Creampie

I just wish the floor would get fixed lol

Which is why I ran my tests on unlimted fuel, both with full internal and 51lb as the lowest possible rather than running until an empty state. Achieving that maximum ceiling in both enviroments to see what they are. Even with just 4x SD10s the top speed is 1.30-1.35 with a span of 220nm, depending on how many minutes after 1.30 you want to wait and test. (Again in an unlimited fuel state.) and roughly the 1.15 as demonstrated by you in a more viable situation. I understand why one gets to its ceiling faster than the other generally speaking. But not when a payload is signigantly lighter and according to LUA represents 45% of another ones drag. I could certainly see if we had been talking ceilings of maybe 5 or 6% but can't expect there to only be a 15% decrease in the ceiling of a payload with over twice the drag in the same distance. We're talking about 4x SD10s here and 2 pylons vs 2 extremely large cluster bombs 2x SD10s & 2x PL-5s. Does mass somehow have a play in this through the LUA? Help me understand what it is I am missing, you know this stuff far better than I do. I merely play the video game.

Same testing parameters, Only difference is 35k ft altitude. All have been done with full fuel & no fuel only to see if how much of a factor weight was and tested over a 40nm span, Which the differences in fuel of that have been incredibly insignificant. "2x PL-5 + 4x SD-10: Max Speed of Mach 1.15 before complete fuel exhaustion" This of them all is the biggest concern with it all, Now let me also say I am not questioning this in a sense of I am right and it is wrong. I just merely don't understand how a loadout similar to; "2x PL-5 + 2x SD-10 + 2x GB-6 SFW" Has a 45% higher drag value, weighs more (I will see exactly how much more later when I am home) and somehow gets closer to its top end much faster than the first loadout. While at the same time only reflecting a 15% difference in its top end.

Thats 6.16 per rack? If thats the case, 12.32 reaching its top speed of 1.33 takes 220nm in full burner, Which unless you're using unlimited fuel is not only impossible it's not viable. While reaching the top speed with 2 BRM pods and 2 PL-5s takes roughly 40nm with a drag of 23.2 nearly double, and is completely possible. Or reaching the top speed with 2 GB6 SFWs, 2 SD10s & 2 PL-5s with a drag of 27.6 more than double the drag & a higher weight still takes only 40nm. I am ignorant to understanding drag values and how they are presented in game. But seeminlgy, either something is wrong with the SD-10 double racks, or everything else. (These are all in level flight, no diving for profiles or anything)

So forgive my ignorance of understanding this but; Dual SD10 pylon itself is 6.14, Each SD10 adds an additional 2.2, Meaning both pylons & all 4 sticks are a total value of 21.08, 21.08 @ 35k, burner, will get you to 1.12 over a 40nm span. Single SD10 pylon itself is 2.6 each, Each SD10 adds an additional 2.2, Both pylons, both sticks & 2 800L fuel tanks have a drag value of 21 even If I understand this correctly, 2 800L fuel tanks and 2 SD10s have a slightly less drag value than just 4 SD10s & their pylons or 1.08 more drag than 2 huge BRM pods? lol

Shouldn't have any trouble with them so long as you have the correct size selected & radar slaved to them. I haven't had trouble with them in quite some time

Each ship has a different "size" they track just fine, But need to determine ship size. There is a chart somewhere out there. I will try to find it.

I always love these videos... lol (sorry unrelated)

nullIt appears the reticle for lining up your BRMs has gotten stuck to the top of the HUD How it is now;

Here is the biggest concern one, 2 PL5s, 2 BRM pods (the weapon with the most drag on the JF17,) Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20c 40nm Speed of mach 1.01 (0.09) slower than 2 SD10 & 2 PL5s

You can ALMOST hit mach with 2 SD10s, 2 PL5s & 2 GB-6 SFWs (0.11 slower than the subject in question....., 2x Dual rack SD10) Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20c (40nm trip)

More testing, Both of these test are something the JF17 can not do in full burner. Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20c - Flight time of 222nm Mach 1.33) (0.22 mach faster than a 40nm flight) null Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20C - Flight of 222nm Mach 1.11 (0.01 Mach faster than 40nm)

I noticed some really bad drag issues with the JF17 top end speed quite some time back and never really got around to testing it. Never really needed to test it, but I don't think this is as intended. I know that the RD-93 isn't the most powerful engine & these jets don't neccasirly need to be too far above mach anyway. Below are 4 screenshots showing the fuel, speed & loadout. My question is, Is this amount of drag intentional? If so, Why? It doesn't seem to make much sense that you lose 33% of your top end speed by adding the additional 2 missiles & their pylons. I've got some testing yet to do with other weapons and will post them as well when I get a little free time. In this screenshot, With 100% fuel, we are at 35k on Syria with the temp set to 20C, Max speed of Mach 1.55, Single rack SD10 and dual PL5s In this screenshot we are 51lbs of fuel, 35k feet on Syria with the temp set to 20C, Mach 1.57, Single rack SD10 and dual PL5 This difference is a little irrelevent to my concern, As we are approaching top end speed anyway, But just for testing I wanted to see. In this screenshot, FULL FUEL, 35k, Syria, 20C, Dual rack SD10, Dual PL5s, Speed of Mach 1.10 And the last screenshot, 51lbs of fuel, Syria, 35k, 20C, Dual Rack SD10s with dual PL5s and a speed of Mach 1.15

Moved

Some pylons will show -1, some will show 1688, See post;

Any word on this?

There is a bit of an issue with lasers codes sometimes no applying to pylongs, ensure it doesn't say -1. If it does, just update to 1688

Thats seemingly good news? Would be quite annoying just spammed silent AMRAAMS on some over performing mechanic.

"Balance" Holds no value in a simulation environment other than taking away from you are trying to produce, a simulation. But I get your point of it!

I would imagine the handoff would be a bit difficult considering different bands between AWACS & Host, no? Even if that is inaccurate its likely not reliable if I had to guess.

Yeah it 100% doesn't make sense to leave things probably easily fixed by the developer broken for such a long period of time. This goes for many of the Jeff weapons unfortunately, 802 still bonked sometimes, ls6100s, LD10 supposed to be getting its explosive mass slightly increased... Respectfully ED just can't handle the work load & like you said leave it to the devs, If their concern is approval. surely it is easier to do an approval process to help keep code or whatever uniform, thats fine.

Why is it not possible for Deka to take back control of their weapons? Mainly things specific to the JF17, BRM, SD10, 802, etc. I don't understand why this method is being used, They are all weapons designed by Deka and should remain in their care. @BIGNEWY

It's for radio control, Currently not supported in DCS edit: Only UHF, Not VRC

Bump Are there plans to make the new weapon available? @BIGNEWY

Bump Are there plans to make the new weapon available? @BIGNEWY