platforms missing when updating v488 to v489

[50caliberGhost]

i am trying to update platforms from excellent scenario to see how it would play out today. updated db v488 in don of a new era to beta v489 using CMO-UpdateComp-v1.03.114730 zip file (does that sound right?). error message appeared when i changed databases to v489. error message attached, save file attached in next post. once i saved the scenario it worked fine though. do I have anything to worry about? no platforms missing. thanks in advance.

[michaelm75au]

The a/c loadout are not in the new database. This probably means that those a/c mentioned are showing 'reserve' as their current loadout in the saved scenario.
You should be able to check that.

[50caliberGhost]

I know what you mean. All loadouts still appear to be there and i played thru with them firing missiles from those exact aircraft, ships, etc from the error message. no missiles have been deprecated and i cant find any units with reserve loadouts. Some random units appear in yellow and green text in order of battle though. i did a rebuild db of other scenarios and no error message.

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

The a/c loadout are not in the new database. This probably means that those a/c mentioned are showing 'reserve' as their current loadout in the saved scenario.
You should be able to check that.

Not really true, they are there, they're just not 'approved'. [:)]

TLDR: In this case you can ignore the messages. I checked every loadout in the SBR illegal loadouts.txt file generated, all still exist that I noticed so all can be ignored.

You can get this message when the the loadout itself exists in the database, but that loadout just is not 'officially' assigned to be used by the aircraft.

For one example here:
Aircarft with DBID 353 exists, it had loadoutid 5561 assigned. Loadout #5561 exists in db3k 489. But loadoutid #5561 doesn't exist for aircraft #353 officially in v489, but yet was assigned (presumably in 479). That means it's either a hold over from the past as in this case, OR an author could have manually and purposefully assigned a loadoutid to the aircraft that is unofficial.

This invokes a warning message on update that can be (in this case) ignored, so long as the actual loadoutid still exists. The warning is fair since CMO has no way to know if the assignment is purposeful and is trying to be helpful in the majority of cases to authors, but maybe be confusing to users when updating older scenes or where the author has intentionally used non-standard loadout assignments. It's basically just saying Unit X is using a non-approved loadout, it's not saying the loadout doesn't actually exist - which might be more helpful warning.

BTW loadout #5561 has the same loadout as #26878 which _is_ in the list for aircraft #353, so if one wants to change it as to not generate the warning in the future that would be the one to use. The same applies to Aircraft #2370, it too can be changed from loadout #6234 to #26878 as it's the same.

Example 2 for Aircraft #4276 (A.330-200MRTT), with assigned loadoutid #10561 (tanker wing-drogue)
The loadout also exists in v489. It does not however exist for aircraft #4276, not even under a different id. The closest match would be loadout #25905 (Tanker [Wing & Centreline Drogue]) that exists for it. One could update it to that, or leave it alone and just put up with the warning on each upgrade. There actually is no difference between the two other than description, as the refueling logic if I remember is based on the aircraft itself and the load-out profiles (which are the same for both), and the aircraft has both centerline, and drogue, flags on it. It appears the 25905 would be the correct assignment though as it was probably added later to better reflect\indicate a loadout description indicating multiple aircraft at once would be refueled, or maybe the unit flags were updated to add the centerline flag /shurgs.

There are 4-5 more that cause it for Don of a new Era (v479), but they all still exist, and the aircraft thankfully get them assigned as instructed regardless of the warnings.

[50caliberGhost]

wow you figured it out fast. I understand all now, same loudouts different id's. i am updating those examples to v489 loadouts incl tankers. I will wait for future updates, v489 [&o]was mostly compatible anyway. that was very thorough.

This scenario is a great starting point to update with new database to current events!