You are not logged in.

SS3b2 Use

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

21

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 11:46pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
So you would say; however, I do not believe that SS2.1 requires the addition of any "minus miscellaneous weight" to get a design to conform to the Gents' rules. If SS3b2 requires such to even approach an acceptable sim for a smaller ship, it is far more flawed that SS2.1 might be.


Ah, you didn't understood my critique. That part was with regards to simming the Capitani Romani in SS and having the output match the historical stats. My point was that whilst the hydrodynamic calculations aren't too bad, the calculation of engine mass for non-battleship combatants is way off. It's not surprising given what SS was designed to simulate. Having more appropriate values of shp/ton for the Capitani Romani actually leads to a hull strength of about 1.0 rather than the 0.5/0.75 for lighter combatants enshrined in the gentleman's rules. That sim of Capitani Romani was made using SS2 not SS3b2.

My general point is that it's an improvement on SS2 so why not adopt it for the future?



A - I do not see it as an improvement, merely something with more bells and whistles. Your view may differ - that does not make it so.

B - I't still a beta program, and, given all available information, will never see formal release; that leads me to believe that there may still be flaws in the program that have not been eradicated or otherwise addressed.

C. I still believe in a single standard, which we have, SS 2.1. It may have flaws to the purist; I think for most of us it is adequate for our purposes.

While I far prefer a single standard, if SS3b2 were adopted as an alternate program and SS2.1 allowed to continue in use, I could see that as an acceptable compromise.

snip

Professional

Posts: 1,294

  • Send private message

22

Monday, December 19th 2011, 12:05am

I am in the camp of thinking the options provided for in SS3 make it a supperior alternative to SS2 if it is adopted as a universal standard. Since we as a sim have a universal standard in SS2, I see no reason to switch that standard. Seeing as SS3 is still in beta for an unspecified amount of time, and knowing the flaws that beta programs could have compared to officially released ones, I am against allowing SS3 as an alternative to SS2 due to the difference that can be created in light displacement due to the ability to change ammunition capacity for each gun. This would allow for the creation of higher quality ships for a reduced tonnage cost from those who would sim an identical ship in SS2.

In short, no to SS3's use in the current run of WesWorld.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

Sachmle

Professional

Posts: 816

  • Send private message

23

Monday, December 19th 2011, 12:19am

I'm impartial, and really don't care either way. I'll support the majority, whatever it decides.

TexanCowboy

Ship's Mascot

Posts: 1,026

  • Send private message

24

Monday, December 19th 2011, 5:49am

Wait, since when has there been a dispute on using SS3?

TheCanadian

Master

Posts: 2,242

  • Send private message

25

Monday, December 19th 2011, 5:57am

Either way it really doesn't matter much to me. That being said I don't want to resim all my ships into SS3, so if thats the case then I vote no.

If we were to resim all our ships, I would propose that we move to a different game, might be easier.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (Dec 19th 2011, 5:58am)

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

26

Monday, December 19th 2011, 7:22am

At this stage of the game, I honestly don't see an advantage in changing the yardstick program we're using unless it'll allow us to continue past 1950, and take into account various options and features such progression needs.

If it can't do that, it's a lot of fuss and problems that will quickly be rendered moot anyway.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

27

Monday, December 19th 2011, 10:07am

The fact that its still in Beta and incomplete leads me to believe we should be fine with SS2. I'm a firm believer in using a uniform system for all players.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

28

Monday, December 19th 2011, 7:58pm

Quoted

Originally posted by snip
I am against allowing SS3 as an alternative to SS2 due to the difference that can be created in light displacement due to the ability to change ammunition capacity for each gun. This would allow for the creation of higher quality ships for a reduced tonnage cost from those who would sim an identical ship in SS2.


Actually this effect is the opposite as in SS3 the increased ammunition capacity results in greater mass and so greater volume and hull structure to account for this.

Differences between beta and full release? This is a chap writing up something on his own and not a commercial product. SS3b2 has been tested for about two years now and I've yet to see or hear of any major bugs.

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

  • Send private message

29

Monday, December 19th 2011, 10:15pm

I'm in the camp that its probably best to stick to SS.2 simply for the eqaulity. Yes the latest version of SS.3 has extra bells and whistles and does a better job in certain areas and gives you more to play around with but its not a serious game changer. It will never be perfect for all ship designs of all classes and the fact its a Beta isn't really a serious issue. But it seems given the small advances its probably not worth the hassle (although I'll admit I've yet to really use SS3b2 to any extent and b1 was very ropey).

I don't think its neccessary to resim everything to a new version of SS in any case if we did ever switch.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

30

Tuesday, December 20th 2011, 12:44am

springsharp

I see no reason to change our standard if the newly accepted program effectively adresses most if not all of our concerns with 2.1 - for small and big vessels.

But while we are at it - don´t you guys know a good coder to make us a new tool? One that might also allow the simulation of space limited vessels of the post-1950 era?

If we want to run WW beyond 1950, we need a solution and it might be time to get started.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

31

Tuesday, December 20th 2011, 1:13am

RE: springsharp

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I see no reason to change our standard if the newly accepted program effectively adresses most if not all of our concerns with 2.1 - for small and big vessels.

I'm slightly confused by your statement. What newly accepted program are you referring to? The first part of the sentence implies that you don't wish to see SS3b2 accepted, but then the last half confuses me. ?(

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

32

Tuesday, December 20th 2011, 2:50am

RE: springsharp

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I see no reason to change our standard if the newly accepted program effectively adresses most if not all of our concerns with 2.1 - for small and big vessels.

I'm slightly confused by your statement. What newly accepted program are you referring to? The first part of the sentence implies that you don't wish to see SS3b2 accepted, but then the last half confuses me. ?(


I think it's an issue of convoluted linguistics.

Hoo's saying he does not see a reason to change, unless a proposed/theoretical 'new program' does more than SS2 (or SS3b2) does to address the more relevant needs of the sim (Machinery weights on non-capital ships, integrated post-1950 options).

I concur, as that's what I've said a couple times already.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

33

Tuesday, December 20th 2011, 3:38am

RE: springsharp

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I see no reason to change our standard if the newly accepted program effectively adresses most if not all of our concerns with 2.1 - for small and big vessels.

I'm slightly confused by your statement. What newly accepted program are you referring to? The first part of the sentence implies that you don't wish to see SS3b2 accepted, but then the last half confuses me. ?(


I think it's an issue of convoluted linguistics.

Hoo's saying he does not see a reason to change, unless a proposed/theoretical 'new program' does more than SS2 (or SS3b2) does to address the more relevant needs of the sim (Machinery weights on non-capital ships, integrated post-1950 options).

I concur, as that's what I've said a couple times already.

That's kinda what I thought, but I wanted to ask and make sure.

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

  • Send private message

34

Tuesday, December 20th 2011, 3:40pm

My 2 cent.....

I prefer the look of SS3,
I find it gives me a better idea of the layout of the finished ship with regard to armament.
I find it easier to tweak designs.
And I find the report easier to understand.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

35

Tuesday, December 20th 2011, 9:22pm

Sorry for confusion. The sentance should have been:

I see no reason to change our standard if the newly accepted program DOES NOT effectively adresses most if not all of our concerns with 2.1 - for small and big vessels.

IMHO SS3 does not adress our issues effectively, so I want to stick to SS2.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

36

Tuesday, December 20th 2011, 9:24pm

Understood. Thanks for the clarification. :)

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

37

Thursday, December 29th 2011, 8:56pm

It seems to me that there are two votes in favor of adopting SS3b2 versus seven opposed to adopting SS3b2, with two votes present/conditional.

Given these results, I am going to presume that the determination is that SS3b2 is not to be regarded as an accepted method of simming ships in Wesworld, and existing SS3-simmed ships should be re-simmed whenever they're found.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

38

Friday, December 30th 2011, 10:23am

If you'll read through again, the votes "against" were for enforced use of SS3b2 as the standard tool. There seems to be little opposition to using SS3b2 as another tool alongside SS2.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

39

Friday, December 30th 2011, 3:21pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
If you'll read through again, the votes "against" were for enforced use of SS3b2 as the standard tool. There seems to be little opposition to using SS3b2 as another tool alongside SS2.

Don't try to sea-lawyer it.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I see no reason to change our standard... I want to stick to SS2.


Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I'm in the camp that its probably best to stick to SS.2 simply for the eqaulity.


Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
...we should be fine with SS2.


Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
At this stage of the game, I honestly don't see an advantage in changing the yardstick program.


Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't want to resim all my ships into SS3, so if thats the case then I vote no.


Quoted

Originally posted by snip
In short, no to SS3's use in the current run of WesWorld.


Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I still believe in a single standard, which we have, SS 2.1.


Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I do not want to replace SS2 with SS3b2.


SS3b2 is not, repeat not, repeat not recognized as an accepted method of simming ships in Wesworld.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

40

Friday, December 30th 2011, 4:21pm

Brock, I can see why RA said that. Of all the comments you listed, only snip's reply is clear and specific about his opposal of the use of SS3 in Wesworld. All other replies, including yours, can be interpreted differently (and "...we should be fine with SS2" is probably the weakest of them all).

Perhaps the use of "the only tool" (or something like that) might have been better than speaking of "standard".