Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post new mods and scenarios here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

ShadowStalker887
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:15 pm

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by ShadowStalker887 »

Hello again, I've managed to find another database issue. This is with the Chinese H/PJ-17 30mm single-barrel gun which seems to have mistakenly been given the stats of a CIWS weapon (%70 accuracy against aircraft/missiles and unable to attack land targets), instead of a it having stats equivalent to a typhoon (%4 accuracy against aircraft/missile, able to attack land targets). This is a rather annoying problem, as it significantly increases the amount of CIWS modern Chinese warships get making them unrealistically harder to hit with AShM's. Thank you for continuing to improve the game and I hope to see this issue fixed soon.

Fixed Thanks!
Rongor
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:35 am
Contact:

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by Rongor »

Hey there,
I request the addition of some sorts of fixed antenna structures to the facilities in the DB.
We currently have some coms buildings, like the Uplink relay station or the Radio/TV station, but there is only the "TV mast" when it comes to actual antennas.
Besides it took me long to eventually detect the TV mast at all while looking for a generic antenna facility, we could use some variety, especially if we keep in mind the size of such facilities.
So I suggest some generic antenna masts of different scale, so we have antennas for all kind of different frequencies and purposes.

Only a suggestion:
- VLF/LF/MF mast
- HF antenna
- VHF/UHF broadcast antenna
- VHF/UHF communications antenna
- satellite uplink
- aeronavigational transmitter (standing for VOR, TACAN, DME, NDB)
- telecommunications mast (interlinking or simply representing cell)
Since these all should represent fixed sites and no mobile antenna sets, they would have heights of some tens up to more than 250 meters. Respectively they require increasing areas on the ground.

alternatively:
As long as there are no actual generic emissions implemented in CMANO to be picked up by SIGINT sensors, we probably could as well work with a simple system of some "generic antenna mast", offering some incremental sizes of let's say 10 meters, 25 meters, 100 meters, 250 meters and higher...
User avatar
edsw
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:05 am
Location: Ukraine

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by edsw »

Please add to the arsenal of MiG-29 SMT and Su-30 SM rocket P-77-1, there are photos of these aircraft launchers AKU-170 in the Russian Air Force, and add to pr. 636 Varshavyanka 2 not launch device 3m14 and 3m54 missiles and launching devices 4.
Sorry for my English)
Image
JamitovHymem
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:08 pm

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by JamitovHymem »

The Petr Velikiy has a naming issue
The 2023 version is currently named 1144.2 and the 1999 version is named 1144.2M

There seems to be something wrong with the J-10C in the database
The image belongs to Su30MKK2
And everything else are exactly the same as J-10B including sensors and weapons

Z-10: The Z-10 in game uses 12.7mm gun
Z-10 and Z-19 both lacks TY-90 in game
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by Dysta »

ORIGINAL: JamitovHymem
There seems to be something wrong with the J-10C in the database
The image belongs to Su30MKK2
And everything else are exactly the same as J-10B including sensors and weapons

I think it's just a new unannounced unit in SP1, definitely worth to search info about it for adjustment. As for picture, report issue here:
tm.asp?m=3441939
ORIGINAL: JamitovHymem
Z-10: The Z-10 in game uses 12.7mm gun
Z-10 and Z-19 both lacks TY-90 in game
I think it's because PLA never disclose what exactly the caliber of Z-10 gun using at all, as well as the thin barrel make observers harder to believe it's 23mm, or anything larger than 12.7mm.

Anyone need a ruler for this picture?

Image

As for Z-19, the pylon it used does shown in CCTV before:

Image

It's very familiar to this, which is confirmed to mount TY-90:

Image

However, none of a Z-19 being photographed with TY-90, even with this pylon installed. And it does have some doubts of Z-19 capable to use it or not.

Although the older Z-9W (attack helicopter version of Z-9) was shown TY-90 being loaded, it never been seen again afterward for many years.
JamitovHymem
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:08 pm

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by JamitovHymem »

youtube.co m/watch?v=U4hjLLAunfk
But in the news it says 30mm
and later it also mentions that they both have the ability to use the TY-90
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by Dysta »

ORIGINAL: JamitovHymem

youtube.co m/watch?v=U4hjLLAunfk
But in the news it says 30mm
and later it also mentions that they both have the ability to use the TY-90
Well, I found what you've mentioned:

Image

Left side wrote 30mm auto-cannon.

Image

Second row, (capable to use) Helicopter-specific AAM (refer to TY-90).

CCTV/CNTV is definitely the state-running news, but also quite common that quoting wrong military sources, pictures and specifications. Still, it's only the source that is came from the governmental mouthpiece.

How contradicting, isn't it?

Now, what we need to search for is pictures, I mean the photography-quality pictures, of Z-19 with TY-90, and a single cartridge of Z-10 30mm shell, then it will be convincing for devs.
JamitovHymem
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:08 pm

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by JamitovHymem »

In addition to the names, there seem to be some errors on the sensors of the two Petr Velikiy
The sensors on the 2019 version are newer than the ones on the 2023 refit version
Dimitris
Posts: 13400
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: CrazyIvan101
ORIGINAL: emsoy
ORIGINAL: Excroat3
Quick question, will the new version of the DB be released along with 11.5? Also, is there a general timeframe on the release of 11.5? Just wondering if I should wait for the new units to come out in the new DB or if I should just use placeholders for the time being in my scenario.

Soon, very soon (I hope, lol!).
I heard that laser mechanics were going to improved/changed, is this still planned?

It is. If you have a specific mechanics addition/improvement to suggest, please use the dedicated thread for this.
VIF2NE
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:41 am

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by VIF2NE »

3MD BISON-C - 1960 series production bomber with engines VD-7B, pointed nose with a bar at the end of refueling. Equipped with a sighting and navigation system with circular-looking radar "Rubin" (2 cm, the detection range of large terrestrial radio-goals - 400 km, a large ship - 200-250 km, all-round visibility).

M-4 BISON
Bomber radar sight of the RPB-4 (PUFF BALL). In the stern - radar control aft gun mount "Argon". At 3M an optical bombsight PB-11, autopilot and navigation and bombing NBA automatic warning system on the irradiation of the enemy radar, 3 block release chaff, jamming station SPS-2, AFA-42 aerial camera, or a modification of the night.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-247.html
User avatar
edsw
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:05 am
Location: Ukraine

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by edsw »

militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-211.html
User avatar
edsw
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:05 am
Location: Ukraine

RE: New USN frigate: FF 29

Post by edsw »

correct the sonar pr.636 Varshavyanka to sonar MGK-400EM
//militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-722.html
correct the sonar pr.677 Lada to sonar Lira
//militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-217.html
sorry for my English, and I do not know how to insert links
Showtime 100_MatrixForum
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:47 am

F-35/F-22 RCS

Post by Showtime 100_MatrixForum »

A bit vague as there are (obviously) no exact numbers available, but public statements by the USAF suggest that the F-35's RCS is lower than the F-22's (at least from some aspects):

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... roach.aspx
ORIGINAL: Air Force Magazine, USAF Generals Christopher Bogden and Mike Hostage

Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35. Hostage also said the F-35 would be unbeatable when employed in numbers, which is why the full buy of aircraft is "so critical."

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.


http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen- ... -starts/3/
ORIGINAL: Breaking Defense, General Mike Hostage
The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.

I recognize that these aren't exactly exact numbers, but I thought it could be worth tweaking their RCS to reflect these statements. It's up to the devs in the end, of course, as it's not my game :)
Broncepulido
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:12 pm

RE: F-35/F-22 RCS

Post by Broncepulido »

Previously, in 2005:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 51125.aspx
The U.S. Air Force, in it's effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how "stealthy" the F-22 is. It's RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.

The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology.

Some similar statements here in 2012, linking to globalsecurity.org:
https://www.strategypage.com/militaryfo ... ofcomments
And ausairpower.net
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01. ... TocId93619
Vici Supreme
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:06 pm
Location: Southern Germany

RE: F-35/F-22 RCS

Post by Vici Supreme »

I'm trying to add the submunitions variant of the SS-26 Stone [9M723 Iskander-M] (DBID #567) to an Iskander battalion, however the missile does not show up in the "Add Weapon Record" and "Add Weapon Mount" tabs. Not sure what'S going on. Am I missing something?

Btw, the submunitions variant of the 9M723 Iskander-M is labeled with a 2010 side note in the DB viewer. Mind adding those to both, 2010/DBID #254 and 2012/DBID #2556 versions of the Iskander battalions in the Russian DB section? Already got a use for those.
Image

Honestly, thanks for the ongoing support of this amazing sim! [:)]
Attachments
Iskander Screenshot.jpg
Iskander Screenshot.jpg (52.89 KiB) Viewed 2 times
Image
Showtime 100_MatrixForum
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:47 am

RE: F-35/F-22 RCS

Post by Showtime 100_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: Broncepulido

Previously, in 2005:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 51125.aspx

Some similar statements here in 2012, linking to globalsecurity.org:
https://www.strategypage.com/militaryfo ... ofcomments
And ausairpower.net
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01. ... TocId93619

Post-2012 statements seem to tell a different story. Here's one from 2014, sourcing an F-22 pilot: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ight-stuff
ORIGINAL: AOPA
During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”

APA's physical optics approach is... well, I'm not going to suggest it's quite as bad as a random number generator, but it's not far from it.
Lnestig
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:43 am

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Lnestig »

Regarding the JAS 39C/D 2016 and 2018 versions.

I think they should be able to carry the RB 99 not just the Meteor.
Sweden also have bought a small number of AIM-120C-5 missiles, is it possible to add a loadout with these?

Thanks

mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by mikmykWS »

Updated request list to this point

Thanks!

Mike
Skjold
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:00 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Skjold »

Etendard IVP #67 seems like it is missing its internal recon loadout.

It is a recon plane with no loadout other then Tanker loadout, i am almost 100 % it can be used as a tanker so no error there just rather the lack of the recon one.
jun5896
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by jun5896 »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-25_Stingray

New Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System (CBARS) UAV (2021?)

RAQ-25 was officially renamed as MQ-25
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”