ShadowFrost

Well consider me interested, is there any reference to what his objections were? (IE a linked forum/post) But I imagine... knowing how some of these topics go it might not be available to the public anymore. Either way, I'm interested to see what ED has to say.

I personally can't wait to hear what they say (they being ED) especially because it contradicts a certain CFD which if I am correct, the Aim-54 was used in a very similar process to gather performance data.... So I look forward to it. On one hand its acceptable, on the other it isn't. Speaking 120 vs 54 here, I'm curious to see what the reasoning is. And additionally, If I am incorrect about the 54's development process than the above is useless.

Ill take you up on your question, the first part can't really be used as its yet another simulator and not hard data. The same could be said about a certain F-16 sim.... you just should not use comparisons to other simulators because you don't know the degree of accuracy they follow. Maybe they are accurate? Maybe they aren't. You just don't know without data to verify. Atmosphere and guidance immediately come to mind as some reasons a SIM can be off even with a correct missile model. And that being a technology demonstrator, you have no clue if they even wanted to model it correctly. So once again, that is why any reference to hard data is preferred. And even then, hard data can be debated for numerous reasons, but in general its a much better place to start. Edit- Should not instead of cannot, because you shouldn't argue based on that data, but you can. Second part, while its probably unlikely for it to actually be able to do that, I cannot confirm, but I've seen many missiles do similar to what you described in DCS. AFAIK the SD-10 uses the 120 seeker with counter measure reject changes due to DCS API limitations currently. Someone can correct me on that if I am wrong. Additionally, I have seen R-73s, Aim-54s and etc fly loops around planes, and all active radar guided missiles can still guide/make corrections after radar contact is lost even before they are active. I have seen 54s fly past an aircraft and make a complete 180, so its not out of the question that the SD-10 might show similar behavior. So while performance of the SD-10 in other aspects can directly be attributed to the SD-10, I think this aspect isn't a result of Deka's modeling but more limitations of DCS currently as similar has been shown in other aircraft. I think what you saw, probably stems from the fact that the missile knows where the aircraft is at all times even if the aircraft radar doesnt have a lock. So normally, the aircraft would pass outside of seeker limits and the missile would "lose lock" but it does not currently as the missile still knows where the aircraft is and will try to reconnect if it has the energy necessary to do so. That applies for Aim-120, R77, 54 AFAIK. I think someone actually referenced the same earlier in a linked post to Chizh. Something along the lines of "active radar missiles making guidance corrections even when radar is off before the missiles' seeker is active".

In my opinion, its not about fitting in. One methodology or the other is closer to reality than the other. Which one it is? We could argue all day about. I would rather aircraft weapons be modeled to the methodology that gets the closest results to their data. Now obviously, there will be limitations and degrees of inaccuracy, but hopefully that is minimized to the extents possible currently within DCS. Which ever methodology is more accurate should be followed, and with time, the other aircraft/weapons, if provided the same methodology creates a more accurate simulation for them should be transferred over. That is my opinion at least, as mission devs/server hosts can balance things accordingly if they so wish. But the developers should never sacrifice constructing something as accurately as they can just because other items are not to the same standard. We hope that the standard/methodology Deka Ironworks is following is correct and that the missile performs as closely to their references as can be done with the sim currently, as with any simulation there will be deviation due to various reasons.

Well part of the issue with that is your arguing on a fallacy, the assumption that the simulator is correct and that any deviation is incorrect because the simulator is a correct baseline. If you compare the SD-10 performance against the 120 CFD data you find that they are actually quite similar. I tested personally in max range straight-line tests at mach .83 and found the deviation of the missile to be 1-4 nautical miles worse than the CFD of what the Aim-120C "should" do depending on the altitude it was tested at. Though I have heard it over performs in straightline tests against CFD at the higher mach tests available. I haven't compared it myself. And of course, is an assumption against the SD-10 that such performance at higher mach is not realistic which is not the argument. It was just noted that at higher mach tests, the SD-10 over performed against 120 CFD under the same conditions. Is it realistic? No clue, just a testing note. I will never understand why anyone makes arguments against or for something based on what something else does in the simulator. Because you are assuming that whatever you are comparing to is correct which is not a smart thing to do at the very least. I can't say if the SD-10 performance is accurate or not, I can only compare it to other data available under the assumption that the data available is somewhat accurate. As any mathematical model or recreation will have some degree of inaccuracy to the real world due to vast number of variables involved. (Not to say you can't get quite close) So, in short, you need to argue against tests/data/etc. from other sources to determine if DCS is accurate. Because if you compare against something in DCS that is not modeled correctly you induce any error from that model into your own. Lets just assume for a second that the SD-10 was the standard missile of DCS and the Aim-120 just released. You look at the performance and see that the 120 is massively under performing, surely its the aim-120's fault because the SD-10 has been here so long? No, you compare against data to check that both are accurately modeled and performing as expected. So, while there is a confirmed overhaul happening next year to the 120, to assume it is 100% accurate is not a good control to test the SD-10 against. (Even if there wasn't an overhaul coming, you dont test accuracy against other simulated objects) And for reference, mach .83 straight-line tests. SD-10 to 120 CFD 5000ft SD-10 traveled ~15.6nm before hitting 400kts 500m 120C-5 can travel ~16nm before hitting 400kts 16000ft SD-10 traveled ~19.1nm before hitting 400kts 5000m 120C-5 traveled ~22nm before hitting 400kts 32000ft SD-10 traveled ~33nm before hitting 500kts 10000m 120C-5 traveled ~33nm before hitting 500kts Note- I wasn't comparing anything other than range and straight-line deviation, the way it gets it range could be wrong in comparison. The straight line range was the only variable I was testing, so that can be the only variable to be considered as "verified" in comparison to CFD. I dont argue that one is more accurate than the other because I dont know, but in comparison to the CFD 120 straight line performance, the performance of the SD-10 is believable at mach .83. (I've heard it over performs at higher mach in comparison to CFD, so I am specific, mach .83) I'm not here to argue "Is the SD-10 realistic to DCS 120C or etc." Because of the assumptions that the DCS model is accurate. That's not to say there can't be arguments to "is the SD-10's performance realistic", its just that the data used to compare should not be from DCS because you make the assumption that DCS is accurate. In short, an argument against the DCS 120 needs to be against the data the DCS 120 is based on and not the simulator's representation. The arguments of "well DCS 120 does this" need to be backed up with more information other than "DCS simulates it this way". Now sure, the DCS 120 may be accurate, but I haven't seen much in the way of external information in this thread. I would like to see something similar to what Heatblur provided for the Aim-54 for both the SD-10 and Aim-120C. Sources of information that are used for comparison, not an argue of accuracy. http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16vBb9wOABGp7iaxYIk5r7c_cYTFB3Xlfm0VNHdoElII/edit?usp=sharing Note- Likely grammar issues, its 3AM sorry.

That statement isn't accurate to the current version of DCS. In straightline tests, DCS 120C under performed by around 40% in comparison to "supposed" performance from the CFD you referenced. Edit- Performance tests were conducted in straight-line range comparisons for reference. Edit- At mach.83 trials at the altitudes referenced in CFD, straightline performance was still down 40% of what it supposedly should be from the CFD data.

I wouldn't be so sure, the SD-10 is widely regarded to fit inbetween the 120B-C and the gap between B and C isn't very large. Once the missiles undergo their overhaul and are more or less equal. The missiles wont be too much of a concern, more the platform. The JF-17 lacks in outright speed against F-16/F-15 so it will have to rely on better tactics to keep up once that day comes.

Batteries not working is fixed by back to spectators and then selecting another aircraft.

Yeah I am unable to find what I was referencing. Though I'm pretty sure I saw it somewhere, I'll keep an eye out for it. Either way, I'm sure there is more than enough real-life footage to deduce if the smoke trails are different enough to warrant a change.

I could have sworn Pak did something with an electronic fuel control system to allow the RD-93s to have more accurate fuel flow/combustion and therefore less "smoke" but I an unable to find it. That might be what he's mentioning, and would be a reason they "smoke" less, as the smoke is just unburnt fuel AFAIK. If I can find a link to it I will post... but until then its just a rumor as far as I am concerned. (About my above statement)

"Dont think it has one" Or so I've heard. Pretty sure DCS one doesnt have one, dont know about actual aircraft.

Yeah it might be, but it still changes based on airborne or not which isn't correct. AFAIK

Set air to ground mode, master arm on, and make sure to have them selected (shown on SMS screen)

Bingo

My aircraft had the Asterisk (*) in my menu.

I want to reply to this with what I was seeing, it appeared that L was being set to airborne aircraft. While W was being set to aircraft that had landed or were parked. Note- I was 02, and master at the end of the video. I think most of the issues were due to range of aircraft. But, even then L and W seemed to be set by whether the aircraft were airborne or not.

Shooting an LD-10 causes crashes when missile hits target (in this particular instance, target is SA-15 Tor). This only happens while in F1 view, as I watched the missile in F6 (ordinance cam) and it did not crash. It crashed while I was watching it in F1 (cockpit cam) view though. The game crashes in such a way it is not creating a track file or log. Trying to get a log currently, if you have any additional information to allow me to get some useful files. Do let me know. Note- Firing LD-10s in SP mode causes crash. ACT mode does not cause crash. Note- You can turn RWR off (after launching in SP mode) and game will not crash when Tor is killed, at least in my testing. Edit- I have recently repaired and cleaned the game (6~ hours from time of writing)

I've found this happen to me a couple times. Also remember, (not sure if necessary or not) but call ground crew and have them update DTC card before placing the new one in. Doing that I haven't had the page freeze, but that also could just be luck. As I'd say its a 20% chance of page freeze. So it may not work for you.

Can confirm down low at 5000 feet mach .83 it was matching previous numbers. Have not tested any other ranges though. But everything looks similar at first glance.

Push and hold three seconds as he says. Check that throttle is uncaged and at idle. ENG Control and Start pump to on.

[Keyboard] AA/AG Switch two way (up/down) and toggle [Device] AA/AG Switch two way (up/down) and toggle

I can also confirm the targeting pod issue. Same circumstances, completed a sortie, re-armed, and could not use the pod afterward.

Hmmmm... Maybe I have the wrong files still... That would be my bad, though DCS should have updated over them.

Or... just test against this... These numbers are from 11/29/2019. So if there has been a change, there will be deviation. (I just haven't tested again yet) Fire in a straight line, 5000ft, mach .83, and measure the distance from launch point to missile position at 400 knots true speed.

Have you updated DCS world open beta?