Tom Pullings

TS2015 is like FSX, a very old engine running on state of the art computers that weren't even imagined when the game was written. Both of them are huge CPU hogs (rather than GPU) and are shamefully demanding. You can find a sweet spot if you do some tweaking (as in FSX).

I'm a bit ashamed of the amount of DLC I have and the number of hours I've spent in TS. :-) Also a steam fan. Mike's FEF and Connie are fantastic! I'm American, and so focus on US rolling stock just because of familiarity and nostalgia; but do enjoy the UK lines and locos as well. Anything by Keith is fantastic but the WLoS is his masterpiece. I never tire of that route. I recommend some of the little steamers, such as the 56XX, the 2MT, or the wonderful little 3F Jinty, all of which are fun to use along the docks at the harbor. And if you haven't tried the China Clay route, by CreativeRail, you really should. Beautiful Cornish route that really captures the feel of a short line, I think.

I'm not sure I understand these comments about WoWS lacking the need for skill. Certainly the mechanics are not difficult, and aiming, for instance, is relatively easy; but as you progress up the tiers, strategy becomes important. You can't just sail around shooting things, not even in a DD. those who work together utilizing ship cooperation as one would expect, cruisers providing AA for battleships for instance, have a significant advantage. Not unlike NA, team play is quite important.

I've been playing it. It's better and worse than WoT in some ways. The balance between ships is better than between tanks. I like no stats/xvm. The players aren't quite as toxic yet. I love ships. :-) It's not as deep, in terms of strategy or skill requirements as WoT, although DD play is closer. Team play in WoWs is perhaps more important, as noted above, but that could be a good thing, and only those willing to learn it will stick around. Playing in divisions gives a big advantage in the meantime. I don't think the aim mod has changed things much. And the next update is supposed to break it. Aiming isn't hard without it (I've never felt the need to find and try the mod...most of my shots hit already). I'm enjoying it. I'm burnt out on tanks. It's the player community in WoT that has diminished the game significantly for me. If that happens in WoWs, I'll probably just uninstall both when OW is opened. As for best play, cruisers are easy mode. destroyers are silly unrealistic, but challenging to play well. I enjoy setting up a stealth approach around islands on preoccupied enemy, especially other destroyers, flanking and torping for the kill, then scooting away, dancing between the enemy volleys. That doesn't get old! I'm Griphos in WoT and WoWs. Hit me up in game and we'll lob Volleyballs of Fire at the enemy together.

VERY nicely modeled sails and netting. For the non-modelers out there, sails are particularly hard to do so that they look prototypical, and you all should be impressed. :-)

Although your initial analysis of both the causes and dynamics of leeway is erroneous, you raise an interesting issue, and I would like to see the major causes for concern over a lee shore modeled if possible: reduced headway when facing storm waves, and currents. Even moderate waves -- and, if possible, the modeling of storm surge --and a strong tide -- i.e., the modeling of currents --should give sailors concern if they find themselves too close to shore with headlands on any possible upwind course. I understand if this is asking for too much, but it would considerably enhance realism if sailors had to take waves and current into account when approaching and trying to leave port, or when sailing around in shallow, close to shore waters.

On a side note, I have a bit of a love affair with this ship. Been to Mystic many a time. I've been aboard her both on the water and when she was in dry dock being rebuilt. I have the Model Shipways kit of her as well and look forward to building it some day. It's great that we have preserved at least one fine example of this kind of ship, however you feel about whaling itself.

Signed.

Actually, sailors were aloft a lot. Reefing requires it. Furling and unfurling sails requires it.

Olav is a liar. I am a liar too. (Think about that for a while and the paradox will make your head explode).

I very much like the idea of your expectation to still be working on this game 10 years from now!!

I think as it stands, the aim point isn't moved when in telescope view, so when viewing a ranging shot through the scope, if it hits, the captain should be able to say, "fire all guns" (i.e., click the mouse button for a broadside), while still in telescope view. If the ranging shot misses, it makes sense to have to leave the scope view to adjust the shot, then range again. As I see it, keeping aiming in aiming mode but allowing guns to fire while in scope mode would work fine since the aim isn't moved while in scope mode, and would be most realistic. When it scope mode, one is playing the captain, but when in aiming mode, one is actually playing the gunner, making adjustments on the gun through moving the mouse (and so aim point). The gunner doesn't give a command to fire, the captain does. So firing while in scope view is only logical. The captain need not always look through the telescope though, so giving a command to fire should also be possible when in aim mode. Captain has access to both views, gunner only to one. Aiming in aim mode only (not in telescope mode), but firing in both modes accords most realistically to the roles as they are modeled by the game at present.

I'm glad to hear the devs prefer these kinds of immersive, first person views, and am glad to hear they will work on them as they have the manpower. I would very much prefer such views to the overhead or floating head views we have now, and agree with Leviathan that once implemented, it will take time for gamers used to 3rd-person for situational awareness to adjust. I believe that once they do, they will appreciate not only the realism but the tactical advantage provided (by something like a masthead view the good doctor proposes). I'm adding nothing new to the conversation, except a hearty "I agree" and hope for this in the future.

Actually, you can model the force vectors to show what you want them to, which could be direct force of the wind on the sails or the translated vector of the ship through the water as a result of the force of the wind and the resistance of the keel (and even apparent versus real wind). Still, Sail Simulator 5 has a widget that will show your ship and the force vectors, but I never found it to be of any real use. And I agree with the general consensus that it's probably both more information than we want and perhaps too much clutter. I would like the wind indicator we have now to be a bit more intuitive though, along the lines suggested in several other threads. I'd prefer for any shading of the compass rose, for instance, to indicate the no go zone rather than, as it is now, a shading of a random area directly downwind that doesn't indicate anything relevant to sailing.

I have always loved this pudgy little ship. I haven't built a model of it yet, but I will! I'd love to have it in the game.

Actually, you might fother a hole in the hull with a sail, but, yes, there really should be separate "stocks" of supplies for repairing hull and masts, sails, and equipment. There need not be the same number of,repairs available for each. It makes sense for a rudder or pump to only be repaired once, say, or for sails to only be repaired twice if damaged more than 50%, say. IBut it's possible the repair feature hasn't been fully developed yet for Open World, where I'm sir ethos stocks so supplies will come at some cost. Back OT, though, thanks for this labor of love. Quite enlightening, and it has improved my play already.

:-) That's the problem with Google, particularly if you search with "religion" as a keyword. What you link is an exhibition at the Library of Congress, curated by those with a particular interest in presenting a particular view of the founding of America that aligns with contemporary fundamentalist narratives about it. While the exhibition items themselves are historical artifacts, they have been assembled and framed to tell a very particular and deeply invested story. What is conspicuously absent in the exhibition is the vast array of historical evidence to the contrary of their framing. Nice try, though. And I didn't say try google, I said try Wikipedia. It was the second entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_18th_century. That article provides a much more balanced view. Or actual history texts would work, too. They are written by the "scholars" vaguely referenced in the LoC exhibition, and almost always provide detailed sources for their evidence and conclusions. But, this has gone far enough. This is not the place to teach a class in religious or European history. Those who want to believe that the time period of the game was somehow deeply religious are going to believe that. I still contend that arguing for including religion in the game on the grounds of its central importance in the time period and part of the world modeled is anachronistic, and that arguments for including it only on those grounds, and not in terms of how it would enhance gameplay, are misguided and not likely to produce good results. Those are my last words on the subject (which I'm sure is a notification likely to please just about everyone!). :-) I entered the conversation to offer some expertise that might speak to some common misconceptions, but the conversation has made me very tired now.

Time frame is the 18th century and just into the early 19th century. Most of the ships so far are late 18th c. and Napoleonic/Revolutionary era. And the game is set in Europe and the Americas, not the planet as a whole. There was no feudalism in this time and place. The church had very little if any role in politics. It was a colonial time, but those colonies and further colonization were not primarily religious anymore. The universities were not primarily run by or associated with the church. Lower level schools were hugely varied, but increasingly state organized and run, and most people didn't get much formal schooling. Again, I would invite anyone interested to do even the most casual research into widely available histories of the 18th c. Heck, just do a little reading in Wikipedia at least. Indeed, the beginning of the 17th c and the turn of the 18th c are a whole world apart in terms of social organization and worldviews.

You are so a delicate flower!! And a one-handed bowline is the mark of a sailor!

If it helps, rigging is divided into standing rigging, like shrouds and stays, which keep all the masts and other parts that aren't attached in place, and running rigging, which control the yards and sails and other moving parts. There are really on a few main lines, but hundreds of auxiliary lines. I certainly don't know all of them, even though years of modeling and rigging these ships has taught me a fair bit. I'd love it if they'd model studding sails on the square-rigged ships. In OW, I'd love to be able to stretch every bit of cloth and just watch her sail!

:-) That's called "learning the ropes"! Good luck with that. There are MANY more lines than sails on a ship. A bewildering array. But like the sails, the are grouped (usually according to function and sail). Halliards (or halyards...can you guess how they got their name) raise and lower yards, for instance, and sheets contol the shape of sails, etc. If it's any comfort, I can't think of why you'd ever need to know the name of any line for game purposes. Unless, for RP's sake, you just want to holler out something like "clear that wreckage and see to the braces!" or "sway up another t'gallant mast and brail those clews!"

People really should read posts in the thread before contributing. The claim that religion played some kind of universal major role in societies in the late 18th century and early 19th century (which was not 300-400 years ago) has been shown to be simply ignorance about the period largely shaped by contemporary popular mythology (and, likely, the exceptionally poor way history is taught is our schools). By your very argument asking for accuracy of social environment and modeling the world the way it was at the time, religion should play almost no part (in the specific world dynamics this game models). To do otherwise would be to present the "Disney" version. If people want the "Disney" version, I have nothing against that in principle. It's the version we mostly get in popular culture, including games. It's hard for me to see how adding it improves anything. And arguments for adding it so far haven't really suggested how it would make the game better or more fun in a specific way. It's been argued for from the idea that it should be included because it was so important at the time, and arguing for it on the basis of historical accuracy just betrays historical ignorance.

The Pegasus is a beauty. The Swan class has long been a favorite. Just lovely ships!

Well, it'll stay in third place if people keep switching votes from it! Repair your conscience and vote again for the right ship, my good sir, and for the right reasons!!

No one is talking about auto aim, except for the ones saying they don't want it. At most, people are talking about how to control aiming or how to provide some way to lock aim independent of mouse movement. Neither of those is related to auto aim. In a sense, the game already has a kind of auto aim. The aim point of a broadside of cannons is slowly centered once in aim mode, which represents the gun crews levering the guns to bear upon a single target. That could still happen if the control for aiming were relocated to something other than the mouse (say the arrow keys).