Matrix Games Forums

Why so many and which one is considered THE one to use ??

Every database is a representation of the editor's/users different perspective on how they think the real world operates. Each database has its own 'flavour'. For example, some databases cover a certain time period: WW II (1939-1945), Colonial Wars (1945-1965), Cold War (1980-1992), etc. Some cover a geographic area i.e. Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap or Western Pacific

Each database reflects a different interpretation of the data publicly available and, IMO, there is no right or wrong way to do it.

For example, a rifle bullet will travel up to 5km on a ballistic trajectory. So, what do you enter as the maximum range for this weapon in the database? The max ballistic range of 5km or the combat range that soldier would more commonly fire it (300-400m)? Neither is patently 'wrong', IMO. One editor might enter 5km but only give it a 1% chance of hitting a target while another editor might enter 300m and give it a 40% chance of a hit.

One of the most popular and commonly used ones is the PlayersDB. You can check out the specific features of this database at:

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31940

Or just grab the Complete Harpoon ANW Library and try it out for yourself.

Hi herman,

I kind of figured all that. I'm playing with the PlayersDB right now.

Just wondered how it differed from hud3 for instance. Thanks!

Okay, I'll do a slight comparision between the two. The HUD3 and the PlayersDB share many similarities because the PlayersDB is a derivative work from the HUD2 due to the kindness of the HUD2 editor, Darren Buckley.

One example of how weapons work differently between the two databases is the Type-65-76 torpdedo.

In the PlayersDB, the maximum firing range of this weapon is 7.7nm, but it has fuel for over 50nm.

In the HUD3, the Max firing range is 54nm and it has a fuel range of 54nm.

The reason why we shortened the firing range for the PlayersDB was that we expect the target to detect the torpedo as soon as it is fired and will attempt to evade by running the opposite direction. If this torpedo is fired from a range of 7.7nm, we predict that it will catch the target 95% of the time (even if it needs to chase the target 50nm first!)

This isn't to suggest that the HUD3 is, in any way, 'wrong' or inferior. It is just compiled with a different set of basic assumptions.

IMO, if the weapons, planes, ships, etc. from any database fires, flies, or sails, then that database is functional. Unfortunately, there are quite a few database examples where weapons don't launch, weapons that hit don't inflict any damage, or planes refuse to take off. I would consider those database 'broken', but certainly not wrong.

Databases...

1980-2015+ DB2000: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=5

1950-1964 Colonial Wars DB: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=10

1965-1979 DB: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=11

World War II DB: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=7


The PlayersDB is an unauthorized, unattributed clone of the DB2000.

Ah, perfect timing. A representative of the non-functional Y2kdB appears!

It's a good thing, too, since we already de-bunked that [Myth].

The Y2kdB is the prime example of a database that just doesn't work. In fact, for awhile there, you couldn't even load it without experiencing a CTD [Crash to the Desktop]. See Crash on Load. I'm not certain if they ever fixed it.

But, then there's the Crash on Run that was probably never fixed, either. So, it serves as a perfect example of a functional database like the PlayersDB and a non-functional one like the Y2kDB.

At least they are honest about the dysfunctional state of the Y2kDB.
fb.asp?m=1855030

So if it's so bad why did you copy it? [:)]

Smarter people than myself have looked into the DBs and confirmed our claims. Timestamped copies of the datasets are available at request, for comparison.

Herman, as someone who wholesale-copied the DB2000 as well as bits from the other DBs, you should be a bit more kind to those you steal from. As well as to those who are perfectly aware of the matter but chose to look the other way.

That we stopped updating our DBs to match whatever non-working patch AGSI/Matrix has out the door this week, is true. Whether they work with ANW (and particularly the previous v3.6), anyone can try it out for himself and decide. No need to rely on the dubious word of ever-present "welcome aboard, shipmate!" sycophants and social engineers.


Meanwhile, we're busy working on the future. Good luck with your chains to Harpoon [:D]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

So if it's so bad why did you copy it? [:)]

Exactly! Thanks for proving it an original work, once again! [&o]

The PlayersDB works. The Y2kDB does not.

And everyone can see it for themselves. You can't make chicken salad from chicken s***. [:D]

More like you just proved you can't read. [8|]

But hey, whatever works for you.

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Smarter people than myself have looked into the DBs and confirmed our claims. Timestamped copies of the datasets are available at request, for comparison.

And I can read just fine. [:)]

Looks like it wasn't too difficult to find lots of those folks to look into the DBs. I suspect that they are the same people who issued us the Official AGSI Database editor and authorized us to re-make all the Harpoon2 scenarios for Harpoon3 and Harpoon3: ANW. [:D]

120 more scenarios for the Harpoon 3 Players Database!

Guess they just wanted something that worked, too.

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
Looks like it wasn't too difficult to find lots of those folks to look into the DBs. I suspect that they are the same people who issued us the Official AGSI Database editor and authorized us to re-make all the Harpoon2 scenarios for Harpoon3 and Harpoon3: ANW. [:D]

Nope.

I'll give you a clue... Scott.

Keep shoveling those scens BTW. They'll come mighty handy when the brick wall arrives in a while.

Or not [;)]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

I'll give you a clue...

You'd better hang onto it. Some of us have none to spare.

It's nice to see that you are at least posting your own messages instead of sending in proxies. [;)]

fb.asp?m=1789909

Ah, derailing when cornered. Classic.

No worries Herman. You desperately need to "win", I understand. "Last post!" and everything. It's OK, really. I don't mind.

There are more important things to spend time on. Like, you know, contributing my little bit to a project that is going to leave you chained to an obsolete game [:)]

Have fun. And remember, we got out of the rat race while we could. You're still in. Enjoy [:D]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

There are more important things to spend time on. Like, you know, contributing my little bit to a project that is going to leave you chained to an obsolete game [:)]

Will your new project have the "Combat Weather Balloon Corps", too? [:D]

fb.asp?m=1224499

When logical arguments fail, I guess it's time to crawl back to the hatequarters.

Welcome back abourd, shipmate! [8D]

[Deleted by Admins]

Heh heh...tetchy subject, eh? Thanks for all the info, appreciated.

ORIGINAL: RedMike

Heh heh...tetchy subject, eh?

Not at all.

... for those able to discern fact from fantasy [;)]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

the AO will now wait until the target is inside a range that allows the torpedo to travel at attack speed. This allows DBs to move the Rmax setting back to it's original distance.

I do not believe that this is the behaviour occurring. I've posted up a test case of this example in the Support section since this thread does not allow *.zip attachments.

fb.asp?m=1878454

In my test case with the OriginalDB [ODb], I have a ship just inside the maximum range of a Type 65-76 torpedo. This weapon has a firing range of 54nm and a fuel range of 54nm. For the benefit of those not in possession of ANW, this is what happens:

1. Ship detects torpedos fired from maximum range of 53nm.
2. Ship then can walk (or crawl away at creep speed) in the opposite direction.
3. Torpedoes miss every time

Only if the ship is stupid enough to just sit there and get hit will the weapons work in this manner.

[:D]

[Deleted by Admins]