Given ANW is apparently going to ship with an H4DB, which is a modified "ODB". Why would a third party DB be advantageous over the H4DB aside from having platforms not found in the paper H4 Data Annex? Assuming that the player is "ok" with H4.1 data?

 

Looking for a straight forward response.

 

Thanks in advance.

This was sent by the ANW/H4Db editor:

 

> It's important to note a few things

>

> 1. CRTs are modeled for fixed aircraft ONLY.

> 2. Any platform, sensor, or weapon with a version number of 0 has been

> fixed up to H4 standards. Conversely any version number means it hasn't

> been looked at.

> 3. Regarding directors and guns. Most guns have 2 types of ammo, AAW

> and ASuW. AAW rounds will require a director while ASUW rounds will

> not. There are some exceptions made for larger calibre guns such as

> those on gun cruisers and BBs.

 

So, a few of the personal reasons why I won't use the H4DB are:

 

A] It is very difficult to know just which platforms are 'fixed'. Unless you know your way around the DB editor and are willing to design scenarios with two or three applications open in the background (so that you can flip back and forth to find the unit you want), this is impractical.

 

B] No way to know what is 'okay' and what is not. Version numbers are only visible in DB editor.

 

C] Dis-organization of lists. Many of the lists are not presented in alphabetical order and you can take forever looking for a particular weapon / unit.

 

D] A number of errors exist. i.e. weapons cannot be fired from their platforms, communication mis-matches,... I'm not going to waste my time bumping into all of them and working around them. The most difficult way to de-mine a field is to stamp your feet in it. It works, but it's painful.

 

E] Organization of units is quite different from PDb. I find it illogical and, thus, difficult to locate specific units.

 

F] The lack of variety is a severe impediment. They can be added, but what's the point of constantly making the requests when there are several other third-party DBs which already cover it. Now, to be fair, every PDb scen released always ask for a few new entries. However, IMO, the scale of these new requests would be quite monumental for H3Db/ANW to build as opposed to using PDb, DB2k, or other DB.

 

G] CRT - Custom Ready Times - are not implemented for all aircraft. This means that you get the default 30min turn-around time. The phenomenal number of sorties this makes possible minimizes the role of ships in a naval simulation, IMO.

 

Those are the main reasons why I won't be using the H4DB/ANW.

Sorry for the rhetorical:

 

And why won't this be fixed prior to them rolling out this "new" product?

 

I "really want" to want to purchase this title and enjoy it, but I have serious reservations, none of which were allayed by your above post Herman.

 

And third party DB's address our laundry list? If it is as easy as a bunch of enthusiasts getting together and making their own DB, why can't the creator do make it right?

 

However, thank you.

And why won't this be fixed prior to them rolling out this "new" product?

 

I "really want" to want to purchase this title and enjoy it, but I have serious reservations, none of which were allayed by your above post Herman.

 

And third party DB's address our laundry list?  If it is as easy as a bunch of enthusiasts getting together and making their own DB, why can't the creator do make it right?

 

However, thank you.

Everything that I have mentioned is a personal observation. I can go into more detail, but it doesn't help out folks like yourself who don't even play the game, yet.

 

Now, another thing is that the items I mentioned are just reasons why I personally find ANW/H4DB problematic. For many DB editors, they are a matter of choice and style. They aren't Bugs or Problems, per se. For example, the organization of ships by pennant number is a choice by one editor. I find it very difficult to find many units I seek. However, this same editor could complain about how PlayersDB lists ships by their type. PDb has them all classified as FF, FFG, CG, DD, .... and lists them this way. Other navies like the Russians use ARKR Kalinin whereas the PlayersDB lists it as BCGN Kalinin. Is someone wrong to do it one way or another? I don't think so. It is a matter of style and choice.

 

It's only a personal opinion since I am involved with PlayersDB. I think that PDb is organized more intuitively and in a more user-friendly manner.

 

Now, the other problems may or may not be solved prior to release. The comment was sent to me since I am doing some beta testing for the game. It is conceivable that everything will be made uniform when ANW is released.

 

If you don't like the presentation of ANW/H4Db, I think that many of your concerns may be allayed by the other third-party databases out there. AFAIK, most (if not all) of them will be made available for use with ANW.

 

Lastly, there was a mention awhile ago regarding H4DB implementation of 'Generational ESM/ECM' systems. From my understanding, this meant that the various ECM / ESM systems would be generalized. Instead of a specific AN/ALQ-99 ECM system for the Prowler, it might be given the most advanced ECM system. i.e. "Fourth Generation ECM" and this might be the same system on the EF-111 Aardvark jammer.

 

Now, I wouldn't characterize this as 'wrong'. For example, there are many systems in the various third-party databases that are exact duplicates of each other. The only difference is their names. The editor may have decided that it was valid to show it in this manner. Because ANW might try and generalize this doesn't mean that it will have different operational parameters in the game.

Given ANW is apparently going to ship with an H4DB, which is a modified "ODB". Why would a third party DB be advantageous over the H4DB aside from having platforms not found in the paper H4 Data Annex? Assuming that the player is "ok" with H4.1 data?

 

Looking for a straight forward response.

 

Thanks in advance.

There is also no direct mapping of H4.1 paper data into H3/ANW so while the database is based on the data, it may in the end be no closer to H4.1 than any of the other databases (which pretty much circulate around H4.1 results anyway...).

Thanks guys. Feel a little better now, guess I need to lay off the caffeine some