Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Brimstone BOL

 
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 >> RE: Brimstone BOL Page: <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Brimstone BOL - 9/3/2015 6:42:43 PM   
Tomcat84

 

Posts: 1952
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
[FIXED DB v440]

Seems to be some Damage Point inconsistencies for Underground Avgas tanks and Runway grade taxiways.

Runway grade taxiways:
450m - 450 DP
900m - 4800 DP
1400m - 3200 DP
2000m - 4800 DP
2600m - 6400 DP
3200m - 1200 DP
4000m - 1400 DP
5600m - 1400 DP

Avgas fuel tanks (underground)
100K liter - 1600 DP - Special (201-500mm RHA) Armor
150K liter - 40 DP - Light(41-90mm RHA) Armor
200K liter - 1600 DP - Special (201-500mm RHA) Armor
400K liter - 100 DP - Light(41-90mm RHA) Armor
750K liter - 200 DP - Light(41-90mm RHA) Armor
1500K liter - 1600 DP - Special (201-500mm RHA) Armor
3000K liter - 1600 DP - Special (201-500mm RHA) Armor


< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/5/2015 10:55:28 AM >


_____________________________

My Scenarios and Tutorials for Command

(Scenarios focus on air-warfare :) )

(in reply to Triode)
Post #: 2161
Miscellaneous AIM-9 issues - 9/4/2015 3:03:59 AM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
[NOT OPERATIONAL / ALREADY SIMULATED / MILES vs NAUTICAL MILES]

I'm working on some description files on the AIM-9 series. As I find discrepancies between the database and my research on the AIM-9, I'm going to note them here. One thing I'm seeing right away is that there are disagreements between respected databases on some key AIM-9 specs, especially with the earlier (AIM-9A through AIM-9J):

Just a suggestion for a possible modification to Weapon_945, the AIM-9X sidewinder. In 2009-10, it was demonstrated to (with a software modification) to have an anti-vehicle and anti-small boat capablity. See http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20100109/NEWS/1090311/Sidewinder-take-aim-ground-targets

Not sure the software change was ever actually fielded.

One minor nit-pick, which may be beyond the ability of the game to simulate: The AIM-9B/E had significantly different ranges, depending on the altitude it was fired at. At sea level, it was only about 1 nm in range, while at 30,000 it was 2.5 nm. Right now, the game used the 2.5 nm range. See http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml

The China Lake museum gives the range of the AIM-9D as 11 miles ( http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml ) Database gives an 8 mile range (Weapon_1163).

< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/5/2015 11:02:06 AM >

(in reply to Tomcat84)
Post #: 2162
ROKAF update - 9/4/2015 5:36:34 AM   
jun5896

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline
[ADDED TAURUS, MRTT. NEED MORE INFO ON F-16]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/asia-pacific/2015/06/30/south-korea-selects-airbus-military-contract/29519825/

South Korea selected Airbus A.330 MRTT by 2019




http://www.janes.com/article/49495/taurus-for-f-15-idx15d4
http://defense-update.com/20130405_south-korea-selects-the-taurus-kepd-350-cruise-missile.html


F-15K equipped Taurus KEPD 350 on July 18 2015, it will delivery in 2016.






http://koreadefence.net/bbs_detail.php?bbs_num=14642&tb=board_notice&b_category=&id=&pg=1
http://www.lignex1.com:8001/en_US/product/product_detail.jsp?pid=42
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Air_Force


RKF-16C(RF-16C) it replaced RF-4C, and equipped ALQ-200 and ELINT POD and EO/IR POD(Korean Product)

< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/5/2015 12:04:49 PM >

(in reply to Triode)
Post #: 2163
JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2 - 9/4/2015 9:11:48 AM   
jun5896

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline
[NOT ENOUGH INFO, TOO FAR INTO FUTURE]



http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2925
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atago-class_destroyer
http://news.usni.org/2015/08/10/congress-notified-of-potential-1-5b-sale-of-aegis-combat-systems-for-new-japanese-ship-class


< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/5/2015 12:12:24 PM >

(in reply to jun5896)
Post #: 2164
RE: JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2 - 9/4/2015 3:02:10 PM   
orca

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 11/6/2013
Status: offline
ASBM variant of DF-26?

DF-26 IRBM may have ASM variant, China reveals at 3 September parade

http://www.janes.com/article/53994/df-26-irbm-may-have-asm-variant-china-reveals-at-3-september-parade
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/showtime-china-reveals-two-carrier-killer-missiles-13769?page=show

(in reply to jun5896)
Post #: 2165
RE: JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2 - 9/4/2015 6:27:13 PM   
Hydrolek

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/3/2014
Status: offline
[IN-SERVICE DATE UNKNOWN]

Airbus Helicopters' Caracal selected for Polish medium-lift utility helo requirement

http://www.janes.com/article/50883/airbus-helicopters-caracal-selected-for-polish-medium-lift-utility-helo-requirement

< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/5/2015 12:18:12 PM >

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 2166
RE: JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2 - 9/5/2015 3:42:55 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ASBM variant of DF-26?

DF-26 IRBM may have ASM variant, China reveals at 3 September parade


The state media claimed only its destinated for targeting surface ship, but never mention its land striking ability.

Maybe those warheads are duel-purposes?

< Message edited by Dysta -- 9/5/2015 4:43:36 AM >

(in reply to orca)
Post #: 2167
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/5/2015 8:54:03 AM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Thanks for the bump! Added


quote:

ORIGINAL: markadmiral


I wanted to follow up on post I made last July with a suggestion/request for the several platforms (see below) to be included in DB3000. For North Korea and Iran, these are significant platforms and both nations figure prominently in many scenarios. For some, the information is somewhat sparse, but these are simple platforms and so perhaps not a major issue. If information is an issue, I can try to dig some more, but I can't promise anything since these nations are not so transparent. The recent tensions in North Korea brought the request back up on the radar, by the way.....


North Korea:

(1) Kong Bang LCPA: Major North Korean platform for infiltrating seaborne SOF. Probably based on UK Wellington design.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/l-kong-bang.htm
http://jsw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=4115
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1317.aspx

(2) Nampo LCP: Older landing craft for North Korean seaborne SOF based on P-6 torpedo boat
http://combatfleetoftheworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/future-of-north-korea-navy.html
http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/korea_today/nkhandbooks/nkhandbooksec60011.pdf
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry3144.aspx

(3) nK Infiltration Trawler: North Korean infiltration ship disguised as a fishing trawler and capable of high speed. An example was sunk by Japan Coast Guard near Amami 0 Shima Island on 22 Dec 2001 and is on display at the Japan Coast Guard museum in Yokohama. The trawler is a mothership for semi-submersible infiltration boats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amami-%C5%8Cshima
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXRh2ahZCQQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTnSIZagOH4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBw92s2h3xg
http://www.kpajournal.com/vol-1-no-1-january-2010/ (good details on armament in article)
http://www.kpajournal.com/vol-1-no-4-april-2010/ (info on earlier Japan infiltration in 1999)

Iran

(4) Wellington LCPA
http://www.shahyad.net/iiarmy/Navy/Hovercraft/Hovercraft.html
http://osimint.com/2013/07/30/irans-hovercraft-fleet-at-bander-abbas/
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry3065.aspx
(NB: I think Iraq also had a few of these prior to the 1991 war)

Thanks,

Mark

quote:

LCPA


_____________________________



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

(in reply to Grackle)
Post #: 2168
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/5/2015 9:41:01 AM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Updated/added:

Radar (China HQ-64 Search) -- China (Army), 1995, HQ-64 Search Radar
SAM Plt (HQ-64 [LY-60]) -- China (Army), 1995, 3x + 3x LD-2000 Plt + China HQ-64 Search Radar pr Bty
AAA Plt (LD-2000 x 2) -- China (Army), 2010, 3x pr Bty, Used with HQ-64

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Some new information about the LD-2000 Land-Based CIWS thru the VJ-Day Parade Rehearsals.

It seems that this system actually doesnt have an own designation in the PLA, but is part of the HQ-6A Batteries, functioning as their Fire Control Radars. HQ-6A (aka. "HQ-64/HQ-6D") and LD-2000 are basically one integrated short-range anti-cruise-missile and close-in-defence unit. These integrated units are, in turn, tasked with defending HQ-9A batteries and important installations.





A PR shot from some years ago, showing the (now confirmed) deployment scheme of this system:



So, maybe add a HQ-64/HQ-6A launcher battery to each LD-2000 equipped SAM unit as well?



_____________________________



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

(in reply to Hongjian)
Post #: 2169
RE: AL-1A Airborne Laser COIL shot - 9/5/2015 9:41:54 AM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
This will be fixed in Command v1.10. Complex stuff so need time to test.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

Just a minor issue with a platform not often used.

The Laser COIL Shot weapon on the AL-1A plane has a valid altitude for firing of 36,000 ft. (No range, just 36,000 ft). This means the AL-1A cannot loiter over land (where Ground Level varies); it must be hovering at exactly 36k ft AGL for the laser COIL shot to fire. If it's over water (where Ground Level is always 0) with plane set at 36,000 ft altitude, the laser works as designed.

Maybe give the Coil Shot weapon a range of altitudes that it can be fired? Again, a low priority issue.



_____________________________



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

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 2170
RE: Brimstone BOL - 9/5/2015 9:47:14 AM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Okay but are we close enough?

Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: fool12342000

Weaopn #541 YJ-83 is not C-803
And YJ-82 is not C-802

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/chinas-eagle-strike-eight-anti-ship-cruise-missiles-designation-confusion-and-the-family-members-from-yj-8-to-yj-8a/
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/chinas-eagle-strike-eight-anti-ship-cruise-missiles-yj-81-yj-82-and-c802/
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/chinas-eagle-strike-eight-anti-ship-cruise-missiles-the-yj-83-c803-and-the-family-tree/



_____________________________



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

(in reply to e2204588)
Post #: 2171
RE: Miscellaneous AIM-9 issues - 9/5/2015 10:01:17 AM   
ComDev

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

I'm working on some description files on the AIM-9 series. As I find discrepancies between the database and my research on the AIM-9, I'm going to note them here. One thing I'm seeing right away is that there are disagreements between respected databases on some key AIM-9 specs, especially with the earlier (AIM-9A through AIM-9J):

Just a suggestion for a possible modification to Weapon_945, the AIM-9X sidewinder. In 2009-10, it was demonstrated to (with a software modification) to have an anti-vehicle and anti-small boat capablity. See http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20100109/NEWS/1090311/Sidewinder-take-aim-ground-targets

Not sure the software change was ever actually fielded.



The AIM-9X capability was never fielded as far as I know, but there have been some attempt to market a new air-to-ground variant created by modifying existing stocks of AIM-9Ls.

Don't think we should add these until actually operational, though.


quote:


One minor nit-pick, which may be beyond the ability of the game to simulate: The AIM-9B/E had significantly different ranges, depending on the altitude it was fired at. At sea level, it was only about 1 nm in range, while at 30,000 it was 2.5 nm. Right now, the game used the 2.5 nm range. See http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml



The sim already takes altitude into account, and the range at low level is significantly shorter?


quote:


The China Lake museum gives the range of the AIM-9D as 11 miles ( http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml ) Database gives an 8 mile range (Weapon_1163).


Is that miles or nautical miles?

Thanks for your input!

_____________________________



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

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 2172
RE: ROKAF update - 9/5/2015 11:09:57 AM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Thanks Jun, have added the MRTT and Taurus.

Do you have more info on the in-service date for the RF-16 upgrade? And also the ALQ-200K Pod?

Seems South Korea have also integrated JDAM on their F-16s. Wikipedia claims the SK JDAMs also carry wing kits. Is this correct?

I'd appreciate any additional information you can provide on this.

Thanks!


quote:

ORIGINAL: jun5896





http://koreadefence.net/bbs_detail.php?bbs_num=14642&tb=board_notice&b_category=&id=&pg=1
http://www.lignex1.com:8001/en_US/product/product_detail.jsp?pid=42
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Air_Force


RKF-16C(RF-16C) it replaced RF-4C, and equipped ALQ-200 and ELINT POD and EO/IR POD(Korean Product)



_____________________________



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

(in reply to jun5896)
Post #: 2173
RE: ROKAF update - 9/5/2015 12:11:01 PM   
jun5896

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline
19th Fighter Wing, based at Jungwon Air Base

159th Fighter Squadron was changed 159th Tactical Reconnaissance squadron on early 2014(RKF-16C procured in 2012), This squadron employs KF-16C (Block 52), but some F-16C replaced RF-16C. Still 159 TRS is replacing RKF-16C squadron.

http://www.f-16.net/units_article385.html

When see this page, look tail-wing number ROKAF 93 numbering is 159 FS(Now changed 159 TRS).

lig nex1's alq-200k ecm pods - It procured in 2005.(F-4D/E, RF-4C, F-16C/D Block 32 and KF-16C/D Block 52 can equip.)

Also I upload some pictures.(First pic is test ALQ-X in 2004)





http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/10/2011021000422.html

quote from http://tacticalmashup.com/jdam-a-gps-ins-add-on-adds-accuracy-to-airstrikes/

Feb 8/11: F-15K integration. The Chosun Ilbo quotes the South Korean ROKAF, who says it has integrated the 2,000 pound GBU-31 JDAM with its KF-16 fighters, as well as its F-15K “Slam Eagles.” After developing the software, the ROKAF successfully carried out 3 tests, and finished pilot training at the end of January 2011.

The report also mentions wing kits, which are absent from normal JDAMs – but not from the 2,000 pound JDAM Extended Range kit, which was being developed by Boeing and South Korea.



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/south-korea-looking-to-upgrade-its-kf-16s-05404/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/19/lockheed-martins-bill-upgrading-koreas-air-force.aspx

ROKAF isn't decided KF-16 upgrade business partner yet. BAE systems withdrew KF-16 upgrade program, Still ROAKF is negotiating with Lockheed Martin.

< Message edited by jun5896 -- 9/5/2015 2:30:12 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 2174
RE: JMSDF 27DD New Atago, 2020 x2 - 9/5/2015 12:15:55 PM   
Hydrolek

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/3/2014
Status: offline
Finalisation of the Zl13 billion ($3.5 billion) contract is anticipated in the third quarter, with deliveries commencing in 2017.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/poland-begins-evaluation-tests-of-h225m-caracal-412409/

(in reply to Hydrolek)
Post #: 2175
RE: Miscellaneous AIM-9 issues - 9/5/2015 1:45:50 PM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:


The AIM-9X capability was never fielded as far as I know, but there have been some attempt to market a new air-to-ground variant created by modifying existing stocks of AIM-9Ls.

Don't think we should add these until actually operational, though.


I agree.


quote:

quote:

One minor nit-pick, which may be beyond the ability of the game to simulate: The AIM-9B/E had significantly different ranges, depending on the altitude it was fired at. At sea level, it was only about 1 nm in range, while at 30,000 it was 2.5 nm. Right now, the game used the 2.5 nm range. See http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml



The sim already takes altitude into account, and the range at low level is significantly shorter?


I wasn't aware that the game takes altitude into account on missile ranges. Weapon_396 (AIM-7B) shows 1 fuel point/second on the "Performance Details" listed in my Database Viewer for all altitude bands.


quote:


quote:

The China Lake museum gives the range of the AIM-9D as 11 miles ( http://www.chinalakemuseum.org/exhibits/sidewinder.shtml ) Database gives an 8 mile range (Weapon_1163).


Is that miles or nautical miles?


The China Lake site doesn't state whether it is nautical miles or miles, and I haven't been able to get any other range figures. I'm assuming the China Lake numbers are in miles. If so, that would give a 9.5 nm range for the AIM-9D.


< Message edited by CV60 -- 9/5/2015 2:46:59 PM >

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 2176
RE: Miscellaneous AIM-9 issues - 9/5/2015 4:51:13 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Yes the weapons have the same number of 'fuel points' (i.e. flight time) but the speed is lower, so the range is shorter.

_____________________________



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

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 2177
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/5/2015 6:55:21 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
[ADDED DB v441]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

Just curious...what is the difference between a Building (TV Mast) and a Structure (Mast)? Is Structure (Mast) just meant to be a generic structure to cover all kinds of masts and towers (cell phone towers, etc.) or is it something else?




If it isn't too late to add another request for the database, I would like to see this added...

Water Tower (750k Liter Tank)

This can probably just use the statistics for the diesel 750k liter tank (database #76). Water towers, of course, come in all shapes and sizes, but this seems to be a good "average" size. One technical paper at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/techbrief.cfm says a typical residential water tower is 120,000 gallons, but some are much larger, sometimes as much as a million gallons or more. 200k gallons, more or less, seems like a good compromise for a generic one.








< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/6/2015 8:34:02 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2178
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/5/2015 7:14:54 PM   
DeSade

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 3/1/2004
Status: offline
[SEEMS OK, DB v440]

It looks like chinese LACM #2039 - KD-20 [CJ-10A] ALCM -- 2011, Air-Launched lacks surface min and max ranges in DB.
I didn't test it but I guess it could confuse AI :)

< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/6/2015 8:35:01 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2179
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/5/2015 7:29:56 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
[ADDED DB v441]

Water Tower (5000k Liter Tank)

At a little over a million gallons, this is a typical large water tank. Using the statistics for various diesel tanks as a guideline, I would say the important statistics are...

Length: 30 m.
Width: 30 m.
Area: 900 m.
Damage Points: 600

Thanks for considering these!

(Just curious, in case anyone knows...is it a war crime to go after water supplies?)

(Later edit...the reason I did not use a straight multiplication for the dp--which would give a dp value of about 1,300--was I figured that, with water tanks, there is a point of diminishing returns where it does not matter how massive it is...if you punch enough holes in it, it will not hold water. Literally. I figured 600 was a good compromise.)





< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/6/2015 8:36:00 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2180
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/5/2015 8:15:47 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
[UPDATED DB v441]

By the way, speaking of tanks, I think there may be a few errors in the av gas tanks and the diesel tanks.

The diesel tanks are listed as follows:

40k liter tank: 150 dp (DB #45)
75k liter tank: 20 dp (DB #8)
150k liter tank: 30 dp (DB #75)
400k liter tank: 100 dp (DB #11)
750k liter tank: 200 dp (DB #76)

Shouldn't that be more like what is listed below?

40k liter tank: 10 dp
75k liter tank: 20 dp
150k liter tank: 40 dp
400k liter tank: 100 dp
750k liter tank: 200 dp

(these are the values for the av gas tanks of the same size)

Also, with the av gas tank farms, the dp values seem rather odd. Currently, they are listed as...

#1820: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 75k Liter Tank): 10 dp
#1508: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 40k Liter Tank): 100 dp
#1822: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 150k Liter Tank): 40 dp
#1826: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 75k Liter Tank): 20 dp
#1825: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 40k Liter Tank): 10 dp
#1824: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 150k Liter Tank): 40 dp
#1509: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 75k Liter Tank): 200 dp
#1823: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 40k Liter Tank): 10 dp
#1821: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 150k Liter Tank): 40 dp

(Ummm...wait. That makes no sense.)

Would it make more sense to do what follows?

#1820: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 75k Liter Tank): 140 dp
#1508: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 40k Liter Tank): 70 dp
#1822: AvGas Tank Farm (40 x 150k Liter Tank): 280 dp
#1826: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 75k Liter Tank): 100 dp
#1825: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 40k Liter Tank): 50 dp
#1824: AvGas Tank Farm (20 x 150k Liter Tank): 200 dp
#1509: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 75k Liter Tank): 80 dp
#1823: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 40k Liter Tank): 40 dp
#1821: AvGas Tank Farm (10 x 150k Liter Tank): 160 dp

(I'm using square roots, rounded up, rather than number, on the assumption that if these are all arranged as a group, any blast that can go through an entire line of them will take out the entire square.)

I hope this helps.





< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/6/2015 8:39:32 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2181
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/5/2015 9:41:33 PM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
One more idea...

I don't know if this is possible, or realistic, but should there be a Radar Contact (False) (Generic) platform in the database?

This would represent a flock of birds, bad weather, glitch in the radar itself, etc. It would be an "aircraft" and would probably be able to move at 20 mph or so, which would eventually reveal it as something too slow to be a plane (although it still might be a helicopter loitering in an area). Are false contacts like this actually an issue at times (I guess they are with sonar or they wouldn't be in the database) or can radar distinguish well enough that it's not a problem?

Anyway, just a thought. I hope this helps.





< Message edited by Mgellis -- 9/5/2015 10:42:37 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2182
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/6/2015 11:40:44 AM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline
One idea of database addition
Single Unit purpose-made dispersal airfield. This would simulate a section of highway that was built with a secondary objective of acting as a dispersal field. Suggested Facilities:
1 Runway
4 Access points
10 Open Parking, Medium Size aircraft
Munitions:500, Reload rate 90, Armor: None (simulating minimal storage and handling facilities and use of logistics vehicles for fuel/ammo instead of magazines)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2183
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/6/2015 12:58:26 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
In addition, I am making a scenario that involved with several airports and private runways at Alaska. Those preset runway lengths aren't have much choice, and usually between 450m-900m or 900-1400m.

If there's little longer part of runway per addition, that'd be easier to choose. Like these below:

(underlines mean in database)

Runway (450m)
Runway (600m)
Runway (750m)
Runway (900m)
Runway (1050m)
Runway (1300m)
Runway (1450m, just simply change from 1400m would be fine)
Runway (1600m)
Runway (1800m, from 150m to 200m per additional length)
Runway (2000m)
Runway (2200m)
Runway (2400m)
Runway (2600m)
Runway (2800m)
Runway (3000m)
Runway (3200m)
Runway (3600m, from 200m to 400m per additional length)
Runway (4000m)
Runway (4400m)
Runway (4800m)
Runway (5200m)
Runway (5600m)
Runway (6000m, longer than the longest in CMANO)

< Message edited by Dysta -- 9/6/2015 2:03:28 PM >

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 2184
RE: ROKAF update - 9/6/2015 7:25:39 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Thanks!

Are KRF-16C stripped of all other weapon systems, or are they identical to KF-16Cs other than their ability to carry the ELINT Pod?

Added JDAMs, asymetrical AGM-88/65, GBU-10 loadouts, etc, for Database v441.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jun5896

19th Fighter Wing, based at Jungwon Air Base

159th Fighter Squadron was changed 159th Tactical Reconnaissance squadron on early 2014(RKF-16C procured in 2012), This squadron employs KF-16C (Block 52), but some F-16C replaced RF-16C. Still 159 TRS is replacing RKF-16C squadron.

http://www.f-16.net/units_article385.html

When see this page, look tail-wing number ROKAF 93 numbering is 159 FS(Now changed 159 TRS).

lig nex1's alq-200k ecm pods - It procured in 2005.(F-4D/E, RF-4C, F-16C/D Block 32 and KF-16C/D Block 52 can equip.)

Also I upload some pictures.(First pic is test ALQ-X in 2004)





http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/10/2011021000422.html

quote from http://tacticalmashup.com/jdam-a-gps-ins-add-on-adds-accuracy-to-airstrikes/

Feb 8/11: F-15K integration. The Chosun Ilbo quotes the South Korean ROKAF, who says it has integrated the 2,000 pound GBU-31 JDAM with its KF-16 fighters, as well as its F-15K “Slam Eagles.” After developing the software, the ROKAF successfully carried out 3 tests, and finished pilot training at the end of January 2011.

The report also mentions wing kits, which are absent from normal JDAMs – but not from the 2,000 pound JDAM Extended Range kit, which was being developed by Boeing and South Korea.



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/south-korea-looking-to-upgrade-its-kf-16s-05404/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/19/lockheed-martins-bill-upgrading-koreas-air-force.aspx

ROKAF isn't decided KF-16 upgrade business partner yet. BAE systems withdrew KF-16 upgrade program, Still ROAKF is negotiating with Lockheed Martin.



_____________________________



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

(in reply to jun5896)
Post #: 2185
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/6/2015 7:40:15 PM   
ComDev

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

One more idea...

I don't know if this is possible, or realistic, but should there be a Radar Contact (False) (Generic) platform in the database?

This would represent a flock of birds, bad weather, glitch in the radar itself, etc. It would be an "aircraft" and would probably be able to move at 20 mph or so, which would eventually reveal it as something too slow to be a plane (although it still might be a helicopter loitering in an area). Are false contacts like this actually an issue at times (I guess they are with sonar or they wouldn't be in the database) or can radar distinguish well enough that it's not a problem?

Anyway, just a thought. I hope this helps.


This this one would also need some code changes to work properly, so might be a good idea to wait?

_____________________________



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

(in reply to Mgellis)
Post #: 2186
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/6/2015 7:41:30 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Won't the current 'Single Unit Airfield' units do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

One idea of database addition
Single Unit purpose-made dispersal airfield. This would simulate a section of highway that was built with a secondary objective of acting as a dispersal field. Suggested Facilities:
1 Runway
4 Access points
10 Open Parking, Medium Size aircraft
Munitions:500, Reload rate 90, Armor: None (simulating minimal storage and handling facilities and use of logistics vehicles for fuel/ammo instead of magazines)






_____________________________



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

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 2187
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/6/2015 7:45:36 PM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
Hi Dysta, thank you for your input.

The pre-defined runways match aircraft runway size & length requirements, so having more fine-grained runway facilities will have no effect on gameplay whatsoever. So pick the runway facility according to the capabilities of the aircraft that will operate from the airfield, and simply re-name the runway ('R' hotkey) to give them the correct lenth description.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

In addition, I am making a scenario that involved with several airports and private runways at Alaska. Those preset runway lengths aren't have much choice, and usually between 450m-900m or 900-1400m.

If there's little longer part of runway per addition, that'd be easier to choose. Like these below:

(underlines mean in database)

Runway (450m)
Runway (600m)
Runway (750m)
Runway (900m)
Runway (1050m)
Runway (1300m)
Runway (1450m, just simply change from 1400m would be fine)
Runway (1600m)
Runway (1800m, from 150m to 200m per additional length)
Runway (2000m)
Runway (2200m)
Runway (2400m)
Runway (2600m)
Runway (2800m)
Runway (3000m)
Runway (3200m)
Runway (3600m, from 200m to 400m per additional length)
Runway (4000m)
Runway (4400m)
Runway (4800m)
Runway (5200m)
Runway (5600m)
Runway (6000m, longer than the longest in CMANO)



_____________________________



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

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 2188
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/6/2015 8:30:05 PM   
CV60


Posts: 992
Joined: 10/1/2012
Status: offline

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVELOPER'S NOTE: Database development slow-down!

Hey guys,

Just wanted to let you know that I have now re-directed my limited Command time (which is squeezed inbetween family life, day-job, workout, and various other interests) to write code. My code contributions have been rather limited lately and I need to add several new features and fix a few bugs before I can start working on the Advanced Strike Planner.

This means I will only fix reported errors/inaccuracies in existing platforms and only make critical additions, i.e. units needed for a scenario currently under construction. Nice-to-have stuff (that no-one will ever use in a scenario anyway haha) will not be added.

If there is anything you consider extremely important (...enough to justify spending time on adding / fixing, rather than having me working on code) then feel feee to post. If not then you'll find me burried deep down in the Command game engine.

Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:

Won't the current 'Single Unit Airfield' units do?


Certainly, it could be made to do. I would argue the difference between the dispersal field and the single unit airfield is
1) The aircraft size limitation (medium v. very large aircraft)
2) The lack of magazine armor
3) The slower reload and lower magazine size



< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/7/2015 6:37:57 AM >

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 2189
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 9/6/2015 10:16:43 PM   
AlanChan

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 5/17/2015
Status: offline
[Google Translate difficulties, need more info]

question about Yu-8 ASROC (mis-identified as CY-3, it was CY-2 before transfer of design breau): could players add Yu-8 ASROC to VLS of 064A FFGs? there is only one placeholder in DB and you can not reload Yu-8 ASROC to 054A. Plus, 056 FFG also can carry Yu-8 in its YJ cases.

[image]http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1359942#p=24[/image]

they even have picutures search pattern and Ph simulation posted on-line
[image]http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1359942#p=25[/image]


< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/7/2015 7:35:40 PM >

(in reply to CV60)
Post #: 2190
Page:   <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Brimstone BOL Page: <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   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

0.719