Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[ComDev]

Thanks for the information on the EOMS. Have added the system to the ship.
 
Would it be possible to dig up more information on the Sonac/PTA? The info we have so far makes it impossible to do a good implementation [8D]
 
Thanks!

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: apd1004

I have an issue with the ZSU-23-4 in the database, and the GUN DISH radar as well. As far as I know, it is the same entry in DB3K as CWDB (maybe different entry #?).

In DB3K the GUN DISH radar is listed as an onboard sensor on the ZSU-23-4 (#908) under the mounts/stores/weapons listing, but GUN DISH also has a separate listing as a "mobile vehicle" (#1248). After much research I have found no references of the GUN DISH being used or mounted anywhere other than on a ZSU-23-4. As far as I can tell, the GUN DISH radar was the fire control radar for the ZSU-23-4 exclusively and it was also capable of search and acquisition and had a 20km range.

Thanks, whacked the standalone radar.

I have done some testing and discovered that the vanilla ZSU-23-4 when firing at a target has only a 5% base probability of hit. Compare this to the M163 VADS which has a 70% base probability to hit. The M163 VADS had a range-only radar not tied to the fire control system like the GUN DISH is on the ZSU-23-4. True, the M163 is a rotary cannon with 3000rpm, but the ZSU-23-4 had four 23mm liquid cooled cannons capable of 800-1000rpm on each gun, so as far as sustained rate of fire the ZSU-23-4 can actually put more lead downrange than the Vulcan, so RPM should not be a differentiating factor between the two systems. The ZSU-23-4 used the GUN DISH to provide a firing solution to the ballistic computer which would then lay the powered & stabilized turret and guns to provide automatic lead for the gunner. In short, I think the ZSU-23-4 base probability of hit is way too low and the M163 is way too high. They should probably both be somewhere in the 30-50% range, with the ZSU being in the upper zone and the Vulcan being in the lower zone of that percentage spread.

Good point. Have given the Vulcan a 30% PoK and ZSU-23 a 50% PoK. Have updated other, similar systems accordingly.

During the same tests I also discovered that the vanilla ZSU-23-4 was not detecting aircraft with anything other than Mk1 Eyeball and gave off no radar signature, even with the GUN DISH active. The M163 does give off a radar signature and does not detect aircraft, which is appropriate for a range-only radar.

Fixed, thanks!

When placing a stand-alone GUN DISH, it behaves the way I would expect the one mounted on the ZSU-23-4 to behave, and that is it has a 10nm (should be 12nm) air radar circle and it does detect aircraft and gives off a radar signature. When I removed the internal GUN DISH sensor from the ZSU-23-4 and added the standalone version, I got the ZSU-23-4 that I wanted to see except that the PH was still 5%.

I also believe that the gun range on the ZSU-23-4 is a bit short as is the M163 Vulcan. My references show ZSU-23-4 having a tactical AA range of 2500m (1.35nm) and the Vulcan at 2000m (1.07nm). I would be ok with 1.2nm for the ZSU and 1.0nm for the Vulcan. It should also be able to be used against ground targets.

1.35nm effective range for the ZSU-23-4? Hm... I'm not too sure, the effective range for AAA is pretty short.

I'm also wondering about manually aimed AA guns having a base PH of 1%, but that will require more testing and can be in another thread. I just don't agree that a ZU-23 towed AA gun only has a 1% chance to hit a UH-1 Huey flying straight and level.

Yes the model probably needs to be refined a bit. What do you think the PoK for different target types should be?

Summary of proposed changes:

-Remove #1248 (GUN DISH radar) from DB3K as a standalone unit
-Install the sensor data from #1248 onto the ZSU-23-4 (#908) i.e. - put the GUN DISH on the ZSU so that it actually works right
-Increase range on all Soviet 23mm AA guns (ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4) to 1.2nm
-Increase range of GUN DISH radar to 12nm.
-Increase 23mm ZSU-23-4 burst base PH to 50% (#1844)
-Decrease 20mm/85 Vulcan burst base PH from 70% to 30% (#1836)
-Increase range of 20mm/85 Vulcan to 1nm
-Allow both weapons to engage ground targets

All done except gun range increase. Also gave the Gun Dish its full 50km search range, 27nm.

Cheers

SOURCES:

Anti-aircraft ZSU-23-4 Shilka (Translated from Russian). Accessed November 11, 2013. armyinrussian.narod.ru/suhoputnie/shilka.htm

FM 100-2-3. Washington D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1991

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: MR_BURNS2

I just noticed that ZSU-23-2 also has the same FCR as the -4, i think they used their common optics only.

Hm? What DB ID#?

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Hannable

I'm not sure if this has been requested or not, but I'd like to see the Brazilian corvette, "Barosso" class added to DB3000. I'd give you more info, but it seems I can't post links. [:@]

Also the Brazilian navy operated a few Alan M. Sumner destroyers into the 1990's.

Two "Brooklyn" class light cruisers were in service until the late 1970's which I know doesn't *quite" get into DB3000, but would be nice if they could be slipped in.

Have added requests for these. Since you've made more than 5 posts to the forum I think you're now able to post links. Would be great to have more info on these. Thanks! [8D]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: fool12342000

J-6 and F-6 should be Fighter instead of Attack.

Fixed, thanks! [8D]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Rob322

I saw both CV 41 Midway and CV 43 Coral Sea had space for AIM-54A and C in their magazines. But those carriers couldn't carry the F-14 and none of the jets they could carry could handle the AIM-54.

Thanks for reporting this one. Might be too much detail to have separate carrier magazines for all carriers.

I assume that scenario designers customize their carrier magazines anyway, and will add/remove stuff as they see fit. So the magazines in the database are more a guideline than a truth.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: JAK63

If this hasn't been asked for already can you add the CF-101B Voodoo to DB3000. It was in squadron service in Canada till 1984. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_CF-101_Voodoo

Request added, thanks! [8D]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

There's an inaccuracy with the SS-N-3a Shaddock missile. It currently can be launched by submarines that are submerged, but should only be able to be launched when on the surface. That was one of the main problems with the Soviet Juliett and Echo class subs. I updated my spreadsheet accordingly:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... ring#gid=0

Have been checking off a couple more intems in the list.

The SS-N-3a launch depth needs to wait as we need to get the AI to work with this as well.

Thanks! [8D]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: harpoon731

I don't see the KC-46A? Am I just not seeing it in the DB3000?

Thanks!

I'm afraid we need more (detailed!) info in order to make a good implementation. If you know any good sources that have enough info please post up.

Thanks! [8D]

Hope this helps...

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defens ... ounder.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-sp ... index.page
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... aft_id=865
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/KC-46-Tanker.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652430.pdf

Thanks, pretty good details there. Have updated existing KC-46 request.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: bsq

For Syria please can you add...

SA-26 GOA 1:05 on video and in the text
SA-13 GOPHER 1:56 on video (if you accept the video is genuine then this is an SA-13 in Syria)

http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_201 ... 07123.html

Barlock A
Side Net
Odd Pair
Back Trap
Back Net
Tin Shield
Type 120
Squat Eye
Sheet Bend

All from GE Imagery


Star 2000

http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/karte214.en.html

Added request, thanks!

[bsq]

Could I also ask, because I have not seen it listed yet as a fix, that the arcs of fire of the S-300P (and variants), the S-300V (and variants) and the S-400 are modified from the current 360 degrees (which they most definately are not) to a more realistic 90 degrees in line with the physics of the array.

Like Patriot, once the engagements commence, left and right arc of fire are constrained and I have modelled and posted elsewhere that this is not the case when using these systems as they were able to simulataneously attack waves 180 degrees split from each other with a single FCR.

I know that the FCR can be readily rotated, so this may be an issue, but surely it would be better to have a more realistic engagement with these, already powerful and dangerous systems, because the ability to engage as they currently do is making them 'too good'.

[e2204588]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: apd1004
I'm also wondering about manually aimed AA guns having a base PH of 1%, but that will require more testing and can be in another thread. I just don't agree that a ZU-23 towed AA gun only has a 1% chance to hit a UH-1 Huey flying straight and level.

Yes the model probably needs to be refined a bit. What do you think the PoK for different target types should be?

I think PoK should affected by target size and speed too.
1. Hit rate for small cruise missile should be smaller than helicopter with agility penalty.
2. Manual AAA may get more penalty against high speed target, when AAA with FCR get less.

Example:
PoK = [Bast PoK] - [Speed * (agility factor + FCR factor)] - [Size penalty] - [Attack angle penalty (gun and torpedo only)]

And every time an aircraft performs evasive maneuver, it will lose some speed.

[El Savior]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Would it be possible to dig up more information on the Sonac/PTA? The info we have so far makes it impossible to do a good implementation [8D]

Thanks!

This is the best source so far.

Norman Friedman, The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998.

Finnyards Sonac/PTA towed array sonar



According to The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World two system is in use for Rauma (Helsinki II) class.

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.ph ... se-in-hce/
"... best guess for the Finnyard Sonac PTA ...

PTA, Type: T (VDS), Function: Search, Active Range: -, Passive Range: 4.3, Freq Band: VLF, Platform: Surface.

[CV60]

Probably ya'll have thought about this, but the launch altitude info is already in the database. Is it possible to simply hard code the SS-N-3 to require it being at 0 feet AGL to launch, or is this a matter of the AI needing to understand the submarine needs to surface in order to fire? An additional issue to consider regarding the SS-N-3 is that a firing submarine had to remain surfaced for 8-30 minutes until the SHADDOCK's seeker found the target. See:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Crui ... ocId742062; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ss-n-3.htm; http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/ss-n-3.htm; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-5_Pyatyorka

On a slightly related point, some of the earlier Soviet ASMs also had fairly stringent launch altitude issues also, so similar AI issues may be present with them.

ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

There's an inaccuracy with the SS-N-3a Shaddock missile. It currently can be launched by submarines that are submerged, but should only be able to be launched when on the surface. That was one of the main problems with the Soviet Juliett and Echo class subs. I updated my spreadsheet accordingly:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... ring#gid=0

Have been checking off a couple more intems in the list.

The SS-N-3a launch depth needs to wait as we need to get the AI to work with this as well.

Thanks! [8D]

[Dide]

Hi to all! There's an inaccuracy with the FREMM air facility,(have a two hangar; 1x medium Aircraft
and 1x large aircraft),and with the Cavour. Principally it's a carrier not an amphibious,
(Marina Militare Italiana site), and carry ad least 16 aircraft,
8 in his hangar and 8 in the open parking, (plus 6 spot on left side
for the heli). And maybe you can add the patrol vessel class "Comandanti"on database?
Thanks for the great game and sorry for my bad English! [:)]

[gdir]

Hi,

I had some issues with satellites in the DB3000 database. All satellites seem to be classified as some kind of submarine (SSGN, ...). I also had the problem that a russian satellite with optical sensor didn't spot a carrier group although it was daylight and clear sky. Details here:

tm.asp?m=3485459

[Anathema]

Could I please request the following updates.

Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Sirius Replenishment Oiler
Displacement: 46755 tonnes fully loaded.
Length: 191.3m
Beam: 32m
Draught: 11m
Propulsion: 1 x Hyundai B&W6S50MC (11,640 bhp x 127rpm), 1 direct drive shaft.
Speed: 16 knots
Capacity: 34,806 cubic metres of fuel & 12 containers.
Complement: 60
Aviation Facilities: Helicopter deck, no hangar.
Armament: Small arms only.
Sensors: Unknown.
Links:wikipedia link, navy.gov.au link, defence.gov.au "Getting Sirius" pdf link

Royal New Zealand Navy's L421 Canterbury
Displacement: 9,000 tonnes fully loaded
Length: 131m
Beam: 23.4m
Draught: 5.4m
Propulsion: CODADE (Combined Diesel and Diesel Electric) consisting of 2 Wärtsilä Engines @ 4.5 MW, 3 x Auxiliary diesels, 2 x Bow Thrusters
Speed: 19.6kt max, 16kt cruise.
Range: 8000nm at 16kts.
Capacity: 1,451 square metres of cargo space.
Complement: 109 + up to 250 troops.
Aviation Facilities: Helicopter deck and hangar for 1 Seasprite SH-2G & up to 4 NH-90 TTH.
Sensors: Vistar Electro-Optical fire control, CEA Warrlock HFDF ESM, S & X band radar.
Armament: 1 x Remote Controlled MSI DS25 Stabilized Naval Gun with 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon, 2 x .50 calibre machine guns
Boats: 2 x LCM, 2-4 RHIB
Links: wikipedia link army.mil.nz pdf link

AUSTRALIAN AIRCRAFT:
- A minor correction, the RAN NH90 should be TTH version and not the NFH naval version. (navy.gov.au news story)
- RAN is to replace S-70B Seahawk with 24 x MH-60R. (sikorsky.com press release on delivery of first aircraft)
- RAAF EA-18G Growlers to get AGM-88E HARM capability. (airforce-technology.com news story)

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: bsq

Could I also ask, because I have not seen it listed yet as a fix, that the arcs of fire of the S-300P (and variants), the S-300V (and variants) and the S-400 are modified from the current 360 degrees (which they most definately are not) to a more realistic 90 degrees in line with the physics of the array.

Like Patriot, once the engagements commence, left and right arc of fire are constrained and I have modelled and posted elsewhere that this is not the case when using these systems as they were able to simulataneously attack waves 180 degrees split from each other with a single FCR.

I know that the FCR can be readily rotated, so this may be an issue, but surely it would be better to have a more realistic engagement with these, already powerful and dangerous systems, because the ability to engage as they currently do is making them 'too good'.

Fully understood, but this is a limit with the current sensor model. Have added your suggestions to the feature request list.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: fool12342000

ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: apd1004
I'm also wondering about manually aimed AA guns having a base PH of 1%, but that will require more testing and can be in another thread. I just don't agree that a ZU-23 towed AA gun only has a 1% chance to hit a UH-1 Huey flying straight and level.

Yes the model probably needs to be refined a bit. What do you think the PoK for different target types should be?

I think PoK should affected by target size and speed too.
1. Hit rate for small cruise missile should be smaller than helicopter with agility penalty.
2. Manual AAA may get more penalty against high speed target, when AAA with FCR get less.

Example:
PoK = [Bast PoK] - [Speed * (agility factor + FCR factor)] - [Size penalty] - [Attack angle penalty (gun and torpedo only)]

And every time an aircraft performs evasive maneuver, it will lose some speed.

Thanks, have added your comments to the 'PoK improvements' bug report.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: El Savior

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Would it be possible to dig up more information on the Sonac/PTA? The info we have so far makes it impossible to do a good implementation [8D]

Thanks!

This is the best source so far.

Norman Friedman, The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998.

Finnyards Sonac/PTA towed array sonar



According to The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World two system is in use for Rauma (Helsinki II) class.

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.ph ... se-in-hce/
"... best guess for the Finnyard Sonac PTA ...

PTA, Type: T (VDS), Function: Search, Active Range: -, Passive Range: 4.3, Freq Band: VLF, Platform: Surface.

Thanks, have used this info plus a whole lot of wilda$$ guessimates to create the system [8D]