Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 10/13/2013 5:49:01 AM   
Temple

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline 		Note: I've updated this post to reflect that this thread is now for posting of DB3000 issues.

To post directly to the shared DB3000 spreadsheet, go to this shared Google Drive page


I have found what appears to be a very minor database error, but the retired engineer in me says that no matter how small the error, it's worth reporting . What I'm thinking is that it might be more efficient to have a stickied thread for reporting of minor database issues, ones that don't require a lot of leg work on the part of the developers. I would suggest that, if possible, the poster also quote any reference material used to verify that an entry is indeed in error.

I'll throw out the first minor error...

Database: CWDB (version unknown, but from Operation Trident, 1971), but could be a DB3000 as well.
Entry: #523 A 60 Dharini Class -- India (Navy)

Last entry on database shows Fuel Quantity as 24 tons, should be 1,000 tons
(reference Jane's Fighting Ships 1985-86, page 240)

Also, am I correct in assuming that 1,000 fuel units in the game is equal to one ton of real world fuel?

And on a personal note, I'm glad to be able to tell my wife that I'm getting some more use out of all the Jane's I've collected over the years


< Message edited by Temple -- 10/13/2013 9:40:20 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 6:15:07 AM   
TonyAAA


Posts: 141
Joined: 2/7/2008
From: Arlington, TX
Status: offline 		Good idea.

All I've got so far is that Ford class CVNs are missing height data and it would be nice if all vessels equipped with Prairie Masker (or similar systems) stated so in the database.

(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 2
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 12:53:01 PM   
smudge56

 

Posts: 667
Joined: 1/17/2009
From: UK
Status: offline 		Them books must have cost you a bunch. I looked at this year's and £800 just too much for me

(in reply to TonyAAA)
Post #: 3
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 6:24:42 PM   
Temple

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blighty56

Them books must have cost you a bunch. I looked at this year's and £800 just too much for me


The last time I bought one was in the early nineties, although I do occasionally find one in used book stores.

(in reply to smudge56)
Post #: 4
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 6:37:47 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline 		Registered and assigned to Paul, thanks!

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 5
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 6:39:11 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony_A

Good idea.

All I've got so far is that Ford class CVNs are missing height data and it would be nice if all vessels equipped with Prairie Masker (or similar systems) stated so in the database.


Thanks, fixed the Ford class CVNs.

May I ask what ships are missing Praire Masker?

Thanks!

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to TonyAAA)
Post #: 6
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 7:35:21 PM   
Der Zeitgeist


Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2013
Status: offline 		OK guys, I just set up a Google spreadsheet to collect issues with the DB3000. I will put any problem I come across in there. It is set up as a public file, so anyone who has the link should be able to access it. Feel free to add any problems you come across in there!

The file can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhTk9byWTG-hdGJtTkY4QXNWRG4wLTlScjhjRXM0Qmc&usp=sharing

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 7
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 7:37:03 PM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline 		Noted and fixed
quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Registered and assigned to Paul, thanks!



_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 8
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 7:59:47 PM   
TonyAAA


Posts: 141
Joined: 2/7/2008
From: Arlington, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy




May I ask what ships are missing Praire Masker?

Thanks!


All of them?

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any type of entry that says "Prairie Masker" in the DB listing of any ship.

FWIW, Spuance DDs, Burke DDGs and Tico CGs all seem to listed in the DB with a lower passive sonar signature than most of their contemporaries. So maybe that's how the game models it? For example Burke DDGs are shown as quieter than Type 45 DDGs. Tico CG is listed as quieter then Kynda class CG.

If that's how it's modelled however, I don't think the signature is correct for all types:

Pretty sure all current US carriers have Prairie Masker as well as many older classes like Kitty Hawk and Enterprise but none have a listing for it nor does their sound signature data reflect it. Their passive sonar listing is 100% identical to that of Russian carriers like Kuznetsov.

Others types such as several US diesel subs used it for snorkling but this isn't shown anywhere in the DB. Not sure if that's relevant though--Do subs snorkel in Command?

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 9
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 8:03:01 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks, link noted

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 10
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 8:05:33 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony_A


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy




May I ask what ships are missing Praire Masker?

Thanks!


All of them?

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any type of entry that says "Prairie Masker" in the DB listing of any ship.

FWIW, Spuance DDs, Burke DDGs and Tico CGs all seem to listed in the DB with a lower passive sonar signature than most of their contemporaries. So maybe that's how the game models it? For example Burke DDGs are shown as quieter than Type 45 DDGs. Tico CG is listed as quieter then Kynda class CG.

If that's how it's modelled however, I don't think the signature is correct for all types:

Pretty sure all current US carriers have Prairie Masker as well as many older classes like Kitty Hawk and Enterprise but none have a listing for it nor does their sound signature data reflect it. Their passive sonar listing is 100% identical to that of Russian carriers like Kuznetsov.

Others types such as several US diesel subs used it for snorkling but this isn't shown anywhere in the DB. Not sure if that's relevant though--Do subs snorkel in Command?


Okay the Burkes, Ticos, Spruances etc all have the following passive sonar modifier: "5001-10000t, Gas Turbines + PM (DD)"

Guess we could make the PM flag visible in the sim too, and then do the verification on what ships might be missing the system

Yes subs snorkel.

< Message edited by emsoy -- 10/13/2013 8:07:37 PM >

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to TonyAAA)
Post #: 11
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 8:12:14 PM   
DoctorHaider

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 7/27/2013
Status: offline 		From the "Replenishment" thread. I browsed the database and noticed that only US auxilary ships (oilers and replenishment ships) actually have the refuel/replenish codes associated with them. Replenishment ships from other navies (I checked the British and Soviet ships, someone has posted the same about German navy) aren't capable to refuel or replenish everything.

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 12
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 8:31:33 PM   
TonyAAA


Posts: 141
Joined: 2/7/2008
From: Arlington, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy



Guess we could make the PM flag visible in the sim too, and then do the verification on what ships might be missing the system




That would be great!

Also, Iowa class BBs are missing height data in the 1980-current DB

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 13
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 8:38:05 PM   
Der Zeitgeist


Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2013
Status: offline 		Everyone just use the link I provided to report DB issues (maybe we can sticky this somehow?):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhTk9byWTG-hdGJtTkY4QXNWRG4wLTlScjhjRXM0Qmc&usp=sharing


(in reply to TonyAAA)
Post #: 14
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 8:44:59 PM   
Russian Heel


Posts: 231
Joined: 10/8/2013
From: Metro Station Vasileostrovskaya
Status: offline 		B-52H loadouts for AGM-86s only have internal rotary launchers starting with the 1989-0 CALCM (entry 1909)The external 12 are unavailable nerfing the BUFF's AGM-86 payload by 60% from 20 to 8.

The loadouts for the AGM-129 are listed as 8 on the internal rotary launcher. This was not the case. 12 129s were carried externally only.

Source - I know the answer to the question "Why not Minot?" and 1014 > Balls 37.

(in reply to DoctorHaider)
Post #: 15
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 9:03:42 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		This thread has already been stickied.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Russian Heel)
Post #: 16
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 9:26:09 PM   
Temple

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

Everyone just use the link I provided to report DB issues (maybe we can sticky this somehow?):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhTk9byWTG-hdGJtTkY4QXNWRG4wLTlScjhjRXM0Qmc&usp=sharing




Never mind my original comment, I see we have a thread for CWDB issues already:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3436158

< Message edited by Temple -- 10/13/2013 9:28:49 PM >

(in reply to Der Zeitgeist)
Post #: 17
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 9:39:46 PM   
Der Zeitgeist


Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Temple

quote:

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

Everyone just use the link I provided to report DB issues (maybe we can sticky this somehow?):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhTk9byWTG-hdGJtTkY4QXNWRG4wLTlScjhjRXM0Qmc&usp=sharing




Never mind my original comment, I see we have a thread for CWDB issues already:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3436158



Maybe you can put my link to the top, too, so everyone can find it. The spreadsheet is editable by everyone.

(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 18
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 9:42:16 PM   
Temple

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist
Maybe you can put my link to the top, too, so everyone can find it. The spreadsheet is editable by everyone.


Great minds think alike, I was just about to post that I had done so

(in reply to Der Zeitgeist)
Post #: 19
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/13/2013 11:14:28 PM   
TonyAAA


Posts: 141
Joined: 2/7/2008
From: Arlington, TX
Status: offline 		Missing the aircraft types KA-3B; EKA-3B.

The tanker and tanker/EW variants of the A-3 Skywarrior.

They're listed in the CW database but not DB3000 even though they were used past 1979.

Sources:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa3_7.html
http://a3skywarrior.com/whaletales/finalwake.html
http://www.wings-aviation.ch/25-Navy-Sqn/VAK-Squadrons/VAK-308.htm

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 20
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 7:25:16 AM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		Nimrod MR 2

The loads are too heavy.

It should carry 6 Torpedos and 2 B-57 or
6 Torpedos and 1 Harpoon or
2 Harpoons or
9 Torpedos

It never carried the WE 177. It used the same weapon as the US P-3C of this era. (update) - the B-57 20kt device

Until 1986 the torpedos should be Mk 46 after that date Stingrays or Mk 46 until 1995 when it was just Stingrays

Also during 1982 is was modified to carry 4 x AIM-9L and it retained this ability to out of service - these can be present with any loadout.

< Message edited by bsq -- 10/14/2013 5:03:52 PM >

(in reply to TonyAAA)
Post #: 21
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 8:29:19 AM   
Der Zeitgeist


Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2013
Status: offline 		Sorry I just noticed I had my Google spreadsheet on read only. I changed that, so everyone should now be able to write their issues in there.

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 22
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 8:57:47 AM   
Russian Heel


Posts: 231
Joined: 10/8/2013
From: Metro Station Vasileostrovskaya
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

Sorry I just noticed I had my Google spreadsheet on read only. I changed that, so everyone should now be able to write their issues in there.


Thank you! I was going crazy last night wondering what I was doing wrong being unable to make entries. I assumed I didn't know what I was doing. :)

(in reply to Der Zeitgeist)
Post #: 23
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 5:40:36 PM   
El Savior

 

Posts: 337
Joined: 7/31/2003
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[ADDED / UPDATED DB v440]

Missing from database:

Country: Finland
Class: Aircraft

Mi-8T 1973-2010 (6 helicopters for military 4 for border guard)
Mi-8P 1981-2010 (2 helicopters for military)

Learjet 35A #2168
-Finland Learjet uses external visual / radar pods. Maritime Surveillance should have at least generic surface radar and recon camera. Special-mission Learjet 35s have performed reconnaissance, maritime patrol, and electronic warfare duties

https://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/May/1/Quick-Look-Learjet-35-36.aspx

http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/1fb0fd00496af4d3802bbf759929fd62/Learjet.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

< Message edited by emsoy -- 7/6/2015 1:46:35 PM >

_____________________________

El Savior

(in reply to Russian Heel)
Post #: 24
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 6:30:52 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel

B-52H loadouts for AGM-86s only have internal rotary launchers starting with the 1989-0 CALCM (entry 1909)The external 12 are unavailable nerfing the BUFF's AGM-86 payload by 60% from 20 to 8.

The loadouts for the AGM-129 are listed as 8 on the internal rotary launcher. This was not the case. 12 129s were carried externally only.

Source - I know the answer to the question "Why not Minot?" and 1014 > Balls 37.


Thanks, you're right on the AGM-129, have updated these.

It seems the full 20-ALCM loadout wasn't/isn't used operationally. In the early years it was common to carry 12 externally, but since the 1990s these have been carried internally. And so they do in the database. I could, as a compromise, also make the external loadout available post-1990s even though that's less realistic. Whatcha think?

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Russian Heel)
Post #: 25
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 7:18:00 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline 		Have now made the Prairie Masker flag visible in the Codes list

Thanks guys!

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 26
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 7:21:10 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony_A
That would be great!

Also, Iowa class BBs are missing height data in the 1980-current DB



Fixed, thanks!

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to TonyAAA)
Post #: 27
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 7:25:53 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony_A

Missing the aircraft types KA-3B; EKA-3B.

The tanker and tanker/EW variants of the A-3 Skywarrior.

They're listed in the CW database but not DB3000 even though they were used past 1979.

Sources:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa3_7.html
http://a3skywarrior.com/whaletales/finalwake.html
http://www.wings-aviation.ch/25-Navy-Sqn/VAK-Squadrons/VAK-308.htm


Thanks, have added these to the to-do list

If you need them for a scenario please give us a pling and I'll give them top priority.

Thanks!

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to TonyAAA)
Post #: 28
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 7:40:22 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Nimrod MR 2

The loads are too heavy.

It should carry 6 Torpedos and 2 B-57 or
6 Torpedos and 1 Harpoon or
2 Harpoons or
9 Torpedos

It never carried the WE 177. It used the same weapon as the US P-3C of this era. (update) - the B-57 20kt device

Until 1986 the torpedos should be Mk 46 after that date Stingrays or Mk 46 until 1995 when it was just Stingrays

Also during 1982 is was modified to carry 4 x AIM-9L and it retained this ability to out of service - these can be present with any loadout.


Thanks, have updated the B-57 depth charges

As for weight and Harpoon missiles, 9x Mk46s is 2322kg while 2x Harpoons is 1044kg, so should be able to carry both Harpoons and torps?

< Message edited by emsoy -- 10/14/2013 7:43:05 PM >

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 29
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 10/14/2013 7:46:10 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: El Savior

Missing from database:

Country: Finland
Class: Aircraft

Mi-8T 1973-2010 (6 helicopters for military 4 for border guard)
Mi-8P 1981-2010 (2 helicopters for military)

Learjet 35A #2168
-Finland Learjet uses external visual / radar pods. Maritime Surveillance should have at least generic surface radar and recon camera. Special-mission Learjet 35s have performed reconnaissance, maritime patrol, and electronic warfare duties

https://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/May/1/Quick-Look-Learjet-35-36.aspx

http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/1fb0fd00496af4d3802bbf759929fd62/Learjet.pdf?MOD=AJPERES


Added to to-do list, thanks!

Please bump me if these are needed for a scenario.

_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to El Savior)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.109