Topic: Engines (Read 43451 times)

AriesDW · « **Reply #100 on:** June 07, 2007, 19:38:46 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on June 07, 2007, 12:55:01

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?

Captain Davies · « **Reply #101 on:** June 07, 2007, 22:34:20 »

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.

[RWP]DJM · « **Reply #102 on:** June 08, 2007, 00:03:23 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on June 07, 2007, 22:34:20

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.

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #103 on:** June 08, 2007, 00:07:48 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on June 07, 2007, 12:55:01

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

AriesDW · « **Reply #104 on:** June 08, 2007, 01:13:29 »

Quote from: [RWP]DJM on June 08, 2007, 00:03:23

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.

AriesDW · « **Reply #105 on:** June 08, 2007, 01:14:18 »

Stuart, I see your point. See my post above and see if it is agreeable to this situation.

[RWP]DJM · « **Reply #106 on:** June 08, 2007, 01:15:48 »

Quote from: AriesDW on June 08, 2007, 01:13:29

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

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #107 on:** June 08, 2007, 01:38:15 »

Quote from: AriesDW on June 08, 2007, 01:13:29

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

AriesDW · « **Reply #108 on:** June 08, 2007, 02:19:33 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on June 08, 2007, 01:38:15

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!

Captain Davies · « **Reply #109 on:** June 08, 2007, 12:03:13 »

Quote from: [RWP]DJM on June 08, 2007, 00:03:23

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.

[RWP]DJM · « **Reply #110 on:** June 08, 2007, 13:04:18 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on June 08, 2007, 12:03:13

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

It's all an advantage for us

Regards.

DJM.

AriesDW · « **Reply #111 on:** June 08, 2007, 19:38:10 »

Any other thoughts or suggestions on this matter?

AriesDW · « **Reply #112 on:** June 08, 2007, 22:05:29 »

Heh Heh. It does exist, and fine point indeed. Well taken.

CWi · « **Reply #113 on:** June 09, 2007, 15:48:21 »

Quote from: Eemspoort on June 07, 2007, 16:52:41

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

mporter · « **Reply #114 on:** June 09, 2007, 17:09:45 »

Quote from: CWi on June 09, 2007, 15:48:21

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

Eemspoort · « **Reply #115 on:** June 09, 2007, 18:02:37 »

Quote from: CWi on June 09, 2007, 15:48:21

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!

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.

Eemspoort · « **Reply #116 on:** June 09, 2007, 18:48:30 »

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...

Captain Davies · « **Reply #117 on:** June 09, 2007, 19:02:50 »

Quote from: Eemspoort on June 09, 2007, 18:48:30

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...

So it works kind of like a rotatable water jet, yes?

mporter · « **Reply #118 on:** June 09, 2007, 19:54:06 »

Quote from: Eemspoort on June 09, 2007, 18:02:37

Micheal: I can't verify that the bowthrusters in SS06 are variable in thrust. It seems to me that they give it all! 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

AriesDW · « **Reply #119 on:** June 10, 2007, 10:04:08 »

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.

Eemspoort · « **Reply #120 on:** June 10, 2007, 12:08:41 »

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!

mporter · « **Reply #121 on:** June 10, 2007, 12:55:17 »

Quote from: Eemspoort on June 10, 2007, 12:08:41

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!

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

Master Captain · « **Reply #122 on:** June 10, 2007, 14:31:43 »

Lets try and get back on topic, about the engines, and not bowthrusters. KM

AriesDW · « **Reply #123 on:** June 11, 2007, 01:08:05 »

Quote from: Eemspoort on June 10, 2007, 12:08:41

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!

The mouse will do a trick!

Quote from: Master Captain

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?

Master Captain · « **Reply #124 on:** June 11, 2007, 02:01:52 »

ok AriesDW you are right, they are engines

and i agree to have the bow thruster failures, it just makes the game that much more realistic. KM

Poll

In future versions of SS, would you like to be able to start and stop the engines?

Author Topic: Engines (Read 43451 times)