Mgellis Posted May 27, 2012 Report Posted May 27, 2012 I understand the recent release of the b11 version of the HUD 4 v1.1 database (I'm not sure where it was posted; Gunny e-mailed a copy to some of us for testing, scenario design, etc.) will be the last beta before the next full release of ANW. I also know that Gunny has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this database, and the results are incredible, which is why I, greedy as I always am, am hoping he will consider a major expansion for the NEXT version (HUD 4 v 1.2?)... HUD 4 v 1.2 should expand to make its goal to cover all ships, aircraft, and other platforms for which data is available from 1970 to 2020. Rationale... * Increase the range of Cold War conflicts, including historical regional conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the Arab-Israeli wars (I see that some platforms are already included, although I'm not sure if the pre-1980 loadouts are available, etc.) * Increase the range of potential near future conflicts in a changing world, which may see wars fought by and with China in its expanding role as a global power, regional powers such as Turkey and Brazil, etc. The main issue here is simply time and effort. How hard would this be to do? Gunny is a volunteer and he only has so much time he can dedicate to this project. How much of the data for the earlier platforms and the future ones are available? What other issues might appear? Thoughts? Observations? Comments? Quote
TonyE Posted May 27, 2012 Report Posted May 27, 2012 Moved to HUD4/General since this is not a platform issue or request. Quote
JSF Posted May 27, 2012 Report Posted May 27, 2012 Mark, I have my doubts if this works, e.g. Gunny has the time to do that. Going back to 1970 means many more units, expanding up to 2020 means more fictional units. IMO there are already too many fictional units/unrealistic loadouts in, resulting from the SGR battleset´s needs and several wishes. I have never been a fan of Star Wars Databases and I think it is more than enough work for Gunny to get things straight for the 1980 to 2015 timeframe. Quote
Gunny Posted May 28, 2012 Report Posted May 28, 2012 I'll make things clear: I voluntered to go on with Darren's work to pay him a tribute. But it is on my free time, and this is getting increasingly smaller, due to professionnal obligations, and also personnal events that are occuring. It's a bit early to say, but be aware that from September, I'll spend all the weekends far from my HUD4 docs, and I guess there will be little time during the week' s days to cope with numerous additions to the HUD4. HCF files would be greatly accepted. FG Quote
broncepulido Posted May 28, 2012 Report Posted May 28, 2012 HCF files? (this question is in the case I can help with something ...). I don't play usually ANW or Harpoon 3, but I admire you great efforts in the DB Gunny, Thanks! Quote
Gunny Posted May 28, 2012 Report Posted May 28, 2012 Holà Enrique! HCF (Harpoon Compressed Files) files are zipped files generated by the in-game database editor with annexes for the database. The human database editor can then import files, making platform creation much faster. For example, there can be a "F14.hcf" file, with all elements (plane, sensors, propulsion, fuel, loadout annexes). FG Quote
broncepulido Posted May 28, 2012 Report Posted May 28, 2012 HCF (Harpoon Compressed Files) files are zipped files generated by the in-game database editor with annexes for the database. The human database editor can then import files, making platform creation much faster. For example, there can be a "F14.hcf" file, with all elements (plane, sensors, propulsion, fuel, loadout annexes). Ok, thanks, I get the idea, but I left the Harpoon 2 DB editing some 12 years ago, I was maddening with all those logaritmic calculus, I was testing Hispano-American 1898 warships when I saw the game engine was inoperative, and the old DB editor crashed continously ... Quote
Mgellis Posted May 29, 2012 Author Report Posted May 29, 2012 I'll make things clear: I voluntered to go on with Darren's work to pay him a tribute. But it is on my free time, and this is getting increasingly smaller, due to professionnal obligations, and also personnal events that are occuring. It's a bit early to say, but be aware that from September, I'll spend all the weekends far from my HUD4 docs, and I guess there will be little time during the week' s days to cope with numerous additions to the HUD4. HCF files would be greatly accepted. FG This is, of course, the critical issue. I am very impressed by what Gunny has done with the HUD 4 so far, and I am grateful for whatever else he will be able to do, but I understand that he may not be able to dedicate much time to the database in the future. This is, after all, just a hobby for most of us; our real lives--work, family, etc.--have to come first. If I understand Gunny correctly, people could submit individual platforms in the form of hcf files. I would volunteer to do this myself except for the small problem that I have no idea how to do it. But I will try to teach myself. Perhaps this is how it can be done in the future, with other people writing up the additions to the database, and Gunny only having to do the final checking and importing? Would this work better? I was surprised to learn how many platforms would be needed to expand the database back to 1970. Were there really that many classes of ships, etc. that got phased out in the 1970s? Or is it because new loadouts would have to be added to existing platforms? Any other thoughts or observations on this? Quote
Pappystein Posted May 29, 2012 Report Posted May 29, 2012 If I understand Gunny correctly, people could submit individual platforms in the form of hcf files. I would volunteer to do this myself except for the small problem that I have no idea how to do it. But I will try to teach myself. Perhaps this is how it can be done in the future, with other people writing up the additions to the database, and Gunny only having to do the final checking and importing? Would this work better? I was surprised to learn how many platforms would be needed to expand the database back to 1970. Were there really that many classes of ships, etc. that got phased out in the 1970s? Or is it because new loadouts would have to be added to existing platforms? Ok, As an old hat here with throwing platforms out left and Right as well as a long time database editor let me answer this one. 1) HCF files are not pretty and they are not perfect. Each HCF would generate lots of duplicate entries into the database. Then Gunny would have to go through and manually re-edit EACH entry added to the game. Dale, Darren and I learned this the hard way back in the early days of the Reimer editor. The one thing Darren spent the most of his time on in the HUD3 was getting rid of duplicates. The world War III database that Dale and I were working on got so big that it far outstripped our editing capabilities. To avoid that I have started a program I call "Green" HCFs. A Green HCF is simply a bare bones HCF of the platform with only Unique items included (Engine, Fuel load and basic data only.) I then send a "Loadout" or "Warload" Excel sheet that lists all loadouts or magazine/Mounts needed with what quantities of weapons. If Items are still missing (Say a Fin Stabalized Discarding Sabot 8" Shell for Harold's Iowa class upgrade proposals) then the lead editor will e-mail back saying "Please HCF the following additional items and send them for completion of your platform...." The new items can not have any sort of designation system set up in the Green form. Designators will be added only by the lead editor. As you can see, even a HCF is time consuming. 2) Before embarking on a bunch of new platforms, you have to realize that even with all the editing that Saul, Darren and Gunny have done, there is a TON of crap still left in the DB. That is to say platforms that are "Wrong" "Bad" or otherwise in-correct. I have sent Gunny a list of platform data that Darren never got around to fixing (due to limited time.) I am certain that the information I have sent him will keep Gunny occupied for a bit of time as well. The best thing that can be done to answer the request is to START a new database that runs from 1960-1980. In combat aircraft alone you will have close to 8000 entries for that time frame. I count 32 versions of the F-4 Phantom alone! EC-121 Warningstar (predecessor to the E-3 AWACS) has 18 versions. B-52? 13 versions. B-47 Stratojet, 8 versions. F3H Demon? 6 Versions. F4D Skyray 2 versions. MiG-15 Fagot 16 versions atleast (I might have missed a few!) 3) To do a correct database we would have to have several variants of aircraft to meet specific time frames/weapons availability. A perfect example is the F-14 Tomcat: Did you know that in 1982 the VMax(SL) speed restriction was lifted from the F-14A to fly photo-recon missions over Beirut Lebanon at speeds so fast the plane could not be shot down? 4 F-14s were equipped with special latches on their hatches (sorry for the rhyme) and they did not carry their drop tanks. The planes reportedly flew at 850 Kts IAS (indicated Air Speed) at 100 foot altitude. That is about Mach 1.25 at Sea level essentially. What that causes the DB editor to do is 1) create a new version of the TARPS pod that only works at low level. 2) Create a new TF-30 Engine entry that supports 850Kts at Sea level. 3) Create a new F-14 that uses the new TF-30 Entries. 4) Create a new loadout for the new TARPS pod that does not have the drop tanks (they wouldn't survive at that speed.) and 5) Add said entry into the Country.dat file with a proper IOC of 1982 and an OOC of 1982 meaning the airframe can only be used in the year 1982. Ok, Now that I have explained that let me go back and say this. I am certain Gunny will add any platform that will be used and is requested (provided he has the time to do so.) I personally do not have a lot of time myself and have been slowly building my own Database as well as helping Gunny by double checking things for him at his request. If there was a way that we could get paid to do this kind of work full time (and it was enough to live comfortably doing so) it would still be tough to add all the platforms you would need to meet this request. HOWEVER please keep sending information in. Your requests, for platforms that you intend to use are like a spotlight to the editor. IE you are guiding the editor to what is important for them to work on next. Hope that helps you understand why your request are not just instantly met as well as why we still WANT you to send us requests. Thankfully Harpoon3 is not size limited like Commanders Ed of Harpoon is. HOWEVER Logistics causes many issues if not handled correctly. HUD and HUD II did not support logistics at all (they didn't work right back then.) HUD III was started to address the issue with Logistics. The original intent of Darren was to have HUD II and HUD III run simultaneously. First he would create/change the platform in HUD II and quickly get them out, then he would go through and make them work with logistics. That lasted all of one month when the amount of work to make HUD III viable became known. Gunny, Hope I didn't overstep my bounds on this but it is an age old question that has rarely been addressed. Craig P 3rd Editor World War III Database (Dead but inspired two other databases) Editor and Creator World War II Database (Work in Progress) Editor and Creator Common Database (1956-1970) (Canceled) Contributor Common Database (1970-2010) (Canceled.) Contributor HUD I/II/III/IV database Auditor HUD III/IV Database Fact Checker (on request) ADB Database Quote
Mgellis Posted May 29, 2012 Author Report Posted May 29, 2012 Mark, I have my doubts if this works, e.g. Gunny has the time to do that. Going back to 1970 means many more units, expanding up to 2020 means more fictional units. IMO there are already too many fictional units/unrealistic loadouts in, resulting from the SGR battleset´s needs and several wishes. I have never been a fan of Star Wars Databases and I think it is more than enough work for Gunny to get things straight for the 1980 to 2015 timeframe. Now, on this, I have to disagree. I definitely understand the desire to make the database as "real" as possible, but I also find it very convenient to have fictional platforms, especially "what ifs" and "ships that were planned but never built." They are of secondary importance to existing and historical platforms, of course, but it's really nice to have them. As long as they are clearly marked as "fictional" or "projected" (e.g., this platform will enter service in 2021, so what's in the database is merely a best guess of what it will look like), I don't see the harm. For me, it's very simple. The bigger the database, the more stories I can tell. I'm already very happy with the existing database, but if Gunny (and anyone helping him) has time to squeeze in more platforms, existing, historical, or speculative, I'm happy to see them added. The more the merrier! (This is the same reason I'm hoping we can add more platforms from the 1970s...with the Yom Kippur War, Vietnam, and other conflicts during that period, there's so much good historical material...again, of course, all this depends on how much time Gunny and/or any other volunteers have to do this. And, of course, I'm not expecting this to be done right away; I'm thinking in terms of the next several months, even the next couple of years...it's just something I would like to see eventually.) In fact, I'm planning on trying out the Abigail Adams in the near future in a couple of scenarios and seeing how she fares. I'm actually thinking of creating one general scenario and creating a set of alternates, with the choices being an equal number of a) all existing platforms, mix of real and speculative platforms, and c) all speculative platforms. Quote
Mgellis Posted May 29, 2012 Author Report Posted May 29, 2012 2) Before embarking on a bunch of new platforms, you have to realize that even with all the editing that Saul, Darren and Gunny have done, there is a TON of crap still left in the DB. That is to say platforms that are "Wrong" "Bad" or otherwise in-correct. I have sent Gunny a list of platform data that Darren never got around to fixing (due to limited time.) I am certain that the information I have sent him will keep Gunny occupied for a bit of time as well. The best thing that can be done to answer the request is to START a new database that runs from 1960-1980. In combat aircraft alone you will have close to 8000 entries for that time frame. I count 32 versions of the F-4 Phantom alone! EC-121 Warningstar (predecessor to the E-3 AWACS) has 18 versions. B-52? 13 versions. B-47 Stratojet, 8 versions. F3H Demon? 6 Versions. F4D Skyray 2 versions. MiG-15 Fagot 16 versions atleast (I might have missed a few!) Holy #@*(! I had no idea we were talking about THAT many platforms. Like I said before, I'm happy to see whatever can be added, but the existing database is already pretty fantastic--right now, I'm working on a Chile vs. Russia scenario, and what other game will let you do that with this kind of realism?--so I'm grateful for what's been done. I figured it couldn't hurt to throw the idea out there and see what would be involved. Quote
Gunny Posted May 29, 2012 Report Posted May 29, 2012 Just to give an example: between latest version of HUD3 and 1st beta of HUD4, the number of entries in the ships annex grew by 10%. Other annexes grew with lesser importance (around 5-8%). FG Quote
broncepulido Posted May 29, 2012 Report Posted May 29, 2012 Just to give an example: between latest version of HUD3 and 1st beta of HUD4, the number of entries in the ships annex grew by 10%. Other annexes grew with lesser importance (around 5-8%). FG Ever in the 100 times or so more simple HCDB, the research of a new plane or ship type can employ a week of research about the concrete type and variants ... Quote
Pappystein Posted May 30, 2012 Report Posted May 30, 2012 Ever in the 100 times or so more simple HCDB, the research of a new plane or ship type can employ a week of research about the concrete type and variants ... Maybe I am spoiled by all the books I own, or my near eidetic memory about what is in them but for me it isn't a matter of the research in so much as it is the taking that data and compiling it into something that works within the limitations of the game. Even with all the spreadsheets that Were developed by myself and my peers, I still struggle to get everything to "fit" in the game. For example today I was making the B5N-2 [Kate]. I have several great sources on Japanese aircraft in WWII including the preeminent work by Rene J Francillion. However none of my sources have the correct capacity for Fuel, nor are any types/quantity of bombs mentioned... AT ALL. Thankfully I know the B5N-2 [Kate] has the same bomb racks and the same warload capacity as the G3M2 [Nell.] Cut and paste. To make the B5N-2 Took me about 1.5 hours total. Sure I made up a spirituous number for the amount of Gas but in the end of it all I have the cruise speed and the range... those are the important part of it right? Now I already had all the weapons created (Thank you Nell!) so that went a mite quicker than average. Craig P Quote
Mgellis Posted June 2, 2012 Author Report Posted June 2, 2012 Another suggestion... When I added troop values, I simply played around with the database until I had what I thought was a good new version, and then I submitted it to Gunny for approval. No hcf files, etc. It was just a new version of the whole database. Because I had used in the in-game database editor, which I guess has some problems, he had to go back and revise some of the entries, but at least Gunny was relieved of the part of the work that involved creating/editing entries, etc. If it was simply a matter of someone else making the additions to create HUD 4 v1.1b12 or b13 or whatever, and then sending it to Gunny for review and approval, would that speed up the process, make things easier for Gunny, etc.? The critical factor here, I think, is coordination. If someone volunteers to be a "junior editor," we want to know who that person is, what they're doing, who will be taking a turn adding entries next, etc. And then it always goes to Gunny (or whoever ends up serving as editor for the HUD) for final approval. Otherwise we'll end up with a dozen competing versions of the same database, and I don't think that would be such a good idea. Anyway...any thoughts on this? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.