PDA

View Full Version : WAC 4.1



AbleMaster
01-14-2010, 02:46 AM
Hi just setup wac 4.1, wow looks and feels amazing, very happy with this excellent mod. Wondered if many others use it and what they think, dont see too much press for it and am surprised as it is so good.
If anyone could answer just a couple of questions, like can i use SH3 Commander with this mod. Also cant find much info about sensors etc wodering if it is same as stock or slightly harder, anyways great mod.

AbleMaster
01-21-2010, 04:42 AM
Hell thought someone would of said something, no worries find the info else where. WAC is by far the best SH3 mod graphically without a doubt, highly recommended. At least until SH5 comes out, mind you feel SH3 and WAC will be in use by me for a very long time, with or without SH5.

Ps: Shortcut to download http://www.silenthuntermods.co...ndex.php?topic=271.0 (http://www.silenthuntermods.com/forum/index.php?topic=271.0)

Main site http://hansolo78.2page.de/

Just in case anyone is interested.

HanSolo78
01-30-2010, 10:22 AM
Thx for the feedback.

Hope you have fun!!

greetings
Han

gamer025
01-30-2010, 05:06 PM
wow i'm going to read about this. the screenshot on the main page blew my mind.

Kaleun1961
01-30-2010, 08:14 PM
Wow, those are some sweet, sweet screenshots! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I'm going to have to try this mod for myself, having been a Grey Wolves fan for so long.

HanSolo78
01-31-2010, 02:33 AM
Hi!

@gamer025

The screenshot from the mainpage is not ingame.
But all other shots are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

@AbleMaster

Sh3 Commander can be used with WAC but some options do interfere with the mod... you have to figure out which because I do not use it.

The difficulty is different from stock... little harder, especially with the new longer repair times and different damage model to the subs.. not that much armor than in the stock game... also the AI does more hunting and in later years planes with rockets are very dangerous.
So.. use the new snorkel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

greetings
Han

gamer025
01-31-2010, 01:01 PM
I really want to try this mod out as it looks and sounds fantastic.

I have one question though. Was the pitch/roll adjusted as in GWX or was it kept the same? I really disagree with the way they did it. At least can somebody tell me how to adjust it myself if I don't like the way it works?

AbleMaster
02-01-2010, 12:46 PM
Thanks for the info guys, excellent work Hansolo thanks.

HeavyRabbit
02-01-2010, 02:27 PM
You folks are raving so much about this mod, I am curious to download it.

I am currently in a career, using a completely vanilla SHIII, with the 1.4 patch.

I just want to double check, so that I don't lose my current game, that I must download, and install it, when I am back in port, and before my next mission.

Is that correct?

So, according to AbleMaster's link, I have to download the Mod in three parts?

BTW, what is the best Mod, this or the GWX 3.1, I think it's called?

10-Q very much.

Kaleun1961
02-02-2010, 11:44 AM
I downloaded it last night, from the site that splits it into four downloads. I don't know when I will get round to installing it; I've been doing some renovations at home and my gaming system area is looking like the "head" of U-96 before it leaves port.

HeavyRabbit
02-02-2010, 01:52 PM
Oh well,

My [computer] age is showing.

I just looked at the required spec sheet.

It calls for 2 gigs of free RAM, and I have a total of 1 gig, using all four of my slots.

It also calls for an Nvidia 8600 GT video card (which I saw on Craigslist with 512 megs of RAM for $40), and I upgraded my Dell 8300 a couple of years back with an Nvidia 7600 GT AGP with 256 megs of RAM.

I would go through the expense of upgrading again, but it just doesn't seem worth it, in light of all the new hardware coming out.

I should probably just wait until I uprade my whole tower.

Or maybe, if I can get the 3200 RAM cheaply, I might just do it, because the screenshots look so cool with WAC 4.1.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

gamer025
02-03-2010, 11:34 PM
I ran the game just fine. My computer is about 2 years old now but still quite fast. The only gripe I have is the incredibly long load times on this mod. I understand all the content that's been added and it really is quite nice, I just can't stand long loading times. I wish they could find a way to cut down the load times, like the did with SH4 over SH3 even though it's a larger game with more objects.

gamer025
02-03-2010, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by HeavyRabbit:
Oh well,

My [computer] age is showing.

I just looked at the required spec sheet.

It calls for 2 gigs of free RAM, and I have a total of 1 gig, using all four of my slots.

It also calls for an Nvidia 8600 GT video card (which I saw on Craigslist with 512 megs of RAM for $40), and I upgraded my Dell 8300 a couple of years back with an Nvidia 7600 GT AGP with 256 megs of RAM.

I would go through the expense of upgrading again, but it just doesn't seem worth it, in light of all the new hardware coming out.

I should probably just wait until I uprade my whole tower.

Or maybe, if I can get the 3200 RAM cheaply, I might just do it, because the screenshots look so cool with WAC 4.1.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

As good as a mod may be, I doubt any mod for any game is worth spending money to upgrade your system for.

gamer025
02-04-2010, 01:04 AM
If anybody from WAC team is here I have a serious question. Some mods change the way the camera moves. I mean from your POV, when you turn around. Instead of turning in place as in the stock game, it seems to turn around a small circle. Is there any way to change this to make it move in place? Turning around like this makes me dizzy even if I do it slowly, it makes me dizzy over time. Also, it makes it difficult to view some things because the POV changes as you move around. I can't understand why all the mods I've tried (GWX, WAC and I think one other) change this. Please fix it!

HanSolo78
02-04-2010, 02:25 AM
Hi!

@HeavyRabbit

Unfortunately I developed WAC4.1 to enhance all graphics and these changes demand a moderate mid spec modern pc. I mean... better graphics surely means more system demand.

I think everybody should decide himself if this is worth it, but I think you won´t play any modern games today with such an old pc system.

Below (2GHz AMD, 3GHzPentium, 2GHz Core2Duo) 3GB RAM, GF7600 or Ati X1650 I would not try to run the mod.



@gamer025

Actually there were no changes made to the camera in some cases. There were only changes to point of view from the conning tower perspective. If you don´t adress this issue you can try the "cameras.dat" file from the library folder in the stock game. Here all camera data is stored.

greetings
Han

HeavyRabbit
02-04-2010, 01:14 PM
@HanSolo78:

The RAM I could upgrade without too much expense. The Video card I already mentioned: GT 7600 with 256 Megs of RAM, and I am using a Pentium IV 3.0 Gig, with hyperthreading technology.

You mentioned 3 gigs of RAM here, but the spec sheet says: 2 gigs. I assume the more RAM, the better, nevertheless.

Anyway, I'm only playing DirectX 9 games, such as COD2, and SHIII, which run just fine on my vintage late 2004 system.

I know I am going to have to upgrade, eventually, and I appreciate the feedback.

Thanks

@gamer025:

I agree that upgrading my old system really doesn't make very much sense, and thanks for your thoughts about that.

gamer025
02-04-2010, 02:10 PM
My system exceeds the recommended for WAC4.1 and I get about 25FPS in port. The load times can be very long going into a mission. Once at sea everything smooths out again, but nearing ports or traffic prepare to take a huge framerate hit.

It's a beautiful mod but I can't seem to get into it. The more mods I try, the more I find I prefer the game as it is, patched to 1.4 of course.

HeavyRabbit
02-04-2010, 02:25 PM
Really?

I'm surprised about your system specs vs. WAC 4.1 performance.

I'm also surprised about you prefering Vanilla 1.4, over the other mods you have tried, but I will certainly take that into account, as I have not tried any.

Thanks

Kaleun1961
02-04-2010, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by gamer025:
My system exceeds the recommended for WAC4.1 and I get about 25FPS in port. The load times can be very long going into a mission. Once at sea everything smooths out again, but nearing ports or traffic prepare to take a huge framerate hit.

It's a beautiful mod but I can't seem to get into it. The more mods I try, the more I find I prefer the game as it is, patched to 1.4 of course.

I've read posts prior to this that belittle the importance of frame rates per second. The usual line is, "The human eye cannot process more than 30 frames per second." While those who say this may be well intentioned, it is, in fact, not quite true. The human eye does not work the same way as a movie camera or television/monitor screen. Some gamers here with very high-end systems have reported frame rates of 75-100 FPS and report that their gaming experience is better. Anyway, here are some interesting links I have found, for those who wish to delve further into the subject:

The Human Eye and Frames Per Second (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1257956)

100fps.com (http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm)

Frame Rate Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate)

Here's a quotation from the Wiki link that is interesting:


A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regards to frame rates, with players striving to obtain the highest FPS possible, due to their utility in demonstrating a system's power and efficiency. Indeed, many benchmarks (such as 3DMark) released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the FPS measurement. Even though the typical LCD monitors of today are locked at 60 FPS, making extremely high framerates impossible to see in realtime, playthroughs of game “timedemos” at hundreds or thousands of FPS for benchmarking purposes are still common.

On my current game system [not in use at the moment] using GWX I get about 30 fps in harbour. This isn't bad for an older [XP Pro 32 bit] system, but the motion in the game does not quite "flow" like a movie on TV or a cinema screen. Still, it is acceptable to me. The system is an Athlon 3200+ CPU with 2GB of system RAM and an Nvidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB graphics card. I have purchased another 1GB RAM module and an Nvidia 9600GT 512MB graphics card. I think with an increase in system RAM and a newer graphics card with 4x the amount of video RAM that I will experience a nice bump in FPS. I'll let you all know how it goes once I get round to installing it all. Some of you may wonder why I have been sitting on this hardware. The reason is that we have been doing some home renovations and my computer area has been buried in temporary storage. As well, I have been upgrading the family room with a new HiDef home theater system. There are only so many hours in a day.