I know the official database (Brad's HCDB-xxxxxx) is maintained so as to be workable with old scenarios written on any of its predecessors, and with all else being as is this is necessary but I have this following thought (collection of thoughts).

The most recent battlesets' built in scenarios (say in EC2003 family of battlesets) are getting old. In some future release/patch/upgrade I see a need for perhaps post 2010 era scenarios built in to battlesets. Also some of the battlesets have no built in scenarios and these ideally should have some.

The official database is filling up the loadout annex space, it has some entries included as workarounds that are now unnecessary and better not used (eg sam barges) and it has platforms and weapons that are pretty outdated.

If we had a pruned version of the HCDB that had old outdated and undesirable items removed we could write new scenarios for these envisioned modern battlesets, solve the loadout annex problem and use that DB to replace the official in the up grade. (The last version of the current official DB would be included (perhaps with some of the other databases for older eras) to run the EC2003s etc and custom scenarios written on it).

Is this a hairbrained idea? Is it just too much work? Is it unnecessary? Is it none of these?

Don (who should perhaps be doing more and thinking less?)

As I am sure you can imagine, Don, this topic has been on my mind for quite some time and its come up now and again in chatter between Tony and I.

 

There are a few platforms that would be freed up by slipping the HCDB out from under the chains of the legacy scenarios, especially in the Installations Annex.

 

However, even if I were to do so, it wouldn't get us quite as far as I would like to go.

 

The real solution lies in breaking through the hard ceiling in the annexes altogether.

Don, you are doing quite a lot and thinking is expressly allowed . Brad and I do indeed frequently have the database chat...

 

Some of my thoughts summarized and blatantly ignoring the time required of the database author(s).

• Ideal - massively increase possible items per annex
  
  • Con - requires heavy development time and is frustrated by 16-bit SE
    
  • Con - likely no backwards compatibility, existing scenarios would have to run with existing databases and battlesets
    
  • Pro - massively increases items per annex
    
  • Pro - Makes many wishes possible
    
    • Combine multiple databases (aka stamp work of each author) and ideally present the scenario designer with one huge database where they can more effectively filter entries (all F-15 created by CV32 for instance).
      
    • Could eliminate the need for each DB author to maintain multiple copies of the same data (i.e. F-14A in each of HCDB, HCDA, HCCW,...)
      
    • On the combining multiple databases front with the right tools it would allow a DB author (or pretended like me) to re-apply custom mods to Brad's platforms. My example is the 110nm Phoenix. If Brad changes the range of a F-14 loadout I want that change but I want to keep my 110nm Phoenix in my TonyE copy of CV32 F-14D. That's heavily into dream category though.
      

  [*]Nifty - double possible items per annex. Due to clever design the database works but to achieve some of that cleverness only 2048 of 4096 entries per annex can be used. It is possible to transition to close to 4096 useable.

  • Con - requires moderate development time
    
  • Con - just delays the issue and only provides a singular benefit instead of opening up broader capability
    
  • Pro - moderate development time and might just be possible with 16-bit SE
    

  [*]Good - Brad freezes HCDB in time and 'starts fresh'

  • Pro - no development time required
    
  • Con - just delays the issue
    

  [*]Status Quo - Continue as we are with stingy updates to loadouts and installations annex

  • Pro - no development time required
    
  • Con - Really puts a crimp in expansion of the database, especially with China changes and all of the reactions that will provoke from other countries.
    

 

Overall I definitely don't have the time to implement nifty or ideal, especially with the expansion to multi-sided still in the early phases so while it is nice to acknowledge that there are better solutions (see Noxious' wishlist as well for gritty details) there is little to no chance of them seeing development time in the next 12-24 months.

Don't worry, I keep on paper, tables and parallel and unpublishied DBs all the research I do in all the possible time periods for future merge in futures DBs or future game systems

Yeah, I guess that the database question is pretty complex in ways, it actually wasn't my main thought but where my thinking got me (the database was kind of my deadend).

I'm thinking about what the 'harpoon classic' set up will look like in another twenty years (and it will be around I'm sure). We currently have kind of era oriented families of battlesets as a hand me down from the old in built database. I think there is a need to know how we should be working towards continuing this and expanding it so that the official release also has say 'cold war' grouped scenarios (there are getting some pretty good custom scenarios).

With a super database capability such as Tony describes then every thing could grow on it, but it will be a long time coming and is it better than 'era' based databases? (I find era based databases good to write with as I don't have to figure out if particular platforms are legit inclusions)

I guess what I'm wondering is how best (may be status quo) we should be heading so as to attract the best scenarios to go into currently 'empty' battlesets and to represent current era circumstances (will they go into EC2003 family of battlesets in a 2018 upgrade release???).

Don