combinators (including propeller pitch etc), stern lateral thrusters and bouyancy tanks. But it IS a game after all. A ridiculously addictive game I might add...
Stuart
Prop pitch I think it a bit much, but I think draft control, engine control, seeing engine vitals, being limited to "virtual fuel capacity" and similar items to MSFS I think would really make this fun. Also, like in MSFS, gamers do not have to mess with those controls and still fly around and have fun. SS in the future could be the same way.
-
Agreed seeing engine vitals, having a limited fuel capacity would br great. KM
-
having the helicopters and other things, will take alot of work and time. KM
I remember Vstep saying that they would one day like to add flyable helicopters to the game, with a basic flight model. But I accept that is probably a long way off.
-
I heard the same. They want the challenge of landing on a moving target. heh
-
that should be a ton of fun, I once wus on a cruise ship when somthing like that happened
-
that should be a ton of fun, I once wus on a cruise ship when somthing like that happened
Me too. We were in rough seas with high winds and an accident happened on board and we had to do an airlift in the fowl weather. You bet I was outside taking a peek!
-
What kind of startup have you in mind,A button to press?
-
A button on the keyboard, using the mouse to turn keys or push buttons on the bridge or in the engine room, etc. Feel free to make suggestions. KM
-
Maybe a sequence of keys. Like in Rigs of Rods, a amature truck game you start the trucks with the x key. Wich turns the key. And than holding the s button till it starts. Maybe this is an idea??
-
That's a good idea! :)
-
My knowledge of the technical operation of ships is iffy, but somewhere along the line you need auxiliary generatos, air compressors, heaters for burning the heavy bunker fuel.
Also there are CPP units (contol pitch props) that need to be primed and run to pressure...
You could keep a simulator busy in the engine room alone...
Stuart
-
Well ok I have to say I don't have any experience with those things. But just pressing a few buttons will be a start wouldn't it. Maybe half of those things you mentioned with a button asigned.
I don't think it's that hard to put in a game is it? Maybe someone can get this information to the developers. Maybe something for in a patch?
-
My knowledge of the technical operation of ships is iffy, but somewhere along the line you need auxiliary generatos, air compressors, heaters for burning the heavy bunker fuel.
Also there are CPP units (contol pitch props) that need to be primed and run to pressure...
You could keep a simulator busy in the engine room alone...
Stuart
Actually, engineroom (or more precisely engine control room) simulators have become a big business. Modern ships no longer have just a throttle beside the main engine and a bunch of oil drip feeds! An engineer's watch is stood mostly in the control room (sound insulated! and probably air conditioned), where he can turn on pumps, open valves, and keep watch on the engines all by remote control.
I don't know how this would fit into ShipSim, though, which is principally a deck officer's simulator. All sorts of things could happen while you are down in the engineroom and not keeping watch on the bridge!
Cheers,
Michael
Cheers,
Michael
-
What if...
We incorporated a multiplayer that lets people get on the same ship and have seperate jobs. Captain, 2nd mate, engineer, deck hand? 8) :o
-
What if...
We incorporated a multiplayer that lets people get on the same ship and have seperate jobs. Captain, 2nd mate, engineer, deck hand? 8) :o
Now that's a great idea! But the only problem is that's a lot of captains! Imagine all the Ocean Stars and Titanics in Hamburg at a time. You'd need a schedule. ;D
-
My knowledge of the technical operation of ships is iffy, but somewhere along the line you need auxiliary generatos, air compressors, heaters for burning the heavy bunker fuel.
Also there are CPP units (contol pitch props) that need to be primed and run to pressure...
You could keep a simulator busy in the engine room alone...
Stuart
like you said, you could keep someone busy just in the engine room. KM
-
I think unless Vstep could be convinced of the commercial viability of an engineering simulator for the home PC it is very unlikely. Lets face it, joe public will always go for the bridge before the engine room.
As for a simulator that combines both, I suspect this would always be a compromise. I think a programme that tries to be everything to everyone would be a failure.
That said, a few ancilliary controls wouldn't go a miss. Full combinators, stabilisers, the sort of stuff the bridge controls directly.
Stuart
-
I think the engine room is just going a little too far, not everyone will love the idea. I think it will just be something to slow down the game.
-
I think we should focus more on engine controlability rather than going TO the engine room.
-
I agree, The game will get heavy enough for the system, so adding more difficult scenery will not improve gameplay and such. Controlebillity has a higher priority, if you ask me.
-
greetings,
I also agree,with you Dave and Eemspoort.
It's a simulator for ships,and how to handle those.Can you go in FS around your plane,and check the tires,flaps and engine.
I dont think so.Why should we do it in Ship-sim?
The game gets more heavy on the system of some computers,on the end you have to keep up,on that system.This means for some our members,that they have to stop with the game,because of the money that is needed,for this.
Lets us just,keep it to steer vessels and real movements of that vessel and waters.This i think is more importent.
Regards
Marc
-
I think it's important to keep up discussions like this even if what they are proposing is unpheasable. Because bear in mind that one day they will be pheasable, perhaps the technology will have improved so you can get more stuff on a lesser computer and the general level of computer quality will be higher. So it is worth talking about this now because one day it will be significant.
-
greetings,
I also agree,with you Dave and Eemspoort.
It's a simulator for ships,and how to handle those.Can you go in FS around your plane,and check the tires,flaps and engine.
But the discusion began with starting the engine. And then it grew to creating a whole engine room. But I agree, it should stay with just simulating the sailing. But starting the engines would be great wouldn't it (A)
-
I'll find this intersting with engine rooms. But you'll have to mould the ground before building the house. ;)
-
to clear things up, I was not saying we should have the engine room moddeled, i was just stateing the fact that you could keep someone busy just in the engine room. I agree that the game is already heavy on the system, and we don't need the engine room, just a few more things on the bridge for the engines, ex. vital gauges, start, stop, etc. KM
-
I aggre but the bridge on the boats shown in the dev. videos is a little "empty". So a few gagues should do the trick.
-
agreed, some more gaugues and things would be good, because as you said the bridge is a little empty. KM
-
Me too. We were in rough seas with high winds and an accident happened on board and we had to do an airlift in the fowl weather. You bet I was outside taking a peek!
ya, I wus on the Carnival Victory and a guy had a heart attack or somthing like that
-
ya, I wus on the Carnival Victory and a guy had a heart attack or somthing like that
And I on Carnival Pride.
-
Like I mentioned previously, I think that negine control adds for a lot more mission profiles and much more controlability. Also, like in MSFS you could start to introduce where you have an engine failure and you have to get back, or you have to strategically try to navigate to port before you run out of fuel, etc . . .
That takes the realism to great heights. Something a lot of crews have to deal with daily. Then of course, we would need to develope fueling points in the game, similar to MSFS. Or, we would make where a fueling vessel must be requested or piloted to your ship and you must await refueling.
SEE?! The possibilities are endless!
-
I think (assuming sales justify future development) that it would be better asking the developers for add on ports and ships... there have been one or two requests.
Sydney harbour, Newcastle (tyne) DOVER, Miami, DOVER,err DOVER
SEE?! The possibilities are endless! ;)
Stuart
-
This belongs in another topic. Lets get back to the topic at hand, eh? Lets see if we can come up with a viable way that could be the easiest for VStep to produce and a concept that would meet our interests in the game.
-
I don't think it would even require modeling, all they would need is a switch, and when that switch is in the off position, the engine is immobilised and will not move, even if you move the throttle (sorry, I know that's not the right word).
When the engines are switched on you hear the sounds of the engines slowly getting louder, winding up, until they are ready to operate, only then is it possible to get the engines moving. If gauges were to be included then that is the only modeling that would be nessecary.
EDIT: There could of course be more than one switch involved, it could have more progression than simply flicking one switch and waiting.
-
I don't think it would even require modeling, all they would need is a switch[es], and when that switch[es] is in the off position, the engine is immobilised and will not move even if you move the throttle (sorry, I know that's not the right word).
When the engines are switched on you hear the sounds of the engines slowly getting louder, winding up until, until they are ready to perate, then is it possible to get the engines moving. If gauges were to be included then that is the only modeling that would be nesseccary.
See. I agree. Now lets bug the developers about it.
-
This belongs in another topic. Lets get back to the topic at hand, eh? Lets see if we can come up with a viable way that could be the easiest for VStep to produce and a concept that would meet our interests in the game.
With all respect, it is relevant. If you are to ask the developers to do this project and they agreed it would be at the detriment of other aspects of the project.
A greater range of harbours and ships will sell more packs than a simple engine room simulator.
If they were to model a 'few switches and gauges' how long before people start complaining that it doesn't really reflect engine room management?
Stuart
-
But if VStep does simulate the engine-room, how long will it take for people to complain about Deck-management? And so on. I don't mean to offend you, Stuart, but we simply can't have them all. ;) For know, that is... ;D
A couple of gauges and switches would be nice for starters.
After that "we" could think about additional simulations, like the engine-room and deck-management.
And ofcourse loading and unloading, what hangs unavoideble together with freighters.
We can load/unload the container-vessels in SS08 our selves, can't we?
Well, in the future we could maybe (un)load tankers and bulk-carriers?
Possibillitys with these kind of simulators are really endless.
And i think, that's a good thing! :D
-
Actually, if you read my post you will see that is the point I was trying to make.
Make up your mind- a ship simulator OR marine simulator.
Please keep up!
Stu
-
See. I agree. Now lets bug the developers about it.
I agree with that ;D Lets go bug the developers and hopefully get it in the game. KM
-
I agree with that ;D Lets go bug the developers and hopefully get it in the game. KM
Alrighty than let's get bugging ;D
Maybe this can be a small update, patch or something.
-
Actually, if you read my post you will see that is the point I was trying to make.
Make up your mind- a ship simulator OR marine simulator.
Please keep up!
Stu
Like i said, Stuart, i didn't mean to offend you or anybody else.
And we aren't all born with the English language, so a mis-understanding can ocure, don't you agree?
Allright then, let's get bugging! ;D
-
Sorry. You make a good point, Eemsport.
I'm afraid that I have taken yor bilingual skills for granted as you write English so well.
I'm afraid that apart from speaking reasonable French, I only know a bit of Flemish (similar to Netherlands, yes?). I go to Flanders quite a lot (mostly Bruges and Antwerp). But it is so difficult to find good language boks for Dutch and Flemish.
Stuart
-
I was referring to:
"I think (assuming sales justify future development) that it would be better asking the developers for add on ports and ships... there have been one or two requests.
Sydney harbour, Newcastle (tyne) DOVER, Miami, DOVER,err DOVER
SEE?! The possibilities are endless!
Stuart"
-
Good grief. Dave is agreeing with me. How quaint :)
I'm glad you came round to my way of thinking eventually.
Stuart
-
Huh? CONFUSION!! I am saying that is the topic that does not belong here, it belongs in the other thread I created.
-
Here is the link:
http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php/topic,246.0/topicseen.html
-
Dave
I sometimes wonder if you actually bother to read posts before replying. My comment has everything to do with engines.
My point is "Would inclusion of engineering functions cause other parts of the game/ simulator to be reduced?" You can NOT have everything.
My comment was not about favourite ports. You were suggesting that the engineering functions would give 'endless options' and I was suggesting alternative options- such as forgetting engineering for now and (once VStep have made sufficient sales to justify further development) concentrate on other features such as ships and ports.
I would guess that the majority of people bought SS06 due to the bridge controls rather than the engineering functions which would appeal mostly to die hard ship fans. One is all well and nice, but the other sells product.
As far as I'm concerned this thread is becoming argumentative. I always try to see another persons viewpoint and I respectfully suggest you do the same.
Regards
Stuart
EDIT:
-
I think it is simply a matter of misunderstanding, most likely. I read your posts, however, I did not make a connection. Most likely just because I have a lot going on in my head.
However, regardless the case, I am sorry if you have the impression I am being argumentative. That is in fact not my intention. You are the first to bring this up. HA HA maybe you just have the guts to slam the old man down now and then, I dunno. Regardless, I think this got all out of hand.
Wounds mended, words exchanged . . . . Now lets enjoy the forum, eh?
-
Lets just put whatever conflicts we have aside and continue with the topic before it gets locked. If you want to fight, do it over pms not where you disturb other members who are just trying to get some information. KM
-
Wounds mended, words exchanged . . . . Now lets enjoy the forum, eh?
OK. fair point. You do realise that world war three is going to kick off over a misunderstanding in a web chat forum don't you?
Glad we got it sorted anyway. Still think I'm right though ;)
Stuart
-
OK. fair point. You do realise that world war three is going to kick off over a misunderstanding in a web chat forum don't you?
Glad we got it sorted anyway. Still think I'm right though ;)
Stuart
Heh. Maybe.
-
Do you think Bush, Putin, Blair etc have been discussing nuclear warheads on a chatroom? Hope not...
Stuart
-
I would guess that the majority of people bought SS06 due to the bridge controls rather than the engineering functions which would appeal mostly to die hard ship fans. One is all well and nice, but the other sells product.
No one bought SS2006 for the engineering. It wasn't even part of the game. So you don't really know how many people would buy the game because they were after the engineering aspect. Besides, the point I'm standing by is that it really wouldn't be much trouble for Vstep to add this engine start up into the game anyway. So it wouldn't really detract from their development of ports and ships.
-
First of all: Stuart, thanks for the compliment abaut my English writing. I see your point know too. ;)
And Flemish is close to Dutch, yes.
But, like Master Captain said, let's get on-topic again! ;D
Could things like a virtual engine-room and such be added with add-on's/patches, like scenery's and ships?
In that case, VStep could extend SS08 on and on, in stead of making new versions every now and then.
I mean, if the engine for SS08 is the right one to use, that would be an idea, don't you agree?
I do hope it is clear what i mean... ::)
And yes, it still would be nice, if we could start/stop engines from the wheel-house in SS08.
-
I agree, it would be great if you're able to stop the engines.
But how to controle 2 engines 1 in the bow and one at the back ?
Do we need 2 controle panels one for each engine ?
Coen
-
Yes, with multiple engines, we would need multiple controll-panels.
However, since VStep uses a hydraulic- or electric-type bowthrusters, we wouldn't need controll-panels for that. How do i "know" that? Because we can't regulate the rpm's of the bow-thrusters, so i presume that they are electric or hydraulic. ;)
-
No one bought SS2006 for the engineering. It wasn't even part of the game . . . . Besides, the point I'm standing by is that it really wouldn't be much trouble for Vstep to add this engine start up into the game anyway. So it wouldn't really detract from their development of ports and ships.
Yes, the original point of the game was the piloting experience. I think engine controls, failures, etc will add to the piloting aspect and I think that should pretty much be the extent of it for the time being. I do not think this game could get more engineering involved and remain entertaining to a large group of gamers.
Thoughts?
-
Well certainly I think it would drive people away if all were forced to pay more attention to the engineering aspects. But if it were optional as to how detailed the whole engineering features were for each user then I think it could only benefit sales.
-
Well certainly I think it would drive people away if all were forced to pay more attention to the engineering aspects. But if it were optional as to how detailed the whole engineering features were for each user then I think it could only benefit sales.
You mean something similar to a Mode option....Arcade or Full Simulation ?
Sounds like it may work, just depends on how easy it is to incorporate I guess ;)
Regards.
DJM.
-
No one bought SS2006 for the engineering. It wasn't even part of the game. So you don't really know how many people would buy the game because they were after the engineering aspect. Besides, the point I'm standing by is that it really wouldn't be much trouble for Vstep to add this engine start up into the game anyway. So it wouldn't really detract from their development of ports and ships.
Sorry. I mean that 'In my opinion, more people, given the choice, would buy a bridge simulator over an engine room simulator.
It WOULD be some trouble, surely. Whilst you are looking at the engine room simulator, the computer will still be thinking about the bridge, calculating positions, collisions, etc etc. Likewise, when on the bridge the computer will be calculating all the results of the various controls that the engine room would require.
In effect, you will have 2 programmes. I'm not saying I'm against it, just that you aren't talking about a little add on, but a major extension of the programming. All I ask is for you to look at the workload before suggesting it formally to the developers.
Stuart
-
You mean something similar to a Mode option....Arcade or Full Simulation ?
Sounds like it may work, just depends on how easy it is to incorporate I guess ;)
Regards.
DJM.
Actually, I like the MSFS approach to this topic. For gamers, they can just jump in a plane and take off. However, for the more hard core gamers you can select that when you start your flight the engine is off somewhere on the ground and you have to go through all the technical start up procedures to get the bird rolling. Also in MSFS you can active engine failures, fuel measures, etc all under the "Realism" settings. I think SS should be approached in the same manner, thereby appealing to all sorts of gamers while not needing two modes, just specifying how much control each individual player wants.
-
Stuart, I see your point. See my post above and see if it is agreeable to this situation.
-
Actually, I like the MSFS approach to this topic. For gamers, they can just jump in a plane and take off. However, for the more hard core gamers you can select that when you start your flight the engine is off somewhere on the ground and you have to go through all the technical start up procedures to get the bird rolling. Also in MSFS you can active engine failures, fuel measures, etc all under the "Realism" settings. I think SS should be approached in the same manner, thereby appealing to all sorts of gamers while not needing two modes, just specifying how much control each individual player wants.
Very true ;)
I must admit, I do love that approach (no pun intended). Gotta love programming that GPS ;D
-
Actually, I like the MSFS approach to this topic. For gamers, they can just jump in a plane and take off. However, for the more hard core gamers you can select that when you start your flight....
Yes, I'll agree with that.
I'd certainly say that there should be a feature that allows the 'easy to steer, start and stop' ship or the 'slow acceleration/deceleration/ steers like a brick' reality of a real ship. (but that's been suggested elsewhere by others).
Certainly if any engineering functions are included then they need to have a 'simple' option for the 'game' players- I'd certainly agree.
Stu
-
Yes, I'll agree with that.
I'd certainly say that there should be a feature that allows the 'easy to steer, start and stop' ship or the 'slow acceleration/deceleration/ steers like a brick' reality of a real ship. (but that's been suggested elsewhere by others).
Stu
YEAH! That is when it all gets fun!
-
You mean something similar to a Mode option....Arcade or Full Simulation ?
Sounds like it may work, just depends on how easy it is to incorporate I guess ;)
Regards.
DJM.
Yes, that's pretty much what I mean, but users should be able to have full on handling difficulty even if the engine management is non existant. I realise that the engine room is probably too much for the time being I'm just suggesting things for when it is possible.
-
Yes, that's pretty much what I mean, but users should be able to have full on handling difficulty even if the engine management is non existant. I realise that the engine room is probably too much for the time being I'm just suggesting things for when it is possible.
Absolutely, I believe that we may see some great things happening with our great simulator as it is developed ;D
It's all an advantage for us ;)
Regards.
DJM.
-
Any other thoughts or suggestions on this matter?
-
Heh Heh. It does exist, and fine point indeed. Well taken.
-
Yes, with multiple engines, we would need multiple controll-panels.
However, since VStep uses a hydraulic- or electric-type bowthrusters, we wouldn't need controll-panels for that. How do i "know" that? Because we can't regulate the rpm's of the bow-thrusters, so i presume that they are electric or hydraulic. ;)
I think you didn't follow me. The vessel has no bow-thrusters but has two main engines and when it came at its mooring place it uses the front engine to slow down. I hope you will understand what I'm trying to say.
The images will clear something out I hope ???
-
I think you didn't follow me. The vessel has no bow-thrusters but has two main engines and when it came at its mooring place it uses the front engine to slow down. I hope you will understand what I'm trying to say.
The images will clear something out I hope ???
Interesting. But I don't think that would be a problem. ShipSim seems to be able to handle twin-engine craft OK now.
@ Eemspoort -- Yes, but I seem to find that the thruster action in SS is variable (from a little to a lot) which suggests to me that they are hydraulic. Electric thrusters are generally an on/off proposition, but the thruster on my boat (for example) is hydraulic and variable.
River "towboats" in the US also have "flanking" rudders (extra rudders in FRONT of the propeller(s)) that are used for operating when the engines are in reverse -- notably for steering when going downstream.
Cheers,
Michael
-
I think you didn't follow me. The vessel has no bow-thrusters but has two main engines and when it came at its mooring place it uses the front engine to slow down. I hope you will understand what I'm trying to say.
The images will clear something out I hope ???
Ahaa, yes, now i understand! Those kind of ferries have multiple engines at both sides, yes. And they don't really have a front- and rear-end, hehehe.
But still, what i said remains. Multiple engines, multiple controlls. ;)
Micheal: I can't verify that the bowthrusters in SS06 are variable in thrust. It seems to me that they give it all! ;D But you sure could be right, tho! However, they are surely not deisel-powered.
Most (bigger) tow(push)-boats have Flanking-rudders here in Europe as well.
-
I have a 360 degrees bowthruster as wel. The screw lies horizontal, sucking up water, thrusting it thru a "tube" and then thru a roster that can turn 360 degrees. It.s not easy to explain, i'm afraid, but maybe you all get me... ;D
-
I have a 360 degrees bowthruster as wel. The screw lies horizontal, sucking up water, thrusting it thru a "tube" and then thru a roster that can turn 360 degrees. It.s not easy to explain, i'm afraid, but maybe you all get me... ;D
So it works kind of like a rotatable water jet, yes?
-
Micheal: I can't verify that the bowthrusters in SS06 are variable in thrust. It seems to me that they give it all! ;D But you sure could be right, tho! However, they are surely not deisel-powered.
Most (bigger) tow(push)-boats have Flanking-rudders here in Europe as well.
Try this, Eemspoort -- you can move any of the smaller inland-vessels in SS away from a wharf (let us say you are lying starboard-side to) by using a little left bow thruster and a little main engine with hard right rudder. The boat walks sideways.
But too much thruster (more than about 25%) and the stern swings in more than the prop wash can handle, so you hit the quay and suffer damage in the stern. Not enough thruster and the main engine thrust eventually drives the bow into the quay or the boat ahead.
The thrust is definitely variable with the extent of movement of the lever, like a regular throttle. Surely not diesel-powered, however. works more like hydraulics.
Cheers,
Michael
-
Yes, to confirm, the thrusters in SS are indeed variable - Hence the wide array of maneuvers I can get the ships to perform.
EX: Ocean Star
Apply 75% forward thruster
Apply 60% stern thrusters
Apply 25% forward throttle
And you can get a fore-going sideways slide while bringing the bow into whatever position it need be to WHILE going forward and sideways.
mPorter - It took me a long time to get the gribs of "crabbing" the boat. Often I would get things confused and just spin hard and fast. HA HA HA! Luckily, now I can get most vessels to crab. It takes some getting used to, especially considering each vessels takes to their thrusters at different speeds in different ways.
-
I mostly work with the keyboard, since i don't have something good (propper joystick/wheel) to work with.
My bowthruster has nothing to do with a pump or a jet. ;)
It realy is a horizontal mounted screw. Oh well, when i get to it, i will shoot some pics! ;D
-
I mostly work with the keyboard, since i don't have something good (propper joystick/wheel) to work with.
My bowthruster has nothing to do with a pump or a jet. ;)
It realy is a horizontal mounted screw. Oh well, when i get to it, i will shoot some pics! ;D
Yes, most thrusters are props in an athwartships tube. You can move the thruster lever in the game with the mouse, which is also the only way to control the engines of twiwn-engine ships separately.
Chgers,
Michael
-
Lets try and get back on topic, about the engines, and not bowthrusters. KM
-
I mostly work with the keyboard, since i don't have something good (propper joystick/wheel) to work with.
My bowthruster has nothing to do with a pump or a jet. ;)
It realy is a horizontal mounted screw. Oh well, when i get to it, i will shoot some pics! ;D
The mouse will do a trick!
Lets try and get back on topic, about the engines, and not bowthrusters. KM
Technically they are engines, as well. That brings up a point, if we want engine and engine failure control - what 'bout thruster control and failure?;)
-
ok AriesDW you are right, they are engines :P and i agree to have the bow thruster failures, it just makes the game that much more realistic. KM
-
ok AriesDW you are right, they are engines :P and i agree to have the bow thruster failures, it just makes the game that much more realistic. KM
Heh Heh! :p I just had to do it.
-
ok AriesDW you are right, they are engines :P and i agree to have the bow thruster failures, it just makes the game that much more realistic. KM
Actually, I got a quote from a dictionary...
a machine that uses the energy from liquid fuel or steam to produce movement
So if a bow thruster is electrically operated then it isn't an engine.
(running to hide from the flack ;)
Stu
-
Actually, I got a quote from a dictionary...
a machine that uses the energy from liquid fuel or steam to produce movement
So if a bow thruster is electrically operated then it isn't an engine.
(running to hide from the flack ;)
Stu
oh whatever :P, just move on. KM
-
Actually, I got a quote from a dictionary...
a machine that uses the energy from liquid fuel or steam to produce movement
So if a bow thruster is electrically operated then it isn't an engine.
(running to hide from the flack ;)
Stu
HA HA HA but it will count as a motor. :P TAKE THAT
SO YES :: COUGH :: Moving on.
-
Only IF it is powered by electric (UK) or fuel (US) according to dictionery.
I would argue that a fluid motor (inc hydraulic AND air) should also be included as a motor.
So, yes you are right. I knew it would happen eventually :P
Stu
-
Only IF it is powered by electric (UK) or fuel (US) according to dictionery.
I would argue that a fluid motor (inc hydraulic AND air) should also be included as a motor.
So, yes you are right. I knew it would happen eventually :P
Stu
Grrrr . . . . Anyways.
I think ultimately the ability to control these devices better, set them up the malfunction and etc would really make the vessel QUITE a bit more enjoyable. Of course, you can set realism to max and the equipment could fail on you without warning and suddenly a klaxon goes off on the bridge. Now THAT would be fun. Heh heh.
-
The thing with setting it to real is that I've noticed on FS when you set it to that within 20 min of take-off you nearly always have a failure, too common.
-
I have not had such experiences. Care to elaborate with some examples?
-
Oh hang on I'm thinking of a different feature
-
ok, lets get a fire going here, and get back on track. ;D KM
-
i was thinking about the engine room problem about to much pressure on the computer and mabey if you just had the engine room area as an option from a tick box in a menu then certain players wouldn't need to use it, or it would only be accesible in multiplayer and you can decide to be engine room staff like the control tower option on FSX and thats only available on the deluxe version and would only be included on ships where it was neccersary.
-
Good idea
-
yea i see the problem with making computers too slow, i'm sure we can work around it. KM
-
What about runnning out of fuel?
-
Yeah fuel limits would make sense, especially if we could actually fill up at the bunker barge, a pretend situation in a few of the game's scenarios at the moment.
-
That sounds cool, but there's one problem: I HAVE TO GET THE GAME! ;) ;)
-
I don't have it either, I'm waiting on a demo.
-
I don't have it either, I'm waiting on a demo.
Shame on you :P
Stu
-
Shame on you :P
:o But it's all to do with the system requirements, honest!
-
Yes, same here. Mines on a desktop which I rarely get to because of working away. I've ordered a new laptop when 08 came out.... err.... just for work. promis ;) But retailer says not available until end of month (and I'm after a specific model) >:(
Stu
-
Wow I kinda missed this topic. I'm glad it was bumped lol. I've counted my vote as I think starting and stopping an engine is a great idea. Also I think that ship fuel systems should be introduced but there would need to be fuelling stations nearby or you could have an option to turn it off. Also I think that failures are a biggy in a game like this. Such things as engine failures, bow truster failures, flat batteries, hydrolic issues, lighting ect. I know this is a lot for VSTEP to introduce but they can add each feature with patch after patch :)
Also I think that when these failures happen you should be able to get a mechanics boat to come out and fix the problem or come out and refuel the boat although this depends on which type of boat you have. (Would take hours to fill the Vermaas :D)
Just my thoughts..
-
Hi CaptainSpencer!
Believe it or not, erverything you mentioned before was discussed with the developers, except the flat batteries. They are not really a problem onboard larger vessels ;)
Regards
-
Hi CaptainSpencer!
Believe it or not, erverything you mentioned before was discussed with the developers, except the flat batteries. They are not really a problem onboard larger vessels ;)
Regards
Hehe it's like I'm in the developers minds! lol I'm not surprised if they selected me for beta testing now ;D
-
Hey, maybe your ideas running that late every time.. ;D
...and you need to have nerves made of steel to be a beta tester ::)
-
...and you need to have nerves made of steel to be a beta tester ::)
LOL, DJ_Steel_Nerves at your service ;)
-
Hey, maybe your ideas running that late every time.. ;D
...and you need to have nerves made of steel to be a beta tester ::)
I've got plenty of nerves and I am very patient and observant ;)
-
Used to find in heavy seas with gas tankers, which sit high out of the water even when loaded, or ships in ballast, that the prop used to come out of the water in a heavy swell triggering the rpm limiter, causing the main engines to disengage. nothing scarier than at 3 in the morning in a storm when all of a sudden the alarm panel lights up, alarms everwhere and the emergency lighting kicks in. Unless the duty engineer gets the engine back on line and you keep the bow into the sea, it can get very nasty very soon, the last thing you want is to go broadside to the sea. To replicate this type of engine failure and situation would be a test of skill for any wanabe sailor.
-
Ohhhhhhhhhh yeah!!!!
-
Now THAT would be something great for future editions. It's things like that that we landlubbers could never appreciate :)
Stu
-
Carries on dreaming...
-
Whilst making demands of 'I want this NOW' as others have done on this forum is a bit un necessary, comments and suggestions like that of Greyhill is excellent and hopefully an inspiration for future updates.
The thing I find so fascinating about talking with real professionals here is finding out about ships things I'd never have known otherwise. Yes, props coming out of the water- we all know. But I for one didn't realise what could then happen.
Must remember this for another time :D I think it's one of the best suggestions yet (and should be in requests and suggestions in case it gets missed)
Stu
-
I don't think an engine room simulator is viable or even relevant for this sim. Making it realistic would probably put an unneeded load on the game.
I doubt a majority of the playerbase would find the actual work involved with starting up an engine room interesting for very long. At least that's my IRL experience.
What would be nice to have is proper engine control. As it is now we only have a (very) simplified kind of CPP as I se it. A nice addition would be fixed pitch control, as it's the norm on all medium to big cargo ships. (mayby just make it with simplified starting air use and production for a start)
of course making fixed pitch, variable pith and water jet work realisticly would be very nice.
Would also mean manouvering the big ships would be a little more interesting
And please make the engine sounds more realistic.
-
Hi Brinch. Welcome to the forum.
The should we/shouldn't we have engine room has been going on for ages now. And his proven quite devisive.
I think (as a non sailor with no commercial ship experience) that the handling of the ships is generally believable. However, seing how ships handle when a combnation of factors occur (like an engine shutdown in a storm) would be very good indeed.
Stu
-
Hah, so this subject is still going (str)on(g)?
Like said before, these kind of big things could better be released in add-on-packs, i think.
So the player can deside for him-/herself, how realistic and wide-spanned the sim must be.
Just my 2 cents. ;)
Oh, and on inland-ships we don't have that kind of alarms and stuff. Okay, we don't have that big waves on inland-waters, however, the IJselmeer, Oosterschelde and Westerschelde can get real spooky sometimes. ;D
I've been on the Westerschelde with Westwind, force 11 Bft, and that ain't a treat for inland-ships. The propeller did hit air, and the engine did over-rev a few times, but since there where no electronics on that engine, it kept on running. Just hold your hand near the engine-controll and all is well. ;)
-
maybe we could have the option of turning off the whole engine room so it doesn't slow down the game and then turn it on when you go down there and turn off the bridge or where ever you just were. KM
-
I think that the sim does not need a fully simulated engineroom, for any who have experienced an engineroom in reality will know that the day to day running is not very interesting to those other than engineers or lovers of all things mechanical. No offence to any 'part time mechanics' (nickname for engineers) ;) using the forum, they know what i mean. I believe the solution would be a simple control panel on the bridge console with a start/ stop button and maybe a few gauges showing rpm or engine heat, not always wise to run the engines 100% all the time. Engine failures like the one i mentioned before about the props coming out the water could be replicated by blocking the user from starting the engine for a random amount of time simulating the engineers in the engineroom trying to fix the problem. A random engine failure text would appear on the screen like, piston jam, contaminated fuel, engine overheat ect. While the player is blocked from starting the engines he will have to keep control of the ship, with possible panic :D. Imagine as you enter a busy harbour entrance when suddenly the engines cut out due to you running the engines on 100% for too long, ships and other ai craft moving all around you and the harbour piers ahead to avoid, keep pressing the start button but nothing happening, just as you are about to ram an outbound ferry the engine kicks in just in time. Some of you might just break a sweat 8)
-
I think that the sim does not need a fully simulated engineroom, for any who have experienced an engineroom in reality will know that the day to day running is not very interesting to those other than engineers or lovers of all things mechanical. No offence to any 'part time mechanics' (nickname for engineers) ;) using the forum, they know what i mean. I believe the solution would be a simple control panel on the bridge console with a start/ stop button and maybe a few gauges showing rpm or engine heat, not always wise to run the engines 100% all the time. Engine failures like the one i mentioned before about the props coming out the water could be replicated by blocking the user from starting the engine for a random amount of time simulating the engineers in the engineroom trying to fix the problem. A random engine failure text would appear on the screen like, piston jam, contaminated fuel, engine overheat ect. While the player is blocked from starting the engines he will have to keep control of the ship, with possible panic :D. Imagine as you enter a busy harbour entrance when suddenly the engines cut out due to you running the engines on 100% for too long, ships and other ai craft moving all around you and the harbour piers ahead to avoid, keep pressing the start button but nothing happening, just as you are about to ram an outbound ferry the engine kicks in just in time. Some of you might just break a sweat 8)
Haha I totally agree with you here. I think you have cracked it. I would love something like that to be introduced and I think we NEED more dials on the control bridge although so I'm told the bridges of some or all of the craft will be made more complex (to an amount I am unsure) in the upcoming patch.
Can't wait!! ;D ;D
-
yes more guages and dials, like fuel, temp, oil pressure, batter volts, etc. The bridge on SS08 now is blank
-
Imagine as you enter a busy harbour entrance when suddenly the engines cut out due to you running the engines on 100% for too long, ships and other ai craft moving all around you and the harbour piers ahead to avoid, keep pressing the start button but nothing happening, just as you are about to ram an outbound ferry the engine kicks in just in time. Some of you might just break a sweat 8)
Yes I think that's a great approach, a bow thruster failure could also be added forcing the player to either use tugs or the traditional method of ropes to warp the ship into her berth.
-
well, i hate to bring up a VERY old topic (let me just dust things off) anyway, as you've all seen all our chatting, voting and hoping paid off. we got our wish with the engines :D
-
REMOVED
PLEASE THINK BEFORE YOU POST
Eric
-
Wat a ...
1. You are raising a topic over a year old.
2. Randomly saying that to no one in particular shows to me that you seem to have a screw loose ;)
I hope you don't want to get respect on a forum by doing that, you respect everyone they'll respect you :)