EDBTR Database Project

[K 19]

That's strange. I added a completely new (not replaced) fictitious Bf109-Z4, plus some customized parts for it. Worked fine. Had no crashes during my campaign game testing. Maybe I didn't test long enough? Or maybe like you said... It can handle only a few new aircraft.

A solution might be to replace all those unused Pacific theatre aircraft that are near the bottom of the list with new European theatre aircraft..

[Turner]

ORIGINAL: K 19
A solution might be to replace all those unused Pacific theatre aircraft that are near the bottom of the list with new European theatre aircraft..

That might be a good idea, unless those slots are locked for allied a/c. Must investigate.

[warshipbuilder]

A solution might be to replace all those unused Pacific theatre aircraft that are near the bottom of the list with new European theatre aircraft..

You can waste the XP-72 as well. Jet age over took it, so....

P47/51 upgrades to P80/(F84?) assuming a drawn out slugfest over Europe.

[npsergio]

I remember to read somewhere in the forum that not all the rows in the database can be used. There are some that must be kept untouched... Of course it was not told which rows they was. So as you said, Turner, maybe you'll need to prove with each new aircraft that you introduce to the database to see if it crashes or not

[Turner]

The biggest issue imho is that the exe has conditions that are locked and invisible to us. We can with this tool test within the db what works but the exe hold the keys to many features and unfortunately also a lot of bugs.

[npsergio]

Maybe, as an idea, if you're testing changes and receive no error messages, or game crashes, could you share the info about the rows that you used to add new info?

[Creeper]

ORIGINAL: Turner

ORIGINAL: K 19
A solution might be to replace all those unused Pacific theatre aircraft that are near the bottom of the list with new European theatre aircraft..

That might be a good idea, unless those slots are locked for allied a/c. Must investigate.

Only the slots 1-200 are dedicated to axis aircraft in Campaign 43 and 44.

[Creeper]

There is a serious bug in Editor V1.14.
Modified databases gets a wrong campaign start date!
I'll try to find and fix this issue.

@Turner: perhaps this bug cause the crashes you had?!

[Turner]

Yes that is possible, but it seems more likely to have been because I used too many slots by adding many new a/c types. This db I'm working on is different in that I have only added one slot, instead editing slots to replace existing aircraft types with new.

[Creeper]

Ahh, I found the bug
I test it now and I'll upload it as V1.15 very soon!

[Turner]

Awesome! The testing I've done has worked well so far except for that date bug. Took the opportunity to test the jets (never been able to use them before) and the Go229 is truly a monster.

[Creeper]

ORIGINAL: Turner

Awesome! The testing I've done has worked well so far except for that date bug. Took the opportunity to test the jets (never been able to use them before) and the Go229 is truly a monster.

Sounds very interesting!
Looking forward to test your database!

Here is the link for Editor V1.15
Seems to work for me now (on my desktop computer)
Trying V1.15 on my laptop...no!! a missing dll, but no hint is shown what dll is missing. [&:]

There are two files in the zip archive.
The one with the suffix '.xls' is for Excel version 97-2003.
The one with suffix 'xlsb' is for Excel 2007 (the one I use).

@Turner: reload your database with this editor.
Change the wrong date in tab Scenario, then save it again
Now it should work within EDBTR.

[GI Jive]

Good luck with your project, but I have to take issue with A-20s, A-26s, B-25s being primarily ground attack/strafing aircraft. This was largely true in the Pacific Theater where attacks against Japanese shipping & airfields were common. Japanese AAA was never as capable as German AAA. In the ETO & MTO these aircraft tended to fly at higher altitudes from which their bomb loads were their primary offensive weapon.

[Turner]

Did anyone ttest how the AI handle the changes?

That is a good point. I'm no expert on the allied planes but we want the game to be dynamic enough to leave both players many optional strategies. Perhaps it would be a good compromise to leave the B25 out of the ground attack role. It is the largest of the three and is arguably best suited for level bombing.

[JeffroK]

I'd leave them all as level bombers.
As mentioned the strafers were more of a PTO thing.

I loose plenty of fighters to strafing so I can imagine the carnage wrought on 2E bombers.

[Turner]

Strafing and low level attacks can be utterly devastating to strategic targets with only high level FlaK. Strafing airfields is one thing, protecting a/c on the ground is kindof important, but did you ever try level bombing airfields and sending the fighter-bombers to strategic targets? These bombers in low level attacks should be highly effective. Good recon is vital though because of the issues you brought up. The Allies have excellent capacity to saturate the Jagdwaffe defenses through playing by sheer numbers. Stagger attacks in time, altitude and with fighter sweeps in between. That's how you inflict attrition losses, and/or destruction of industry and resources.

[Denniss]

They were not used in this way because they expected the losses to become far too high. Shedloads of light Flak everywhere.

[Denniss]

If there's something that needs fixing it's the Bf 109 endurance + the endurance gain from drop tanks

British tests with a G-2 achieved 81 minutes flying time at 316 mph clean and 150 mins at 306 mph with a 300l drop tank at normal cruising speed (almost 3 and 5 hours at max range cruise speed of 210 mph).
G-5/-6/-14 non-AS should cruise a tad slower due to increased drag but with the same endurance, due to higher power and less drag the G-10 and K-4 cruise faster but with lower endurance. The additional gun pack should not have endurance effect, just speed/climb/max alt/maneuver. BTW the maneuver effect is way too high.

The 30 min duration of the 300l drop tank is a joke, should have more time than the 75 usgal DT (someone in the original game setup obviously calculated with 66 impgal instead of 79 usgal).

[Turner]

This will need fixing. And I agree the maneuver effect is much too high. It seems to be more important than pilot skill even, which clearly it shouldn't be.

The endurance figures ingame are calculated with the droptank, correct? Anyone know the particulars of how range, endurance and fuel consumption are calculated???

[Turner]

What would the correct duration of the 300 liter dt be and where is it edited? *goes looking into devices tab*

Ok found it. Now how much of a increase does it need to be for correct endurance? Since the US 75 gal tank is at 40, and after my own guesstimation, I upped it from 30 to 50. If that value is in minutes it should be about right.

Looking through the FW190s now, redid the A-8 model into the 'light' package with only 2 MG151/20s and the heavy gun package altered from /R1 standard to /R2 standard of two Mk108s.