Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

We can place more than six (6) hulls of 2235.0 at the flying deck of the CVN 78, but never mind! 1/6 of square of flying deck has RCS bigger than whole deck.

Question to DEVs and database editors. I really don't know. Is anywhere any mentions about composite deck for CVN 78 or RAM for it?

Sad thing is that we, community, can't change this absurd. Ironically, people who used to make DB's for Harpoon won't let us to do the same for CMANO.

[Dan109]

Please add the M1161 Growler and M1163 Prime Mover to the cargo database. These are the only two vehicles certified to fit in the V-22. These should not be paradroppable however.

http://www.growlerme.com/products/m1163primemover.html
http://www.growlerme.com/products/m1161lightattackvehicle.html

I see that however CMANO includes the soldiers with the vehicle, where this vehicle has many many uses. The more common use I see with it is to have SEAL or other SpecOp recon/FO teams using them, besides being a general utility vehicle and weapon tow-truck and ammo hauler. So perhaps a generic one, a few with different spec ops types, and one with the FO equipment.

I originally thought of this when I saw the Forward Observer cargo unit (which is apparently on foot without a vehicle) deploy at 29knts in the CMANO Cargo features video.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

You never stop amaze me, gentlemen.
...
SRSLY?!

That's one way to come across as an asshole.

[SASR]

US Army - Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System (HGWS)

Relatively new project created by the SCO a couple of years ago to defend critical ports and bases. Combines a 155mm HVP with M109A7 howitzers and a RF sensor consisting of a ground-based modified USAF fighter aircraft AESA radar (probably an APG-83) to defend against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and other air targets. The number of howitzers per HGWS is unknown, but it is probably a battery. The entire system will be demonstrated in 2018, which given the SCO’s rapid acquisition nature points to fielding a few years later.

From: https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/sc ... locity-gun

The Pentagon wants to take a weapon originally designed for offense, flip its punch for defense and demonstrate by 2018 the potential for the Army and Navy to conduct missile defense of bases, ports and ships using traditional field guns to fire a new hypervelocity round guided by a mobile, ground variant of an Air Force fighter aircraft radar.

The sensor will provide data links and engagement out to 25 kilometers

From: http://www.tnov.com/index.php/hypervelocity-weapon/

The system was designed to provide both tracking of an incoming warhead, and command guide the outgoing projectile to ranges of 25 kilometers. The project demonstrated critical technologies associated with the command guided weapon system. Demonstrations included cross range precision CEP of 18 centimeters at 24.8 kilometers, tracking of hypervelocity projectiles fired at up to 2 kilometers per second (6.561 feet per second or Mach 5.87), and developing and communicating with a miniature g’s hardened transceiver at 25 kilometers. Tracking of the hypervelocity projectiles was performed using a binary phased coded waveform.

The actual sensor is integrated with a transportable mount, making what's called the Hypervelocity Weapon Terminal Defense Control System (HFCS)

This link shows a picture of the HFCS radar mount and gives a short description: http://www.tnov.com/index.php/hypervelocity-weapon

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: hellfish6
That's one way to come across as an asshole.

So, you has nothing to speak to the point.

[Filitch]

In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.

Hi Filitch

Sorry for the lack of response. Just looking this over it seems like a picture has been painted that is not true and that has excited you. Looking at the mentioned platforms all were implemented very early at a player's request and simply haven't been updated to reflect the new info. RCS stats are auto calculated in a tool so there is no purposeful slant unless you think a ton of extra work fudging Russian RCS values is really worth it? Then again if we were willing to spend the time doing that why would we spend it there and not somewhere more meaningful like within the code? Does it make sense to you? Seriously? The carrier vs DDG issue might even be an error () but I will need to dig on this one. These will be added to our list to review in the future and sorry that you're upset at this.

Now a question for you.

Should the team take on more stringent data requirements before implementing? Let me know what you think.

Thanks

Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

ORIGINAL: Filitch

We can place more than six (6) hulls of 2235.0 at the flying deck of the CVN 78, but never mind! 1/6 of square of flying deck has RCS bigger than whole deck.

Question to DEVs and database editors. I really don't know. Is anywhere any mentions about composite deck for CVN 78 or RAM for it?

Sad thing is that we, community, can't change this absurd. Ironically, people who used to make DB's for Harpoon won't let us to do the same for CMANO.

Explained here

Database Editing

Does the simulator come with a database editor?

There are pros and cons in supporting third-party databases for a simulator that is being actively maintained by the developer. Our current view is that the disadvantages are more profound. So Command does not come with a database editor.

The ability to modify a database has been taken from a stand-alone programs and integrated into the Scenario Editor. You can customise platforms in the scenarios by adding/removing mounts, magazines, sensors and comms gear as well as changing weapon types and quantities, but you aren’t able to add units or otherwise edit the database. This gives you the ability to do some new nifty things e.g. stick a Club-K container on an innocent merchant ship. And there is nothing stopping you (well, except common sense) to equip a Perry-class frigate with the SS-N-19 complement normally reserved for a Kirov. The scenario design section of the manual explains how you can do this either through the editor or via templates.

There are many reasons why databases in Command are not directly editable.

First and foremost we did not want to repeat the database mess/confusion observed in Harpoon. The scenario authors handled more than their fair share of support mails on database/scenario mismatches for that game. So for Command we wanted to shift all focus to scenarios. Command is pretty much a ‘scenario sandbox’ that started out as a scenario editor and evolved into a simulator. Everyone on the Command development team have a long history of scenario design behind them, mainly for Harpoon2/3, and we wanted to make the ultimate scenario editor for ourselves and other naval war gaming fans out there – without the noisy database element.
As such, in Command there is no need to copy/overwrite database files or edit configuration files, followed by odd behaviour and crashes if database and scenarios don’t match one hundred percent. Command scenarios know exactly what database they were built with based on the database’s checksum (!), and a scenario will pick the right database upon load. We have received much positive feedback on this solution, as the players only have to care about what scenario to play rather than worrying about whether the scenario will crash with the currently installed database or not.

Second, the database for Command is very complex. Anyone who has spent time in the Harpoon2/3 database editor will immediately notice the increased number of parameters when they look in the Command DB Viewer. Editing or leaving out the wrong parameter could have rather negative impact on gameplay, generating a ton of unnecessary support tickets for the developer.

Third, having multiple user-created databases makes continued expansion of Command far more difficult. Any schema changes would also have to be applied (correctly!) to any 3rd party databases, each of which may or may not have been abandoned by its author at that point in time. There would also be the risk of making associated material (scenarios) unusable. The Command database schema & enum tables are updated regularly and keeping all database hobbyists up-to-date would be a monstrous task, both on the dev end and on the 3rd party end. It would not take many weeks (or days!) before a new db author simply would give up.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.

That doesn't give you an excuse to be exceedingly rude.

[ClaudeJ]

[*]#1734 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 1999[/color]
[*]#440 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2002[/color]
[*]#469 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2008[/color]
[*]#2787 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2017-0, Rafale-only[/color]
[*]#2754 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2019[/color]

Commissioned in May 2001.

General Data
Height : 66.5 m
Full Displacement : 42600 tons
Crew : 1950 (1850 + 100 HQ Staff)
Troop capacity : 800

Sensors/EW
#1081 - ARBB 33 -- Group x2; one on each side of the island
#2286 - ARBR 21 [DR 3000S2]
#3903 - ABRG 2 [Jammer] -- MAIGRET

Mounts
The eight planned 20mm/90 Giat 20F2 were never fitted, there are 4 * 12.7mm/50 MG instead, two each side.
In 2011, Sagaie CM were dismounted.
In 2015, a pair of Minigun have been seen aboard, not sure since when.


Magazines
600 tons max, no details though

Comms/Datalinks
Syracuse x2, Syracuse III SATCOM since 2009

Docking facilities
1 x Very Small Dock/Davit (0-11m Long)
2x Small Dock/Davit (LCVP, 11.1-17m Long)

Properties
Refuel to Port x 1 (Out)
Refuel from Port x 1 (In)
Replenish to Port x 1 (Out)
Replenish from Port x 1 (In)

Propulsion
Max speed : 25 knots until 2008, then 27 knots. (In 2000, a propeller broke and smaller ones, from Foch CV, were used. In 2008, new ones, US built, larger, were installed.)

Fuel
Aviation Fuel 3500 t
Diesel fuel 1000 t

Sources:
"Le porte-avions Charles de Gaulle, Tome II, la vie à bord et le fonctionnement" (2003), SPE Barthélémy.
"Le porte-avions Charles de Gaulle, Tome III, son groupe aérien embarqué" (2005), SPE Barthélémy.
"Flottes de combat 2016", Bernard Prézelin, ISBN 978-2737363740.
"Jane's Fighting Ships 2010".
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/equip ... aulle-r-91
http://www.ffaa.net/ships/aircraft-carr ... tiques.htm
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/ ... -amelioree

----------------------------------------------

[*]#2754 - R 91 Charles De Gaulle -- France (Navy), 2019[/color]

Sensors
- the DRBJ-11B will be replaced by a #2238 - SMART-S Mk2 , like DDG Cassard class do have (not an #2612 - Herakles 3D)
- the two #1969 - DRBN 34 [Decca 1229] will be replaced by a pair of Scanter 6000 (closest match in current DB seems to be #5652 - Scanter 6002)
- DRBV 15 and DRBV 26 will both remain as is (they could be replaced in 2030)

- "#2190 - DIBC-2A Vigy 105 -- Group, 1998, Tracker" is to be replaced by a "#5271 - EOMS-NG [CCD/IR/Rangefinder] -- Group, Sagem"
- "#2623 - DIBV-2 VAMPIR-MB -- Group, 1996, Detector" will be replaced by 3 "#3408 - Artemis" with a 360° FoV

Mounts
- provision will be made to install autonomous "#3165 - 20mm Narwhal 20B [M693] Burst [20 rnds]" along existing, manual, HMG.



Sources:
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/ ... -refonte-0
https://www.terma.com/press/news-2014/n ... de-gaulle/
https://www.safran-group.com/fr/media/2 ... -de-gaulle
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/ ... -amelioree

---

[Scar79]

Excuse me, gentlemen, but this your "algorithm" is too selective. As many ships as i managed to check, tells me that all NATO vessels have much smaller RCS than Russian vessels, even if NATO vessel is significantly larger and older. And somehow, i'm sure i will find the same if i will start to inspect Chinese ships, which i didn't yet.

So, yes, you may call me rude, again, but i'm 100% sure there is a strong bias towards Russian(and i presume Chinese) tech. I felt it during the Closed Beta and i still feel it today. After all, i was a part of the CMANO group at Facebook and i can say it is THE MOST TOXIC(towards Russia and China) combat-simulation community i ever was part of.

This is how i see it now, judging by the facts i investigated.

P.S. For example, checked one Chinese vessel, Type 052 D - i was right, its RCS is two times larger than RCS of Arleigh Burke.

[mikmykWS]

Ok db to do list update to this point. Thanks all!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

Excuse me, gentlemen, but this your "algorithm" is too selective. As many ships as i managed to check, tells me that all NATO vessels have much smaller RCS than Russian vessels, even if NATO vessel is significantly larger and older. And somehow, i'm sure i will find the same if i will start to inspect Chinese ships, which i didn't yet.

So, yes, you may call me rude, again, but i'm 100% sure there is a strong bias towards Russian(and i presume Chinese) tech. I felt it during the Closed Beta and i still feel it today. After all, i was a part of the CMANO group at Facebook and i can say it is THE MOST TOXIC(towards Russia and China) combat-simulation community i ever was part of.

This is how i see it now, judging by the facts i investigated.

P.S. For example, checked one Chinese vessel, Type 052 D - i was right, its RCS is two times larger than RCS of Arleigh Burke.

Yeah that's crazy.

Added the Type 052D to our list to look at.

Thanks

Mike

[USSInchon]

Add troop and cargo loadsouts to the US Navy SH-3 variants.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

but i'm 100% sure there is a strong bias towards Russian(and i presume Chinese) tech.

You can't call it a bias if there's no supportive information to help developers.

We all know how 'transparent' the Chinese military is at all aspects -- finding a reliable one is very difficult; even Janes, RAND and CSIS reports are often not helpful, let alone the source from military fans. The game cannot take wild guesses of advance weapons and units, and using the conservative specs are for minimalize the over-glorification.

While you said bias towards Russian, see how many topics you can find in this forum about the godlike S-400; it's ridiculously powerful, but nobody wants to nerf it because players will eventually find some ways to challenge it. What makes it powerful is some official sources of S-400 specs, to exactly simulate its strength of long range area defense.

A flat sheet of steel is not an ultimate answer to the ship's RCS; weapons, radars and subsystem placements are also playing it, and to simulate its RCS accurately without real sources is asking for trouble already.

[Scar79]

Ok, if DB's made by community is not an option - may be it would useful for all of us, if we had a Community Working Group with some sort of utility for production/review/extraction DB-ready standalone entries? Then community members could make new units or readjust broken ones and all what would be needed from you, Devs, is a final check. As soon as the entry is checked and approved, you just add it to the game's DB.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

Ok, if DB's made by community is not an option - may be it would useful for all of us, if we had a Community Working Group with some sort of utility for production/review/extraction DB-ready standalone entries? Then community members could make new units or readjust broken ones and all what would be needed from you, Devs, is a final check. As soon as the entry is checked and approved, you just add it to the game's DB.

This is kind of what this string is for. If you find something that needs adjusting just post the issue with some citations, pictures etc. to back it up. Jan's posts are good examples. His tone and congeniality are great and he generally gets what he wants (hint hint[8D] )

Mike

[User2]

ORIGINAL: Dysta
...you can find in this forum about the godlike S-400...

As I already wrote on the forum some time ago, PoH of s-400 missiles in the game is at a level of 1980 era Patriot mim-104 missiles. I do not see anything godlike about that. The same story about other lattest russian sam systems.

However, in a reality where a 100kT displacement aircarrier has a RCS lower than a 5kT destroyer, it is not a big deal [:)]

[hellfish6]

No immediate need on this, just a nice/interesting thing to have.

The Chilean (!?) Crocodile 250-class midget submarine.

http://www.hisutton.com/Crocodile%20250 ... arine.html



Length: 33 meters
Beam: 3.6m meter
Displacement: 250 tons
Maximum speed: 8 kts (surfaced), 12 kts (submerged)
Operating depth: 200m
Endurance (without surfacing): 100nm at cruising speed of 4kts, 200nm with AIP in operation
Endurance (patrol): 2500nm
Armament: 4 x 533mm (21") torpedo tubes. 4 torpedoes or 2 anti-ship missiles (Exocet, Harpoon) plus 2 torpedoes.
Crew: 9
Special Forces: 6

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Filitch

In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.

Hi Filitch

Sorry for the lack of response. Just looking this over it seems like a picture has been painted that is not true and that has excited you. Looking at the mentioned platforms all were implemented very early at a player's request and simply haven't been updated to reflect the new info. RCS stats are auto calculated in a tool so there is no purposeful slant unless you think a ton of extra work fudging Russian RCS values is really worth it? Then again if we were willing to spend the time doing that why would we spend it there and not somewhere more meaningful like within the code? Does it make sense to you? Seriously? The carrier vs DDG issue might even be an error () but I will need to dig on this one. These will be added to our list to review in the future and sorry that you're upset at this.

Now a question for you.

Should the team take on more stringent data requirements before implementing? Let me know what you think.

Thanks

Mike

Hi Mike. I don't accuse developer team in intentional change in the data. I prefer to think good about peoples. But walking in our shoes: NATO units in CMANO database an masse has better characteristics than Soviet, Russian, Chinese. In some cases, such superiority is justified in some other no. You can find many change requests in this thread. Unfortunately, often not of these changes are handled. I've written some of these requests myself, but there's no change yet. The first thing that comes to mind is the biased attitude of developers towards Nonwestern technology. But I'll try to figure it out. That's the reasons I think: (1) Less availability of data of the Soviet, Russian and Chinese units, weapons. Including the language barrier.
(2) The promotional nature of Western data, especially the new one. The notorious RCS - "golf ball".
(3) Developers may not have enough time to search for the true characteristics of the units and weapons, especially when this data existed only in Russian or Chinese.
(4) And only in the last place will I put in a bias. Not as a desire to denigrate, but as a desire not to find the truth. "We have some data, that's enough"

What can we do?
(1) Adopt the statement that the database needs to be reviewed.
(2) Critically evaluate the data. To realize there's a lot of advertising. This is especially true of Western specimens.
(3) Critically evaluate the data. Use general data only when you really cannot find the characteristics.
(4) Not to perceive criticism as painful, but merely as an possibility of the improvement.

First step. http://arsenalrus.ru/rus/company/facts/index.php This is 18 # Encyclopedia of Russian weapons. In Russian and in English. With tons of data, photos.

Volume 1: "Strategic nuclear forces";
Volume 2: "Missile and artillery weapons of the ground forces";
Volume 3: "Naval weapons";
Volume 4: "Military aircraft";
Volume 5: "Space Weapons";
Volume 6: "Ships of the Navy";
Volume 7: "Armored vehicles";
Volume 8: "Information security";
Volume 9: "Air and anti-missile defense";
Volume 10: "Aircraft armaments and avionics";
Volume 11: "Optic and electronic systems and laser equipment";
Volume 12: "Ordnance and munitions";
Volume 13: "Control, communications and radio electronic warfare systems";
Volume 14: "Nuclear Weapons complex";
Volume 15: "Security and law enforcement tools";
Volume 16: "Military automotive vehicles"
Volume 17: "Logistical support";
Volume 18: "Training simulators and technical means".