July 20, 201411 yr That's the new, the standard HCDB 1980-2015 platform database has been downloaded 10.000 times!!!
July 22, 201411 yr Wow, those bots really love themselves a database! All kidding aside, thanks for noticing, that is an impressive number, even moreso considering it was downloaded many times before landing on this site.
October 19, 201510 yr Author I see the standard HCDB 1980-2015 has been downloaded 12,578 downloads, 2578 times more from July 2014, more than a 25% increase in only 15 months, for me it sounds very good!
October 20, 201510 yr Might be a good juncture to put forward an idea regarding HCDB, especially with the expansion of the annex sizes. I am contemplating a revamp of the DB that would see, in particular, a fresh start in the Installations annex. More specifically, get rid of all the dupe (Red, Blue, etc) entries. This would mean, of course, that older scenarios (including stock) would no longer be compatible with the 'new' DB. Thoughts?
October 20, 201510 yr I should add that the 'new' HCDB would also have a different approach in the sense of time periods covered and maybe a little bit of a change in philosophy too.
October 20, 201510 yr Author Good idea in first instance, but I think is a bad idea for newbies in Harpoon HCE/HUCE, them probably will want to play the stock scenarios. Newbies are few and spacied in the time, and I think that will disappoint them. Perhaps will be better to expand new installation entries in the DB (also, we are capable to keep the scenario design well with the DB limitations, better with more bases, but not an absolute must), and only later revamp the duplicated ones. Also, I'm intrigued by those 2578 downloads in 15 months, is consequence of the good work updating and expanding the DB many times the last times, or other thing?
October 20, 201510 yr Author Oh, yes, I see, keep the "old" HCDB for the stock scenarios, not bad idea. I'm intrigued about the "new philosophy", hehehe
October 20, 201510 yr Oh, yes, I see, keep the "old" HCDB for the stock scenarios, not bad idea. I'm intrigued about the "new philosophy", hehehe Yes, the 'old' HCDB would be frozen in place for the sake of existing scenarios. The 'new' philosophy would probably include a focus on post Cold War platforms, more differentiation between platform versions by specific time period, and a bit more allowance for hypotheticals.
October 20, 201510 yr I am contemplating a revamp of the DB that would see, in particular, a fresh start in the Installations annex. More specifically, get rid of all the dupe (Red, Blue, etc) entries. What compelling reason(s) making losing the backwards compatibility worthwhile? Would this new database cover the globe over a certain time period? I'm with Enrique on wanting to understand the philosophy. Starting fresh might well be a good enough stimulus for me to finally implement some automatic database loading so newbies could fire up the game and have it automatically load the right database if present on the machine.
October 20, 201510 yr What compelling reason(s) making losing the backwards compatibility worthwhile? Many reasons, including: the current DB covers the period 1980-2015, and it will soon be 2016; the Installations annex is full of unnecessary redundancy; the Loadouts annex is full of accommodations made due to the limited space; some platforms have the old and the new (especially weapons capabilities) in the same entry, despite wide separation in time; etc; etc. Would this new database cover the globe over a certain time period? Yes. Exactly when, I am not entirely sure yet. Many smaller (or non-factor) countries might be excluded altogether. I'm with Enrique on wanting to understand the philosophy. Starting fresh might well be a good enough stimulus for me to finally implement some automatic database loading so newbies could fire up the game and have it automatically load the right database if present on the machine. If I went ahead with it, the 'new' DB probably wouldn't be available for at least a few months.
October 21, 201510 yr I think the overhaul would be very good. If Tony can rig an auto load of correct database that would be sensational but even without I don't see loss of backward compatibility being a real problem, to me it seems we're just picking the right database for the scenario (same as if the scenario had a non-standard DB). I think the general tidy up, improved 'sense' and release of wasted slots as being very worth while.
Create an account or sign in to comment