Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: 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".

Thanks we'll take a look.

Mike

[Scar79]

Su-35S lost 1250kg of its internal fuel capacity - it should be 11500kg, not 10250kg. Source - Komsomols-on-Amur Aviation Production Plant: http://knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

And again, my favorite thingy - RCS. Given the RCS-reduction measures taken on Su-35S, no way its RCS could be larger than RCS of Su-27SM/SM3.

[Dan109]

Inconsistency with Airdrop Cargo options in Database

1.An-124 Condor #2364 #891 - with 40/120 ton no cargo drop loadouts, this aircraft does not have any airdrop cargo loadouts
2.IL-76 Candid #2684 (well over a dozen other entries, all based on IL-76) - with 20/50 no cargo drop loadouts, this aircraft does not have any airdrop cargo loadouts
3.C-141 Starlifter #1855 #213 #1929 #485 - with 20/30 ton no cargo drop loadouts, this aircraft does not have any airdrop cargo loadouts
4.C-17 Globemaster #288 (8 other entries, just search C-17) - it has 42/70 no cargo drop loadouts, but its airdrop loadout is a very small 8 tons - as well, it can only airdrop personnel cargo
5.C-5 Galaxy - #2889 #287 #1930 #1931 - it has 60/80/120 no cargo drop loadouts, but does not have any airdrop cargo loadouts
6.V-22 Osprey #4037 (11 other entires, just search V-22) - there is no paradrop or paradrop cargo loadout

In general, I would think an aircraft can airdrop cargo if it is designed to be de-pressurized while in flight and has a rear cargo door. That certainly doesn't apply to civilian cargo carriers, but many military cargo carriers are designed just for that need.

Suggestions
1.http:////en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124_Ruslan in the design section describes it to have a double pressurized hull just like the C-5, so that rear cargo door can be opened in flight without hurting the aircraft. http:////www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/antonov/ states it does have paradropping capability. http:////www.aircraftinformation.info/art_An-124.htm describing 268 paratrooper capacity and mentions its air drop cargo examples. I haven't found any sources, but I would say that this information should allow the An-124 to have the same exact type of capabilities as the C-5, the plane is was modeled after. Of course detailed info can be much more easily found about C-5 capabilities.

2.Dozens of links can be found on the web if you search for "IL-76 airdrop". Here are 2 videos: http:////www.rt.com/news/204059-serbia-bmd2-vehicles-paradrop/ http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2txzz_ilyushin-il-76-airdrop_tech

3.As I can't find a recent video of the C-141, here is an AirForce released video of the YC-141's air drop capability, showing airdrop capability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td7ZB1mFzn4

4.The An-22 Cock has a no cargo drop of 80 tons, and an air drop cargo capacity of 45 tons. I don't understand the rationale to give the C-17 a puny 8 ton air drop limit. By your standards with other aircraft, it should atleast have ~50% of its max no cargo drop capacity for air drop. Also, the cargo type needs to be increased to medium cargo capacity for airdrops, instead of personnel.

5.video showing the C-5B dropping 4 Sheridan tanks (19tons each) and paratroopers. http:////www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibPtRAkmkk8

6.video showing paradrop capability (paratroopers and cargo, not at same time) of the v-22 http:////www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0NHz9pmD-w

Lastly, while I think this feature is awesome, it will have issues exposed over time, due to realistic capacities. In addition, while simply subtracting the area of a cargo unit from a base's or ship's cargo capacity, aircraft can be a bit more trick, as each dimension should be checked. A simple example of this is the C-130 with HMMVWs. It can airdrop 3 max, which is great because that is reality. But no more than 3 can fit in a C-130, it's length will only allow for 3. But your model's width of the aircraft is much larger than the width of the HMMVW, so from a pure area point of view, 5 can be placed inside, which I think would only work if you placed them in sideways via a forklift, which I don't think happens.

Is this the reason airdrop capacities are always lower than no drop capacities, as a work around to not determining real area or volume capacity?

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

Su-35S lost 1250kg of its internal fuel capacity - it should be 11500kg, not 10250kg. Source - Komsomols-on-Amur Aviation Production Plant: http://knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

And again, my favorite thingy - RCS. Given the RCS-reduction measures taken on Su-35S, no way its RCS could be larger than RCS of Su-27SM/SM3.

Ah, completely forgot: Speaking about Su-35S communication systems, now they're represented only by the Insecure(sic!) UHF/VHF/HF radio while IRL Su-35S is equipped with a pretty sophisticated communication suite capable to provide encrypted(i.e.Secure) and jamming-protected voice-communications and data-exchange.

Here are G-translated pages from the producer's web-site.

C-108 Communication Suite for Su-35S: https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url

AT-E Link-16 alike terminal: https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url

[Dysta]

I suggest we should use spreadsheet for lots of request to change these units. Posting them all directly in a single post can easily miss it. I will keep my eyes on articles about non-western ship RCS and other strings.

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I suggest we should use spreadsheet for lots of request to change these units. Posting them all directly in a single post can easily miss it. I will keep my eyes on articles about non-western ship RCS and other strings.

You suggests any kind of reservation area? Western in this thread, non-western - out of sight?
I think in those spreadsheet will be found as well western ships and aircraft with too low RCS.

[Dysta]

Peace Filitch, that is not what I meant. I will show you.

[Filitch]

Sure, peace

[Dysta]

I start with my first database spreadsheet design. The idea is to make it printable/convertible per request. I can convert it to PDF if someone cannot open Excel spreadsheet.



You can download the spreadsheet below:

[mikmykWS]

This is really nice guys.

What is super useful to us are the needed changes and the rationale behind them. This can be as simple as a link to some data or a picture. The goal is that anybody that looks at it can quickly understand the change and why.

As with all DB changes, these are our databases and we make the final decisions on the changes. We don't care if you think because you're a customer you can bull in a change. We have tons of customers and they expect a standard that's not driven by one aggressive poster but by data. This being so the best strategy for you is to provide credible data and sources to back your findings.

Thanks!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

Pulled out requests and updated our list again to this point.

If you could take further discussion on how to another string it would be helpful. We like to keep this one clean and strickly for requests.

Thank You!

Mike

[Filitch]

FIXED DB v469

3M14 Kalibr (SS-N-30) has front RCS 0,44 sqm. Any *RM-109 Tomahawk (up to Block IV) has front RCS 0,22 sqm. Twofold. Same generation, same dimensions. Twofold.
Any ideas?

[Filitch]

New update brought new feature - aircraft damage. Very useful feature. But if you try to use modern Russian helicopters Ka-52, Mi-28, Mi-8AMTSH you feel disappointment. According database this crafts have no armor. But instead, in real life they have armor. The strike helicopters have cockpit armor 20mm cannon hits resistant. Mi-8 AMTSh has cockpit and cargo bay armor.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-524.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/mi8atmsh.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/ka50.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/mi28.html

Is this information enough to change database?

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
We have tons of customers and they expect a standard that's not driven by one aggressive poster but by data. This being so the best strategy for you is to provide credible data and sources to back your findings.

Indeed! Carrier with RCS like corvette is credible data.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
We have tons of customers and they expect a standard that's not driven by one aggressive poster but by data. This being so the best strategy for you is to provide credible data and sources to back your findings.

Indeed! Carrier with RCS like corvette is credible data.

Yeah it's likely wrong. Noted and thanks!

Mike

[Filitch]

mikmyk
Could you please answer, are sources that I referred in message about helicopter's armor enough reliable to update database?

[Dan109]

you have a point - I checked and the AH-64 Apache even has armor - I guess it was overlooked.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

New update brought new feature - aircraft damage. Very useful feature. But if you try to use modern Russian helicopters Ka-52, Mi-28, Mi-8AMTSH you feel disappointment. According database this crafts have no armor. But instead, in real life they have armor. The strike helicopters have cockpit armor 20mm cannon hits resistant. Mi-8 AMTSh has cockpit and cargo bay armor.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-524.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/mi8atmsh.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/ka50.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/mi28.html

Is this information enough to change database?

Actually, not just attack helicopters, those tanks, APCs, even vast majority of warships are having "None" armor, but I don't think they should works that way. Giving them "Light (41-80mm RHA)" is way too protected.

We need two new level of armor call:

"Very Light"
- 21-40mm RHA, usually seens on Attacker, APC, ship hulls and reinforced fortifications

and "Soft":
- 5-20mm RHA, usually seens on human Body Armor, Attack Helicopter, Armored Car, Tank/APC's top armor, boat hulls and sand-based fortifications

I think the game does support angle-of-attack, so the entry point could affect the armor penetration, because sloped side is thicker and easily ricocheted.

[Dan109]

They already do have ultra-soft armor types. The Apache is 20mm RHA ratedaround cockpit, but actually "handgun" rated, which I assume is their lowest, around the other parts.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Dan109

They already do have ultra-soft armor types. The Apache is 20mm RHA ratedaround cockpit, but actually "handgun" rated, which I assume is their lowest, around the other parts.

Ahh, I forgot that level.

Yet it will be a major work for thousands of units. I hope they do working on it, because that's gonna take a long while.