Control Interfaces.

[XabbaRus]

Has anyone started images for the control interfaces yet?

I suppose as a hack we could use the ones from SCS DW for now.

[Dr.Sid]

I would not do that, because that of course would break copyright. Also there is no point until you know what all controls you will have to place there.
So I think for any platform there will layout of the controls first, with just frames (but completely working), and then it will get 'skinned'.

[TLAM Strike]

I've played aroudn with a few things like a ballast control pannel and started a US style Sonar pannel. I'll post some pics of the ballast pannel another day.

[goldorak]

Could we have military green crt screens please ? :biggrin:
You know, the radio station in sub command/dangerous waters on the american subs is really really ugly. We need a nice crt/lcd blck screen with green letters.

And of course the radio transmissions should be realistic (or as close to realistic as possibile) type message :

example :
incoming transimission.....
....from north atlantic command...
....message....


etc...

[TLAM Strike]

A WIP...
http://www.commanders-academy.com/tlamstrike/MBT%20Pannel.jpg

[Dr.Sid]

Good start ! It wastes space a bit thought. Is this done by some reference ?

[goldorak]

TLAM Strike are you using "real life" images to guide you for the interface model ? :redface:

[TLAM Strike]

TLAM Strike are you using "real life" images to guide you for the interface model ? :redface:

Sure did check out the Albacore's MBT pannel here: Tim's Photo Galleries at pbase.com (http://www.pbase.com/timmyg_00/root)

btw I updated the image and I can more stuff around to make better use of space in the future.

[sonar732]

I can't wait until I see the sonar screenies!

[Zachstar]

Good start ! It wastes space a bit thought. Is this done by some reference ?

Isn't it designed so you can test things and not for any kind of realism?

[goldorak]

For 2d stations, I would advocate something along Fast Attack instead of DW.
Think about it, with ComSubSim we strive for maximum realism, so we should use "realistic" stations, FA had realistic stations but very poor sonar and physics modeling.

Here :

http://x7buza.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pO_7gpZ7CB-Nm4J1EdnS_KeD4jn1ItxfEWnVOkJFFRFs7IHgzAuuSt3LKVdPm-1fPHBXWCOuZ5Cw/fastattack1.JPG

http://x7buza.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pMBKhc2s17qFFILXgzXr1ttClaDBGqGM9_nBLOIQk9zcJwlY RVJphGLJKCUqqR4JtP4zwinJP0wg/fastattack2.JPG

http://x7buza.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pw6hc4UPWxchNGQENA9J9fhooZfmI0PggGKYjmmDR-0e30c5wJ2i2kj0hjdnI67ukGcp1qgwMJVo/fastattack3.JPG

http://x7buza.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pdGd-b4K2ZSVp1nEn2EB8K6FjLKdIOVxU_nbZfhHaTFDZalW0VTWIyp JV2XMrlAK1kUB0qnpxRcA/fastattack4.JPG

http://x7buza.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p8FUm0QTc4rqLQrpP_S26hhFbZ6hxgpzMynCp3c2TUu_XalZ-ro5-tyeB8A6frh-GsMOJ_yOMRf4/fastattack6.JPG

[Dr.Sid]

Well for most subs we don't know what's realistic anyway. I don't see this much different from DW except it tries to show much more numbers at once. But all around it looks quite good.
Anyway .. first I will make some basic non-skinned panels, where the priority will be demonstration of features. When the feature set is discussed and agreed on, we can design layout, of course based on reference where possible, then the controls will be placed and skinned.

[goldorak]

Well for most subs we don't know what's realistic anyway. I don't see this much different from DW except it tries to show much more numbers at once. But all around it looks quite good.
Anyway .. first I will make some basic non-skinned panels, where the priority will be demonstration of features. When the feature set is discussed and agreed on, we can design layout, of course based on reference where possible, then the controls will be placed and skinned.

Ok Dr.Sid,
What I didn't specifiy is that when Fast Attack came out the US Navy was very crossed (angry) at how realistic the different stations were.
It is much more realistic than what the 688i DW stations are.
So we could take these images as inspirations, general guidlines as to how to design 2d panels for subs in comsubsim.

[Hitman]

I have created certain sketches of how to distribute controls and dials in the stations, plus have started a list of keys that would have a LOGICAL distribution of them, something not all current simulations have. The idea would be to take advantage of the distribution of keys in the normal keyboards...

For example:Taking the groups of 4 keys with the "F" functions:

F1= Ship control (Rudder, dive planes, compass, speed)
F2=Trim & propulsion (Switch diesel/elctric or set reactor activity/power)
F3=Ship status (Damage control)
F4=Communications (Radio)

F5=Sonar Broadband
F6=Sonar Narrowband
F7=Demon
F8=Active Sonar/Intercept

F9=Weapons launch, control and load
F10=TMA
F11=Scope (Binocs if surfaced)
F12=Bridge

I also created a sketch with the basic distribution of the instruments that could be useable for all nations; you would just need to replace the "looks" of the dials and needles but without changing its functionality. I'll post a screenshot here later.

[Dr.Sid]

You missed map, radar and ESM .. I think we will need subpages (as DW).

There are some groups:

1) Controls - controls, machinery, damage control
2) Sonar - BB, NB, DEMON, intercept, don't forget SSP and there may be more
3) Electronics - com, ESM, radar
3) Optical instruments (scope, binocs)
6) Map
7) TMA
8) Weapons - firing, programing
9) 3D Views - sail, outer view

We must squeeze this into 12 buttons. I would these groups, TMA and map could be merged. It's similar anyway. Then the most exposed groups (like sonar) could be split into more keys.

Also this all will be customizable. And maybe it can be easily customizable, driectly in the game. I mean the F keys can just open slot and you could change the station and it could be ANY station, not just station from that group.

But of course there must be some clean and logical initial preset.

[Hitman]

Yes it was just an example, and of course there would be a need for subpages. Stations and instruments of secondary importance (Like the SSP, which you consult once at teh start of the mission or not much frequently) could find their place there.

As for ship control screen, I have studied several US and soviet submarines interiors, and think that the helmsman station with some additional info/controls is the most indicated one for personally steering the ship. In fact, most submarines I have seen (german, british, WWI, WW2, cold war....) more or less had the same indicators in the helmsman station.

The main differences I have found is 1) that some (russians mainly) use dials to represent ship inclination while others (americans mainly) use "bubble" tubes, and 2) That some (russians, german U-212, etc) use two small joysticks for control, and others (americans) use a yoke. This last one is not important, since it will not be displayed in the screen.

Here is a sketch of how I would suggest instrument distribution (Again note that it has been done with 1st person ship control purpose in mind):

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1218/controlsbc9.th.jpg (http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=controlsbc9.jpg)

Unlike in DW, I would put the controls for streaming/retrieving the towed array in the sonar panel, but there is place to accomodate extra switches. Note that I would leave a separated screen for trim and engine controls; a cool thing would be to be able to set the reactor to its minimum power in order to achieve maximum silence :smile:at the cost of not having all the full power instantly available :biggrin:

The big compass rose in the centre should be switchable for a high frequency sonar display in order to make it easiest to navigate personally through minefields and such :cool: and also for a bridge-forward view, simulating what a helmsman in the conning tower/bridge sees to steer the ship in harbour.

The beauty of this all (Which I think is your original idea) is that by simply changing the graphic of the background and the needles, you could instantly customize to any nation's style the looks of the station. For older subs, you simply wouldn't have the ability to see the HF sonar, but only the compass rose.

PD: I forgot to say that I have been collecting images of several submarine interiors, so I have a good database to represent skins for them.

[Dr.Sid]

Good work.

As for steering in harbor, I guess you should do that from the bridge. All important controls (all few) are duplicated there.
HF sonar should be available for steering, that's clear.

As for reactor, power settings are sure thing. I even think about one screen dedicated to reactor associated steam lines, where you could check pressures and temperatures.
But for the start there will be just 3 power settings (natural circulation, low power, full power) and scram option, with only basic info on reactor (temperature, pressure, rods position).

Thanks for the steering gauges layout, very helpful.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

I hate to add more detail here, but why don't we create a 3D control room?

Do we intend to create a sim were we have to micromanage evey little thing? Or one where you are the captain and you are issuing orders that the crew follows??

This needs to be defined NOW as it sets the tone of what you need to see and/or DO in this sim.

Personally I think both should be allowed, but back to the discussion.

The sonar rooms are off (or are IN on some boats) the control room. The Helm, Fire Ccontrol, Quartermasters (navigation) station, Radar, and just about everything is IN or just off control.

I think it would be better if you are standing in control. You are in command. You are issuing orders. Then, if you want to look at a station (ie, looking over the shoulder or check a map) you move TO it. You can then make command decisions. You give orders and mainatin control of the situation. If someone is not doing their jobs, then you DO it yourself. I am sorry if this sounds sudden, but one of my BIGGEST complaints about DW is that the crew will DO THIER JOBS. If you want to be a sonarman, then BE one. But when you leave the station the crewman WILL DO THE JOB he has been HIGHLY trained to do.

Having a control room would also set the tone of the sim. You are in charge. The lives of this crew is in your hands.

As far as detail, you do not have to have people moving controls or walking around. You just have to see what is going on will be good enough (for a start)

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Good work.

As for reactor, power settings are sure thing. I even think about one screen dedicated to reactor associated steam lines, where you could check pressures and temperatures.
But for the start there will be just 3 power settings (natural circulation, low power, full power) and scram option, with only basic info on reactor (temperature, pressure, rods position).

Thanks for the steering gauges layout, very helpful.

For the purposes of this sim, I would recommend only showing plant mode. Things like rod height, Tave, pressure and such would be totally out of character. In control they basically care about plant status (critical, scramm'd), and mode of operation. I will try to find you a sample layout like they have in control.

Also, a scram is NEVER done unless there is an emergency. It is NEVER done for 'just cause' reasons. When scram'd, you propulsion is basically gone and you are on emergency power

Also, not all plants HAVE 3 power settings..

[Molon Labe]

I am sorry if this sounds sudden, but one of my BIGGEST complaints about DW is that the crew will DO THIER JOBS. If you want to be a sonarman, then BE one. But when you leave the station the crewman WILL DO THE JOB he has been HIGHLY trained to do.


Seconded. I think SCS hit upon a great concept with autocrew but failed to implement it well. A single player shouldn't be expected to crew all stations simultaneously, which means the autocrew needs to be able to fill in. In particular, I would hope sonar autocrew could report a TIW (as opposed to having a gamey automatic alert) or other transients while you're off doing TMA or something.

[goldorak]

I'm not sold on the whole 3d control room.
Its like a 3d virtual cockpit when you're in an airplane. Unless the have the possibility of interacting with the instruments and therfore they are readable from the 3d interface what's the point ? :confused:
And then if you're going to design a working 3d control room why duplicate the effort by designing again 2d stations ?
At least in an aircarft you can see out the windshield even if you can't interact with the instruments but on a sub ?
I think that since most our time is going to be occupied in the different 2d stations, we should prioritize that, well designed realistic 2d stations. And of course have an intelligent autocrew so that we don't have to micromanage everything (unless we want to).

[Red Ocktober]

personally, i like the idea of a whole control room... for the immersion factor... one of the main reasons SH is so well received...

if you have render to texture capability then instruments, displays, and panels can be entirely 3D...

also... if there is going to be a 3D control room, there should at least be a 3D bridge, and the ladder down to control should be simulated... and the transit down the ladder also simulated... i just feel that helps enhance the feel of being 'below'...

once below you can quick jump to each station... the ideas about ai crew taking over and following the last standing 'order' i agree with entirely... and the C.O. can either man the station or give orders...

in my sim i had it planned so that there would be room for 3 to four players aboard the sub... captain, watch/diving officer, exec/attack officer, and an engineering officer (maybe)... and each would have control over the stations under their command (ie, diving officer can quick jump to ballast, planes) and those would be fixed stations... otherwise, they would be able to roam the sub (whatever spaces are modelled)...

as far as non essential spaces... it would be nice for the player to leave the control room once in a while, but i guess this is not essential...

i know something like this will be a lot of work to code and model... but hey :rolleyes:

maybe concentrating on a single platform for now just to get the essentials down pat might be the way to go...

--Mike

[Dr.Sid]

3D is no problem. It's just a hell lot of work. So my opinion is: later maybe. I'd rather have many different platforms then one detailed.

As for the commanding perspective. I too think both should be possible.
You should be able to command only from map view, deciding by the reports only. Maybe some kind of 'commander's console' could be made, those menus which DW has are terrible.
But then you of course should be able to do anything manually, or to watch as anything is done by autocrew.

My autocrews will have to be better, since I want them to be used by AI in completely same way as on human controlled ship (still think it can be done).

And also there will be option to play single station in multiplayer mode, or maybe even under virtual captain (not that I believe it could be fun).

Then there are more perspectives with multi-ship environment, which is usual in ASW or group operation. There would be options to be captain of one ship (having full control there), using link or suggestions to have limited control over the group. Or you could be an Admiral on his flagship who can command any ship in the group on his map, Fleet Command style.

And then is what I call 'god' role. Where you can control any ship directly, command them all from any map, or manually control any station. Of course using communication limits for the subs (ie. not possible to change ship when not in contact with the other ship). So not really Allmighty God .. but pretty close.

Combined with realism settings, I guess this could allow quite wide range of potential players, and especially, wide range of situations. I like how GTA recreates plots of many famous gangster and action movies. I'd like to see something to recreate all those naval stories we all like so much.

[goldorak]

@Red Ocktober : modern warfare is about sensors, so displaying accurate information is the most important part of the simulation.
We already have excellent 3d models, we need excellent 2d stations (where most of the information is going to be conveyed anyway).
Look at SH I for guide. Even though it concerns a WW 2 sim, the way static pseudo 3-d control room was connected to very high quality 2d stations is something that has not been copied since.
It was and according to me still is one of the best designs out there for sub simulations.

[Hitman]

Look at SH I for guide. Even though it concerns a WW 2 sim, the way static pseudo 3-d control room was connected to very high quality 2d stations is something that has not been copied since.
It was and according to me still is one of the best designs out there for sub simulations.

Yes I agree, Aces of the Deep and Jane's 688i used the same concept to a great effect. And it has the advantage of allowing a "modular" approach, i.e. do a 3D control room for every submarine, but leave for starters 2D stations you access via mouse from that control room (And of course also via keyboard). If later teh community has interest in modelling the stations for a sub they like, then the sim should be prepared to easily receive a switch from 2D to 3D.
:biggrin:

[Red Ocktober]

@Red Ocktober : modern warfare is about sensors, so displaying accurate information is the most important part of the simulation.

i agree wholeheartedly g... at least as far the presentation of accurate information being important... but as far as the most important aspect on any simulation... i feel that the sense of immersion tops the list...

if in planes, ya gotta feel like you're flying... if in subs, ya gotta feel like you're underwater, in a tube... otherwise, why not just make it sensor sim... 2D all the way... and dispense with the 3D models entirely...

anyways...

click the pics below to see some examples of some 3D, post WWII sensors in a home brewed sim... wip circa 2005...

http://home.att.net/~subbase2/SonarClips.jpg (http://home.att.net/~subbase2/ListeningSonar.wmv)
Listening Sonar

http://home.att.net/~subbase2/RADNOLM3.JPG (http://home.att.net/~subbase2/EchoSounder.wmv)
Echo Sounder

those were aboard this sub...

TANG (http://home.att.net/~subbase2/TangSurfaceRun.wmv)

[edit OOOPS... wrong sub... that was supposed to be a WWII Gato... sorry]


the quality and detail of today's would be a lot better... (wish i had an ingame shot to show :redface: i had to dig around to find these... man time flies fast when you're having fun )

now i realize that presenting old analogue instruments vs. modern digital displays are not quite the same thing, but i don't see any real issue that would make 3D replicas of sensors any less detailed than 2D... like Sid said, the only drawback would be the amount of work involved... i guess he wants to get his sim out sometime in this lifetime :smile:

anyways... just my point of view... i go with what's best overall... and like it :smile:

[edit]

hey, check out what these guys are up to...
http://incrediblesims.com/content/images/14.jpg (http://incrediblesims.com/News/royal-navy-subsafe-3d-simulator)

a lil closer to what is in the works here... and in 3D...

--Mike

[Bubblehead Nuke]

I did not mean a 3D walk around control room. But what you guys are talking about is more like I was meaning to say.

Thank you

[Hitman]

hey, check out what these guys are up to...


a lil closer to what is in the works here... and in 3D...



That's a very professional and cool job. The control room shot that you showed looks however very similar to Jane's 688i control room which served to access directly all 2D stations.

I think that such a concept would be the best solution :smile:a cool 3D control room with not a huge detail (Though you wouldn't notice it because you can't get closer to the panels) and then all 2D panels for detail.