Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Jorm]

Would it be possible to add a new weapon Record for Generic Mine Moored
Currently there is
6768 Generic Mine [Moored, Contact Fuze] (1/1)
6767 Generic Mine [Moored, Contact Fuze] (80/80)

could a weapon size of (20/20) and (30/30) be added

When i add the 80/80 to a ship and it works no problem and wil lay mines when given a mine laying mission.
but then i cant edit the size to 20/80. It keeps droping the record to 0/80 when i use the 'change/set' command.

Im trying t get Indian P68 Arnala {Petya III} to lay mines, they could hold 20 to 30 mines ( depending on literature source)
Its highy probable im not doing something correctly .. ?
I add the mine weapon record using the 'Add Weapon Recoord' to the ships Depth charge Rack.... ?

cheers
Paul

Added

[Scar79]

In DB3000 v447 F-22 has Ferry Range of 2650nm, while in reality it's 1600-1700nm.


Lockheed Martin Official Website: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... tions.html

And again, all stealth aircrafts and munitions need total revision of their RCS numbers.

[Gunner98]

I believe that the South African replenishment ship SAS Outeniqua (A-302) should have the following:

-replenishment at sea - cannot find specifications but she was used in that role for 10 years
-spots for 4x LCU
-Cargo, 600 troops & 10 vehicles
-Icebreaker if that is a DB item
-hanger space for 2 x medium Helos

http://www.navy.mil.za/newnavy/surface/outeniqua.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Outeniqua



Updated

[Scar79]

This photo, illustrating Kh-55 cruise missile - it's not an actual Kh-55 but one of its early and discarded variants.


Here is the real serial-production Kh-55. Photo has been taken in the same MKB "Raduga" museum - developer of the Kh-55.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

This photo, illustrating Kh-55 cruise missile - it's not an actual Kh-55 but one of its early and discarded variants.


Here is the real serial-production Kh-55. Photo has been taken in the same MKB "Raduga" museum - developer of the Kh-55.

Ok. Why is this in this string? Do you have a request? We can make the warheads rounder if you'd like[:)]

Thanks!

Mike

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Ok. Why is this in this string? Do you have a request? We can make the warheads rounder if you'd like[:)]

Thanks!

Mike

Well...i tought this thread is "DB3000 database problems, updates or issues" [&:]

And it's not only nose section - look at the wing and tail sections, sweep angle of winggs, their lowplane position, size and angle of the tail stabilizers - these two missiles have completely different aerodynamic configuration.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Ok. Why is this in this string? Do you have a request? We can make the warheads rounder if you'd like[:)]

Thanks!

Mike

Well...i tought this thread is "DB3000 database problems, updates or issues" [&:]

And it's not only nose section - look at the wing and tail sections, sweep angle of winggs, their lowplane position, size and angle of the tail stabilizers - these two missiles have completely different aerodynamic configuration.

Ok if you can back these up with some stats will be more than happy to make a change. My sense is if you put this into context of a sim/game the difference may not be large enough to really change the outcome much.

Thanks!

Mike

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Scar79
Hi all, I am returning to CMANO after 18 months, and I have observed some RCS values which seem to differ significantly from my sources and material. Here are some examples: [...] Can you please check if the discrepancy is due to different methods of estimation or if there is a possible error somewhere. Thanks!

Fixed it for you.

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Ok if you can back these up with some stats will be more than happy to make a change. My sense is if you put this into context of a sim/game the difference may not be large enough to really change the outcome much.

Thanks!

Mike

Emmmm...Excuse me, but i'm afraid i don't understand - what stats you're talking about?! [&:] I just said it's a wrong photo for the DB entry "Kh-55".

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Ok if you can back these up with some stats will be more than happy to make a change. My sense is if you put this into context of a sim/game the difference may not be large enough to really change the outcome much.

Thanks!

Mike

Emmmm...Excuse me, but i'm afraid i don't understand - what stats you're talking about?! [&:] I just said it's a wrong photo for the DB entry "Kh-55".

The developers don't deal with the images. Its a community project.

See the string below. I would suggest being nice as they don't have to do squat for you.

tm.asp?m=3441939

Mike

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: Scar79
Hi all, I am returning to CMANO after 18 months, and I have observed some RCS values which seem to differ significantly from my sources and material. Here are some examples: [...] Can you please check if the discrepancy is due to different methods of estimation or if there is a possible error somewhere. Thanks!

Fixed it for you.

Excuse me, under the "method of estimation" you mean something like this?



B-2
Tu-22M3
F-16
MIG-29
AGM-86 ALCM
Boeing-737
An-26
T-90
Leopard 2
Abrams

[Scar79]

BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?

[DrRansom]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?

For the small frequencies, is the simulation grid converged?

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

ORIGINAL: Scar79

BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?

For the small frequencies, is the simulation grid converged?

Errrrr...i'm not sure i understand what you mean, but there are four frequencies modeled by researchers for each object: 10GHz(3cm); 3GHZ(10cm), 1GHz(30cm) and 166MHz(180cm).

[DrRansom]

Errrrr...i'm not sure i understand what you mean, but there are four frequencies modeled by researchers for each object: 10GHz(3cm); 3GHZ(10cm), 1GHz(30cm) and 166MHz(180cm).

What I am trying to get at is the accuracy of the simulation. The simulation requires a 3D model with lower resolution than the actual aircraft. What I am curious about is if the simulation is reporting a high RCS due to an insufficiently detailed model.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Scar79

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

ORIGINAL: Scar79

BTW, as you can see - B-2 RCS, according to this computer modeling, is 1000 times larger than numbers in CMANO. I wonder - where did you get these...well...incredibly optimistic numbers?

For the small frequencies, is the simulation grid converged?

Errrrr...i'm not sure i understand what you mean, but there are four frequencies modeled by researchers for each object: 10GHz(3cm); 3GHZ(10cm), 1GHz(30cm) and 166MHz(180cm).

It doesn't matter anyways. You don't have the real values for the B-2 because they're secret. You can make as many educated guesses as you'd like but our goal is to get reasonable outcomes in a simulations for data we might not actually know. Right now I think its ok for the B-2. If however you could walk through the math and show us where we're going wrong we'd be more than happy to accomidate. You're not going find that in a pdf.

Thanks!

Mike

[DrRansom]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk]

It doesn't matter anyways. You don't have the real values for the B-2 because they're secret. You can make as many educated guesses as you'd like but our goal is to get reasonable outcomes in a simulations for data we might not actually know. Right now I think its ok for the B-2. If however you could walk through the math and show us where we're going wrong we'd be more than happy to accomidate. You're not going find that in a pdf.

Thanks!

Mike

That PDF, if it represents an accuracy solution to the EM wave equations, is about as accurate a result as one is going to get on the open source. Scar79 would have to replicate that work to get a more accurate answer.

[Scar79]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Scar79

ORIGINAL: DrRansom




For the small frequencies, is the simulation grid converged?

Errrrr...i'm not sure i understand what you mean, but there are four frequencies modeled by researchers for each object: 10GHz(3cm); 3GHZ(10cm), 1GHz(30cm) and 166MHz(180cm).

It doesn't matter anyways. You don't have the real values for the B-2 because they're secret. You can make as many educated guesses as you'd like but our goal is to get reasonable outcomes in a simulations for data we might not actually know. Right now I think its ok for the B-2. If however you could walk through the math and show us where we're going wrong we'd be more than happy to accomidate. You're not going find that in a pdf.

Thanks!

Mike

To say where you're wrong i need to know what are your sources and method of calculation. And of course we don't know the real numbers, but this is what mathematical/computer modeling was invented for. Finally, when many serious researches suggest it's not O,ooo1sqm but 1000-4000 times higher - it's a serious reason to rethink if 0,0001sqm is even close to the real RCS of the real thing.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

ORIGINAL: mikmyk]

It doesn't matter anyways. You don't have the real values for the B-2 because they're secret. You can make as many educated guesses as you'd like but our goal is to get reasonable outcomes in a simulations for data we might not actually know. Right now I think its ok for the B-2. If however you could walk through the math and show us where we're going wrong we'd be more than happy to accomidate. You're not going find that in a pdf.

Thanks!

Mike

That PDF, if it represents an accuracy solution to the EM wave equations, is about as accurate a result as one is going to get on the open source. Scar79 would have to replicate that work to get a more accurate answer.

He's trying to use a toaster to grill a hamburger though. This game isn't really about hemming and hawing over data although we try. Bottom line is there are lots of datapoints we'll never know because they're secret. So its about modeling and reasonable outcomes.

If he had come to us and said. Gee the SA-10 can shoot this down easy or howe come the Flanker can detect this at x distance it would be different. Thats demonstratable and actionable. We can work with that.

I think as we release more about pro I think it will come together for some of you. You can try and poke and prod but at the end of the day no other game comes close to what we do now. This is not to brag. This is to wonder why there is so much complaining. You can't do this with anything else! Get a life!

Mike

[Scar79]

mikmyk

I never said or even meant that CMANO is a bad game - it's a really great Tactical and even Strategical Simulator, proud successor of the classic Larry Bond's Harpoon. But in my subject opinion it would be even better if RCS estimations for different stealth platforms were closer to some sientific researches, instead of all those cool-stories about insects, golf balls and metal marbles.

This is just my subjective and honest opinion. And if there is some way to edit CMANO Database i would be happy to do it with my copy of the game - to get the numbers i consider as more realistic than default ones. Is it possible to do just with my local copy of DB? Thx for your answer in advance.