What's the lowdown on all the Databases ??

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

What's the lowdown on all the Databases ??

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> What's the lowdown on all the Databases ??

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

What's the lowdown on all the Databases ?? - 7/30/2008 4:22:30 AM

RedMike

Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/14/2002
From: Alaska
Status: offline

Why so many and which one is considered THE one to use ??

_____________________________

Hannibal ad portas

Post #: 1

Harpoon - 7/30/2008 4:37:19 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

Every database is a representation of the editor's/users different perspective on how they think the real world operates. Each database has its own 'flavour'. For example, some databases cover a certain time period: WW II (1939-1945), Colonial Wars (1945-1965), Cold War (1980-1992), etc. Some cover a geographic area i.e. Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap or Western Pacific

Each database reflects a different interpretation of the data publicly available and, IMO, there is no right or wrong way to do it.

For example, a rifle bullet will travel up to 5km on a ballistic trajectory. So, what do you enter as the maximum range for this weapon in the database? The max ballistic range of 5km or the combat range that soldier would more commonly fire it (300-400m)? Neither is patently 'wrong', IMO. One editor might enter 5km but only give it a 1% chance of hitting a target while another editor might enter 300m and give it a 40% chance of a hit.

One of the most popular and commonly used ones is the PlayersDB. You can check out the specific features of this database at:

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31940

Or just grab the Complete Harpoon ANW Library and try it out for yourself.

_____________________________

(in reply to RedMike)

Post #: 2

RE: Harpoon - 7/30/2008 4:59:11 AM

RedMike

Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/14/2002
From: Alaska
Status: offline

Hi herman,

I kind of figured all that. I'm playing with the PlayersDB right now.

Just wondered how it differed from hud3 for instance. Thanks!

_____________________________

Hannibal ad portas

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 3

Harpoon - 7/30/2008 5:17:50 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

Okay, I'll do a slight comparision between the two. The HUD3 and the PlayersDB share many similarities because the PlayersDB is a derivative work from the HUD2 due to the kindness of the HUD2 editor, Darren Buckley.

One example of how weapons work differently between the two databases is the Type-65-76 torpdedo.

In the PlayersDB, the maximum firing range of this weapon is 7.7nm, but it has fuel for over 50nm.

In the HUD3, the Max firing range is 54nm and it has a fuel range of 54nm.

The reason why we shortened the firing range for the PlayersDB was that we expect the target to detect the torpedo as soon as it is fired and will attempt to evade by running the opposite direction. If this torpedo is fired from a range of 7.7nm, we predict that it will catch the target 95% of the time (even if it needs to chase the target 50nm first!)

This isn't to suggest that the HUD3 is, in any way, 'wrong' or inferior. It is just compiled with a different set of basic assumptions.

IMO, if the weapons, planes, ships, etc. from any database fires, flies, or sails, then that database is functional. Unfortunately, there are quite a few database examples where weapons don't launch, weapons that hit don't inflict any damage, or planes refuse to take off. I would consider those database 'broken', but certainly not wrong.

_____________________________

(in reply to RedMike)

Post #: 4

RE: Harpoon - 7/30/2008 6:15:15 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Databases...

1980-2015+ DB2000: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=5

1950-1964 Colonial Wars DB: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=10

1965-1979 DB: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=11

World War II DB: http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=7

The PlayersDB is an unauthorized, unattributed clone of the DB2000.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 5

Harpoon - 7/30/2008 6:36:42 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

Ah, perfect timing. A representative of the non-functional Y2kdB appears!

It's a good thing, too, since we already de-bunked that [Myth].

The Y2kdB is the prime example of a database that just doesn't work. In fact, for awhile there, you couldn't even load it without experiencing a CTD [Crash to the Desktop]. See Crash on Load. I'm not certain if they ever fixed it.

But, then there's the Crash on Run that was probably never fixed, either. So, it serves as a perfect example of a functional database like the PlayersDB and a non-functional one like the Y2kDB.

At least they are honest about the dysfunctional state of the Y2kDB.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1855030

_____________________________

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 6

RE: Harpoon - 7/30/2008 7:59:24 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

So if it's so bad why did you copy it?

Smarter people than myself have looked into the DBs and confirmed our claims. Timestamped copies of the datasets are available at request, for comparison.

Herman, as someone who wholesale-copied the DB2000 as well as bits from the other DBs, you should be a bit more kind to those you steal from. As well as to those who are perfectly aware of the matter but chose to look the other way.

That we stopped updating our DBs to match whatever non-working patch AGSI/Matrix has out the door this week, is true. Whether they work with ANW (and particularly the previous v3.6), anyone can try it out for himself and decide. No need to rely on the dubious word of ever-present "welcome aboard, shipmate!" sycophants and social engineers.

Meanwhile, we're busy working on the future. Good luck with your chains to Harpoon

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 7/30/2008 8:10:21 AM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 7

Harpoon - 7/30/2008 8:37:48 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

So if it's so bad why did you copy it?

Exactly! Thanks for proving it an original work, once again!

The PlayersDB works. The Y2kDB does not.

And everyone can see it for themselves. You can't make chicken salad from chicken s***.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 8

RE: Harpoon - 7/30/2008 8:49:20 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

More like you just proved you can't read.

But hey, whatever works for you.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 9

Harpoon - 7/30/2008 8:56:19 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Smarter people than myself have looked into the DBs and confirmed our claims. Timestamped copies of the datasets are available at request, for comparison.

And I can read just fine.

Looks like it wasn't too difficult to find lots of those folks to look into the DBs. I suspect that they are the same people who issued us the Official AGSI Database editor and authorized us to re-make all the Harpoon2 scenarios for Harpoon3 and Harpoon3: ANW.

120 more scenarios for the Harpoon 3 Players Database!

Guess they just wanted something that worked, too.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 10

RE: Harpoon - 7/30/2008 9:06:43 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
Looks like it wasn't too difficult to find lots of those folks to look into the DBs. I suspect that they are the same people who issued us the Official AGSI Database editor and authorized us to re-make all the Harpoon2 scenarios for Harpoon3 and Harpoon3: ANW.

Nope.

I'll give you a clue... Scott.

Keep shoveling those scens BTW. They'll come mighty handy when the brick wall arrives in a while.

Or not

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 11

Harpoon - 7/30/2008 9:20:52 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

I'll give you a clue...

You'd better hang onto it. Some of us have none to spare.

It's nice to see that you are at least posting your own messages instead of sending in proxies.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1789909

< Message edited by hermanhum -- 7/30/2008 9:22:29 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 12

RE: Harpoon - 7/30/2008 9:30:32 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Ah, derailing when cornered. Classic.

No worries Herman. You desperately need to "win", I understand. "Last post!" and everything. It's OK, really. I don't mind.

There are more important things to spend time on. Like, you know, contributing my little bit to a project that is going to leave you chained to an obsolete game

Have fun. And remember, we got out of the rat race while we could. You're still in. Enjoy

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 7/30/2008 9:32:38 AM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 13

Harpoon - 7/30/2008 9:35:43 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

There are more important things to spend time on. Like, you know, contributing my little bit to a project that is going to leave you chained to an obsolete game

Will your new project have the "Combat Weather Balloon Corps", too?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1224499

When logical arguments fail, I guess it's time to crawl back to the hatequarters.

Welcome back abourd, shipmate!

_____________________________

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 14

RE: Harpoon - 7/30/2008 4:55:21 PM

RedMike

Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/14/2002
From: Alaska
Status: offline

Heh heh...tetchy subject, eh? Thanks for all the info, appreciated.

_____________________________

Hannibal ad portas

Post #: 15

Harpoon - 7/31/2008 1:50:02 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMike

Heh heh...tetchy subject, eh?

Not at all.

... for those able to discern fact from fantasy

_____________________________

(in reply to RedMike)

Post #: 16

Torpedoes miss at max range - 7/31/2008 2:23:31 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

the AO will now wait until the target is inside a range that allows the torpedo to travel at attack speed. This allows DBs to move the Rmax setting back to it's original distance.

I do not believe that this is the behaviour occurring. I've posted up a test case of this example in the Support section since this thread does not allow *.zip attachments.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1878454

In my test case with the OriginalDB [ODb], I have a ship just inside the maximum range of a Type 65-76 torpedo. This weapon has a firing range of 54nm and a fuel range of 54nm. For the benefit of those not in possession of ANW, this is what happens:

1. Ship detects torpedos fired from maximum range of 53nm.
2. Ship then can walk (or crawl away at creep speed) in the opposite direction.
3. Torpedoes miss every time

Only if the ship is stupid enough to just sit there and get hit will the weapons work in this manner.

_____________________________

Post #: 17

RE: Harpoon - 7/31/2008 3:17:24 AM

RedMike

Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/14/2002
From: Alaska
Status: offline

_____________________________

Hannibal ad portas

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 18

Harpoon - 7/31/2008 1:43:47 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

Since the AO won't attack a target at that range [like I said above, the AO will use the full speed range which in this case is 54kyds]

Emphasis added by HH

I don't know what test file you were running, but it certainly wasn't the one I posted. I just showed that the AI will attack at that (53nm) range, yet you try to deny it.

I'll remind you that your original contention was:

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

the AO will now wait until the target is inside a range that allows the torpedo to travel at attack speed. This allows DBs to move the Rmax setting back to it's original distance.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1877844

The AI will not deliberately wait for the target to be within range that allows it to utilize the attack speed (50kts) of the torpedo. The AI will fire at the very first possible opportunity (which is 53nm in this case).

_____________________________

Post #: 19

Harpoon - 7/31/2008 6:44:18 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

If you'll read my post carefully.

I read your message far more carefully than you read mine. The issue isn't the intercept. That's just a matter of geometry and algebra. The fact remains the torpedo is being fired at a distance in contradiction to your prediction. The sub does NOT close the distance until it can fire the torpedo from a range to utilize the Attack Speed. It will fire at the first possible instance. This behaviour is clearly opposite to your claim that:

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

the AO will now wait until the target is inside a range that allows the torpedo to travel at attack speed. This allows DBs to move the Rmax setting back to it's original distance.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1877844

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

This means that T must either speed up [something the torpedo won't do until it detects a target]

This doesn't happen, either. Under no circumstances that I know of will the torpedo accelerate to Attack speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

I'm not saying that the torpedo didn't fire, it's just that at that range it's mathmatically impossible for the torpedo to make the intercept when S and T are moving in the same direction at the speeds you stipulated.

Herein, you are closing in on the problem. Finally. The sub is firing from a point whereby it is mathematically impossible to catch the target even though the target will exhibit known evasive behaviours.

The premise that the AI unit will actually close to a firing distance that utilizes the torpedo's attack speed is unfounded and false.

_____________________________

Post #: 20

RE: Harpoon - 7/31/2008 8:01:17 PM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Glad to see the two of you turn a budding flame war around into a technical discussion!

For me the underlying problems are:
1. the AI/AO in the past fired torpedos at such long range that a player would almost always avade. Reducing Rmax in the database is a workaround solution. Dale contends that the workaround is no longer needed, Herman says it is. I believe the workaround is adequate though a better logic would be nice to have.

2. Non-wire guided torpedoes fired by the player in BOL mode (the only way to fire at a target further than Rmax) will always run at their lowest speed (generally 24-35 knots) and not automatically go to full speed (Herman contends). This makes even 50nm type 65-76 fired from as close as 8nm not intercept warships racing 30. See AAR of Duel for example. This is new behaviour in ANW (in 3.6 the same torps would speed to 50 knots once the torpedo detects the enemy ship, which is the right behaviour). Seems to me this is a more serious problem than 1.

Can we keep the discussion technical?

Freek

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 21

RE: Harpoon - 7/31/2008 8:51:39 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Watch the language folks. This tit for tat I'm used to but we have to keep it rated G.

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

Post #: 22

Harpoon - 7/31/2008 8:55:08 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

I don't need to deal with this bull**** and I don't have the time for it. If you're so concerned for the game then fix this problem yourself. You can take your sanctimonious attitude and talk to someone who gives a ****.

I guess this is the "new" New AGSI attitude towards bug-fixing.

_____________________________

Post #: 23

RE: Harpoon - 7/31/2008 9:00:42 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Dale no longer works for AGSI and represents only himself.

Thanks.

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 24

Harpoon - 7/31/2008 9:01:07 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

2. Non-wire guided torpedoes fired by the player in BOL mode (the only way to fire at a target further than Rmax) will always run at their lowest speed (generally 24-35 knots) and not automatically go to full speed (Herman contends). This makes even 50nm type 65-76 fired from as close as 8nm not intercept warships racing 30. See AAR of Duel for example. This is new behaviour in ANW (in 3.6 the same torps would speed to 50 knots once the torpedo detects the enemy ship, which is the right behaviour). Seems to me this is a more serious problem than 1.

Emphasis added by HH

I believe that this is inaccurate. I just tested BOL non-wire-guided Type 65-76 in H3 and got the same result as in ANW. The torpedo does not accelerate from a cruise speed of 30kts to an attack speed of 50kts even if it is already in pursuit with a final target.

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 25

Harpoon - 7/31/2008 9:05:08 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Dale no longer works for AGSI and represents only himself.

Thanks for the clarification.

Does this also mean that the personal ban he issued for the official AGSI chat room will no longer be imposed upon me?

_____________________________

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 26