From: Melbourne, Australia
I guess people can go and check out the following thread, where Darren (Bucks) accuses a guy working for AGSI (Dale Hillier) of copying his work. And then we can start talking about who's poisoning the atmosphere in here:
People can check what they wish, although I am amazed that you seem to see Dale's name where it obviously doesn't appear. I said I'd deal with the issue in the future... How the hell do you know that it hasn't been dealt with, in fact I know full well but I have to ask why you assumed it was Dale????? Because a "little birdy" passed on a message?
That's plain and simple mudraking.
Probably a little like some of the comments that have been passed around on the HHQ forums about myself, while I'm banned and cannot reply or even read them. At least some people have a sense of right and wrong and have been good enough to, "fill in the gaps" for me.
Hahahahahaha! In spite your best efforts to diss the DB2000 database, is this all you could come up with?!
No Ragnar, I'm not trying to "dis" anything about the DB2000. I specifically mentioned that I was discussing the 11 non-platform .dat files, and did not say anything about the size or complexity or the DB2000. I was simply pointing out that you have a substantial number of unused records in the database. Therefore it would be logical to question the actual size, if say you were to remove these records? I was more concerned that such a large number of unused entries may eventually lead to a degree of instability. Take it as you see fit.
If my intention was to besmerch the DB2000 surely I would have gone looking harder than I did? I just pointed out some things take them as you like. It just seems to me to be a bit rich that you react so agressively to what could only be described as minor issues, yet are normally quick on the draw if others attempt to post alternative opinions. I'm sure anyone reading these threads would have reached an opinion on that issue independantly.
Hm... it's strange that you didn't ask why the seeker is implemented this way... What's the chance that this implementation is a workaround to compensate for the many bugs in a certian Harpoon3.7 ANW exe..? I'm sorry to say but your above comment kinda makes me wonder if you have spent any time playing/testing this game at all...
Hmmm seeing as I've been testing 3.7+ -> 3.8 I may have more experience than yourself when it comes to the new executable (3.8)? There is no need for a "workaround" when the seekers activate correctly in game and in fact model reality well. Please feel free to check with Dale Hillier on ATA seeker activation, I'm sure he will confirm my statement.
Oh and BTW, had you read the Harpoon3 manual you would have known that planes don't drop chaff/flares. Defensive maneuvers and decoys are handled as part of the defensive ATA value.
Well I've done one better, and read the Miniatures rules that the PC simulation is based on and have been helping with the drafts of the new 3.8 manual. Dale and I both agree on the implementation of a "generational" model from the miniatures rules, which looks like this: 1st Gen -5% / 2nd Gen -10% / 3rd Gen -15% / 4th Gen -20%. This reflects the generational values given in the Harpoon 4/4.1 data annexes, i.e.
INVINCIBLE - CVH -> (From H4 data annex)
Electronic Counterm: 3rd Gen J & D
That equates to both chaff/flares from SBROC type launchers at -15% and an ECM system giving the same -15% modifier. This value is also given for aircraft and so chaff/flare launchers are pretty much part of the game for aircraft now. Your choice about implementation in the DB2000.
Our aim was to both stick to the Minis rules and introduce a greater degree of realism to the game. The simple reliance on a "generic" DATA value lacks much in the way of even a semi-valid ECM model. An early model MiG-21 will have a high DATA value but its ECM capabilities will be limited. The introduction of this system builds on the various mounts and decoy type weapons that were originally in the game way back in Harpoon 2, and now that the correct application of the reduction to the attacking %kill has been established the reference that you make to the manual is slightly dated. Also with the AIM-54 never going active, any aircraft fitted with a RWR - Radar warning Receiver/ESM system would not gain any advantage from this sensor. The defending aircraft may very well detect the F-14's fire control radar but would never know it was directly under attack by the Phoenix when it went active. We'd be back to the "Mk1 eyeball" to warn pilots they better start dodging and weaving. Again my view, not an "Attack" on your database, nothing more than a personal observation from using it for testing 3.8.
You will find that large parts of the H3 ANW 3.8 manual have been or are being rewritten. Many of the points above are covered in that. Again I "perceived" that I was helping out, not starting a "witch hunt" on the DB2000. This may be a simple matter of your own developmental model for the DB2000, I have no issue with that, as it's a philosophical one; nothing more.
This has nothing to do with providing help. It is a cheap attempt to smear the reputation of the DB2000 database, and to get some attention for yourself.
Sorry if that's your opinion. My offer was a genuine one and was not intended to gain any attention or anything except the continued progression of the game. It's well understood that the majority of players use the resources of the HHQ DB2000 included. If you'd prefer I will simply refrain from offering any assistance to your group or those affliated with it, the choice is yours and I'm more than happy to abide by it.
I also doubt that Herman will 'borrow' much stuff from the HUD3 database. Since the PlagarizedDB contains so much material stolen from the DB2000, implementing stuff from the HUD3 would be a great step back in quality over Herman's current PlagarizedDB.
I can't help but gain the impression from you that basically anything but the DB2000 is worth playing with. Like Herman, Dale, Paul, Tom and Mike @WW2 and myself should give this DB editing away because you have it covered? If you refer to the thread you previously mentioned, you see the following:
I know that I can speak on behalf of all those involved with the PlayersDB.
Without your efforts, and those of other editors like Brad Leyte (HCDB) Fred Galano (H3Db), and Rene Haar (HC-EuroDB), there would be NO PlayersDB.
That's from Herman. I know that will count as nothing to you guys, but Herman's a good guy regardless of the flak aimed at him constantly.
Seeing as he's used substantial records from the HUD-II and since I'm working on bringing the HUD-II to H3ANW 3.8 spec I decided to rename the database to HUD3. My offer to Herman is to allow him to make any adjustments required to the relevant platforms that I've changed. This would do nothing but allow continuity of his database and the scenarios designed for use with it, by removing any remaining errors I'd identified and corrected, fuel consumption, cross section values etc. At the same time provide a substantial update to bring the PDB closer to 3.8 compliance. If it saved Herman work all the better he could then concentrate on any scenario editing required.
Anyone can go and read the first post of this thread can see who the guy behind the 'inane mud slinging' really is. And yeah I can understand that you would like to end this discussion since it uncovers certain untruths that you prolly don't want the community to know about...
Yes they can and make up their own minds. You keep saying the "community" is full of smart people, but you maintain a constant barrage of complaint, inuendo and negativity obviously designed to sway people's attitudes. The first post was in this thread came from me due to a total frustration at having every single post I tried to enter into the HHQ forum deleted... I posted the thread so that people could see what I'd had to say, I wanted to express an opinion - "freedom of speech" I was banned and not just for that post but the "warnings" started as soon as I tried to offer people database signatures on the HHQ forum, my very first attempt.
These warnings were neither specific about what was wrong with my posts to your forum, nor did they offer any advice as to how I should word them to allow their posting. I'm sorry I expected that would be the role of a "moderator" when excercising his/her authority. I could have easily lived with being advised of the offending part of anything I'd written and being given the opportunity to exercise either self-censorship or simply not posting. I was never given this choice and hence I started this thread "Freedon of Speech". I have to admit now that I seem to have been suffering from way too much sun to have even attempted to help. As I've mentioned earlier my offers were all genuine, take that as you may...
Ragnar, when I returned to this "scene" maybe I didn't want to get caught up in this rubbish again? The "Untruths" you mentioned may very well be that. They may simply be idle gossip that was distributed selectively. Imagine this for a minute, I tell 4 people something offhandedly in an effort to test their character. Does it matter if what I say is true or not if I'm doing nothing more than testing their character? From where I stand it doesn't, it's not about the "remark", it's about the character of the people mate and what they do with what I tell them. Anyway I know where I stand now and I know that Dale Hillier and myself have been working co-operatively on this project for some months. I also don't appreciate such aggressive posts from yourself and the impression of "threats" or the open questioning of my character to achieve what end?