Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues Page: <<   < prev  116 117 [118] 119 120   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 10:08:06 AM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
Excuse me, gentlemen, but this your "algorithm" is too selective. As many ships as i managed to check, tells me that all NATO vessels have much smaller RCS than Russian vessels, even if NATO vessel is significantly larger and older. And somehow, i'm sure i will find the same if i will start to inspect Chinese ships, which i didn't yet.

So, yes, you may call me rude, again, but i'm 100% sure there is a strong bias towards Russian(and i presume Chinese) tech. I felt it during the Closed Beta and i still feel it today. After all, i was a part of the CMANO group at Facebook and i can say it is THE MOST TOXIC(towards Russia and China) combat-simulation community i ever was part of.

This is how i see it now, judging by the facts i investigated.

P.S. For example, checked one Chinese vessel, Type 052 D - i was right, its RCS is two times larger than RCS of Arleigh Burke.

< Message edited by Scar79 -- 5/25/2017 10:09:20 AM >

(in reply to JanMasters0n)
Post #: 3511
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 12:01:16 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11531
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Ok db to do list update to this point. Thanks all!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to JanMasters0n)
Post #: 3512
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 12:20:14 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11531
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar79

Excuse me, gentlemen, but this your "algorithm" is too selective. As many ships as i managed to check, tells me that all NATO vessels have much smaller RCS than Russian vessels, even if NATO vessel is significantly larger and older. And somehow, i'm sure i will find the same if i will start to inspect Chinese ships, which i didn't yet.

So, yes, you may call me rude, again, but i'm 100% sure there is a strong bias towards Russian(and i presume Chinese) tech. I felt it during the Closed Beta and i still feel it today. After all, i was a part of the CMANO group at Facebook and i can say it is THE MOST TOXIC(towards Russia and China) combat-simulation community i ever was part of.

This is how i see it now, judging by the facts i investigated.

P.S. For example, checked one Chinese vessel, Type 052 D - i was right, its RCS is two times larger than RCS of Arleigh Burke.


Yeah that's crazy.

Added the Type 052D to our list to look at.

Thanks

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3513
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 12:48:04 PM   
USSInchon

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline
Add troop and cargo loadsouts to the US Navy SH-3 variants.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3514
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 12:59:24 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1851
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar79

but i'm 100% sure there is a strong bias towards Russian(and i presume Chinese) tech.

You can't call it a bias if there's no supportive information to help developers.

We all know how 'transparent' the Chinese military is at all aspects -- finding a reliable one is very difficult; even Janes, RAND and CSIS reports are often not helpful, let alone the source from military fans. The game cannot take wild guesses of advance weapons and units, and using the conservative specs are for minimalize the over-glorification.

While you said bias towards Russian, see how many topics you can find in this forum about the godlike S-400; it's ridiculously powerful, but nobody wants to nerf it because players will eventually find some ways to challenge it. What makes it powerful is some official sources of S-400 specs, to exactly simulate its strength of long range area defense.

A flat sheet of steel is not an ultimate answer to the ship's RCS; weapons, radars and subsystem placements are also playing it, and to simulate its RCS accurately without real sources is asking for trouble already.




< Message edited by Dysta -- 5/25/2017 1:03:39 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3515
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 2:54:51 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
Ok, if DB's made by community is not an option - may be it would useful for all of us, if we had a Community Working Group with some sort of utility for production/review/extraction DB-ready standalone entries? Then community members could make new units or readjust broken ones and all what would be needed from you, Devs, is a final check. As soon as the entry is checked and approved, you just add it to the game's DB.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3516
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 3:26:07 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11531
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar79

Ok, if DB's made by community is not an option - may be it would useful for all of us, if we had a Community Working Group with some sort of utility for production/review/extraction DB-ready standalone entries? Then community members could make new units or readjust broken ones and all what would be needed from you, Devs, is a final check. As soon as the entry is checked and approved, you just add it to the game's DB.


This is kind of what this string is for. If you find something that needs adjusting just post the issue with some citations, pictures etc. to back it up. Jan's posts are good examples. His tone and congeniality are great and he generally gets what he wants (hint hint )

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 5/25/2017 3:28:45 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3517
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 7:10:15 PM   
User2

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 1/14/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta
...you can find in this forum about the godlike S-400...

As I already wrote on the forum some time ago, PoH of s-400 missiles in the game is at a level of 1980 era Patriot mim-104 missiles. I do not see anything godlike about that. The same story about other lattest russian sam systems.

However, in a reality where a 100kT displacement aircarrier has a RCS lower than a 5kT destroyer, it is not a big deal

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3518
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 7:52:46 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 828
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
No immediate need on this, just a nice/interesting thing to have.

The Chilean (!?) Crocodile 250-class midget submarine.

http://www.hisutton.com/Crocodile%20250%20midget%20submarine.html



Length: 33 meters
Beam: 3.6m meter
Displacement: 250 tons
Maximum speed: 8 kts (surfaced), 12 kts (submerged)
Operating depth: 200m
Endurance (without surfacing): 100nm at cruising speed of 4kts, 200nm with AIP in operation
Endurance (patrol): 2500nm
Armament: 4 x 533mm (21") torpedo tubes. 4 torpedoes or 2 anti-ship missiles (Exocet, Harpoon) plus 2 torpedoes.
Crew: 9
Special Forces: 6



_____________________________


(in reply to User2)
Post #: 3519
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 8:44:16 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.


Hi Filitch

Sorry for the lack of response. Just looking this over it seems like a picture has been painted that is not true and that has excited you. Looking at the mentioned platforms all were implemented very early at a player's request and simply haven't been updated to reflect the new info. RCS stats are auto calculated in a tool so there is no purposeful slant unless you think a ton of extra work fudging Russian RCS values is really worth it? Then again if we were willing to spend the time doing that why would we spend it there and not somewhere more meaningful like within the code? Does it make sense to you? Seriously? The carrier vs DDG issue might even be an error () but I will need to dig on this one. These will be added to our list to review in the future and sorry that you're upset at this.

Now a question for you.

Should the team take on more stringent data requirements before implementing? Let me know what you think.

Thanks

Mike





Hi Mike. I don't accuse developer team in intentional change in the data. I prefer to think good about peoples. But walking in our shoes: NATO units in CMANO database an masse has better characteristics than Soviet, Russian, Chinese. In some cases, such superiority is justified in some other no. You can find many change requests in this thread. Unfortunately, often not of these changes are handled. I've written some of these requests myself, but there's no change yet. The first thing that comes to mind is the biased attitude of developers towards Nonwestern technology. But I'll try to figure it out. That's the reasons I think: (1) Less availability of data of the Soviet, Russian and Chinese units, weapons. Including the language barrier.
(2) The promotional nature of Western data, especially the new one. The notorious RCS - "golf ball".
(3) Developers may not have enough time to search for the true characteristics of the units and weapons, especially when this data existed only in Russian or Chinese.
(4) And only in the last place will I put in a bias. Not as a desire to denigrate, but as a desire not to find the truth. "We have some data, that's enough"

What can we do?
(1) Adopt the statement that the database needs to be reviewed.
(2) Critically evaluate the data. To realize there's a lot of advertising. This is especially true of Western specimens.
(3) Critically evaluate the data. Use general data only when you really cannot find the characteristics.
(4) Not to perceive criticism as painful, but merely as an possibility of the improvement.

First step. http://arsenalrus.ru/rus/company/facts/index.php This is 18 # Encyclopedia of Russian weapons. In Russian and in English. With tons of data, photos.

Volume 1: "Strategic nuclear forces";
Volume 2: "Missile and artillery weapons of the ground forces";
Volume 3: "Naval weapons";
Volume 4: "Military aircraft";
Volume 5: "Space Weapons";
Volume 6: "Ships of the Navy";
Volume 7: "Armored vehicles";
Volume 8: "Information security";
Volume 9: "Air and anti-missile defense";
Volume 10: "Aircraft armaments and avionics";
Volume 11: "Optic and electronic systems and laser equipment";
Volume 12: "Ordnance and munitions";
Volume 13: "Control, communications and radio electronic warfare systems";
Volume 14: "Nuclear Weapons complex";
Volume 15: "Security and law enforcement tools";
Volume 16: "Military automotive vehicles"
Volume 17: "Logistical support";
Volume 18: "Training simulators and technical means".

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3520
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 8:48:43 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11531
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

In fact, this is a question of the quality of the goods. We all paid money for the game. But it turns out that not everything in the game is the quality for which it is worth paying money. And sellers for some reason keep silent, when they are asked - why some of the product is spoiled. Guys, you made a great game, but do not spoil the reputation of a realistic simulator and your reputation for honest people. And if there is an accidental error or deliberate distortion - then an honest person should speak directly, and not keep silent, taking away other people's money.
I would really like to see the answer of Sunburn, mikmyk to the simple questions asked above.


Hi Filitch

Sorry for the lack of response. Just looking this over it seems like a picture has been painted that is not true and that has excited you. Looking at the mentioned platforms all were implemented very early at a player's request and simply haven't been updated to reflect the new info. RCS stats are auto calculated in a tool so there is no purposeful slant unless you think a ton of extra work fudging Russian RCS values is really worth it? Then again if we were willing to spend the time doing that why would we spend it there and not somewhere more meaningful like within the code? Does it make sense to you? Seriously? The carrier vs DDG issue might even be an error () but I will need to dig on this one. These will be added to our list to review in the future and sorry that you're upset at this.

Now a question for you.

Should the team take on more stringent data requirements before implementing? Let me know what you think.

Thanks

Mike





Hi Mike. I don't accuse developer team in intentional change in the data. I prefer to think good about peoples. But walking in our shoes: NATO units in CMANO database an masse has better characteristics than Soviet, Russian, Chinese. In some cases, such superiority is justified in some other no. You can find many change requests in this thread. Unfortunately, often not of these changes are handled. I've written some of these requests myself, but there's no change yet. The first thing that comes to mind is the biased attitude of developers towards Nonwestern technology. But I'll try to figure it out. That's the reasons I think: (1) Less availability of data of the Soviet, Russian and Chinese units, weapons. Including the language barrier.
(2) The promotional nature of Western data, especially the new one. The notorious RCS - "golf ball".
(3) Developers may not have enough time to search for the true characteristics of the units and weapons, especially when this data existed only in Russian or Chinese.
(4) And only in the last place will I put in a bias. Not as a desire to denigrate, but as a desire not to find the truth. "We have some data, that's enough"

What can we do?
(1) Adopt the statement that the database needs to be reviewed.
(2) Critically evaluate the data. To realize there's a lot of advertising. This is especially true of Western specimens.
(3) Critically evaluate the data. Use general data only when you really cannot find the characteristics.
(4) Not to perceive criticism as painful, but merely as an possibility of the improvement.

First step. http://arsenalrus.ru/rus/company/facts/index.php This is 18 # Encyclopedia of Russian weapons. In Russian and in English. With tons of data, photos.

Volume 1: "Strategic nuclear forces";
Volume 2: "Missile and artillery weapons of the ground forces";
Volume 3: "Naval weapons";
Volume 4: "Military aircraft";
Volume 5: "Space Weapons";
Volume 6: "Ships of the Navy";
Volume 7: "Armored vehicles";
Volume 8: "Information security";
Volume 9: "Air and anti-missile defense";
Volume 10: "Aircraft armaments and avionics";
Volume 11: "Optic and electronic systems and laser equipment";
Volume 12: "Ordnance and munitions";
Volume 13: "Control, communications and radio electronic warfare systems";
Volume 14: "Nuclear Weapons complex";
Volume 15: "Security and law enforcement tools";
Volume 16: "Military automotive vehicles"
Volume 17: "Logistical support";
Volume 18: "Training simulators and technical means".



Thanks we'll take a look.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3521
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 8:56:03 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
Su-35S lost 1250kg of its internal fuel capacity - it should be 11500kg, not 10250kg. Source - Komsomols-on-Amur Aviation Production Plant: http://knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

And again, my favorite thingy - RCS. Given the RCS-reduction measures taken on Su-35S, no way its RCS could be larger than RCS of Su-27SM/SM3.

< Message edited by Scar79 -- 5/25/2017 11:14:14 PM >

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3522
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 11:12:05 PM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
Inconsistency with Airdrop Cargo options in Database

1.An-124 Condor #2364 #891 - with 40/120 ton no cargo drop loadouts, this aircraft does not have any airdrop cargo loadouts
2.IL-76 Candid #2684 (well over a dozen other entries, all based on IL-76) - with 20/50 no cargo drop loadouts, this aircraft does not have any airdrop cargo loadouts
3.C-141 Starlifter #1855 #213 #1929 #485 - with 20/30 ton no cargo drop loadouts, this aircraft does not have any airdrop cargo loadouts
4.C-17 Globemaster #288 (8 other entries, just search C-17) - it has 42/70 no cargo drop loadouts, but its airdrop loadout is a very small 8 tons - as well, it can only airdrop personnel cargo
5.C-5 Galaxy - #2889 #287 #1930 #1931 - it has 60/80/120 no cargo drop loadouts, but does not have any airdrop cargo loadouts
6.V-22 Osprey #4037 (11 other entires, just search V-22) - there is no paradrop or paradrop cargo loadout

In general, I would think an aircraft can airdrop cargo if it is designed to be de-pressurized while in flight and has a rear cargo door. That certainly doesn't apply to civilian cargo carriers, but many military cargo carriers are designed just for that need.

Suggestions
1.http:////en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124_Ruslan in the design section describes it to have a double pressurized hull just like the C-5, so that rear cargo door can be opened in flight without hurting the aircraft. http:////www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/antonov/ states it does have paradropping capability. http:////www.aircraftinformation.info/art_An-124.htm describing 268 paratrooper capacity and mentions its air drop cargo examples. I haven't found any sources, but I would say that this information should allow the An-124 to have the same exact type of capabilities as the C-5, the plane is was modeled after. Of course detailed info can be much more easily found about C-5 capabilities.

2.Dozens of links can be found on the web if you search for "IL-76 airdrop". Here are 2 videos: http:////www.rt.com/news/204059-serbia-bmd2-vehicles-paradrop/ http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2txzz_ilyushin-il-76-airdrop_tech

3.As I can't find a recent video of the C-141, here is an AirForce released video of the YC-141's air drop capability, showing airdrop capability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td7ZB1mFzn4

4.The An-22 Cock has a no cargo drop of 80 tons, and an air drop cargo capacity of 45 tons. I don't understand the rationale to give the C-17 a puny 8 ton air drop limit. By your standards with other aircraft, it should atleast have ~50% of its max no cargo drop capacity for air drop. Also, the cargo type needs to be increased to medium cargo capacity for airdrops, instead of personnel.

5.video showing the C-5B dropping 4 Sheridan tanks (19tons each) and paratroopers. http:////www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibPtRAkmkk8

6.video showing paradrop capability (paratroopers and cargo, not at same time) of the v-22 http:////www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0NHz9pmD-w

Lastly, while I think this feature is awesome, it will have issues exposed over time, due to realistic capacities. In addition, while simply subtracting the area of a cargo unit from a base's or ship's cargo capacity, aircraft can be a bit more trick, as each dimension should be checked. A simple example of this is the C-130 with HMMVWs. It can airdrop 3 max, which is great because that is reality. But no more than 3 can fit in a C-130, it's length will only allow for 3. But your model's width of the aircraft is much larger than the width of the HMMVW, so from a pure area point of view, 5 can be placed inside, which I think would only work if you placed them in sideways via a forklift, which I don't think happens.

Is this the reason airdrop capacities are always lower than no drop capacities, as a work around to not determining real area or volume capacity?


< Message edited by Dan109 -- 5/25/2017 11:20:53 PM >

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 3523
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/25/2017 11:15:46 PM   
Scar79

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 8/9/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar79

Su-35S lost 1250kg of its internal fuel capacity - it should be 11500kg, not 10250kg. Source - Komsomols-on-Amur Aviation Production Plant: http://knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

And again, my favorite thingy - RCS. Given the RCS-reduction measures taken on Su-35S, no way its RCS could be larger than RCS of Su-27SM/SM3.

Ah, completely forgot: Speaking about Su-35S communication systems, now they're represented only by the Insecure(sic!) UHF/VHF/HF radio while IRL Su-35S is equipped with a pretty sophisticated communication suite capable to provide encrypted(i.e.Secure) and jamming-protected voice-communications and data-exchange.

Here are G-translated pages from the producer's web-site.

C-108 Communication Suite for Su-35S: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npp-polyot.ru%2Fprod%2Fprod_04_03.phtml&edit-text=&act=url

AT-E Link-16 alike terminal: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npp-polyot.ru%2Fprod%2Fprod_03_02.phtml&edit-text=&act=url


< Message edited by Scar79 -- 5/25/2017 11:24:43 PM >

(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3524
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/26/2017 5:30:42 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1851
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
I suggest we should use spreadsheet for lots of request to change these units. Posting them all directly in a single post can easily miss it. I will keep my eyes on articles about non-western ship RCS and other strings.

_____________________________


(in reply to Scar79)
Post #: 3525
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/26/2017 6:52:43 AM   
Filitch


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I suggest we should use spreadsheet for lots of request to change these units. Posting them all directly in a single post can easily miss it. I will keep my eyes on articles about non-western ship RCS and other strings.

You suggests any kind of reservation area? Western in this thread, non-western - out of sight?
I think in those spreadsheet will be found as well western ships and aircraft with too low RCS.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3526
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/26/2017 7:54:37 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1851
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
Peace Filitch, that is not what I meant. I will show you.

_____________________________


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3527
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/26/2017 9:22:47 AM   
Filitch


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Sure, peace

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3528
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/26/2017 2:05:31 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1851
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
I start with my first database spreadsheet design. The idea is to make it printable/convertible per request. I can convert it to PDF if someone cannot open Excel spreadsheet.



You can download the spreadsheet below:


Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3529
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/26/2017 2:15:08 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11531
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
This is really nice guys.

What is super useful to us are the needed changes and the rationale behind them. This can be as simple as a link to some data or a picture. The goal is that anybody that looks at it can quickly understand the change and why.

As with all DB changes, these are our databases and we make the final decisions on the changes. We don't care if you think because you're a customer you can bull in a change. We have tons of customers and they expect a standard that's not driven by one aggressive poster but by data. This being so the best strategy for you is to provide credible data and sources to back your findings.

Thanks!

Mike


_____________________________


(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3530
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/26/2017 2:22:25 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11531
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Pulled out requests and updated our list again to this point.

If you could take further discussion on how to another string it would be helpful. We like to keep this one clean and strickly for requests.

Thank You!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3531
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/28/2017 9:17:42 AM   
Filitch


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
FIXED DB v469

3M14 Kalibr (SS-N-30) has front RCS 0,44 sqm. Any *RM-109 Tomahawk (up to Block IV) has front RCS 0,22 sqm. Twofold. Same generation, same dimensions. Twofold.
Any ideas?

< Message edited by emsoy -- 9/23/2017 11:54:26 AM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3532
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/29/2017 8:28:48 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
New update brought new feature - aircraft damage. Very useful feature. But if you try to use modern Russian helicopters Ka-52, Mi-28, Mi-8AMTSH you feel disappointment. According database this crafts have no armor. But instead, in real life they have armor. The strike helicopters have cockpit armor 20mm cannon hits resistant. Mi-8 AMTSh has cockpit and cargo bay armor.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-524.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/mi8atmsh.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/ka50.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/mi28.html

Is this information enough to change database?


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3533
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/29/2017 8:51:21 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
We have tons of customers and they expect a standard that's not driven by one aggressive poster but by data. This being so the best strategy for you is to provide credible data and sources to back your findings.

Indeed! Carrier with RCS like corvette is credible data.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3534
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/29/2017 9:36:27 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11531
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
We have tons of customers and they expect a standard that's not driven by one aggressive poster but by data. This being so the best strategy for you is to provide credible data and sources to back your findings.

Indeed! Carrier with RCS like corvette is credible data.


Yeah it's likely wrong. Noted and thanks!

Mike


_____________________________


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3535
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/30/2017 6:36:49 AM   
Filitch


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
mikmyk
Could you please answer, are sources that I referred in message about helicopter's armor enough reliable to update database?

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 3536
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/30/2017 7:25:15 AM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
you have a point - I checked and the AH-64 Apache even has armor - I guess it was overlooked.

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3537
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/30/2017 8:32:08 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1851
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

New update brought new feature - aircraft damage. Very useful feature. But if you try to use modern Russian helicopters Ka-52, Mi-28, Mi-8AMTSH you feel disappointment. According database this crafts have no armor. But instead, in real life they have armor. The strike helicopters have cockpit armor 20mm cannon hits resistant. Mi-8 AMTSh has cockpit and cargo bay armor.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-524.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/mi8atmsh.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/ka50.html
http://airwar.ru/enc/ah/mi28.html

Is this information enough to change database?



Actually, not just attack helicopters, those tanks, APCs, even vast majority of warships are having "None" armor, but I don't think they should works that way. Giving them "Light (41-80mm RHA)" is way too protected.

We need two new level of armor call:

"Very Light"
- 21-40mm RHA, usually seens on Attacker, APC, ship hulls and reinforced fortifications

and "Soft":
- 5-20mm RHA, usually seens on human Body Armor, Attack Helicopter, Armored Car, Tank/APC's top armor, boat hulls and sand-based fortifications

I think the game does support angle-of-attack, so the entry point could affect the armor penetration, because sloped side is thicker and easily ricocheted.




< Message edited by Dysta -- 5/30/2017 8:48:22 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 3538
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/30/2017 8:57:05 AM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
They already do have ultra-soft armor types. The Apache is 20mm RHA ratedaround cockpit, but actually "handgun" rated, which I assume is their lowest, around the other parts.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 3539
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 5/30/2017 9:37:23 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1851
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan109

They already do have ultra-soft armor types. The Apache is 20mm RHA ratedaround cockpit, but actually "handgun" rated, which I assume is their lowest, around the other parts.

Ahh, I forgot that level.

Yet it will be a major work for thousands of units. I hope they do working on it, because that's gonna take a long while.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dan109)
Post #: 3540
Page:   <<   < prev  116 117 [118] 119 120   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues Page: <<   < prev  116 117 [118] 119 120   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.187