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: IrvingMainway, Spid3rCZ
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues Page: <<   < prev  190 191 [192] 193 194   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/26/2020 2:33:26 PM   
KLAB

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K

quote:

ORIGINAL: stilesw

quote:

It's definitely 483, I checked before posting with the intention of just upgrading the scenario and the editor says the scenario is using the latest DB.483.
Baffled as I did the same with a test scenario, added a MiG-29S and every thing worked and it had R-27 TSARH load outs. I will update the scenario again regardless and see if that fixes it.


I believe I've found the problem.

Did some more digging. Went to Akhtubinsk Air Base and selected Su-27S, 968IISAP, 1 Sqn #02. It says that it is loaded with
4x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH,
2x AA-10 Alamo C [R-27ER, LR SARH],
2x AA-11 Archer [R-73].
It should not do this since that weapon/loadout is no longer an option.

This would have been the original loadout when the scenario was created using DB3K_478. Since then, the TSARH AA-10 replaced the SARH AA-10.

When you try and load the Su-27S in the subsequent databases (i.e. 483) and check the “Show only usable loadouts” box the TSARH weapons do not show up at all but they do show up as possible loads when you look at the aircraft details in the DB viewer.

The problem happens (and I’ve had it happen to me as well during testing) when the scenario contains units that were loaded out in a previous database that did not have the new weapons. When the scenario is upgraded to DB3K_483 it still regards the aircraft as having a no longer existing weapon/loadout.

The solution is to remove all the aircraft (Su-27S) in question and replace them with a new Su-27S. Since the new aircraft and weapon are now both part of the new DB3K_483 it will load and show the correct loadouts.

Ideally, the scenario author would do this but he cannot be faulted because he would not necessarily have known of the change from SARH to TSARH. Probably the easiest solution for you is to delete and recreate all the AA-10 TSARH aircraft. Of course, don't forget to reassign them to their appropriate missions and necessary unit properties.

Hope this is of help,

-Wayne





< Message edited by KLAB -- 3/26/2020 3:37:26 PM >

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5731
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/26/2020 3:44:31 PM   
KLAB

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
Resolved ref PANTSIR SM et al. ,

The photo from the Army 2019 Defence exhibition supposedly showing the "Pantsir SM" was just a demonstration model with the old S1 mount on the back,

Jane's reports actually refer to that specific example as the Pantsir S1M. This may be the version in Algeria? (Janes)

When the SM actually enters service it will have the S2 twin facing radar configuration and the ER missiles which will be noticeably longer.

The Tornado G MRAP is apparently still the preferred chassis based on issues with the protection of the KAMAZ truck mounted version and it's balance issue.

Regards

K


quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Pantsir - This gets more complicated.

Looking at the actual images of the Pantsir SM although it has an obvious Tornado G MRAP 8x8 chassis the actual Pantsir system on the back seems to be the standard S1 configuration using the single face search radar not even the double faceted S2.

I am therefore confused regarding the issue of whether the ER missile or even what actually constitutes the Pantsir SM or if it is in service or not yet!

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-558.html
This is probably the most exhaustive coverage regarding Pantsir and even with the limitations of translation software provides useful time lines and development.

But there again the manufacturer is a bit contradictory as there own product page shows both the Pantsir S1 and Pantsir S2 in the image library under the headline information for the S1.
And the 3d computer rendering is of the S2!

https://www.npovk.ru/upload/resize_cache/iblock/9f5/1037_728_1/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8C-%D0%A11.jpg
https://www.npovk.ru/en/model/pancyr.php


K

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB



After more checking there are some issues with the Pantsir terminology and I think the Pantsir SM is being confused with the Pantsir S2:
With apologies for having to make multiple posts to attach images.
#3250 - SAM Plt (SA-22 Greyhound [Pantsir-SM]) (Russia [1992-] - 2011) ?


Suggest name change to Pantsir S2 and in service as of 2015 please. Plus amend or add new 57E6-1 missile with range of 30km and add new SOTS-S double facing radar array?

Pantsir S2 has been in service since 2015 and has been seen in Syria with Russian forces since 2016. But it is not in the DB3K.

https://youtu.be/aJpKJ--ZPq8?t=3 Shows the S2 from a RUPTLY article in Syria. In contrast the Pantsir SM is not in service in Russia yet.

The S2 has improved radar with which is double faceted and therefore provides better faster coverage and makes it easy to distinguish from the S1.

"The Pantsir-S2 is also fitted with a new SOTS S-band search radar to increase the detection range from 36 km to over 40 km"*Army Recognition.
It also supposedly has a marginally increased missile with a range of 30km but does not use the later ER missile.

The difference with the S1 is most obvious by comparing radar arrays.
See this clip from the manufacturers PR for the S1 https://youtu.be/ywcnw8r-CAo?t=70

Pantsir SM is very different vehicle using the Tornado G 8x8 armoured MRAP vehicle with light armour, newer still AESA radar and the extended range 40km missile.

Algeria has Pantsir SM as of 2019 and before the Russians per the MENA DEFENCE article.

The Rostec article provides an oversight of the S1 S2 and SM developments:

https://rostec.ru/en/news/the-true-greyhound-to-the-russian-defense/
https://www.janes.com/article/89584/army-2019-russia-unveils-pantsir-s1m-sam-vehicle
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_missile_system_vehicle_uk/pantsir-s2_short-range_cannon_missile_air_defense_system_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_12205164.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2019_news_russia_online_show_daily_media_partner/army_2019_kbp_group_unveils_pantsir-sm_cannon_missile_air_defense_system.html
https://www.menadefense.net/algeria/algeria-tested-the-new-pantsir-sm-in-a-live-fire-exercice
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24797/Russia_Upgrades_Pantsir_Defense_System_Through_Experience_Gained_in_Syria__Report#.Xmv4hnlLH4Y
Pantsir SM - Latest incarnation as of 2019 using the Tornado G armoured chassis.
https://russia.liveuamap.com/en/2019/26-june-pantsirsm-in-army2019---


Many thanks
K

quote:

ORIGINAL: stilesw

quote:

Pantsir SM Has been added to the 483 DB3K with the 57E6-ER missile as a new weapon but the ER versions is identical in range to the standard 57E6 version i.e 10 Nm range.

By all accounts the ER has a 40km/21.5 nm range and the FCR has double the acquisition range.

Logged.
-WS

















(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 5732
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/26/2020 6:34:35 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario? I passed this forum thread to the author/updater to do what he feels necessary.

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue? Yes, on the list. Some issues between CMANOPE and CMO that I need to work on.


Glad you caught this issue.

-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 5733
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/26/2020 9:04:07 PM   
apache85

 

Posts: 2121
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K


Thanks for doing this; feel free to either PM the updated scenario to me or post it in the mods and scenarios subforum and I'll add it to the next release.

_____________________________


(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 5734
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/27/2020 3:35:01 PM   
KLAB

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
Sent PM,(hopefully with .zip correct attachment) bit of delay as I noticed Su-34 was also affected so its been done too.
Tested and seems to be working fine.
K
quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85


quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K


Thanks for doing this; feel free to either PM the updated scenario to me or post it in the mods and scenarios subforum and I'll add it to the next release.


(in reply to apache85)
Post #: 5735
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 3/27/2020 8:24:56 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4489
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Can we get the KC-33A 747 based strategic tanker included as a hypothetical?

https://www.ausairpower.net/APAA/APA-2005-02.pdf
http://www.boeing-747.com/special_boeing_747s/boeing_kc-33a.php
https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive/Boeing-747-Advanced-Cargo-Transport-Aircraft-(KC-33)-2JRSXLJLX7TE.html#/SearchResult&ITEMID=2JRSXLJLX7TE
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-worlds-only-kc-747-tanker-is-flown-by-the-iranian-a-1581314071

The KC-25A is already included (Iran) DB#1660

Also had cargo capacity which I don't believe is modeled in the KC-25A (slides 47-79 of first ref)

Tx




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 5736
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 3/30/2020 10:54:06 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I think the French ships Horizon and FREMM should have CEC capacity from 2020, they have recently tested it:

Logged for update.
-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to 14yellow14)
Post #: 5737
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/4/2020 11:59:00 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
Weapon id #3627 'Laser Shot(Solid State Fiber) 10nm, AAW & ASuW

Is missing any weapon record, thus can't really be used\added.

Suggested new DataWeaponRecord entry: ComponentID=3627, DefaultLoad=10000, MaxLoad=1000, ROF=1, Multiple=1

If it helps
insert INTO DataWeaponRecord (ComponentID,DefaultLoad,MaxLoad,ROF,Multiple)
 Values(3627,10000,10000,1,1)



< Message edited by KnightHawk75 -- 4/4/2020 12:02:34 PM >

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5738
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/5/2020 10:15:12 AM   
desmo_Aut

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/5/2020
From: Austria
Status: offline
Missing Units of the Austrian Air Force
1. Saab 105 OE

2.Agusta-Bell AB-204B

3.Sikorsky S-65C-2 also called CH-53OE or S-65OE

4.Agusta-Bell AB-212

5.Sud Aviation SA-316B/SE-316 „Alouette III”

6.Bell OH-58B

7. Agusta-Bell AB-206A „Jet-Ranger“

8.Sikorsky S-70A-42 „Black Hawk“

9.Lockheed C-130K /Hercules C Mk.1P

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 5739
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/5/2020 11:31:49 AM   
Parel803

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 10/10/2019
From: Netherlands
Status: online
A possible correction in the DB3K. If A read stuff correctly:
It looks like HNLMS Karel Doorman (Netherlands) has no cargo facility.
She is build to act as a oiltanker and cargo/troop transport schip.
Not easy to find the crago nr of tons but it states that she transported 1000 tons of cargo of which (120 vehicles)
Op 6 november 2014 vertrok het schip beladen met 1000 ton hulpgoederen, waaronder 120 voertuigen.
Another ship can tank oil or fuel for her helo.

best regards

_____________________________


(in reply to desmo_Aut)
Post #: 5740
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/5/2020 3:51:36 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

It looks like HNLMS Karel Doorman (Netherlands) has no cargo facility.

Logged.
-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to Parel803)
Post #: 5741
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/5/2020 5:39:04 PM   
14yellow14

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 12/8/2019
Status: offline
Hi!

Please add GBU-38 to Spanish HARRIER AV-8B+




Source:
https://www.infodefensa.com/es/2018/04/19/noticia-harrier-espanoles-aumentan-capacidad-lanzar-armamento.html


Thanks!

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5742
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/6/2020 4:34:04 AM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA
Status: offline
deleted

< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 4/9/2020 9:29:58 PM >

(in reply to 14yellow14)
Post #: 5743
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/6/2020 11:52:48 AM   
apache85

 

Posts: 2121
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Sent PM,(hopefully with .zip correct attachment) bit of delay as I noticed Su-34 was also affected so its been done too.
Tested and seems to be working fine.
K
quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85


quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Cool no worries I have updated it and replicated all aircraft with the load outs with attention to the original missions and naming conventions.

Russian Su-27's and MiG-29's have been sorted and the magazines amended.

Azerbaijani MiG-29's have also been done.

It just made the MiG-29's a bit harder to take on mind you!

Thanks for help,

If the author is ok with it I will post the amended scenario?

As an aside the SU-27's are still showing with the sensor "TSARH Seeker" so I believe this is on the to do list per the moved thread on the Terminal Semi Active Radar homing issue?


Cheers

K


Thanks for doing this; feel free to either PM the updated scenario to me or post it in the mods and scenarios subforum and I'll add it to the next release.




Wasn't able to send you a PM but thank you very much for this; it will be in the next update

_____________________________


(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 5744
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/6/2020 5:21:29 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4489
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Question for either Wayne or apache

I'm looking at working some RGM/UGM-109B TASMs into some of my 1994 scenarios, but the 1991+ versions of most USN platforms have them removed as an option because they were historically scrapped (or converted to TLAM-C).

Do you guys have a way of doing a quick check on the DB entries to see if weapons options were the only material difference between say:

#526 & #528
#1868 & #1925
#977 & #582

If not, no worries - I can do a crawl through the game DB entries

Tx

B

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to apache85)
Post #: 5745
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/6/2020 6:47:15 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Question for either Wayne or apache

Bart

Just reviewed DB3K and here's what I found. Hope it helps.

-Wayne

526: SSN 700 Dallas [Los Angeles Class, Flight I]
Mount: 198
Loadout:
Mk48 Mod 4
UGM-109A,B,C,D,
UGM-84D

528: SSN 700 Dallas [Los Angeles Class, Flight I]
Mount 653:
Loadout:
Mk48 Mod 5 ADCAP
UGM-109C Blk II
UGM-109C Blk III
UGM-109D Blk II
UGM-84D

1868: DD 963 Spruance [ABL, Mk15]
Mount 636:
Loadout:
RGM-109A,B,C,D

1925: DD 963 Spruance [ABL, Mk15]

Mount 654:
Loadout:
RGM-109C,D

977: CG 59 Princeton [Ticonderoga Baseline 3, VLS]
Mount 1554:
Loadout:
RGM-109A,B,C,D
RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA (Added in next release – DB3K_484)
RIM-66H SM-2MR

582: CG 59 Princeton [Ticonderoga Baseline 3, VLS]

Mount 648:
Loadout:
RGM-109C Blk II
RGM-109C Blk III
RGM-109D Blk II
RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Blk IA (Added in next release – DB3K_484)
RIM-66H SM-2MR Blk II
RIM-66M-1 SM-2MR Blk III
RUM-139A VLA [Mk46 Mod 6]

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 5746
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/7/2020 6:21:31 PM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
#3630 Perdix (Drone) Issue: excessive fuel

While the DB viewer shows 45minute of fuel this is not remotely correct and I don't know why it's showing that.
It has a general burn rate of aviation fuel when fired of .02 per second (on it's #2847 Piston Engine) on cruise.
But it's associated DataFuel entry #2044 shows aviation fuel capacity amount of 2703.
At present it will stay in the air for about ~37.5 Hours at 60kt cruise speed.
That #2044 Capacity should be more like ~ 60 (if ~45min is desired and current related DataPropulsion entries are maintained untouched)
I checked that DataFuel #2044 is not shared with another unit so changing should have no side effects for other units.
update DataFuel Set Capacity = 60 Where ID = 2044

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5747
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/7/2020 8:55:19 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4489
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Thanks Wayne

Was curious that if I substituted the current unit (say 528) with 526 to enable the use of UGM-109B - would there be anything else different on the platform - ie different sensors etc.

Thinking about it this might take too much of your time so I'll do a crawl through and compare them. Thanks a bunch.

Bart

_____________________________

Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5748
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/8/2020 1:57:23 PM   
Grazyn

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 10/24/2016
Status: offline
I noticed that the upgraded version of the MQ-8B (database entry #3455) has the surface radar but no cameras, is that intended? Here it says that the radar "complements Fire Scout's other sensors" https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs/northrop-demonstrates-broad-area-search-radar-on-mq-8b/113545.article



(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 5749
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/8/2020 4:36:45 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

surface radar but no cameras

Sandro,

Searched records and found nothing to support cameras for the MQ-8 series.
Please provide any references that show these sensors for the UAV.
Thanks,
-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to Grazyn)
Post #: 5750
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/8/2020 5:04:57 PM   
Grazyn

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 10/24/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stilesw

quote:

surface radar but no cameras

Sandro,

Searched records and found nothing to support cameras for the MQ-8 series.
Please provide any references that show these sensors for the UAV.
Thanks,
-WS

Uh... every entry for the MQ-8B in the CMO database except for the RDR-1700 variant (with the radar) has a camera+laser designator package. The article I linked about the RDR-1700 upgrade says that the radar "complements the other sensors" and the photo shows the elongated nose with the radar and the camera ball still present underneath.

Another picture of the new nose + camera ball
https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/1176392/168452-usa-navy-northrop-grumman-mq-8b-fire-scout/

Another article
https://defense-update.com/20130110_fire-scout-get-gmti-radar-anzpy-4.html
quote:

When integrated with other on-board sensors, the radar increases the VTUAV surveillance area rate coverage and operator efficiency by pointing the EO payload to points of interest detected through the radar’s wide area scan.


Another one
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2014-06-18/mq-8b-fire-scout-flies-new-surveillance-radar
quote:

The X-band search radar complements the MQ-8B’s Flir Systems Brite Star II electro-optical/infrared payload and provides inverse synthetic aperture (ISAR), stripmap and spotlight SAR modes for imaging targets



(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5751
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/8/2020 7:04:26 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:


Uh... every entry for the MQ-8B in the CMO database except for the RDR-1700 variant (with the radar) has a camera+laser designator package

I'll do some more checking. To date only the MQ-8C specifically had the Brite Star package. Thanks for the MQ-8B information.
Logged.
-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to Grazyn)
Post #: 5752
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/8/2020 8:17:49 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Weapon id #3627 'Laser Shot(Solid State Fiber) 10nm, AAW & ASuW

Logged, fixed in next DB3K update.
-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 5753
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/10/2020 11:29:20 AM   
KLAB

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel#Tamar_and_Spey
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/

#2805 - P 2XX Forth [River Class, Batch 2] (United Kingdom - 2018)

Name change request to lead ship of class Batch 2 River class OPV UK RN- #2805 - P 222 HMS Forth [River Class, Batch 2] (United Kingdom - 2018)

Add 2 x Weapon mount #2481 7.62mm Mk77 Mod 0 mini gun - just visible toward the rear of the bridge highlighted between the mast and funnel is a 7.62mm Minigun and there is one port and starboard - #2481 7.62mm Mk77 Mod 0 mini gun is closest ship mounted equivalent in the DB3k.

Thanks,

K




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by KLAB -- 4/10/2020 1:41:40 PM >

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5754
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/10/2020 12:37:22 PM   
Parel803

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 10/10/2019
From: Netherlands
Status: online
Possible update/addition to DE3K

HNLMS Rotterdam had har MLU and is currently doing her workup phase:
She got the Thales NS-106 radar (slightly different form the NS-100),
and a gatekeeper 360 visual ID system (short range, specially for a-symetric warfare). She is sheduled to get vigile-D in 2021.
It looks like she's got a KH Sharp Eye on the back and two or 3 Nav on the bridge. (could be KH I ARPA, KH E/F ARPA and Scout, but I'm guessing.
https://marineschepen.nl/schepen/rotterdam.html (sorry is in Dutch) At the bottom is a small tabel.
https://naviesworldwide.com/navy-news/hnlms-rotterdam-halfway-in-midlife-update/
https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Electronic-warfare-gaat-digitaal-met-Vigile-D-20200213.html
https://www.marinetraffic.com/nl/ais/details/ships/shipid:225671/mmsi:244159000/imo:9109756/vessel:HNLMS_ROTTERDAM (image new conf)


For the Class name
Most consider The Rotterdam and Johan de Witt as seperate classes. Also iaw Jane's Fighting Ships 13/14
Commissioned RDAM 1998 JWIT 2007
Sidenr RDAM L800 JWIT L801
Displacement full load RDAM 12,955 JWIT 16,948
Dimensions RDAM 166 x 25 x 5,9 JWIT 176,4 x 29,2 x 6,7
Flightdeck RDAM 56 x 25 JWIT 58 x 25
Speed RDAM 18 JWIT 17
Range RDAM 6000 at 12 JWIT 10000 at 12
Complement RDAM 136 JWIT 120
Military lift personel RDAM 538 JWIT 585
Military lift cargo RDAM 170 APV or 33 MBT, 2 LCU & 3 LCVP JWIT 170 APV or 33 MBT, 4 LCVP &2 LCU or 2 LCM
Both RHIB's & FRISC's (FRISC not 100% certainty for RDAM)
Helicopter RDAM/JWIT 6 x NH90 or 4 Merlin/SeaKing
Both 2x Goalkeeper, 9x 12,7 mm, 2x 7,62mm, SRBOC
JWIT has Variant radar en is scheduled to get Tahales Vigile-D ESM in 2021

If more info is required, let me known and I'll try to find it

with regards

_____________________________


(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 5755
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/11/2020 4:07:37 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I have been advocating for the Tu-22M series having AS-16 Kickbacks since I started with CMANO years ago now.

Ryan,
Logged. Did some checking and it seems that these Kickback rotary launchers applied only to Tu-22M-3 variants. Conventional and nuclear systems added for these aircraft in next DB release.

-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to LORDPrometheus)
Post #: 5756
RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues - 4/12/2020 9:52:48 PM   
Venom63

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/28/2019
Status: offline
correction required
Nave Cavour 550 has two Strales system and not one:
one is in the bow has reported in database: https://www.pressmare.it//it/istituzioni/marina-militare/2019/7-21/22068/la-portaerei-cavour-della-marina-militare.jpg
the second is in the back rightcorner : https://livenetwork.blob.core.windows.net/news/688502/635512155253767814_Panoramica_senza_titolo1_HomeIm_800x400.jpg
thanks

< Message edited by Venom63 -- 4/14/2020 11:56:51 AM >

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5757
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/13/2020 9:03:44 AM   
spec111

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/30/2014
Status: offline
Hello! I found another mistake in current DB!

Mig-27K is not an "afganistan mod" of Mig-27! The main propose of Mig-27K is precision strikes with TV-Laser targeting complex "Kaira-23". And in fact Mig-27K had only minor use in Afganistan.

But i still dont get two major points:
1. Why Kaira-23 on Mig-27K is 1st Gen TV-camera, but Kaira-24 on Su-24M is 2nd Gen TV-camera, while both of them were developed under same program "Kaira" and were officially fielded in early 1980?
2. Why do similar American systems, even those developed much earlier, i.e. AN/ASX-1 TISEO, have 20 times greater range? 2 miles on the MiG-27K and Su-24M against 40 miles on the Phantoms!? This is simply incorrect from a historical point of view. Yes, the soviets were inferior regarding the introduction of FLIRs, but with this intermediate-generation electro-optics they were very good. Actually, this is the main reason for the forced introduction of FLIRs in the West. Moreover, TISEO is an air-to-air targeting system. But the database indicates that it has the ability to search for ground mobile targets! With a range of 40 miles! But this is not true! AN/ASQ-153 Pave Spike was responsible at Phantoms for search and guidance of ground targets, and of course it never had such ranges... Huh.

Have a nice day.



_____________________________


(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5758
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/13/2020 10:00:01 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1326
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Name change request to lead ship of class Batch 2 River class OPV UK RN- #2805 - P 222 HMS Forth [River Class, Batch 2] (United Kingdom - 2018)

Logged, in next update.
-WS

_____________________________

“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to KLAB)
Post #: 5759
RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? - 4/15/2020 11:37:25 PM   
Garetjaxusmc

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/15/2020
Status: offline
Good evening- I'd like to help contribute and have been seeing some issues/questions with the database that I'd like to bring up.

1- Some countries have no entries whatsoever (with the exception of the weapons part of the database). (Abu Dhabi, for example.) If there are no military units specifically tied to a country, is the country entry a placeholder for future updates? (I'd like to throw some contributions, but don't want to waste developer time if they aren't going to be updated.)

2. I'm showing Turkmenistan as a double entry in the country selection list. (One is blank except for weapons, the other has only a single ship entry (ship_2419).

3. Minor detail- Kyrgyzstan is misspelled as Kyrgistan.

4. I'm assuming that not every single little unit that exists will be put into here, but if we were to find military units for a country that has military units but doesn't exist in the database (for example Georgia), will there be consideration to add that country?

5. Last question on this post, I promise- is there a set of standards that have to be met for a unit to be added? (A picture, multiple sources indicating that a unit does exist, that sort of thing?) I ask because there are a few countries that have at least common aircraft that I would like to contribute- like Kazakhstan with their MiG-29 or Su-25 units.)

Thank you for your time!

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 5760
Page:   <<   < prev  190 191 [192] 193 194   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues Page: <<   < prev  190 191 [192] 193 194   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

0.219