Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios

Message

Temple -> Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues (10/13/2013 5:49:01 AM)
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 [:D]

TonyAAA -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 6:15:07 AM)
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.

smudge56 -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 12:53:01 PM)
Them books must have cost you a bunch. I looked at this year's and Ł800 just too much for me [:D]

Temple -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 6:24:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blighty56 Them books must have cost you a bunch. I looked at this year's and Ł800 just too much for me [:D] The last time I bought one was in the early nineties, although I do occasionally find one in used book stores.

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 6:37:47 PM)
Registered and assigned to Paul, thanks!

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 6:39:11 PM)
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! [8D]

Der Zeitgeist -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 7:35:21 PM)
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

.Sirius -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 7:37:03 PM)
Noted and fixed[8D] quote: ORIGINAL: emsoy Registered and assigned to Paul, thanks!

TonyAAA -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 7:59:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: emsoy May I ask what ships are missing Praire Masker? Thanks! [8D] 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?

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 8:03:01 PM)
Thanks, link noted [8D]

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 8:05:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tony_A quote: ORIGINAL: emsoy May I ask what ships are missing Praire Masker? Thanks! [8D] 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 [8D] Yes subs snorkel.

DoctorHaider -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 8:12:14 PM)
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.

TonyAAA -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 8:31:33 PM)
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

Der Zeitgeist -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 8:38:05 PM)
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

Russian Heel -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 8:44:59 PM)
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.

Dimitris -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 9:03:42 PM)
This thread has already been stickied.

Temple -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 9:26:09 PM)
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

Der Zeitgeist -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 9:39:46 PM)
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. [:)]

Temple -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 9:42:16 PM)
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 [:)]

TonyAAA -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/13/2013 11:14:28 PM)
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

bsq -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 7:25:16 AM)
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.

Der Zeitgeist -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 8:29:19 AM)
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.[:)]

Russian Heel -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 8:57:47 AM)
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. :)

El Savior -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 5:40:36 PM)
[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

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 6:30:52 PM)
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?

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 7:18:00 PM)
Have now made the Prairie Masker flag visible in the Codes list [8D] Thanks guys!

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 7:21:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tony_A That would be great! Also, Iowa class BBs are missing height data in the 1980-current DB Fixed, thanks!

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 7:25:53 PM)
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 [8D] If you need them for a scenario please give us a pling and I'll give them top priority. Thanks!

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 7:40:22 PM)
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 [8D] 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?

ComDev -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (10/14/2013 7:46:10 PM)
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! [8D] Please bump me if these are needed for a scenario.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625