Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

[Temple]

Note: I've updated this post to reflect that this thread is now for posting of DB3000 issues.

To post directly to the shared DB3000 spreadsheet, go to this shared Google Drive page

---

---

I have found what appears to be a very minor database error, but the retired engineer in me says that no matter how small the error, it's worth reporting [:)]. What I'm thinking is that it might be more efficient to have a stickied thread for reporting of minor database issues, ones that don't require a lot of leg work on the part of the developers. I would suggest that, if possible, the poster also quote any reference material used to verify that an entry is indeed in error.

I'll throw out the first minor error...

Database: CWDB (version unknown, but from Operation Trident, 1971), but could be a DB3000 as well.
Entry: #523 A 60 Dharini Class -- India (Navy)

Last entry on database shows Fuel Quantity as 24 tons, should be 1,000 tons
(reference Jane's Fighting Ships 1985-86, page 240)

Also, am I correct in assuming that 1,000 fuel units in the game is equal to one ton of real world fuel?

And on a personal note, I'm glad to be able to tell my wife that I'm getting some more use out of all the Jane's I've collected over the years [:D]

[TonyAAA]

Good idea.

All I've got so far is that Ford class CVNs are missing height data and it would be nice if all vessels equipped with Prairie Masker (or similar systems) stated so in the database.

[smudge56]

Them books must have cost you a bunch. I looked at this year's and £800 just too much for me [:D]

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: Blighty56

Them books must have cost you a bunch. I looked at this year's and £800 just too much for me [:D]

The last time I bought one was in the early nineties, although I do occasionally find one in used book stores.

[ComDev]

Registered and assigned to Paul, thanks!

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Tony_A

Good idea.

All I've got so far is that Ford class CVNs are missing height data and it would be nice if all vessels equipped with Prairie Masker (or similar systems) stated so in the database.

Thanks, fixed the Ford class CVNs.

May I ask what ships are missing Praire Masker?

Thanks! [8D]

[Der Zeitgeist]

OK guys, I just set up a Google spreadsheet to collect issues with the DB3000. I will put any problem I come across in there. It is set up as a public file, so anyone who has the link should be able to access it. Feel free to add any problems you come across in there! [:)]

The file can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... sp=sharing

[.Sirius]

Noted and fixed[8D]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Registered and assigned to Paul, thanks!

[TonyAAA]

ORIGINAL: emsoy




May I ask what ships are missing Praire Masker?

Thanks! [8D]

All of them?

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any type of entry that says "Prairie Masker" in the DB listing of any ship.

FWIW, Spuance DDs, Burke DDGs and Tico CGs all seem to listed in the DB with a lower passive sonar signature than most of their contemporaries. So maybe that's how the game models it? For example Burke DDGs are shown as quieter than Type 45 DDGs. Tico CG is listed as quieter then Kynda class CG.

If that's how it's modelled however, I don't think the signature is correct for all types:

Pretty sure all current US carriers have Prairie Masker as well as many older classes like Kitty Hawk and Enterprise but none have a listing for it nor does their sound signature data reflect it. Their passive sonar listing is 100% identical to that of Russian carriers like Kuznetsov.

Others types such as several US diesel subs used it for snorkling but this isn't shown anywhere in the DB. Not sure if that's relevant though--Do subs snorkel in Command?

[ComDev]

Thanks, link noted [8D]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Tony_A

ORIGINAL: emsoy




May I ask what ships are missing Praire Masker?

Thanks! [8D]

All of them?

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any type of entry that says "Prairie Masker" in the DB listing of any ship.

FWIW, Spuance DDs, Burke DDGs and Tico CGs all seem to listed in the DB with a lower passive sonar signature than most of their contemporaries. So maybe that's how the game models it? For example Burke DDGs are shown as quieter than Type 45 DDGs. Tico CG is listed as quieter then Kynda class CG.

If that's how it's modelled however, I don't think the signature is correct for all types:

Pretty sure all current US carriers have Prairie Masker as well as many older classes like Kitty Hawk and Enterprise but none have a listing for it nor does their sound signature data reflect it. Their passive sonar listing is 100% identical to that of Russian carriers like Kuznetsov.

Others types such as several US diesel subs used it for snorkling but this isn't shown anywhere in the DB. Not sure if that's relevant though--Do subs snorkel in Command?

Okay the Burkes, Ticos, Spruances etc all have the following passive sonar modifier: "5001-10000t, Gas Turbines + PM (DD)"

Guess we could make the PM flag visible in the sim too, and then do the verification on what ships might be missing the system [8D]

Yes subs snorkel.

[DoctorHaider]

From the "Replenishment" thread. I browsed the database and noticed that only US auxilary ships (oilers and replenishment ships) actually have the refuel/replenish codes associated with them. Replenishment ships from other navies (I checked the British and Soviet ships, someone has posted the same about German navy) aren't capable to refuel or replenish everything.

[TonyAAA]

ORIGINAL: emsoy



Guess we could make the PM flag visible in the sim too, and then do the verification on what ships might be missing the system

That would be great!

Also, Iowa class BBs are missing height data in the 1980-current DB

[Der Zeitgeist]

Everyone just use the link I provided to report DB issues (maybe we can sticky this somehow?):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... sp=sharing

[Russian Heel]

B-52H loadouts for AGM-86s only have internal rotary launchers starting with the 1989-0 CALCM (entry 1909)The external 12 are unavailable nerfing the BUFF's AGM-86 payload by 60% from 20 to 8.

The loadouts for the AGM-129 are listed as 8 on the internal rotary launcher. This was not the case. 12 129s were carried externally only.

Source - I know the answer to the question "Why not Minot?" and 1014 > Balls 37.

[Dimitris]

This thread has already been stickied.

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

Everyone just use the link I provided to report DB issues (maybe we can sticky this somehow?):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... sp=sharing

Never mind my original comment, I see we have a thread for CWDB issues already:

tm.asp?m=3436158

[Der Zeitgeist]

ORIGINAL: Temple

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

Everyone just use the link I provided to report DB issues (maybe we can sticky this somehow?):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... sp=sharing

Never mind my original comment, I see we have a thread for CWDB issues already:

tm.asp?m=3436158

Maybe you can put my link to the top, too, so everyone can find it. The spreadsheet is editable by everyone. [:)]

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist
Maybe you can put my link to the top, too, so everyone can find it. The spreadsheet is editable by everyone. [:)]

Great minds think alike, I was just about to post that I had done so [:)]

[TonyAAA]

Missing the aircraft types KA-3B; EKA-3B.

The tanker and tanker/EW variants of the A-3 Skywarrior.

They're listed in the CW database but not DB3000 even though they were used past 1979.

Sources:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa3_7.html
http://a3skywarrior.com/whaletales/finalwake.html
http://www.wings-aviation.ch/25-Navy-Sq ... AK-308.htm