Slitherine

quote:

"France received 27 Cougar, ordered in 1987. 24 AS532 UL were paid to the ALAT (there are 18 left) and 3 to the Air Force (based in Evreux). of a contract in 2008 "

quote:

"The AS332 F, AS332 M naval derivative designed for anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare, is equipped with 2 Exocet missiles and an ORB-32 Omera radar. UH-14, since 1987. It has been sold to the Chilean Navy (5), Gabon (1), to the Indonesian Navy (5), and the AS332 F1, derived from it, became AS532 SC during the foundation of Eurocopter. "

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrazyIvan101

Now that the INF is scrapped could a conventional "Pershing 3" be added as a hypothetical weapon that could be used against ground targets and and surface ships?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jgsp84

Guys, how the update database works?
There are some months I've uploaded some updates for the Brazilian Armed Forces, but the only update processed was the A-140 Atlantico.
What is needed to process the other information?
Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Another update on the upgraded Type-051B Luhai-class DDG; according to visitors who asked the sailors onboard the ship during open day and judging from the mounting points ontop the missile cannisters, as well as the official model of the ship, the option for sixteen YJ-12A AShMs still exists. Probably a rare loadout-option only reserved for wartime operations, but still.

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

quote:

ORIGINAL: jgsp84

Guys, how the update database works?
There are some months I've uploaded some updates for the Brazilian Armed Forces, but the only update processed was the A-140 Atlantico.
What is needed to process the other information?
Thanks.

I am currently responsible for updating the DB3k; it's a big task and it's only one of my assigned roles. I prioriitise (generally) like this:

1. Needed platforms with easily available or well presented information
2. Needed platforms with difficult to obtain or scarce information
3. Corrections to existing platforms/weapons etc with easily verified sources
4. Wanted platforms presented with lots of data and easily verified sources
5. Wanted platforms with scarce, unverifiable or missing data

It's a bit more fluid than that but the general idea is that a major new platform with lots of available information is a much better investment of time than a esoteric platform with conlficting, vague or missing data.

The process of adding a new platform can take many hours, so it's not just a matter of plug in info and away we go. Each datapoint has to be verified and then implemented

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85


I am currently responsible for updating the DB3k; it's a big task and it's only one of my assigned roles. I prioriitise (generally) like this:

1. Needed platforms with easily available or well presented information
2. Needed platforms with difficult to obtain or scarce information
3. Corrections to existing platforms/weapons etc with easily verified sources
4. Wanted platforms presented with lots of data and easily verified sources
5. Wanted platforms with scarce, unverifiable or missing data

It's a bit more fluid than that but the general idea is that a major new platform with lots of available information is a much better investment of time than a esoteric platform with conlficting, vague or missing data.

The process of adding a new platform can take many hours, so it's not just a matter of plug in info and away we go. Each datapoint has to be verified and then implemented

quote:

CORRECTION REQUEST PLEASE:
Please add capable AGAINST SURFACE TARGETS for

quote:

ORIGINAL: LORDPrometheus

So general rules for suggesting database additions go like this then?

1: Suggest real platforms either already in service or with finalized and available technical specifications

2: Suggest platforms that are significantly different from existing platforms and can expand gameplay.

3: Suggest database changes and point out corrections with supporting data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jgsp84

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85


I am currently responsible for updating the DB3k; it's a big task and it's only one of my assigned roles. I prioriitise (generally) like this:

1. Needed platforms with easily available or well presented information
2. Needed platforms with difficult to obtain or scarce information
3. Corrections to existing platforms/weapons etc with easily verified sources
4. Wanted platforms presented with lots of data and easily verified sources
5. Wanted platforms with scarce, unverifiable or missing data

It's a bit more fluid than that but the general idea is that a major new platform with lots of available information is a much better investment of time than a esoteric platform with conlficting, vague or missing data.

The process of adding a new platform can take many hours, so it's not just a matter of plug in info and away we go. Each datapoint has to be verified and then implemented

Apache85, thanks for the reply.
The updates I've made was basically corrections to existing platforms and their loadout. If there is something I can make to facilitate your work, please let me know.
Only for the record, my original post was #3949 and #3954

One last question: what about hypothetical units, how I should proceed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85
Ask away! There's nothing to lose, the guidelines I set out above are just that. Just be aware that due to the number of requests (multiple per day) and the rate at which they can be filled--also some are simply not feasible for a variety of reasons--your request may take a long time to get filled or it may not happen at all.

For hypotheticals the more likely they are to have widespread utility and the better (realistic) information available the more likely I'll be able to add them in a shorter timeframe.