Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra
Translation: yeah so the stores not open.

If you are interested in purchasing Command-PE and are representing a company or organization, please contact us through the address provided on the Command PE page. Thanks.

[DrRansom]

On the topic of hypersonic glide weapons, there should be more than enough open source knowledge to build a decent model of them. The only thing which is missing would be kinetic effects, but that could be approximated to a reasonable extent.

[ultradave]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra
Translation: yeah so the stores not open.

If you are interested in purchasing Command-PE and are representing a company or organization, please contact us through the address provided on the Command PE page. Thanks.

Well, there ya' go Ilias

[HalfLifeExpert]

ORIGINAL: Grazyn

You think you want editable database, but you don't.

As far as realism is concerned, you won't find more reliable public-access data about units than what is already in the game, and developers keep the database up to date when new stuff is released. So there isn't really an issue of being unable to give a unit its "true" performance, because it's already there. And if you have better data, you're likely some government or military-industrial complex insider who can buy the pro version anyway.

Indeed, and if by some chance you do have better and more accurate data on a modern system, and are not in a Nation's defense forces and/or industry, I must ask how you got classified information, and can only hope the proper authorities can catch you. If someone gave me a packet of the real full specs on the F-22 Raptor's true capabilities, I would throw it back in their face and contact the authorities ASAP. There are some things we are just not meant to know, at least not yet. Perhaps we can learn the true Raptor capabilities in 15 years or so.

So this only leaves your ability to tweak a unit's features as you like, usually in some unrealistic way... but this would turn into a nightmare for the dev team. Tech support already has to deal with bug reports, fake bugs, scenario bugs, lua bugs, features that are taken as bugs, simple misunderstandings and so on, all stuff that is to be expected with a game so complex... and on top of that, they would have to take into account user ability to edit the database, which would obviously introduce a whole new swathe of user-made bugs. "Yes hello I have to report this bug, my script is not working as intended and there's something odd with unit behaviour... oh did I mention that I edited that frigate to run at the speed of light and that f-35 to fly underwater at -3000 ft? What do you mean you can't help me because I edited them? Then why have the feature in the first place? I paid good money for this game etc. etc. etc."

Yes, it is to avoid this sort of mess that is the reason why the Database is locked to non-pro customers. Don't worry, the devs will update the DB with revisions and new stuff as soon as they get quality, publically accessible info on the new stuff.

I also assume it is partially from bad experiences in the developer's past, from before CMANO came to light, that is the reason for this. I've only become aware of this fiasco within the past week or so. Details can be found in an older post from the developer's website:

http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1507

I only became aware of this frustrating saga because one of the individuals is still making a nuisance of himself in the Steam reviews, proclaiming utter nonsense.

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

I do not understand the answers in this thread.

You cannot tell any other user what he want or what he need. That's called Freedom. [X(]
This kind of attitudes are commonly used in communist countries, where other people (Nomenklatura) decides where you must work, what do you need and of course, tell you what you must think.

If someone has the money...Why not sell it the Pro version?
That's called Capitalism. [:)] Have the money? go ahead!

With the fall of the Soviet Union, we forget some important terms and we are losing by the way important rights.

P.S. Of course WarfareSims has the choice to sell or not to sell. But I don't understant why you are telling Ilias what he need and what not. THat's simple. If he has the money...Use it if you want.

I have no idea why you felt the need to bring Communism v. Capitalism into this.

Let's have a look at what the Professional Edition offers shall we?

From the Developer's website:

Currently available functionality exclusive to Command PE:
◾NEW in v1.12! Integrated script-less communications jamming (ties with the new comms disruption feature)
◾NEW in v1.12! Directed tactical-EMP weapons (e.g. CHAMP)
◾NEW in v1.12! Hypersonic Glide Vehicles
◾NEW in v1.12! TCP/IP socket access to Lua API (ie. any external application can manipulate the running simulation via Lua calls)
◾Full database editing
◾Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – MS Bing Maps
◾Monte-Carlo analysis
◾Import external data in XML format
◾Export event notifications to files/databases or external data consumers
◾Ability to override Command’s internal mechanics (use your own custom models)
◾Ability to export to Tacview for 3D visualization
◾Source code licensing

Planned features:
◾Integrated asynchronous-WEGO multiplayer mode with optional Umpire and Observer modes
◾Extended costing
◾DIS/HLA integration
◾Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – Other providers such as Google Maps

Also these are available to the Professional customers together or al a carte, depending on the specific professional needs.

I do not see how the majority of those features could significantly improve the experience of most of the commercial customers.

It would be kind of cool to overlay the CMANO map with Bing or Google Maps images, and Tacview is kind cool from what I can see, having recently learned about it. But those would not add that much to the core gameplay.

Also I would think that some of the capabilities offered in Command Professional might be somewhat taxing on the processing power of many consumer computers, but industrial and military computers might be able to handle the load better.

[Ilias]

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert
From the Developer's website:

Currently available functionality exclusive to Command PE:
◾NEW in v1.12! Integrated script-less communications jamming (ties with the new comms disruption feature)
◾NEW in v1.12! Directed tactical-EMP weapons (e.g. CHAMP)
◾NEW in v1.12! Hypersonic Glide Vehicles
◾NEW in v1.12! TCP/IP socket access to Lua API (ie. any external application can manipulate the running simulation via Lua calls)
◾Full database editing
◾Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – MS Bing Maps
◾Monte-Carlo analysis
◾Import external data in XML format
◾Export event notifications to files/databases or external data consumers
◾Ability to override Command’s internal mechanics (use your own custom models)
◾Ability to export to Tacview for 3D visualization
◾Source code licensing

Planned features:
◾Integrated asynchronous-WEGO multiplayer mode with optional Umpire and Observer modes
◾Extended costing
◾DIS/HLA integration
◾Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – Other providers such as Google Maps

Thanks for great spot,
Not counting ability to mod the game which would be AWERSOME[:)]:
Yeah, tacview would be cool, but as you said its not needeable,
"◾DIS/HLA integration" uuuummmm..
(but to biggest sad, without some other applications allowing it's compatibility commercially it would be useless )

So yeap, nothing really bad as far as PE 's performance,optimization not different from basic (what worrying is military structures require the software to handle pretty alot of things some times,
while still Command can be used to simulate plenty of smaller scale situations,
its worrying in accordance to some noticeable issues which still present in Command (like one that program "do not using available system's resources" which i mentioned in tech support)).
(also: multipayer will come on both versions riiight..? ("WEGO"[:(]))

DrRansom probably right, here it pretty enough open information to create abstractive version
(but guies it can be: Warfaresims just got some info about it in terms of cooperation with military customers for adding it to game, so they would need to choose what to abstract, what could be bit weird [:)] )

[User2]

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

Indeed, and if by some chance you do have better and more accurate data on a modern system, and are not in a Nation's defense forces and/or industry, I must ask how you got classified information, and can only hope the proper authorities can catch you. If someone gave me a packet of the real full specs on the F-22 Raptor's true capabilities, I would throw it back in their face and contact the authorities ASAP. There are some things we are just not meant to know, at least not yet. Perhaps we can learn the true Raptor capabilities in 15 years or so.

You, guys, are talking like there are no errors in the DB. There are. Lots of units are inaccurately represented. Here is an example: su35 in the lattest patches got reduced RCS due to RAM coating and other work in this direction, but for 2-3 years su35 had almost the same RCS as su27 despite wiki clear statement that reduced RCS of su35 was one of the requirements of Russian MOD. There are lots of such ill-represented units.
Do not get me wrong. The scale of DB is VERY large. Thousands of units. Dev team is small. I do not expect them to quickly polish the DB. What really disappointing is that players do not bother reporting such issues. It seems nobody cared about reporting su35 rcs issue. Am I the only one who visits wiki while playing the game? Almost every scenerio, I find at least one unit whose characteristics contradict wiki.
So I think it is not a bad idea to select 3-4 reliable fans of the game, give them an ability to modify DB, create new thread where people will post there requests in the form of SQL commands and let those fans verify incoming requests and modify DB. SQL form of requests will allow those volunteers to quickly modify DB using official sqlite tools (https://sqlite.org/cli.html). User modifies DB, uses sqldiff tool to create a txt file with a set of sql commands needed to modify original DB, posts that file in the thread, writes a brief description. Selected volunteer checks the request, uses sqlite3 tool with that file to make changes to the original DB, posts the modified DB on the forum. Now users use this new DB for their next requests. Time to time devs merge that user DB with the official DB and add it to the base game.
Well, it will not allow to add new units due to the problems with RCS estimating and submarine noise level estimating. But will quickly eliminate small errors in the DB unit parameters like speed, cruise level, max distance, armor level, missing flags, typo, etc.

[thewood1]

I just looked at the DB3000 update thread and there are a bunch of posts on the Su-35, but nothing on the RCS issue. Did you enter it there?

[mikkey]

As thewood1 says, there are two threads for unit adding or updating ("Cold War Database 1946-1979 Platform Requests" and "Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues"). If you have some new important information about existing or new platforms, you can post it in this threads with relevant info and developers judge them and add or repair it.

[User2]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

but nothing on the RCS issue.

That's what I was talking about. Nobody reported it.
Same as mig35 rcs and other issues.

[Ilias]

ORIGINAL: User2

ORIGINAL: thewood1
but nothing on the RCS issue.

That's what I was talking about. Nobody reported it.
Same as mig35 rcs and other issues.

Soo., shouldn't you do that then ?

[thewood1]

Exactly...it seems not many have a serious issue with that issue. People report stuff all the time. Because no one reports your pet issue doesn't mean something is wrong with the devs and the customers. That is a pretty self-centered piece of logic.

[User2]

Soo., shouldn't you do that then ?

To get the reason I did not report su-35 rcs issue you should get pre patch DB3k 466 database, where su-35 rcs is not fixed, then look at su-35 rcs (both against high and low freq), then look at another russian 4++ plane - mig-35, then look at rcs of western 4++ planes (f/a-18 super hornet, jas 39 gripen, eurofighter). It was already discussed in db3000 thread with lots of examples: db is biased. I actually do not want to raise that question again here.

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

On the topic of hypersonic glide weapons, there should be more than enough open source knowledge to build a decent model of them. The only thing which is missing would be kinetic effects, but that could be approximated to a reasonable extent.

Technically ASBMs like DF-21D are HGVs. And they do not require Pro version to use.
Just tried it 10 min ago against Arleigh Burke - it was amazing. AB in standard loudout (no sm-3) had no chance [:)]. However trajectory was a bit weird: after atmosphere reentry the missile descended to 2000m, got its speed reduced to 5M, flew a bit at this level, then it suddenly began to gain altitude, got to about 25km over sea level and exploded right over the ship at that level, destroying the ship. Warhead was not nuclear. Rim-162A missiles were not fired by the destroyer due to high speed of the target.

[thewood1]

Hold on...There was one comment, an off handed one, about the SU-35 and then the RCS was adjusted. So did you point out the issue after that?

First you said it wasn't pointed and now it is. I am totally confused by your logic. Or are you just assuming the db is biased? I couldn't see you involved very much in the db thread. Did I miss that?

[User2]

your pet

Childish move to start a flame. Su35 issue was just an example. Do you know what is example, right?

Hold on...There was one comment, an off handed one, about the SU-35 and then the RCS was adjusted. So did you point out the issue after that?

Find me a post where somebody reported that issue. I personally did not report it. It seems nobody did.

[Grazyn]

I don't understand, you want editable database because you think it's not accurate, people tell you that you can just report any accurate data you have in the thread, but your answer is that you don't report stuff anyway because you think devs are biased against non-western units? But the only way to know that would be to point at accurate data with devs refusing to update it...

[HalfLifeExpert]

ORIGINAL: User2

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

Indeed, and if by some chance you do have better and more accurate data on a modern system, and are not in a Nation's defense forces and/or industry, I must ask how you got classified information, and can only hope the proper authorities can catch you. If someone gave me a packet of the real full specs on the F-22 Raptor's true capabilities, I would throw it back in their face and contact the authorities ASAP. There are some things we are just not meant to know, at least not yet. Perhaps we can learn the true Raptor capabilities in 15 years or so.

You, guys, are talking like there are no errors in the DB. There are. Lots of units are inaccurately represented. Here is an example: su35 in the lattest patches got reduced RCS due to RAM coating and other work in this direction, but for 2-3 years su35 had almost the same RCS as su27 despite wiki clear statement that reduced RCS of su35 was one of the requirements of Russian MOD. There are lots of such ill-represented units.
Do not get me wrong. The scale of DB is VERY large. Thousands of units. Dev team is small. I do not expect them to quickly polish the DB. What really disappointing is that players do not bother reporting such issues. It seems nobody cared about reporting su35 rcs issue. Am I the only one who visits wiki while playing the game? Almost every scenerio, I find at least one unit whose characteristics contradict wiki.
So I think it is not a bad idea to select 3-4 reliable fans of the game, give them an ability to modify DB, create new thread where people will post there requests in the form of SQL commands and let those fans verify incoming requests and modify DB. SQL form of requests will allow those volunteers to quickly modify DB using official sqlite tools (https://sqlite.org/cli.html). User modifies DB, uses sqldiff tool to create a txt file with a set of sql commands needed to modify original DB, posts that file in the thread, writes a brief description. Selected volunteer checks the request, uses sqlite3 tool with that file to make changes to the original DB, posts the modified DB on the forum. Now users use this new DB for their next requests. Time to time devs merge that user DB with the official DB and add it to the base game.
Well, it will not allow to add new units due to the problems with RCS estimating and submarine noise level estimating. But will quickly eliminate small errors in the DB unit parameters like speed, cruise level, max distance, armor level, missing flags, typo, etc.

Just an FYI, the Devs do not consider Wikipedia a reliable source on these things. A wiki page may have a link to more reliable sources, but those are the ones the devs look at, and they will generally need more than one source.

So saying "despite wiki clear statement" is not a strong argument here.

[Grazyn]

If they don't consider wiki a reliable source, then why are most unit descriptions copypasted from wikipedia? [:D]

[User2]

I don't understand, you want editable database because you think it's not accurate, people tell you that you can just report any accurate data you have in the thread, but your answer is that you don't report stuff anyway because you think devs are biased against non-western units?

You are mixing two different points. I made a proposition to allow some fans to help devs. It is win-win situation for everyone in my opinion. I'm sure there are people who are willing and have spare time to help at polishing DB. I DO report some small issues in the DB and propose time to time new units to add to DB. I do not report rcs issues because some questions someone asked in the db3k thread about rcs remained unanswered (for example, about the source of information used for tomahawk and kalibr cruise missiles - they have similar dimensions but different rcs). I just do not see a point reporting it.
I am not eastern military fanboy. I'd like to see realistic simulator, like all of you I hope. If, for example, kalibr missile is not good at something i'd like to see it in the game, if su-35 has poor avionics i'd like too see it. I do not want to see nerfed f-22 in favour of balance or something like that. The game engine is already great. I looked the list of literature that was used to create game's physics model and I am impressed. Would bea shame to ruin all this with a biased against any side DB. I hope it will not happen.

So saying "despite wiki clear statement" is not a strong argument here.

Yep. Wiki is a good starting point, but it should be verified ofcouse. For example, english Mi-24 wiki page states that the helo hull is armored. But other sources state that it is not. Only cockpit and some engine parts have armor plates. The game's DB it seems uses english wiki data - mi-24 hull in the game is armored, while engine - not.

[Ilias]

ORIGINAL: User2
..I do not report rcs issues because some questions someone asked in the db3k thread about rcs remained unanswered..

That can make sense, but if issue exist report it for highest good regardless of existence of situation in past where it was unresponded [:)]
(if it is real, confirmed possible mistake in DB )

ORIGINAL: User2
..biased against any side DB. I hope it will not happen.

+1 (didn't deeply looked into DB, so can't say alot about, but agree what its important to keep right)

[mikkey]

ORIGINAL: Grazyn
If they don't consider wiki a reliable source, then why are most unit descriptions copypasted from wikipedia? [:D]

Grazyn, descriptions, similar as image packs, is community project. Descriptions are taken by various users from different sources (also from the wiki) and serve for better understanding of specific units. They have nothing to do with the unit data source. Unit data are directly managed by developers.