Thread for DB3000 database problems, updates or issues

Post new mods and scenarios here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

BDukes
Posts: 1798
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by BDukes »

ORIGINAL: stilesw
Not sure if true in CMO but in CMANO if unit not have the Mk.1 eyeball the game was hardcode to give.
Mr. Stilesw does game still do this? Pretty easy to test. Remove radar sensor and see if unit sees something when fly over in visual ranges.
Bill,

I found the problem. The YLC-6M had been designated as a building instead of a mobile unit. The former does not have the Mk1 eyeball while vehicles do. re-designated as mobile and the eyeball now appears in the next DB3K release.

Thanks for you and Tookatee for finding this.

-Wayne

Hi Wayne

If game already give eyeball to all unit like CMANO did this may save you ton of work. If not...very sorry you have to add eyeball to everythings now[8|]

Regards thank for looking into and responding

Bill
Don't call it a comeback...
User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by stilesw »

If game already give eyeball to all unit like CMANO
I checked DB3K, and used the Database Viewer in CMANO, CMO and the Pro Edition and did not find that the Mk1 Eyeball was a default for every facility. Yes for mobile vehicles and personnel but no for fixed units. So, I believe the problem only exists for units incorrectly categorized as a fixed versus mobile unit. These can be fixed as/when identified.

-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)
BDukes
Posts: 1798
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by BDukes »

ORIGINAL: stilesw
If game already give eyeball to all unit like CMANO
I checked DB3K, and used the Database Viewer in CMANO, CMO and the Pro Edition and did not find that the Mk1 Eyeball was a default for every facility. Yes for mobile vehicles and personnel but no for fixed units. So, I believe the problem only exists for units incorrectly categorized as a fixed versus mobile unit. These can be fixed as/when identified.

-WS

Cool, thank you Wayne.

Bill
Don't call it a comeback...
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Tookatee »

The #174 City, #1778 Town, and #1779 Village are all missing the Mk.1 Eyeball sensor despite the presence of a "Generic Spotlight" sensor (of which requires non-blind humans to operate.)
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Primarchx »

F-16V (Block 70/72) models for Bahrain, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Taiwan, Morocco
HMS Eagle (R08) CV and last RN CTOL naval aircraft (Phantom, Bucc, Gannet) for what-if scenarios in the '80s.
jun5896
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by jun5896 »

USAF and Air National Guard F-16C change AN/APG-83 AESA Radar

Image

Image

https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... lls-radar/
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 67.article
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digi ... ns-update/
https://www.airforcemag.com/northrop-gr ... 16-radars/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... e-missiles
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... ar-upgrade


Also South Korea (ROKAF), Singapore, Bahrain, Greece, Indonesia, Morocco will receive F-16C Viper upgraded model aircraft(AN/APG-83 and JHMCS II) in 2020 ~ 2025

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/air ... gen-radar/
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26147 ... ESA_Radars
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /kf-16.htm

KAI to update Link 16 datalink for RoKAF’s FA-50 aircraft

https://www.janes.com/article/93049/kai ... 0-aircraft


ROKAF F-16 Block 30/32 Peace Bridge was updated with Link-16, AIM-120B, AIM-9M, JDAM

https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/south-k ... n-targets/
Defense Industry Daily reports that 35 KF-16 fighter jets have been upgraded so far and are now capable of firing the AIM-120 mid-range air-to-air missile and drop the GBU-31JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) air-to-ground guided bomb. The $250 million upgrade of the 35 fighter jets is part of the ROKAF’s so-called F-16 Peace Bridge Upgrade (PBU) program initiated in November 2009.

The GBU-31 JDAM is a guidance tail kit that converts unguided bombs—for example, the 2,000-pound BLU-109/MK 84, the 1,000-pound BLU-110/MK 83 or the 500-pound BLU-111/MK 8 warheads—into guided air-to-surface weapons. “The upgraded F-16 PBUs will have the same capability of the KF-16 jets and will operate as the main combat planes charged with defending South Korea’s air,” according to an unnamed ROKAF official.

The ROKAF currently operates 170 KF-16C/D Block 50/52 fighter aircraft, 134 of which will be undergoing extensive modernization and upgrades. In November, Lockheed Martin was awarded a $1.2 billion contract to upgrade the 134 aircraft based on the advanced F-16V configuration—the latest and technologically most advanced version of the fourth generation fighter jet.






User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by stilesw »

The #174 City, #1778 Town, and #1779 Village are all missing the Mk.1 Eyeball
Please see above. Only mobile, manned units have the Mk.1 Eyeball.

-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)
14yellow14
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:47 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by 14yellow14 »

Hi!

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

In a European first, the French Navy (Marine Nationale) demonstrated a cooperative engagement between two of its surface vessels. The “Veille Coopérative Navale” test took place in September 2019.

As part of the GABIAN 19.3 High Intensity Training, air defense destroyer Forbin engaged for the first time an ASTER 30 missile against a target drone that was tracked and targeted by another vessel (FREMM Languedoc).

The “Veille Coopérative Navale” (naval cooperative watch) is a capability currently under development based on the principle of networking all the data of the sensors of a naval air force. It differs from tactical data linking by exchanging raw and much more accurate information directly from sensors, not from elaborate data. In the future, with the Veille Coopérative Navale , the French Navy will have an optimized picture of the threat and sufficient information to implement even more effectively an anti missile system, facilitating the choice of the most suitable platform to deal with the threat, in a similar fashion to the American CEC (cooperative engagement capability) system.

Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Tookatee »

I thought that meant that the entries with the "mobile" type are the one's that are automatically given the sensor. But can't the Mk.1 Eyeball be manually added onto an entry?
User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by stilesw »

I thought that meant that the entries with the "mobile" type are the one's that are automatically given the sensor. But can't the Mk.1 Eyeball be manually added onto an entry?
Actually, no. The Mk.1 Eyeball is not a separate sensor, like radar, sonar, IR, etc. that is an item in the database that can be assigned to any unit. It is hard wired into the code for mobile, manned units.

FWIW, one simplistic way to have a building benefit from an eyeball is to group the building with a mobile unit.

-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)
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Tookatee »

Would it be possible to create a "new" sensor that would have exactly the same name and stats as the current Mk.1 Eyeball but be able to be added to any entry like those other sensors? Or along the same vein of thought, create a clone of the "mobile vehicle" category (maybe call it "Manned Structure" or something) that you could apply onto the affected structures so that they'd be able to automatically be given the current Mk.1 Eyeball?

And to add onto that my entry for today will be the #617 Guard Post (of which is also missing the Mk.1 Eyeball and Generic Binoculars sensors despite being a literal guard post.)
User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by stilesw »

Would it be possible to create a "new" sensor that would have exactly the same name and stats as the current Mk.1 Eyeball
Hmmm.I'll check.

-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)
CrazyIvan101
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:14 am

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by CrazyIvan101 »

The F-15CX (4791) and F-15EX (4771) should have an AN/APG-82 instead of the AN/APG-63(V)3.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... enaissance

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... gle-f-15x/

Could the AIM-260 JATM be added to these platforms too as they will replace the AIM-120?
CrazyIvan101
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:14 am

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by CrazyIvan101 »

The US F-35A (4876) is missing the AIM-260 JATM and AARGM-ER/SiAW (Stand in Attack Weapon).

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ike-weapon
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Tookatee »

All combat variants of the American and South Korean F-16 and all variants of the South Korean KF-16 are missing the capability to equip unguided rocket loadouts in the form of the #1929 HYDRA Rocket. All these variants of the F-16 are capable of equipping either: a maximum of eight LAU-68 rocket pods, with a capability of seven rockets per pod for a total of 56 rockets; or, a maximum of four of the LAU-61 rocket pods, with a capacity of 19 rockets per pod for a total of 57 rockets. They can also equip between two-six of the LAU-68/LAU-131/A pods for a maximum capability of only 42 rockets, but this configuration frees up two additional hardpoints on the wings that can be used for other ordinance.

Additionally, loadouts consisting of the x6 LAU-131/A pods (for a total of 42 APWKS) and x2 LAU-131/A pods (for a total of 14 APWKS) are also missing.

So in short the following loadouts need to be added to the aircraft indicated in the end parenthesis (note the aircraft in these parenthesis only denote the variants I mentioned above):

x2 AAM's specific to the database entry + x42 #1929 70mm HYDRA Rocket + Assorted remaining ordinance/sensor pods/fuel tanks specific to each database entry (All mentioned F-16/KF-16's)

x2 AAM's specific to the database entry + x38 #1929 70mm HYDRA Rocket + Assorted remaining ordinance/sensor pods/fuel tanks specific to each database entry (All mentioned F-16/KF-16's)

x4 LRAAM's (or x2 SRAAM's + x2 LRAAM's) specific to the database entry + x42 #1929 70mm HYDRA Rocket + assorted remaining sensors specific to each database entry (All mentioned F-16's/KF-16's)

x4 LRAAM's (or x2 SRAAM's + x2 LRAAM's) specific to the database entry + x38 #1929 70mm HYDRA Rocket + assorted remaining sensors specific to each database entry (All mentioned F-16's/KF-16's)

x2 AAM's specific to the database entry + x56 #1929 70mm HYDRA Rocket + assorted remaining sensors specific to each database entry (All mentioned F-16's/KF-16's)

x2 AAM's specific to the database entry + x57 #1929 70mm HYDRA Rocket + assorted remaining sensors specific to each database entry (All mentioned F-16's/KF-16's)

A clone of loadout #26309, but with only x42 #3540 APKWS (#4690 and #1047 F-16's)

A clone of loadout #26309, but with only x14 #3540 APKWS (#4690 and #1047 F-16's)

F-16 with only four of the LAU-131/A rocket pods loaded, with room for two more (one under each one of that wing's pylon.)
Image

F-16 with only two x7 LAU-131/A pods (right side pod obscured by fuel tank.)
Image

Sources: SIPRI Arms Transfer Database, https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... ft_id=1071 , https://www.arnolddefense.com/product/lau-131-a-2/, https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploa ... dra-70.pdf (Launcher manufacturer), http://www.ordtech-industries.com/2prod ... RDTECH.pdf (Launcher manufacturer), https://www.gd-ots.com/missiles-and-roc ... /hydra-70/ (Weapon manufacturer), https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... dra-70.htm , and https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equi ... ydra-7.htm
User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by stilesw »

Would it be possible to create a "new" sensor that would have exactly the same name and stats as the current Mk.1 Eyeball
Ok, came up with a possible solution. Creating new building type facilities with an "eyeball" sensor feature would involve making new entries for every non-mobile unit in the database. Not going to do that.

However,based on your request there is a new "sensor" in the database called "Generic Eyeball with Binoculars". This sensor is air, surface and land capable has a 360 degree field of observation and a range of 25 miles. Considering surface coverage I think 25 is more reasonable than the 50 miles for the Mk.1 eyeball.

The sensor allows for IFF (identification friend or foe), class classification and continuous visual tracking.
To add it to a facility like a building select the "sensor" option on the "Unit Status" panel. Add the bottom of the popup screen is the option to "Add Sensor" where you can add the new "Generic Eyeball with Binoculars".

Unfortunately this new feature will not appear in the next DB3K release but will appear in the following update.

Hope you can use this.

“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)
User avatar
CV60
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:40 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by CV60 »

Ok, came up with a possible solution. Creating new building type facilities with an "eyeball" sensor feature would involve making new entries for every non-mobile unit in the database. Not going to do that.

However,based on your request there is a new "sensor" in the database called "Generic Eyeball with Binoculars". This sensor is air, surface and land capable has a 360 degree field of observation and a range of 25 miles. Considering surface coverage I think 25 is more reasonable than the 50 miles for the Mk.1 eyeball.

The sensor allows for IFF (identification friend or foe), class classification and continuous visual tracking.
To add it to a facility like a building select the "sensor" option on the "Unit Status" panel. Add the bottom of the popup screen is the option to "Add Sensor" where you can add the new "Generic Eyeball with Binoculars".

Unfortunately this new feature will not appear in the next DB3K release but will appear in the following update.

Hope you can use this.

Stilesw: That is probably a better choice. IMHO, just because every facility has people with eyeballs, doesn't mean that they have the training, motivation and communications facilities to timely and accurately report what they are seeing to the appropriate command element. By making this an optional sensor, you can create such facilities as a WWII era Observation Corps site, while not having every church, power plant, and tunnel giving timely reports of a B-52 heading to the NW at 50,000 feet
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” -Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by stilesw »

The F-15CX (4791) and F-15EX (4771) should have an AN/APG-82 instead of the AN/APG-63(V)3.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... enaissance
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... gle-f-15x/
Could the AIM-260 JATM be added to these platforms too as they will replace the AIM-120?
Will,

Logged for future 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)
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Tookatee »

Thanks for the work on making a tenable solution, but just to be clear is this going to only be an optional sensor that one must always add manually to a unit or will it also be added to the default sensor listing for database entries where they're erroneously missing some form of human based vision (but don't get the Mk.1 Eyeball by default due to them not being a mobile unit, such as manned observation structures, human operated sensors, or entire population centers?)

I only ask because it'd save a lot of work for scenario designers to not have to: first identify structures erroneously missing a pair of eyes, and then go through and add said sensor to every affected unit in every scenario rather than it just being corrected automatically by using the latest database. Especially since the edge cases of a unit in a scenario making sense to NOT have a pair of eyes is very slim and easily implementable by simply removing the sensor, compared to the very large number of scenarios that benefit from the added realism of manned structures also being able to use their personnel's visual organs.
Tookatee
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:29 pm

RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues?

Post by Tookatee »

The Japanese #345 F-15J and #3384 F-15DJ are missing the "Helmet-Mounted-Sight" property. As apart of receiving the AAM-5 missile, a HMD was included in their upgrades package to facilitate off-boresight shots with the missile.

F-15J pilot with HMD
Image

Image

Sources: https://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pd ... 2_Sec4.pdf , https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... 15j-japan/ , and https://weaponsystems.net/system/217-Mitsubishi+AAM-5
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”