Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post new mods and scenarios here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Excroat3
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:36 am

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Excroat3 »

Requesting the RQ-3A DarkStar UAV for a scenario I'm working on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-3_DarkStar
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app2/q-3.html
https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm

Hypothetical Unit, United States, Stealth Aircraft
1998-?
Image

Image

Length: 4.57 m (15 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 21.03 m (69 ft 0 in)
Height: 1.52 m (5 ft 0 in)
Weight: max: 3900 kg (8600 lb)
Speed: > 460 km/h (285 mph)
Ceiling: 19800 m (65000 ft) (Some sources say 65k ft, other say 45k ft)
Endurance: 12 h (some sources say 8 h)
Propulsion: Williams F129 turbofan; 8.45 kN (1900 lb)
Image

Sensors:
Northrop Grumman AN/ZPQ-1 TESAR (Tactical Endurance Synthetic Aperture Radar) surveillance radar or a Recon/Optical CA-236 electro-optical camera system. (1 loadout for each?)
Image
Tookatee
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

Well as I said in the previous post of mine, most of the combat vehicles I've mentioned were/are the MAIN combat vehicles for whatever nation I specified. I haven't simply been looking through the database for every little thing that's missing, I've been playing/improving existing scenarios and been looking through what I can add to make them more realistic/detailed. One prominent example would be the South Korean/American vehicles I've posted here. I've been playing a fair bit of North vs South Korean scenarios and found that there are a good bit of assets missing from the South side and came here to post about them. Same thing goes for the various Warsaw Pact vehicles I've posted here, I've been playing a fair few East vs West scenarios and found that these frontline country's forces that NATO would've initially fought before the Soviets could airlift in the bulk of their forces are missing.

Even items like the two commercial aircraft I posted about hold some importance because they can be used in creating realistic military scenarios quite well, items like the Boeing 737 and 720 were at their times prominent civilian airliners that would clog international skyways in times of conflict (and can even from a distance be mistaken for actual military assets such as tankers/AWACS aircraft or ASW aircraft like the P-8.)

And I fully expect for there to be some sort of priority list of stuff the dev team has to work on, and while I don't expect any of my recommendations to be prioritized over anything else currently on the docket I do believe that they all have a purpose in the game and that their inclusion would add meaningful detail to many scenarios the community has already published (and in some cases create the catalyst for scenarios with the countries that are missing their current armor/any armor in their entirety) otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time out of my day to even post about them.
SakiNoE
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:51 am

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by SakiNoE »

most of the combat vehicles I've mentioned were/are the MAIN combat vehicles for whatever nation I specified. I haven't simply been looking through the database for every little thing that's missing, I've been playing/improving existing scenarios and been looking through what I can add to make them more realistic/detailed.

Except that, even assuming your AFV requests were added [minus some exceptions] it would not make any scenario any more realistic or detailed. This is due to the fact that, as currently modeled, ground combat is incredibly simplistic; adding more markers that will have relatively similar performance to all the other markers will not change this. Detailed is not always good, in fact if done poorly detailed simply means lower performance due to added AU for no reason.
Even items like the two commercial aircraft I posted about hold some importance because they can be used in creating realistic military scenarios quite well, items like the Boeing 737 and 720 were at their times prominent civilian airliners that would clog international skyways in times of conflict (and can even from a distance be mistaken for actual military assets such as tankers/AWACS aircraft or ASW aircraft like the P-8.)

This ignores how players think. If we take a quick look at the 737-900ER in the DB we'll find their cruising speed is ~440 knots at 38K ft. If we look at a scenario that uses civilian air traffic [in this case, Seven Days in October] we'll find that it uses cyclical ferry missions with the civilian aircraft at cruise and unspecified altitude in order to represent normal flights. If we put the 737 in the same position, it is incredibly easy to distinguish from a military aircraft; it's at 38K feet and 440 knots. The mission AI's altitudes and speed are dictated by loadout, and, as far as I know, there is no loadout in the game that will make planes fly at that speed and altitude, making such a civilian flight easily distinguishable from military aircraft. You could of course go and manually set up each mission to have them "mirror" an AWACS flight pattern, but at that point you have another problem; AWACS emit, and MPAs do by default. Last I checked a Boeing 720 does not carry a massive search radar. Furthermore, AWACS and MPAs don't fly easily recognisable flights between airports for no apparently reason, tankers do fly set routes, but it's between in-air way points, not between random airports. So no, adding a bunch of assorted commercial aircraft will not in fact do much; commercial air traffic in CMANO is window-dressing, nice window-dressing, but still window-dressing.

SakiNoE
Tookatee
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

I'd like to know what you think some of the exceptions are, cause so far most if not all of the AFV's that I've posted about here have some sort of unique function to them that gives them a purpose to be used (even in CMANO's relatively simplistic [but yet still broadly accurate and fun] armored combat.) And you're also taking great leaps of faith in regards to how the community would use that assets. They don't all have to be used in one MASSIVE CPU chugging scenario (although I do believe that some of the customers with the Academic/Military license for CMANO would more than be willing and able to do so for their own purposes.)

And on the point of airliners the two I recommended were an anomaly in the whole of the issues I brought up (I was reading up on the recent stuff with the 737-MAX and happened to also not see the 720 when scrolling past all the 707s in the list), and they would serve the exact same purpose that all the other commercial aircraft that are in the game serve. And remember that CMANO isn't just a game, it's also a tool that academic circles and some militaries use to help evaluate any potential scenario (and while those licenses do give them some ability to modify/add units themselves I don't think it would hurt for such units to come already as apart of the base product and save them a bit of work.)
SakiNoE
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:51 am

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by SakiNoE »

I'd like to know what you think some of the exceptions are, cause so far most if not all of the AFV's that I've posted about here have some sort of unique function to them that gives them a purpose to be used

No, they're not. Several of the requests you have made are either clones of units that already exist in the game [Spanish B1 Centauro, Post 4666, Polish Leopards, Post 4667, Polish BWP-1s, Post 4668]. Since many AFVs in this game use generic sensors, and share weapons, it's entirely possible to use say, German Leopard 2A4s as stand-ins for Spanish Leopard 2A4s. That's not a unique purpose, all it does is put the same unit under a different nation in the DB, which is not strictly necessary for scenario building. Furthermore, some units could feasibly be made with the editor. For example, the Polish Spike-LR humvees could be made by taking the German Pumas and removing non-applicable weapons. Since all AFVs have "General Armour: None", from the generic ammo trucks to the M1A2 and T-90, there's no survivability difference and since, iirc, all AFVs can reach the same top speed there won't be a major difference in maneuverability either.
And you're also taking great leaps of faith in regards to how the community would use that assets. They don't all have to be used in one MASSIVE CPU chugging scenario

When exactly did I say that all requested units would be only used in massive scenarios? What I stated was that this seems to be requesting unnecessary amounts of detail, and in scenarios unnecessary amounts of detail translates to high AU. You've played Red Dragon Descends, it's incredibly well-modeled, but runs like a sail ship against the wind; really slowly. For more examples, look at Desert Storm v1.2 or Northern Fury 12.6 The Longest Battle. Do I think all of the requested units will be used in that style of scenario? No, I do not, but I am stating that detail that may not always be necessary can reduce playability.
they would serve the exact same purpose that all the other commercial aircraft that are in the game serve.

In other words, they would be superfluous.

SakiNoE
Tookatee
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

Since all AFVs have "General Armour: None", from the generic ammo trucks to the M1A2 and T-90, there's no survivability difference and since, iirc, all AFVs can reach the same top speed there won't be a major difference in maneuverability either.

You understand that it's set like that because academic and military customers can adjust those values to match real world specifications, most of which like the armor is highly classified or specific to each unit (so rather than give most likely wrong approximations that would need to be adjusted by the customer anyways I assume CMANO just decided to leave that value as the same for all units.)
What I stated was that this seems to be requesting unnecessary amounts of detail, and in scenarios unnecessary amounts of detail translates to high AU... Do I think all of the requested units will be used in that style of scenario? No, I do not, but I am stating that detail that may not always be necessary can reduce playability.

With that kind of logic CMANO would have half the armor it has now and only from about maybe 10 different nations. The addition of these units wouldn't take away from anything, but only give additional units for people/commercial entities/militaries to work with and create their own scenarios. The issue on playability rests solely on the scenario creator, CMANO's job as a tool is to offer a stable and diverse platform for which the authors can use to create any scenario they like.
When exactly did I say that all requested units would be only used in massive scenarios?

You said that when you indicated that the units addition would cause performance issues, as the only way that would occur is in massive scenarios involving those vehicles (which are once again irrelevant to customers such as governments or academic organizations who most likely run CMANO on supercomputers or at least high performance setups.)
In other words, they would be superfluous.


All that statement shows is a lack of understanding for the purpose for any of the commercial aircraft in the game and a blatant insult to the work the CMANO devs put into adding each one of them in.

SakiNoE
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:51 am

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by SakiNoE »

You understand that it's set like that because academic and military customers can adjust those values to match real world specifications, most of which like the armor is highly classified or specific to each unit (so rather than give most likely wrong approximations that would need to be adjusted by the customer anyways I assume CMANO just decided to leave that value as the same for all units.)

You understand it wasn't a criticism? It was literally just a statement of fact in relation to what I was saying about how units could be changed in the editor to suit different needs, but cut that out and reduce arguments to strawmen. I really love that you refuse to even acknowledge the fact my proposed solution exists,
The addition of these units wouldn't take away from anything, but only give additional units for people/commercial entities/militaries to work with and create their own scenarios.

I agree that the addition of units doesn't take away from anything, but these requests are. Rory doesn't come in and give "reminders" for no reason, it shows that the devs feel the system is being clogged up. Now, I doubt you are the sole source of that, but you have certainly posted in a voluminous fashion in this thread recently.
All that statement shows is a lack of understanding for the purpose for any of the commercial aircraft in the game and a blatant insult to the work the CMANO devs put into adding each one of them in.

Except you haven't explained what the proposed purpose would be. Initially it was "the Boeing 737 and 720 were at their times prominent civilian airliners that would clog international skyways in times of conflict (and can even from a distance be mistaken for actual military assets such as tankers/AWACS aircraft or ASW aircraft like the P-8.)". I refuted this by explaining how no, it's near impossible to fool players into making them be mistaken. You didn't actually argue against that, just stating that "they would serve the exact same purpose that all the other commercial aircraft that are in the game serve". Since you did not state any new purpose I presumed the purpose you mentioned to be exactly the same one I had rebutted against earlier.
You said that when you indicated that the units addition would cause performance issues, as the only way that would occur is in massive scenarios involving those vehicles (which are once again irrelevant to customers such as governments or academic organizations who most likely run CMANO on supercomputers or at least high performance setups.)

Read what I said. I said that excessive detail causes slowdowns, and that the ability to add a bunch of new markers with relatively similar performance to a scenario for the sake of realism is pretty unnecessary. Furthermore, who cares what a Pro customer wants? I didn't pay money for the game to make requests for needs that I don't know. I believe that the vast majority of players, in terms of number, probably not buying power, are not playing this game on "supercomputers or at least high performance setups". Why don't they matter? Why are Pro customers, in what appears to be your view, the only ones that are relevant?
With that kind of logic CMANO would have half the armor it has now and only from about maybe 10 different nations.

And, pray tell, would it be so so much worse for that? If you buy CMANO for the DB, I understand that it'd be worse for those who bought it for the DB, but for those who bought it because of the mechanical aspects of the sim? No, it would not be worse.

SakiNoE
Tookatee
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

Look I don't understand what's your vendetta against more options, but this discussion is clogging up this thread with irrelevant tangents rather than bugs/issues for the database.

Now, I'm going to restate my point again since you seem to not grasp it in it's entirety, these units I've specified take away from nothing by including them, there is no downsides for them being in the game, I understand the devs must prioritize what they work on and are completely free to do so as this is their software (I've been under the impression that this thread was for such recommendations and have received confirmation from another dev that these were "in the bucket" so to say for consideration to be worked on), but there are only so many military vehicles/weapons in existence and it makes little sense in my eyes to completely exclude the possibility of these items being included as you seem to be suggesting (especially as most of them would either bring armored vehicles to a nation that currently has none, or bring a nation's forces up to date in the database.)

Additionally, you are once again not realizing what I'm trying to say about your comment on unit performance. These units could ALSO be used in THEIR OWN SCENARIOS, independent of other broad reaching scenarios like a East vs West or North V South scenario. You however seem fixated on the performance impact of a scenario author (not CMANO) incorporating these units into one massive scenario, simply adding them to the database will do absolutely nothing to performance.

If you wish to respond further to this please edit your last comment to reflect your response rather than post a new comment as that would continue to flood this thread with more irrelevant posts. I will of course do the same to this comment in regards to this conversation, if you wish to continue it.
duelok11
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:31 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by duelok11 »

I would like to request for the addition of the Philippine navy aw 109 and lynx Wildcat helicopter to the db and also the brp tarlac which comes from the melkavar class lcs of Indonesian navy. Thanks!

Links:

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... t-vessels/
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/n ... 6AGe4apjNQ
https://www.janes.com/article/88356/phi ... x-wildcats
leonardus68
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:37 am

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by leonardus68 »

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

Well as I said in the previous post of mine, most of the combat vehicles I've mentioned were/are the MAIN combat vehicles for whatever nation I specified. I haven't simply been looking through the database for every little thing that's missing, I've been playing/improving existing scenarios and been looking through what I can add to make them more realistic/detailed. One prominent example would be the South Korean/American vehicles I've posted here. I've been playing a fair bit of North vs South Korean scenarios and found that there are a good bit of assets missing from the South side and came here to post about them. Same thing goes for the various Warsaw Pact vehicles I've posted here, I've been playing a fair few East vs West scenarios and found that these frontline country's forces that NATO would've initially fought before the Soviets could airlift in the bulk of their forces are missing.

Even items like the two commercial aircraft I posted about hold some importance because they can be used in creating realistic military scenarios quite well, items like the Boeing 737 and 720 were at their times prominent civilian airliners that would clog international skyways in times of conflict (and can even from a distance be mistaken for actual military assets such as tankers/AWACS aircraft or ASW aircraft like the P-8.)

And I fully expect for there to be some sort of priority list of stuff the dev team has to work on, and while I don't expect any of my recommendations to be prioritized over anything else currently on the docket I do believe that they all have a purpose in the game and that their inclusion would add meaningful detail to many scenarios the community has already published (and in some cases create the catalyst for scenarios with the countries that are missing their current armor/any armor in their entirety) otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time out of my day to even post about them.
You're right. Absolutely agreed here.
leonardus68
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:37 am

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by leonardus68 »

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

Look I don't understand what's your vendetta against more options, but this discussion is clogging up this thread with irrelevant tangents rather than bugs/issues for the database.

Now, I'm going to restate my point again since you seem to not grasp it in it's entirety, these units I've specified take away from nothing by including them, there is no downsides for them being in the game, I understand the devs must prioritize what they work on and are completely free to do so as this is their software (I've been under the impression that this thread was for such recommendations and have received confirmation from another dev that these were "in the bucket" so to say for consideration to be worked on), but there are only so many military vehicles/weapons in existence and it makes little sense in my eyes to completely exclude the possibility of these items being included as you seem to be suggesting (especially as most of them would either bring armored vehicles to a nation that currently has none, or bring a nation's forces up to date in the database.)

Additionally, you are once again not realizing what I'm trying to say about your comment on unit performance. These units could ALSO be used in THEIR OWN SCENARIOS, independent of other broad reaching scenarios like a East vs West or North V South scenario. You however seem fixated on the performance impact of a scenario author (not CMANO) incorporating these units into one massive scenario, simply adding them to the database will do absolutely nothing to performance.

If you wish to respond further to this please edit your last comment to reflect your response rather than post a new comment as that would continue to flood this thread with more irrelevant posts. I will of course do the same to this comment in regards to this conversation, if you wish to continue it.
Some peoples are just superficial by nature. They are happy with 'how it is' and don't think to an improvement at all. Again, your opinion is fair. Also, as an east european player I found some major missing entries in databases.
Rory Noonan
Posts: 2418
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Rory Noonan »

ORIGINAL: apache85

Hey guys just a friendly reminder that this thread is for requests for platforms that are going to be used in community scenarios, and meaningful corrections to existing platforms. Unfortunately it's not practical for us to dedicate dev time to including sundry platforms simply because they exist(ed).

Also a reminder that references should be somewhat more detailed than a mention of Wikipedia. Include at least a link to the relevant page, please.

And finally, please check the most current version of the DB3k before posting an update request.

Ok guys, enough essay writing. The above is not up for debate.

We make ongoing updates to the DB with player requests and don't ask anything more than to be treated with respect and that you follow the guidelines above.

Don't be the guy who ruined it for everyone.
Image
BDukes
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by BDukes »

ORIGINAL: apache85

ORIGINAL: apache85

Hey guys just a friendly reminder that this thread is for requests for platforms that are going to be used in community scenarios, and meaningful corrections to existing platforms. Unfortunately it's not practical for us to dedicate dev time to including sundry platforms simply because they exist(ed).

Also a reminder that references should be somewhat more detailed than a mention of Wikipedia. Include at least a link to the relevant page, please.

And finally, please check the most current version of the DB3k before posting an update request.

Ok guys, enough essay writing. The above is not up for debate.

We make ongoing updates to the DB with player requests and don't ask anything more than to be treated with respect and that you follow the guidelines above.

Don't be the guy who ruined it for everyone.

What do you mean ruin? What that mean? Sorry sometime I don't get english language vagueness. Do you mean stop db edits because you get mad at weird posts?

What can other do to help this problem? It seems serious?

Thank!

Bill
Don't call it a comeback...
BDukes
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by BDukes »

Dear Tookatees please looks at this post for instruction so Apache doesn't turn off db edits for all.

fb.asp?m=4616171

Just need reliable source links, photos and nice ways.

Wikipedia ok sometimes but best to find source like Jane's, defense news site (real) or famous author, blogger or twitter that built reputation on reliability.

Stats needed are what is in database form.

Peace

Bill
Don't call it a comeback...
ProdigyofMilitaryPride
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 11:54 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by ProdigyofMilitaryPride »

*Sees recent posts*

No more requesting ground units for me at this rate.

I'll just stick with air and naval units. Especially with what I'm hoping to see with Mexico in DB3000. Otherwise I'd have to continue scrounging around for what could amount as stand-ins for those ships in scenarios I wish to develop.

If you need more info on the ones I request...

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/863.htm
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ipment.htm
https://efacico.com/2015/07/01/los-dest ... de-mexico/
"The courageous must protect freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Anything built by human hands can be destroyed. This is no exception." - Kei "Edge" Nagase, Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War
BDukes
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by BDukes »

Ok back to regular scheduled programs

Ok look like US Navy give Virginia new VLS-VPM Module to help replace SSGN. This make sub 84 feet longer.

Intro infos: Block IV initially first to get

https://news.usni.org/2013/11/04/navy-s ... gn-concept

Update on accelerate program:

https://news.usni.org/2015/02/25/navy-l ... production

Official US congress report on Virginias (June 2019) page 7 have good stuff

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf
Virginia Payload Module (VPM)
The Navy plans to build the second of the two boats procured in FY2019, the second and third
boats requested for procurement in FY2020, the second of the two boats planned for procurement
in FY2021, and all subsequent Virginia-class boats with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), an
additional, 84-foot-long, mid-body section equipped with four large-diameter, vertical launch
tubes for storing and launching additional Tomahawk missiles or other payloads.
The VPM’s vertical launch tubes are to be used to store and fire additional Tomahawk cruise
missiles or other payloads, such as large-diameter unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).20 The
four additional launch tubes in the VPM could carry a total of 28 additional Tomahawk cruise
missiles (7 per tube),21 which would increase the total number of torpedo-sized weapons (such as
Tomahawks) carried by the Virginia class design from about 37 to about 65—an increase of about
76%.

Diagram of VPM

http://www.gdeb.com/news/advertising/im ... ad/VPM.pdf


Don't call it a comeback...
Tookatee
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Tookatee »

Of course, the reason I never included links was because I was actually not allowed to do so. You can't include links in any of your posts until after 11 days had passed from your seventh post (now that that time has passed I will of course try to include links to as many sources as possible in any future requests.)

And you've seen my requests on here, most of them include relevant information for the database and even pictures where applicable.
Dimitris
Posts: 15245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
Just found a gamebreaking error, whenever you try to fire the Wan Chien Anti-Runway Cruise missile (a Taiwanese weapon for the F-CK-1D aircraft) all simulation stops and doesn't progress no matter the time compression (even if you open a new scenario.) This means you have to close and reopen the program (while also losing all your progress in the current scenario because it won't actually save the scenario, it may show that it had completed the save cycle but when you reopen the program the scenario is how it was when you last saved it or the new save file you created won't exist.)

Can you please make a new thread on the Tech Support forum for this, with a suitable save for investigation? Thanks.
Dimitris
Posts: 15245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
Another bug I just found, the warheads for the all variants of the nuclear Agni TELs (#2496-2499) function exactly the same as the conventional version of those facilities. No nuclear detonation occurs when the warhead impacts and it functions exactly the same as its conventional counterpart (no ability to choose a high altitude detonation), even saying that the conventional warheads had impacted the selected target despite the facility stating that the warheads are nuclear.

Can you please create a new thread for this on the Tech Support forum so that it can be investigated. Thanks.
Dimitris
Posts: 15245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
While I have long thought that min altitudes in the this game are rather conservative (eg in game an Argentinian A-4 has a min altitude of 300' over water when in real life they were attacking from below 50') and likely contribute to the problem of unrealistically effective defenses,

IIRC we fixed that very edge case in "Sea of Fire" by making the min altitude skill-dependent and setting the pilots as aces? Is it still an issue in the current version? If yes, please open a thread in the Tech Support forum. We are not omniscient, so if you don't give us a heads up we won't see it. Thanks!
Locked

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”