DSplayer

I've heard anecdotal evidence of that but there isn't any photographic evidence that I could find (unlike the R-27R and Hawk missiles).

All of my reports so far relating to this topic have included charts/graphs that demonstrate a performance difference btw.

I've done testing regarding the AIM-54 and nozzle_exit_areas. Since it currently has a nozzle_exit_area value of 1e-6, its not very desirable and doesn't get a performance boost as the motor is basically launched higher and higher in altitude. That reduction in drag do to the motor being operational is better simplified as motor-on drag and is prevalent with every missile, with or without nozzle_exit_areas, in DCS iirc. Here's an example of a motor-on drag with the sparrow that a friend got somewhere: Further reading: http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/next-gen-weapons/missile-aerodynamics

Slightly larger diameter than the R-33 and the nozzle almost is the same diameter as the diameter of the missile itself both in real images and the 3D model.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/544231925263630336/1008508215643873381/Frequently_Asked_Questions_ver_2.pdf ^Latest FAQ made by Notso.

Not exactly. There are several other differences relating to the LD-10 when compared to the SD-10 that do effect its performance (if you disregard the nozzle_exit_area value changes). One of them that will probably be fixed soon is that the boost stage for the LD-10 doesn't currently have a nozzle_exit_area value but there is one for the march stage. The controller: The LD-10 currently has a missile motor controller that is drastically different than the SD-10's: LD-10 Controller: SD-10 Controller: This causes the missiles to perform extremely different when dealing with when to fire certain stages of the motor. This causes the LD-10 to have an higher peak speed while having a lower average speed. I found this out by conducting a test where the SD-10 was fired using the LD-10's controller values (and both versions using newly planned nozzle). This was the results. Charts (Google Sheets Link Included): You can see the different stages with the stockish SD-10 but you cannot when you look at the SD-10 that has the LD-10 controller. Next up the FM: Currently the SD-10's FM is a bit different than the LD-10's FM. How much of it's down to the APIs between the newer A2A missiles and A2G missiles being different is unknown to me but there is a difference. Link to DiffChecker for the FM between the LD-10 and SD-10. In summary the LD-10 has a 1 for its tail_first value while the SD-10 has a 0 for its tail_first value. The LD-10 also has a lot more simplified Myw, Mzw, A1trim, and A2trim sections. All I know is that if you were to put these values directly into the SD-10, the SD-10 wouldn't work correctly. Hope these hints should help towards bug fixing the LD-10 and make it comparable to the SD-10 in terms of ballistic performance. EDIT: Here's a straight line test for the LD-10 but only the controller and nozzle_exit_area are different. Diffchecker between stock and my modded LD-10. Charts: I also noticed that the LD-10 suffers from severe oscillations, especially at lower altitudes. This could effect the missile's kinetic energy.

Is the 3D models for the AIM-120 and SD/LD-10 just not 100% in sync in terms of dimensions? The nozzles are a bit smaller on the SD/LD-10 when compared to the AIM-120C-5 using the 3D models as a reference.

I mean that the streamlining thing isn't a thing from my limited understanding of rocket dynamics in DCS. It's merely a value that determines the thrust of the rocket since the thrust depends on the propellant mass flow rate, velocity of the exhaust gases, pressure at nozzle exit, ambient pressure, and area of the nozzle. Like what Exorcet said, more expansion of the exhaust gasses which reduces exhaust pressure as you go up in nozzle exit area value. There is just no drag or streamlining that comes from changing this value. To be fair, the mockup in that picture does seem to show the basic nozzle shape and placement with probably no live propellant and other explody things. Similar to the National Air and Space Museum's AIM-120A they have. It could be just a captive round they put on display.

I dont think it would decrease drag at all but I know that it would increase the missile’s speed depending on altitude. A missing value would also cause some weird stuff to happen. Either the missile performing at a higher than intended speed or at a lower than intended speed. Drag for missiles is predetermined by other variables within the missile luas.

Well all stages should have a nozzle_exit_area value. AIM-120s and AIM-7s all have that value for both of their missile motor stages.

It's possible but the nozzle diameter isn't exactly proportional when compared to the diameter of the missile. For example the AIM-7's nozzle is around 3.5 inches in diameter even though the missile has an 8 inch diameter. Plus the external model for the SD/LD-10's nozzle is smaller than the AIM-120's nozzle.

Yeah I detailed it in post on the Deka forums: They're checking it so it so there should be a fix soon.

To tack onto this bug report, the LD-10 currently has a nozzle_exit_area value of 0.01368 for its march motor stage but not its boost stage as that line doesn't exist for that stage. The value of 0.01368 is closer to what seems reasonable but still is kinda bigger than the value of the AIM-120 even though the SD/LD-10 nozzle is a bit smaller than the AIM-120's (could be a 3D modelling error from either Deka or ED). Screenshot from the mils_ld10.lua file's section where the LD-10 uses the "anti_rad_missile" scheme (the "anti_radiation_missile2" scheme section doesn't have a nozzle_exit_value but this section isn't used):

Nah disappointed that the SD-10 doesn't have a 10 inch diameter nozzle

Since I originally thought it would be better suited in the ED Weapon Bugs section: TLDR Summary: The SD-10's nozzle_exit_area value is too large in comparison to its 3D model and other contemporary missiles. It currently has the same value as the R-33E (0.025 square meters). This is a lot larger than the AIM-120C-5's nozzle_exit_area value (0.0132 square meters) even though the SD-10's nozzle is slightly smaller than the AIM-120C-5's. Link to Performance Charts (also included in the original post)

Like what others have said, it doesn't loft within the 21nms or so against a co-altitude target. What I like to do when you're this close to an enemy and need to fire the 54 while also supporting it as little time as possible is to switch the target size to large in order for it to go active at a longer range from your target. Your target will get the warning earlier of course but this does mean that you will be able to defend farther away. Also btw, the AIM-120 when launched at 20nm against a co-altitude target does loft.

What ranges are you specifically encountering this issue where lofting is detrimental?

Yeah it is. Once a weapon leaves the rail, it basically just spawns a replica weapon in the place of the now nonexistent one that was on the pylon (iirc) and that weapon doesn't source its texture files from liveries. A similar thing happened with AIM-54As on F-14 skins representing early F-14s before HB made a separate AIM-54A model which incorporated the early white texture.

If it was posted on the F-14 subforum, you'll probably get some quicker and more responses. Target Size Small does seem to give less reaction time regarding human targets when compared to Target Size Large but my testing isn't exactly scientific and the tests aren't 100% exactly repeatable.

Problem: Currently the SD-10 has a nozzle_exit_area value of 0.025 which translates to 7.024 inch (17.84 cm) diameter nozzle. When compared to its other contemporaries like the AIM-120C-5, the AIM-120C-5 has a nozzle_exit_value of 0.0132 which translates to a 5.104 inch (12.964 cm) diameter nozzle. The R-33 has a nozzle_exit_value of 0.025 as well. Examples: When comparing the nozzles of the AIM-120C-5 and the SD-10 with the model viewer, you can see that the SD-10 actually has a nozzle that is a little bit smaller than the AIM-120C-5's: AIM-120C-5, SD-10, and R-33's nozzles: Performance Data: I decided to conduct a test of the SD-10 with a nozzle_exit_area of 0.012668 (5 inch/12.7 cm diameter nozzle) and a performance drop can be seen if the SD-10 uses this smaller nozzle_exit_area. The same track was used for both tests. Google Sheets Link to Charts Conclusion: The current SD-10's nozzle_exit_area values are too great and cause an abundance of performance at higher altitudes (a maximum difference of Mach ~0.248 at 12km altitude).

R-33's value is 0.025 square meters which means that the diameter of the nozzle exit area of ~7 inches or almost 18 centimeters. In regards to the AIM-7, the nozzle is considerably smaller than the diameter of the missile since the rear tapers inwards a bit and there is alot of area inbetween the side and the nozzle of the motor when compared to the AIM-120. Image of the rear end of the AIM-120C-5, AIM-7M, and AIM-9M (has a nozzle exit area of 0.0068 sq meter which gives it a diameter of 3.663 inches). You can see the visible difference in nozzle exit areas and how the AIM-7 is super small (and just a bit larger than the AIM-9) when compared to the AIM-120. In regards to the SD-10 when compared to the AIM-120C-5 values, it seems like the SD-10 has an incorrect value or the external model isn't exactly correct. R-27ER vs R-33 (R-27 does have a bigger nozzle it seems) vs R-77 EDIT: SD-10 lined up exactly-ish with the AIM-120C-5 (nozzle is a little bit smaller than the AIM-120):

Well the inconsistencies are probably intentional since the missiles do vary in diameter and the nozzles vary with that too. When comparing the 3D models, you can see the nozzle sizes varying greatly from missile to missile. The value is in square meters btw.

My initial reference for the Rb 24J being an AIM-9J equivalent was the Arboga Robotmuseum but it seems like the Rb 24J is closer to an AIM-9P3 according to other sources. Even then the Rb 24J doesn't match the AIM-9P. Outside of that, Imo I think the AIM-9P variants that we have in game are all in due of an update since the AIM-9J outperforms them both in terms of maneuverability. DiffChecker AIM-9P vs Rb 24J

The Winwing F-18 throttle should be better imo. Good amount of switches and buttons you can use and of course you can do split throttle operations.

Bug: Rb24, Rb24J, and Rb74s stats do not match the AIM-9B, AIM-9J, and AIM-9L. Rb24J also uses the AIM-9P5 model instead of the AIM-9J model. Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/description: Step 1: Use an AIM-9B, AIM-9J, and AIM-9L Step 2: Use an Rb 24, Rb 24J, Rb 74. Step 3: Compare. Result: The AIM-9B, AIM-9J, and AIM-9L have different performance when compared to the Viggen's Rb 24, Rb 24J, and Rb 74 respectively. Rb24J also uses the AIM-9P5 model instead of the AIM-9J model. DCS Version: Open Beta 2.7.16.28157 Mods: No mods are used that change the Viggen's Weapons.lua file. DiffChecker links utilizing stats lifted from Quaggles' DCS lua Datamine: DiffChecker AIM-9B vs Rb 24 DiffChecker AIM-9J vs Rb 24J DiffChecker AIM-9L vs Rb 74