April 23, 201214 yr I have a few questions about the DB and please excuse my ignorance on the subject, Ive been away from harpoon for several years now. I'm currently putting together some scenarios in the westpac battleset and I'm running into a few problems. I am trying to construct the scenarios reasonably realistically, Some of it is hypothetical but I'm not doing things like giving Singapore an aircraft carrier but I am using platforms that won't be in service until the 2015-2020 time frame. The problem is the huge buildup in forces in the area. When I look up some ships, I find several variations of the same hull being used and the DB doesn't include all of them. Some of the variations are minor but some could potentially have a decent impact on gameplay. I'd rather not use a custom DB to construct these scenarios but I will if that is what seems to be necessary. I guess I'll just list my questions for whoever wants to answer them. 1. will openoffice work with the editor? 2. My understanding is the current DB is pretty much full, correct? 3. if so, are the any plans to start a new DB based more on the year 2000 and later timeline?
April 23, 201214 yr Brad is the expert, but about The problem is the huge buildup in forces in the area. When I look up some ships, I find several variations of the same hull being used and the DB doesn't include all of them. Some of the variations are minor but some could potentially have a decent impact on gameplay. The standard DB is theorically that of the timeframe 1980-2015, but some months ago we perceived the DB was frozen near 1991, and a lot of platforms between 1980-1991 deleted. The last months we're reconstructing the lost platforms. That include ship names in some classes, but other are just lacking by now. Brad also has researched painfully some classes (as example the DD Spruance), and clearly not all the ships have the same gears the same timeframe, and other never were equipped with the same gear (as example the various types of towed-array sonar employed by the Spruances). As consecuence, for a concrete variant of a concrete ship class, not all the ship names will be included in that entry. About 1. will openoffice work with the editor? 2. My understanding is the current DB is pretty much full, correct? 3. if so, are the any plans to start a new DB based more on the year 2000 and later timeline? 1. I've not idea. 2. Yes, but as it will end in 2015, we're now fulling the "holes". The main limitation is the 2047 or so maximum number of each item, full in the Instalations annex, and near full in the Loadouts annex. 3. I hope yes Casually, the last hours I don't can open the sinodefence.com site ....
April 23, 201214 yr 1. will openoffice work with the editor? No, Open Office does not have the ability to handle MS Access files. However, you can use the MS Access runtime. A very old version is included but not installed with the game (Access 97 runtime). You can use any of the newer 'free' runtimes as well such as Access 2010 runtime http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=10910 (even if you have Windows 7 64-bit I would suggest the 32-bit runtime (aka first link)). We'll be happy to help you get rolling with whatever configuration you choose. 2. My understanding is the current DB is pretty much full, correct? In terms of the prolific database maintainers like Enrique and Brad, yes. In terms of people like me who may add 2-3 platforms per year, not so much. You can branch your own copy of the database from CV32/Brad's work (with his permission ideally) and add your own platforms to that or re-purposes any entries you aren't going to use. The bummer is that there is no good way to get your changes back into the public HCDB, you no longer benefit from the edits Brad makes in the future. I have lots of ideas on overcoming and/or marginalizing the limitations but none of the possible solutions will be usable any time in the foreseeable future.
April 24, 201214 yr 3. if so, are the any plans to start a new DB based more on the year 2000 and later timeline? Your first two questions have been answered, so ... My answer to #3 is, unfortunately, "no". I have no plans to launch a new DB once the HCDB has reached its maximum capacity. There are some side projects, including some DB work, that will hopefully get more attention when it happens.
April 25, 201214 yr Author Discussion moved here from the 'Requests for the HCDB' thread. I installed access runtime 2010 32 bit with no problems and the editor seems to work fine. The editor seems pretty simple especially because of the fact that if I add anything it will largely consist of copying an existing platform and selecting slightly different weapons. One question on this subject though, is this instruction guide still current? http://www.harpoonpages.com/ftp/HC2002_GOL..._User_Guide.htm If i decide to do a custom database I plan on modifying existing platforms that are no longer in service e.g.. Iowa class battleships entry modified into a frigate My reservations about doing this are mainly that I don't like a totally new DB that splits off from the standard database. I'm hoping to put together about a dozen scenarios in the westpac battleset and I question the necessity of a new DB for just 12 scenarios. The problem I am having is all the frigate sized ships being built (or planned) in this part of the world. Any advice as to the pros and cons is welcome.
April 25, 201214 yr One question on this subject though, is this instruction guide still current? http://www.harpoonpages.com/ftp/HC2002_GOL..._User_Guide.htm Yes, in most respects. (The HULL, for example, is no longer around, having for all intents and purposes moved to Facebook). This one, HCCE DB Editing Guide, will perhaps be more useful to you, though neither were completed to the degree we had hoped. If i decide to do a custom database I plan on modifying existing platforms that are no longer in service e.g.. Iowa class battleships entry modified into a frigate. My reservations about doing this are mainly that I don't like a totally new DB that splits off from the standard database. I'm hoping to put together about a dozen scenarios in the westpac battleset and I question the necessity of a new DB for just 12 scenarios. The problem I am having is all the frigate sized ships being built (or planned) in this part of the world. Any advice as to the pros and cons is welcome. Am I correct in thinking that most of your ideas for platforms are on the fictional or hypothetical side of the coin?
April 25, 201214 yr Author Am I correct in thinking that most of your ideas for platforms are on the fictional or hypothetical side of the coin? Fictional? no Hypothetical? only in that the ships in question haven't been completed yet. I am basically looking at the 2015 -2020 timeframe and what hulls should be in service at that time based on construction plans and purchasing lists. A couple examples are the Sigma 10514 and the project 15A and B in India.
April 25, 201214 yr Hypothetical? only in that the ships in question haven't been completed yet. I am basically looking at the 2015 -2020 timeframe and what hulls should be in service at that time based on construction plans and purchasing lists. A couple examples are the Sigma 10514 and the project 15A and B in India. If that's the case then I'm not sure the requests cannot be accommodated. Excerpt from the HCDB FAQ: The platforms (ships, submarines, aircraft, installations, and weapon systems) contained in the HCDB cover (generally speaking) the 1980-2015 era, but this is not a hard and fast rule, and there are some exceptions, including platforms from the Vietnam era and some platforms that are purely hypothetical. If you have a relatively clear idea of what you will be needing, post the requests in the 'requests for HCDB' thread and we can work from there.
April 25, 201214 yr My reservations about doing this are mainly that I don't like a totally new DB that splits off from the standard database. I'm hoping to put together about a dozen scenarios in the westpac battleset and I question the necessity of a new DB for just 12 scenarios. The problem I am having is all the frigate sized ships being built (or planned) in this part of the world. Any advice as to the pros and cons is welcome. Pros of your own DB: You can add and modify platforms however you desire Instead of generic installations you can tailor them exactly to your needs You can take lemons and make lemonade by packaging your scenarios, database, and only the WestPac area you need by using the Battleset Builder. This way your results are easy to use, have a map specific to your area of ops, and carries your own custom battleset description. Cons: You don't get the benefit of future HCDB database updates If you don't package into a battleset, users will have a tougher time getting your scenarios to work
April 25, 201214 yr Author Hypothetical? only in that the ships in question haven't been completed yet. I am basically looking at the 2015 -2020 timeframe and what hulls should be in service at that time based on construction plans and purchasing lists. A couple examples are the Sigma 10514 and the project 15A and B in India. If that's the case then I'm not sure the requests cannot be accommodated. Excerpt from the HCDB FAQ: The platforms (ships, submarines, aircraft, installations, and weapon systems) contained in the HCDB cover (generally speaking) the 1980-2015 era, but this is not a hard and fast rule, and there are some exceptions, including platforms from the Vietnam era and some platforms that are purely hypothetical. If you have a relatively clear idea of what you will be needing, post the requests in the 'requests for HCDB' thread and we can work from there. That will work. I was just reluctant to ask for additions that might be used rather rarely. I'm already limiting my wishlist to what I consider to be somewhat relevant platforms. In other words I won't be asking for a gunboat with a 20mm gun as it only armament to be added. I'll try to supply links with the data on each platform I request.
May 9, 201214 yr Author ok now I have another question that has me stumped. It's not major just annoying. When I look at the DF21 ASBM in the scenario editor it shows as a land attack missile but when I look at it in HUCE it shows as sea attack. Why is that? I have the current version HCDB installed.
May 16, 201214 yr ok now I have another question that has me stumped. It's not major just annoying. When I look at the DF21 ASBM in the scenario editor it shows as a land attack missile but when I look at it in HUCE it shows as sea attack. Why is that? I have the current version HCDB installed. The DF-21A is a land attack version. The DF-21D is the ship attack version. If the DF-21D is showing as 'land' attack in the SE, then it must be a quirk in the SE. Report it using the Issue Tracker but I expect it will be a low priority issue.
Create an account or sign in to comment