Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Mgellis]

[UPDATED DB v441]

By the way, speaking of tanks, I think there may be a few errors in the av gas tanks and the diesel tanks.

The diesel tanks are listed as follows:

40k liter tank: 150 dp (DB #45)
75k liter tank: 20 dp (DB #8)
150k liter tank: 30 dp (DB #75)
400k liter tank: 100 dp (DB #11)
750k liter tank: 200 dp (DB #76)

Shouldn't that be more like what is listed below?

40k liter tank: 10 dp
75k liter tank: 20 dp
150k liter tank: 40 dp
400k liter tank: 100 dp
750k liter tank: 200 dp

(these are the values for the av gas tanks of the same size)

Also, with the av gas tank farms, the dp values seem rather odd. Currently, they are listed as...

#1820: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 75k Liter Tank): 10 dp
#1508: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 40k Liter Tank): 100 dp
#1822: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 150k Liter Tank): 40 dp
#1826: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 75k Liter Tank): 20 dp
#1825: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 40k Liter Tank): 10 dp
#1824: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 150k Liter Tank): 40 dp
#1509: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 75k Liter Tank): 200 dp
#1823: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 40k Liter Tank): 10 dp
#1821: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 150k Liter Tank): 40 dp

(Ummm...wait. That makes no sense.)

Would it make more sense to do what follows?

#1820: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 75k Liter Tank): 140 dp
#1508: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 40k Liter Tank): 70 dp
#1822: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 150k Liter Tank): 280 dp
#1826: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 75k Liter Tank): 100 dp
#1825: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 40k Liter Tank): 50 dp
#1824: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 150k Liter Tank): 200 dp
#1509: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 75k Liter Tank): 80 dp
#1823: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 40k Liter Tank): 40 dp
#1821: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 150k Liter Tank): 160 dp

(I'm using square roots, rounded up, rather than number, on the assumption that if these are all arranged as a group, any blast that can go through an entire line of them will take out the entire square.)

I hope this helps.

[Mgellis]

One more idea...

I don't know if this is possible, or realistic, but should there be a Radar Contact (False) (Generic) platform in the database?

This would represent a flock of birds, bad weather, glitch in the radar itself, etc. It would be an "aircraft" and would probably be able to move at 20 mph or so, which would eventually reveal it as something too slow to be a plane (although it still might be a helicopter loitering in an area). Are false contacts like this actually an issue at times (I guess they are with sonar or they wouldn't be in the database) or can radar distinguish well enough that it's not a problem?

Anyway, just a thought. I hope this helps.

[CV60]

One idea of database addition
Single Unit purpose-made dispersal airfield. This would simulate a section of highway that was built with a secondary objective of acting as a dispersal field. Suggested Facilities:
1 Runway
4 Access points
10 Open Parking, Medium Size aircraft
Munitions:500, Reload rate 90, Armor: None (simulating minimal storage and handling facilities and use of logistics vehicles for fuel/ammo instead of magazines)

[Dysta]

In addition, I am making a scenario that involved with several airports and private runways at Alaska. Those preset runway lengths aren't have much choice, and usually between 450m-900m or 900-1400m.

If there's little longer part of runway per addition, that'd be easier to choose. Like these below:

(underlines mean in database)

Runway (450m)
Runway (600m)
Runway (750m)
Runway (900m)
Runway (1050m)
Runway (1300m)
Runway (1450m, just simply change from 1400m would be fine)
Runway (1600m)
Runway (1800m, from 150m to 200m per additional length)
Runway (2000m)
Runway (2200m)
Runway (2400m)
Runway (2600m)
Runway (2800m)
Runway (3000m)
Runway (3200m)
Runway (3600m, from 200m to 400m per additional length)
Runway (4000m)
Runway (4400m)
Runway (4800m)
Runway (5200m)
Runway (5600m)
Runway (6000m, longer than the longest in CMANO)

[ComDev]

Thanks!

Are KRF-16C stripped of all other weapon systems, or are they identical to KF-16Cs other than their ability to carry the ELINT Pod?

Added JDAMs, asymetrical AGM-88/65, GBU-10 loadouts, etc, for Database v441.

ORIGINAL: jun5896

19th Fighter Wing, based at Jungwon Air Base

159th Fighter Squadron was changed 159th Tactical Reconnaissance squadron on early 2014(RKF-16C procured in 2012), This squadron employs KF-16C (Block 52), but some F-16C replaced RF-16C. Still 159 TRS is replacing RKF-16C squadron.

http://www.f-16.net/units_article385.html

When see this page, look tail-wing number ROKAF 93 numbering is 159 FS(Now changed 159 TRS).

lig nex1's alq-200k ecm pods - It procured in 2005.(F-4D/E, RF-4C, F-16C/D Block 32 and KF-16C/D Block 52 can equip.)

Also I upload some pictures.(First pic is test ALQ-X in 2004)





http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 00422.html

quote from http://tacticalmashup.com/jdam-a-gps-in ... irstrikes/

Feb 8/11: F-15K integration. The Chosun Ilbo quotes the South Korean ROKAF, who says it has integrated the 2,000 pound GBU-31 JDAM with its KF-16 fighters, as well as its F-15K “Slam Eagles.” After developing the software, the ROKAF successfully carried out 3 tests, and finished pilot training at the end of January 2011.

The report also mentions wing kits, which are absent from normal JDAMs – but not from the 2,000 pound JDAM Extended Range kit, which was being developed by Boeing and South Korea.



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sou ... 16s-05404/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... force.aspx

ROKAF isn't decided KF-16 upgrade business partner yet. BAE systems withdrew KF-16 upgrade program, Still ROAKF is negotiating with Lockheed Martin.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

One more idea...

I don't know if this is possible, or realistic, but should there be a Radar Contact (False) (Generic) platform in the database?

This would represent a flock of birds, bad weather, glitch in the radar itself, etc. It would be an "aircraft" and would probably be able to move at 20 mph or so, which would eventually reveal it as something too slow to be a plane (although it still might be a helicopter loitering in an area). Are false contacts like this actually an issue at times (I guess they are with sonar or they wouldn't be in the database) or can radar distinguish well enough that it's not a problem?

Anyway, just a thought. I hope this helps.

This this one would also need some code changes to work properly, so might be a good idea to wait?

[ComDev]

Won't the current 'Single Unit Airfield' units do?

ORIGINAL: CV60

One idea of database addition
Single Unit purpose-made dispersal airfield. This would simulate a section of highway that was built with a secondary objective of acting as a dispersal field. Suggested Facilities:
1 Runway
4 Access points
10 Open Parking, Medium Size aircraft
Munitions:500, Reload rate 90, Armor: None (simulating minimal storage and handling facilities and use of logistics vehicles for fuel/ammo instead of magazines)

[ComDev]

Hi Dysta, thank you for your input.

The pre-defined runways match aircraft runway size & length requirements, so having more fine-grained runway facilities will have no effect on gameplay whatsoever. So pick the runway facility according to the capabilities of the aircraft that will operate from the airfield, and simply re-name the runway ('R' hotkey) to give them the correct lenth description.

ORIGINAL: Dysta

In addition, I am making a scenario that involved with several airports and private runways at Alaska. Those preset runway lengths aren't have much choice, and usually between 450m-900m or 900-1400m.

If there's little longer part of runway per addition, that'd be easier to choose. Like these below:

(underlines mean in database)

Runway (450m)
Runway (600m)
Runway (750m)
Runway (900m)
Runway (1050m)
Runway (1300m)
Runway (1450m, just simply change from 1400m would be fine)
Runway (1600m)
Runway (1800m, from 150m to 200m per additional length)
Runway (2000m)
Runway (2200m)
Runway (2400m)
Runway (2600m)
Runway (2800m)
Runway (3000m)
Runway (3200m)
Runway (3600m, from 200m to 400m per additional length)
Runway (4000m)
Runway (4400m)
Runway (4800m)
Runway (5200m)
Runway (5600m)
Runway (6000m, longer than the longest in CMANO)

[CV60]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVELOPER'S NOTE: Database development slow-down!

Hey guys,

Just wanted to let you know that I have now re-directed my limited Command time (which is squeezed inbetween family life, day-job, workout, and various other interests) to write code. My code contributions have been rather limited lately and I need to add several new features and fix a few bugs before I can start working on the Advanced Strike Planner.

This means I will only fix reported errors/inaccuracies in existing platforms and only make critical additions, i.e. units needed for a scenario currently under construction. Nice-to-have stuff (that no-one will ever use in a scenario anyway haha) will not be added.

If there is anything you consider extremely important (...enough to justify spending time on adding / fixing, rather than having me working on code) then feel feee to post. If not then you'll find me burried deep down in the Command game engine.

Thanks! [:D]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Won't the current 'Single Unit Airfield' units do?

Certainly, it could be made to do. I would argue the difference between the dispersal field and the single unit airfield is
1) The aircraft size limitation (medium v. very large aircraft)
2) The lack of magazine armor
3) The slower reload and lower magazine size

[AlanChan]

[Google Translate difficulties, need more info]

question about Yu-8 ASROC (mis-identified as CY-3, it was CY-2 before transfer of design breau): could players add Yu-8 ASROC to VLS of 064A FFGs? there is only one placeholder in DB and you can not reload Yu-8 ASROC to 054A. Plus, 056 FFG also can carry Yu-8 in its YJ cases.



they even have picutures search pattern and Ph simulation posted on-line

[CV60]

[NEED MORE INFO]

quote:


quote:

The China Lake museum gives the range of the AIM-9D as 11 miles ( http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits ... nder.shtml ) Database gives an 8 mile range (Weapon_1163).


Is that miles or nautical miles?


The China Lake site doesn't state whether it is nautical miles or miles, and I haven't been able to get any other range figures. I'm assuming the China Lake numbers are in miles. If so, that would give a 9.5 nm range for the AIM-9D.

Finally, I found a source for AIM-9D range. According to Friedman, Norman, "The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1997, pg. 428, the AIM-9C/D had a range of 11.5 nm.

The same source gives a range of 15,850yds (7.82 nm) for the AIM-9J (Weapon_164) vice the 10 nm range in the database, as the missile sacrifices range to produce high acceleration to address fast targets.

[ComDev]

Database v440 has been released:

fb.asp?m=3926464

Thanks again for your invaluable support, guys [:D]


...and with the release of v440, database work is now on the back-burner, at least on my part. Paul and Mike will contine doing their magic though. Please see announcement (in red) at the top of this page.

[ComDev]

Understood. But limiting the aircraft to 'Medium' will make it impossible to use A-10s and Hercules transports from the strip. Which may not be intended?

Magazine armor woul have no effect because Single-Unit Airfields should never be attacked. In fact we're considering removing the ability to target them.

Magazine reload time has no effect on gameplay currently, only Air Ops tempo and surge capability does.

Thanks! [8D]

Won't the current 'Single Unit Airfield' units do?

Certainly, it could be made to do. I would argue the difference between the dispersal field and the single unit airfield is
1) The aircraft size limitation (medium v. very large aircraft)
2) The lack of magazine armor
3) The slower reload and lower magazine size

[Dysta]

Keep up your good work! I'm really having a blast a whole night when it comes out.

[SASR]

[UPDATED SIGINT SETS, DB v441]

First of all awesome job on the new DB release. You guys put a huge amount of time and effort to keep this up to date.

I tested out some of the new DB additions and found some bugs/errors to report

THe Mk.54 HAAWC still has the same range as a regular Mk.54, .4 miles.

The RQ-180 and RQ-170 have the Generic SIGINT which is "Late 70s Technology" and therefore don't have a threat emitter library for identification of specific radars. Since drones around the same time period like the MQ-4C and RQ-4 have better ELINT technology wouldn't the RQ-180 and RQ-170 have that too?

[CV60]

[UPDATED DB v441]

One more source on the tactic of extending AGM-62B ER/DL by locking on after launch. This is from the China Lake Museum website http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/walleye.shtml:

The requirement for the pilot to lockon to the target before launch proved to be a problem in a heavily defended target situation, so a data-link was built that would relay the television image from the weapon to the pilot after launch, and it allowed the missile to be launched without acquiring the target first. Through the data link, the pilot could then achieve lockon while the weapon was in flight. This data link was called the Extended Range Data Link, or ERDL. The ERDL was backfitted onto both versions of the Walleye. The missile could even be controlled from another aircraft than the launching aircraft.

Based on this, I think that using the longer range for the AGM-62B (at least against fixed targets) as described by Chant, Christopher, "A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware", pg. 505 would be justifiable. (see https://books.google.com/books?id=zUu4A ... 2A&f=false).

Of note, Jane's Air Launched Weapons gives the same range for the ERDL (59,895 m or 32 nm) as Chant.

However, any real world experience using the AGM-62B would help resolve this issue.

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Thanks [8D]

Can I have some more opinions on this please?

The way I understand it is that the main advantage with the Walleye was that it allowed you to actually hit your intended target. The fact that it had a little stand-off range was a nice side-effect. The datalink allowed you to hit low-contrast targets. The JDAM is supposedly effective up to 12nm, and I have doubts the Walleye ER/DL was very useful beyond that range.

Guys?

ORIGINAL: CV60

For the older AGM-82A, the 10 nm is probably okay. In http://www.8tfw.com/pages/8thhistory1968.htm, the author discusses releasing at 6 nm from target in a permissive environment, implying they would release further out if necessary, so the 10 nm figure is probably okay for the max effective range. However, I'm not sure about WALLEYE II. While the TV image may be bad, the idea behind the AGM-62B ER/DL was that the missile would be released in the direction of the target and enroute the AGM-62B would be locked onto as the bomb approached the target. See http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-62.html ("The next major step in the evolution of Walleye was the ERDL (Extended Range Data Link) modification. One drawback of the Walleye's guidance system was the requirement to lock the seeker onto the target before launch, meaning that the attack aircraft had to come relatively close to a potentially heavily defended target. The ERDL system equipped the Walleye with a two-way datalink, and the launch aircraft were equipped with an AN/AWW-9 (later AN/AWW-13) underwing data-link pod. The pilot could now launch the Walleye out of visual range of the target, turn away, watch the bomb's TV camera image, which was transmitted via the data-link, and lock-on to the target at any convenient moment." )

With that said, it would be difficult to get the full range under operational conditions. However, against a fixed, pre-planned target, the tactic of lobbing the bomb towards the target and locking on as it the weapon got closer would, (I would think) allow it to be used at longer ranges. Additionally, against some fixed targets (bridges, buildings, etc) the image, as bad as it is, would still be perfectly okay for guidance. Possibly someone with real-world experience could provide some insight as whether the true effective range of the AGB-62B ERDL is greater than the current figure in the database?

Thanks for bringing up this one. It seems the effective range was actually limited by the seeker, which was a really crappy TV camera set. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4cDFP0CQk

So although the bomb could probably glide a considerable distance, it seems the weapon was used at relatively short ranges operationally. Even with DL mid-course guidance.

[Vici Supreme]

[UPDATED DB v441]

Corrections for platform #4404 - MiG-29SMT Fulcrum C of the Peruvian Air Force.

First, please change the units designation to MiG-29SMP Fulcrum C.

Second, please add an AS-14 Kedge [KH-29L] loadout to the aircraft. Appearantly, the missiles are primarily used on Peru's Su-25s, however, during exhibition the KH-29L was showcased as part of the MiG-29SMP's inventory.

http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2012/0 ... rueba.html
http://s1159.photobucket.com/user/nous7 ... 5.jpg.html
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 560133.jpg

Thanks guys! I'm aware that DB work is on the back-burner for the next couple weeks.

Supreme

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: SASR

First of all awesome job on the new DB release. You guys put a huge amount of time and effort to keep this up to date.

I tested out some of the new DB additions and found some bugs/errors to report

THe Mk.54 HAAWC still has the same range as a regular Mk.54, .4 miles.

The RQ-180 and RQ-170 have the Generic SIGINT which is "Late 70s Technology" and therefore don't have a threat emitter library for identification of specific radars. Since drones around the same time period like the MQ-4C and RQ-4 have better ELINT technology wouldn't the RQ-180 and RQ-170 have that too?

Thanks added requests for RQ-170 and RQ-180. Makes sense although they are unknown.

I'm guessing we've got some additional work on the Mk.54 HAAWC. Its a new weapon class more or less.

Thanks!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

Ok guys. As Rag mentioned we're not going to be spending a great amount of time on DB3k work for the next couple months unless something we view as critical comes up. If you made a request and it was not acted on in this version it should make the next if we have what we need to implement.

Thank you all for your help getting us to DB 440!


Mike

[jun5896]

[ADDED DB v441]

KRF-16C is more specialized EO/IR reconnaissance role. But Also it can SEAD and electronic warfare role(OECM). So It isn't same KF-16C, Only replace RF-4C roles.

Thanks for sincere replies.

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Thanks!

Are KRF-16C stripped of all other weapon systems, or are they identical to KF-16Cs other than their ability to carry the ELINT Pod?

Added JDAMs, asymetrical AGM-88/65, GBU-10 loadouts, etc, for Database v441.