Hi everyone. For those few who are still playing DW under RA mod, I have a little gift for you. Since the last patch, I noticed a lot inconsistency and discrepancy in the object database files. Just to name a few:
1. Some of the prominent SAM missiles such as SA-n-10 (this is a misnomer and I think they meant sa-n-20) and SA-n-21, which are essentially famous S300 and S400 cannot engage anti-ship missiles
2. SM2MR and SM2ER have two vast different effectiveness for 2 essentially same missiles (80% vs 50% respectively). This is the case for a lot of the American and Russian missiles.
3. Su-57 and F-22, two world's premier stealth fighters, have such high radar signal profiles that they can be detected and shot down by ship borne SAMs more than 40 nmi away.

On top of all these, a lot of American and Russian VLS capable ships cannot launch SAM missile vertically. (Don't tell me the vertical launches bug out things and that's why they are disabled. If that's the case, why some of the newly added ships can do the vertical launch? I believe some of the original ships such as Tico, Burke, Kirov and Slava are just being neglected when the mod team's attention was mainly focused on the newly added ships. Use my new database files, you will see VLS is NOT an issue.)

I did a comprehensive scrub of the database file and these new database files address many of these issues. I have shared my files on RA forum. I cannot attach zip files in this forum, but if you would like to try it please PM me.

Hey Wolfcat,

For sure you have engaged yourself in the serious task of going through the database and cleaning it out that "unreal" data. It is impressive, but I need to mention here (which curiously you are NOT) the comment of the main creator of RA Crazy Ivan about your work.

According to him, indeed some of the data are incorrect or false in the database, but unfortunately, they are as such for the very reason that the physics of the DW game would not allow them to be otherwise. So to put in other words if you change those data for the game entities as you did, they will not function in the DW simulation properly.

Should you not put this disclaimer or mention this word of caution here before you share your otherwise diligent work with unsuspecting others?

So I recently did a clean install of DW and then RA and whenever I try to use the MH-60, loading gets to 90% then stops responding. Missions, quick Missions, anything. All other platforms seem to work fine, even other helos. Any ideas?

I've noticed a couple discrepancies concerning the Virginia class US sub in the USNI reference files.

For the Virginia class, the starboard and port towed array names appear to be accidentally swapped in the ownship section reference page.

Also, the RA mod lists the Virginia's SPHERE sonar to be slightly more sensitive than the Seawolf's SPHERE sonar, but with a lower washout max speed.
I thought that the Virginia was designed to have better sensors than the Seawolf?
Its HULL sonar isn't as good as the Seawolf's, and it has a lower washout max speed for its WAA vs the Seawolf's WAA.

(data taken from the RA mod USNI reference pages. Speed in kts are usable max speed before washout, and the number after is the SNR, i.e. -13)

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/att...1&d=1644962498

It doesn't specifically list it in the USNI reference area, but the Virginia is supposed to have the BQQ-10(v4) sonar suite, which is the exact same suite that the 688i has, according to internet sources like those below:

Virginia specifications - https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nssn/

688i specifications - https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/la/

If that's true, why aren't the MF Active, Sphere, and Flank (hull) sonar values the same?
I don't know if the BQQ-10 suite is supposed to be better than the Seawolf's BSY-2 suite, but in the stock 1.04 DW version, the Seawolf could passively hear a lot further with its sonar than the 688i could.

I would expect the Virginia to improve on that sensor range, but I don't know how to verify if the RA mod actually did that.

Is RA discussion happening elsewhere more frequently? No one seems to frequent this thread much.

did you run the .bat file as admin in the directory?

Pretty much yes just post up the question as a stand alone topic