RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (Full Version)

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



Message

thewood1 -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 4:57:06 PM)

Exactly...it seems not many have a serious issue with that issue. People report stuff all the time. Because no one reports your pet issue doesn't mean something is wrong with the devs and the customers. That is a pretty self-centered piece of logic.



User2 -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 5:30:07 PM)

quote:

Soo., shouldn't you do that then ?

To get the reason I did not report su-35 rcs issue you should get pre patch DB3k 466 database, where su-35 rcs is not fixed, then look at su-35 rcs (both against high and low freq), then look at another russian 4++ plane - mig-35, then look at rcs of western 4++ planes (f/a-18 super hornet, jas 39 gripen, eurofighter). It was already discussed in db3000 thread with lots of examples: db is biased. I actually do not want to raise that question again here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

On the topic of hypersonic glide weapons, there should be more than enough open source knowledge to build a decent model of them. The only thing which is missing would be kinetic effects, but that could be approximated to a reasonable extent.

Technically ASBMs like DF-21D are HGVs. And they do not require Pro version to use.
Just tried it 10 min ago against Arleigh Burke - it was amazing. AB in standard loudout (no sm-3) had no chance [:)]. However trajectory was a bit weird: after atmosphere reentry the missile descended to 2000m, got its speed reduced to 5M, flew a bit at this level, then it suddenly began to gain altitude, got to about 25km over sea level and exploded right over the ship at that level, destroying the ship. Warhead was not nuclear. Rim-162A missiles were not fired by the destroyer due to high speed of the target.



thewood1 -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 5:34:58 PM)

Hold on...There was one comment, an off handed one, about the SU-35 and then the RCS was adjusted. So did you point out the issue after that?

First you said it wasn't pointed and now it is. I am totally confused by your logic. Or are you just assuming the db is biased? I couldn't see you involved very much in the db thread. Did I miss that?



User2 -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 5:57:55 PM)

quote:

your pet

Childish move to start a flame. Su35 issue was just an example. Do you know what is example, right?

quote:

Hold on...There was one comment, an off handed one, about the SU-35 and then the RCS was adjusted. So did you point out the issue after that?

Find me a post where somebody reported that issue. I personally did not report it. It seems nobody did.



Grazyn -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 6:32:01 PM)

I don't understand, you want editable database because you think it's not accurate, people tell you that you can just report any accurate data you have in the thread, but your answer is that you don't report stuff anyway because you think devs are biased against non-western units? But the only way to know that would be to point at accurate data with devs refusing to update it...



HalfLifeExpert -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 8:16:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: User2

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

Indeed, and if by some chance you do have better and more accurate data on a modern system, and are not in a Nation's defense forces and/or industry, I must ask how you got classified information, and can only hope the proper authorities can catch you. If someone gave me a packet of the real full specs on the F-22 Raptor's true capabilities, I would throw it back in their face and contact the authorities ASAP. There are some things we are just not meant to know, at least not yet. Perhaps we can learn the true Raptor capabilities in 15 years or so.

You, guys, are talking like there are no errors in the DB. There are. Lots of units are inaccurately represented. Here is an example: su35 in the lattest patches got reduced RCS due to RAM coating and other work in this direction, but for 2-3 years su35 had almost the same RCS as su27 despite wiki clear statement that reduced RCS of su35 was one of the requirements of Russian MOD. There are lots of such ill-represented units.
Do not get me wrong. The scale of DB is VERY large. Thousands of units. Dev team is small. I do not expect them to quickly polish the DB. What really disappointing is that players do not bother reporting such issues. It seems nobody cared about reporting su35 rcs issue. Am I the only one who visits wiki while playing the game? Almost every scenerio, I find at least one unit whose characteristics contradict wiki.
So I think it is not a bad idea to select 3-4 reliable fans of the game, give them an ability to modify DB, create new thread where people will post there requests in the form of SQL commands and let those fans verify incoming requests and modify DB. SQL form of requests will allow those volunteers to quickly modify DB using official sqlite tools (https://sqlite.org/cli.html). User modifies DB, uses sqldiff tool to create a txt file with a set of sql commands needed to modify original DB, posts that file in the thread, writes a brief description. Selected volunteer checks the request, uses sqlite3 tool with that file to make changes to the original DB, posts the modified DB on the forum. Now users use this new DB for their next requests. Time to time devs merge that user DB with the official DB and add it to the base game.
Well, it will not allow to add new units due to the problems with RCS estimating and submarine noise level estimating. But will quickly eliminate small errors in the DB unit parameters like speed, cruise level, max distance, armor level, missing flags, typo, etc.


Just an FYI, the Devs do not consider Wikipedia a reliable source on these things. A wiki page may have a link to more reliable sources, but those are the ones the devs look at, and they will generally need more than one source.

So saying "despite wiki clear statement" is not a strong argument here.



Grazyn -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 9:02:50 PM)

If they don't consider wiki a reliable source, then why are most unit descriptions copypasted from wikipedia? [:D]




User2 -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 9:12:09 PM)

quote:

I don't understand, you want editable database because you think it's not accurate, people tell you that you can just report any accurate data you have in the thread, but your answer is that you don't report stuff anyway because you think devs are biased against non-western units?

You are mixing two different points. I made a proposition to allow some fans to help devs. It is win-win situation for everyone in my opinion. I'm sure there are people who are willing and have spare time to help at polishing DB. I DO report some small issues in the DB and propose time to time new units to add to DB. I do not report rcs issues because some questions someone asked in the db3k thread about rcs remained unanswered (for example, about the source of information used for tomahawk and kalibr cruise missiles - they have similar dimensions but different rcs). I just do not see a point reporting it.
I am not eastern military fanboy. I'd like to see realistic simulator, like all of you I hope. If, for example, kalibr missile is not good at something i'd like to see it in the game, if su-35 has poor avionics i'd like too see it. I do not want to see nerfed f-22 in favour of balance or something like that. The game engine is already great. I looked the list of literature that was used to create game's physics model and I am impressed. Would bea shame to ruin all this with a biased against any side DB. I hope it will not happen.

quote:

So saying "despite wiki clear statement" is not a strong argument here.

Yep. Wiki is a good starting point, but it should be verified ofcouse. For example, english Mi-24 wiki page states that the helo hull is armored. But other sources state that it is not. Only cockpit and some engine parts have armor plates. The game's DB it seems uses english wiki data - mi-24 hull in the game is armored, while engine - not.



Ilias -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 9:31:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: User2
..I do not report rcs issues because some questions someone asked in the db3k thread about rcs remained unanswered..

That can make sense, but if issue exist report it for highest good regardless of existence of situation in past where it was unresponded [:)]
(if it is real, confirmed possible mistake in DB :) )

quote:

ORIGINAL: User2
..biased against any side DB. I hope it will not happen.

+1 (didn't deeply looked into DB, so can't say alot about, but agree what its important to keep right)



mikkey -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 9:37:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grazyn
If they don't consider wiki a reliable source, then why are most unit descriptions copypasted from wikipedia? [:D]
Grazyn, descriptions, similar as image packs, is community project. Descriptions are taken by various users from different sources (also from the wiki) and serve for better understanding of specific units. They have nothing to do with the unit data source. Unit data are directly managed by developers.



HalfLifeExpert -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/2/2017 9:52:20 PM)

And the Stuff in the descriptions is not directly linked to the in-game data, specs and capabilities. That is the stuff found in the clear charts and lists that are a part of every DB entry



ParachuteProne -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/3/2017 3:16:54 AM)

What happens if say a few publications oriented towards the general public give "best guess" data on a particular aircraft or equipment and the Devs decide to use this for CMANO.
Will / can the military customers tell the Devs that the info is too accurate and they have to fudge the numbers - even if the data used was in the public domain ?



HalfLifeExpert -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/3/2017 3:58:55 AM)

If the defense industry or armed forces of the nation in question had a problem with it, they would be right to go after the publishers of those publications. At that point though, I think the cat would basically be out of the bag.



Grazyn -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/3/2017 6:20:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grazyn
If they don't consider wiki a reliable source, then why are most unit descriptions copypasted from wikipedia? [:D]
Grazyn, descriptions, similar as image packs, is community project. Descriptions are taken by various users from different sources (also from the wiki) and serve for better understanding of specific units. They have nothing to do with the unit data source. Unit data are directly managed by developers.



I honestly didn't know that, I didnt download community images or descriptions and still found wiki descriptions in the vanilla database, so I thought they were put there by devs.



kelsey722 -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 4:35:07 AM)

One part of this conversation that seems to be missing is the use case of investigating hypothetical platforms. Certainly proposed platforms show up in the DB, which I appreciate, but what kind of armchair admiral would I be if I didn't think I had ideas for a better variation of the LCS in mind. At least in my case I don't have any interest in point fixes to the DB, or buffing out a platform to further skew the odds in my favor. I do like to imagine a Zumwalt derivative with the gun mounts replaced with a few score of additional VLS cells. Or conversions of the Iowas. I want to optimize a new escort carrier design with an all drone airwing, and spec out the classes of drones. I want to run them through battle scenarios and see how my idle ruminations stack up against the current or proposed fleets.

I don't think this needs the full capabilities of the professional version. Nonetheless, I see this as a very reasonable version of modding, and one I would have thought was a fairly common interest among the community.

Maybe a supplemental db for modified platforms, or db-editing-lite feature could be achievable. I'd love to see what sort of platforms the community would come up with. I'd also very much like to see the supplemental tools that I'm sure would be developed, or that I'd develop myself, for thing like a top-level ship designer.

I think this fits in with one of the primary motivations behind command players. I think a lot of us want to see if our tactics would have prevailed. Or if our opinions on platform configurations would be born out.



HalfLifeExpert -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 5:00:35 AM)

Kelseyeek, what you are talking about is most definitely doable. You can change the weapons and sensors of ships, and I think to a some what lesser extent, aircraft and subs. They just are not saved in the DB, but in the scenario you are making.

You can try to improve the LCS, as it very well should be [:D]

You can add more VLS to the Zumwalt. You can upgrade the Iowa with things like Aegis and Railguns (assuming you have CoW with the latter).

For a drone equipped Escort carrier, as long as you use an existing ship like the Wasp class, you can probably do it.

All of these can be made in scenario edit mode, and I think you can save a template of your modified ship, but I'm not sure.

What you cannot do is things like change the stats of weapons, sensors, aircraft and ships. You also cannot built brand new ships, subs, planes, weapons and sensors from scratch



AlphaSierra -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 11:34:46 AM)

Come On most of us here held or hold top secret clearances. Trust me there is nothing Command has that comes close to the simulators I used in the Navy on a daily basis.

You argument holds no water.



AlphaSierra -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 11:40:31 AM)

Amen Brother open the store



AlphaSierra -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 11:42:28 AM)

I did and I wasn't impressed.



ultradave -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 12:15:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

What happens if say a few publications oriented towards the general public give "best guess" data on a particular aircraft or equipment and the Devs decide to use this for CMANO.
Will / can the military customers tell the Devs that the info is too accurate and they have to fudge the numbers - even if the data used was in the public domain ?



Well from someone who has held Secret or Top Secret clearances since 1977, dealing with navy nuclear propulsion and previously nuclear weapons, as an individual you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT do this. If you did you would be confirming classified information. You have no way of knowing if the developers distilled public domain info and made an educated guess that just happened to be very close. Which they are free to do and is the most likely reason.

Some of my former students would ask about things they've read in Wikipedia or elsewhere on these subjects and you just have to tell them you can't discuss it. Period.





AlphaSierra -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 12:38:22 PM)

Hard to disagree with that Dave

What I want from a Pro version of command would have nothing to do with any more data than we currently have.

Which I personally think is WAY more than I would have authorised for public consumption if I had a vote

Give me a LAN based version so I can build a tactical team trainer

No additional editing capabilities.




LoBlo -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 6:39:38 PM)

I'm a modder myself and sympathize with the original posters wish to be able to use CMNO as an experimental platform to test out experimental weapons, platforms, and capabilities to see what impact they would make on tatics and outcomes.

Its financially better for the devs not to permit this "officially" so that they can keep reselling the product with new upgrades. Its the long view of things.

I'm hoping that the devs have made enough success of their efforts that they can go full time into CMNO and are being compensated nicely. CMNO is really a unique project and has been more successful as a grass roots than most professionally made competitors. It demonstrates the power of a determined consumer base.

Not sure if there would be anything even close to CMNO if it was never developed, so I'll count my blessings and thanks.



Dimitris -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 7:10:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra
What I want from a Pro version of command would have nothing to do with any more data than we currently have.

Which I personally think is WAY more than I would have authorised for public consumption if I had a vote

Give me a LAN based version so I can build a tactical team trainer


If you are serious about this, and are representing an organization, please contact us in private.

Thanks!



kevinkins -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 9:52:03 PM)

quote:

Come On most of us here held or hold top secret clearances. Trust me there is nothing Command has that comes close to the simulators I used in the Navy on a daily basis.


On what basis do you make that assertion?

Why not re-enlist in the USN or give the developers a good reason to provide you the Pro version. Otherwise, you are blowing out head winds. The forum is not about the developer's business model.

Kevin



thewood1 -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 10:00:37 PM)

I'm kind of doubtful most people here hold clearances of any kind. There was a short survey several years ago and the majority here have never been involved with the military or defense. Are you mixing this up with the Pro version?



HalfLifeExpert -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 10:50:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra

Come On most of us here held or hold top secret clearances. Trust me there is nothing Command has that comes close to the simulators I used in the Navy on a daily basis.

You argument holds no water.


Few things irritate me more than statements like this: Proclaiming knowledge about all or the majority of users without providing any evidence to support such a claim.

I have no clearance of any kind and never served in my nation's armed forces or defense industry. I am just an enthusiast on the subject matter who enjoys playing CMANO and reading about modern military hardware and warfare on my own time.



ExNusquam -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 11:47:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I'm kind of doubtful most people here hold clearances of any kind. There was a short survey several years ago and the majority here have never been involved with the military or defense. Are you mixing this up with the Pro version?

Although I agree with you, it's worth noting that most people who have clearances (especially TS/SCI) won't brag about it on the internet.



thewood1 -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/5/2017 11:52:00 PM)

They don't need to brag about it. That's not what I said. The question that was asked back when Command was released was if anyone worked in the military or defense industry. Just looking at that, clearances would most likely be a subset. I think you can intelligently assume there aren't many clearances beyond military or defense on this board.



kevinkins -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/6/2017 12:55:06 AM)

Having real life "clearances" past, present, or future has nothing to do with the Command game play experience. Let the developers work those things out behind the scenes while players play and design scenarios for the sim. And help new players. Player feedback is respected when it is presented respectfully. Saying I know more than you because I was on this or that ship or stationed here or there is frankly meaningless within the context on this war game. We respect all that served. But don't bully your way in that way.

Play the Game.

Kevin



AlphaSierra -> RE: Directed Energy (Laser) and Kinetic (Railgun) Weapons (8/6/2017 1:17:33 AM)

Sorry Yeah it really bothers me too when someone thinks I know more than I do.

Great Idea on the ship counter side BZ (Nice job)



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125