WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
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).

They look perfectly clear and specific enough for me. Some of the answers hedge a bit by saying they would accept other people using SS3b2 if everyone else accepted it, but there's plenty of people who said that they don't want to accept SS3b2.

There doesn't seem to be an opposition to SS3b2 per se, but rather changing all the ship designs up to now over from earlier SS versions into SS3b2 - which wasn't suggested or demanded.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
There doesn't seem to be an opposition to SS3b2 per se.

In what world can you interpret a four to one majority voting "No, we don't want to adopt SS3b2" as a LACK of opposition? There was some pretty damn vocal opposition, and at best folks are saying they'd tolerate other people using SS3b2 if the majority accepted it. That hasn't happened.

Quoted

They look perfectly clear and specific enough for me. Some of the answers hedge a bit by saying they would accept other people using SS3b2 if everyone else accepted it, but there's plenty of people who said that they don't want to accept SS3b2.

Hey, it's only an observation I am making. I haven't stuck my nose into the yes/no aspect of the SS3 discussion and to jump in and look at RA's post you're replying to and to all the bits you quoted, it looks a bit vague to me.

There may be vague or hedged responses, but I don't think it's vague enough to discard the results. Or are we seriously proposing re-taking this vote so everyone is perfectly clear that SS3 is a no-use program? I'm tired of going round and round with people about SS3 use - I want this debate finished, and I want everyone to be clear on what the result is.

Quoted

I want this debate finished, and I want everyone to be clear on what the result is.

I don't care whether it is SS2 or SS3, but if you want to finish it right here and right now, do it as a mod and use KISS...

... Like this:

"SS2 is the program we use. SS3 will not be used. End of the discussion."

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

I want this debate finished, and I want everyone to be clear on what the result is.

I don't care whether it is SS2 or SS3, but if you want to finish it right here and right now, do it as a mod and use KISS...

... Like this:

"SS2 is the program we use. SS3 will not be used. End of the discussion."

This is a premise that works for me; as someone who was requested to resim a vessel by Hoo to conform to our rules, and one who complied with that request, it seems to me to be very clear what program we use.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

I want this debate finished, and I want everyone to be clear on what the result is.

I don't care whether it is SS2 or SS3, but if you want to finish it right here and right now, do it as a mod and use KISS...

... Like this:

"SS2 is the program we use. SS3 will not be used. End of the discussion."

iirc, Hoo's already done that in the past on this issue, a couple times.

Brock and I generally prefer not to go down that route, as it's usually not needed, so long things remain respectful and collegial.

In this case, I think it's starting to veer off that track. While most people have said things to the effect that RA interprets them as not caring, I (and presumably Brock) interpret it more along the lines of them being open to change, if they're presented with a compelling reason for it, as well as couching their replies in plain courtesy and politeness. I know that's how I feel, and how I presented my opinion.

That all being said, I'll simplify matters; It is my interpretation (and appearently Brock's), that there is no consensus for the use of SS3b2 in the sim, and that SS2 should continue being the mandatory yardstick we use (Within reason, given some very-old springstyle sims that won't convert easily, and very small craft)

Brock provided a handy list of the people he's interpreted as concurring with that conclusion; If anyone wishes to clarify their comments as meaning something else, now is the opportunity. At the end of the weekend, I, with the Mod Hat on, will consider the matter closed, until such time as there is a new program that theoretically fits our ongoing, post-1950 needs. In which case, a new discussion should be opened.

If anyone, specifically, wishes to endorse their preference for SS3b2 (Either as a wholesale switchover, or being allowed alongside SS2), kindly say as much.

If there is no overwhelming majority specifically endorsing a switchover, or dual-use, then SS2 will remain the official yardstick.

My opinion remains unchanged; SS3b2 does not offer the features the sim requires for the future of the game, and does not warrant a switchover. I don't have an overwhelming distaste of it being used alongside SS2, but my preference is for all members to be using the same yardstick.

Well said, Ping; thank you.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
In this case, I think it's starting to veer off that track. While most people have said things to the effect that RA interprets them as not caring, I (and presumably Brock) interpret it more along the lines of them being open to change, if they're presented with a compelling reason for it, as well as couching their replies in plain courtesy and politeness. I know that's how I feel, and how I presented my opinion.

That was indeed how I evaluated the replies, yes.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
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".

Seriously?! If I wasn't clear enough for some the first time, I vote for keeping with SS2, not adopting SS3.

Quoted

"First shalt thou open thine Holy SpringSharp, then shalt thou use version two, no more, no less. Two shall be the number thou shalt use, and the number of the using shall be two. Three shalt thou not use, neither use thou one, excepting that thou then proceed to two. Four is right out. Once the number two, being the second number, be reached, then usist thou thy Holy SpringSharp of Internet against thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

Quoted

Quoted

"First shalt thou open the Holy SpringSharp, then shalt thou use version two, no more, no less. Two shall be the number thou shalt use, and the number of the using shall be two. Three shalt thou not use, neither use thou one, excepting that thou then proceed to two. Four is right out. Once the number two, being the second number, be reached, then usist thou thy Holy Springsharp of Internet against thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

... actually, if you add Spring Style to the mix, Sharp 2 is really the third version and Sharp 3 is the fourth.

Three Spring Sharp Versions walking in the zoo;
A big bear hugged one and then there were two.

Two Spring Sharp Versions sitting in the sun;
One got frizzled up and then there was one.

One Spring Sharp Versions left all alone;
He went out and hanged himself and then there was only Spring Style.

*runs away*

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

If anyone wishes to clarify their comments as meaning something else, now is the opportunity. At the end of the weekend, I, with the Mod Hat on, will consider the matter closed, until such time as there is a new program that theoretically fits our ongoing, post-1950 needs. In which case, a new discussion should be opened.

If anyone, specifically, wishes to endorse their preference for SS3b2 (Either as a wholesale switchover, or being allowed alongside SS2), kindly say as much.

I'm for sticking with SS2.

In consideration of SS3
1. I find the deck armor allocation and the gunnery page of benefit in SS3. I use the allocation spreadsheet on my capital ships and put it in notes.

2. allocation of miscellaneous weight could also be of benefit.

3. The gains appear to be minor. The primary "gain" of a new SS would be fixing the DD problem. This fails to do that.

4. Should there be a conversion to SS3, any conversion should be wholesale, with all new designs as of 1942 using SS3, and all prior designs using SS2.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
3. The gains appear to be minor. The primary "gain" of a new SS would be fixing the DD problem. This fails to do that.

I would say the 'primary gain' of any new program we consider should be post-1950 capabilities, but addressing concerns of Destroyer and similar smaller designs is a close second.

So the argument to not use SS3b2 is simply because it's new? Wow, that's really persuasive.

If you read the orginal post in this thread, SS3b2 does some things better than SS2 but is using the same underlying physics meaning there will be no massive changes between ships in the different versions. Far more flexibility in modelling ships for the sake of a couple of different inputs to the programme; it's pretty obvious that SS3b2 is a good thing for very little additional effort.

I agree the ability to set weights for DCs, mines and torpedoes is an improvement. I agree that the ability to alter how high the misc weight is carried is also very useful given the increasing use of misc weight to sim radars etc. I agree that being able to spilt forecastle and qaurterdeck armour from main deck armour is also useful, as is the option for torpedo bulkheads etc.

All these features as extra have some extra flavour of choices and there is plenty to muck around with but as to how much it adds to the overall if the overall physics are the same is open to question. The issue about post 1950 ships isn't too pressing just yet, folks moan about DD designs but as a whole we seem to manage pretty well. You design to what limits the programme has, the gentlemen's rules have eased some of those problems.

Going back and redoing all the reports is not even an option, but that would still mean an awkward jump between pre SS3b2 designs and new SS3b2 designs which may cause newer ships to suddenly become generally better than older ships. Then where do you put in the cut-off point? What about ships already under construction, in particular those taking four-five years to complete? It seems rather more work than is justified just for a few extra boxes to fill in. Without a consensus it just isn't going to happen.

And for the record SS3b3 is just... weird

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
So the argument to not use SS3b2 is simply because it's new? Wow, that's really persuasive.

If you read the orginal post in this thread, SS3b2 does some things better than SS2 but is using the same underlying physics meaning there will be no massive changes between ships in the different versions. Far more flexibility in modelling ships for the sake of a couple of different inputs to the programme; it's pretty obvious that SS3b2 is a good thing for very little additional effort.

The argument is that SS3b2 doesn't offer enough to warrant the confusion and hassle of the transition. It may be 'very little additional effort' to sim new ships with the program, but it's much more effort to transition and resim entire navies.

Everyone in this sim should be playing by the same rules, so it really boils down to whether we use SS2 or SS3b2. While I mentioned the possibility of using both, that was more to give people the option if they so wanted it. But no one's going for that, and I suspect it's for a very simple reason; It's somewhat shady to have some players going by one set of rules, and other players using another.

I'm of the opinion that SS3b2 doesn't, in fact, give very good results for the ships I'm most likely to design. I took one of my SS2 designs and redid it in SS3b2 and, leaving everything the same, SS3b2 gave me a result that was 10% higher displacement and still had 0.05 less hull strength. When you get to bigger ships, it then proceeds to go entirely the opposite direction. So I'm not swayed by statements that it gives the same result. Empirical data has shown otherwise. It's really too bad - I'd like to have some of the options SS3 offers.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Everyone in this sim should be playing by the same rules, so it really boils down to whether we use SS2 or SS3b2. While I mentioned the possibility of using both, that was more to give people the option if they so wanted it. But no one's going for that, and I suspect it's for a very simple reason; It's somewhat shady to have some players going by one set of rules, and other players using another.

Yes, I agree. I'm willing to tolerate SS3 use if everyone demands it, but as I've made clear - not going to touch it myself.

I am a firm believer in a single standard, and I believe that standard should be SS2.1. I have had to resim several designs from some version of SS3 back to SS2.1 (I inherited them) and noted significant issues (at least significant in my mind).

My thoughts on this are that at this point in the game, where we all have quite an abundance of vessels in service to go back and either resim all of them, or allow new vessels to be simmed in SS3 brings up significant problems that James mentioned.

Resimming for instance the entire USN into SS3b2 would be a nightmare of epic proportions simply due to the number of vessels both planned and currently in service that I have to resim. If we wanted to do that, I would vote for just starting a new game, essentially that is what we are doing.

And allowing new vessels while keeping the old ones in SS2 means as James pointed out that we have a two-tier system of vessels, and the newer ones may be significantly better, it also add issues in areas like battleships and carriers with long building times.

So to clarify: SS3b2 may be something to consider for a different game. But I vote no for the current one.