SD10 performance

[Harlikwin]

Im joking people are panicking already its funny.

 

I predicted wailing and lamentations of the fighter-bros... I am enjoying the salty pre-tears...

 

[Harlikwin]

Double work. Just wait till ED fixes his own 120. Not everybody plays competitive MP.

 

Yeah, but they whine the most :)

 

Wait... I play online.... :megalol:

[Eldur]

Wikipedia is a horrible source to use and is not reliable in the slightest.

 

Well, if you go check out the sources given, you'll come to the conclusion that a lot of books must be horrible sources as well. Here's one of the best examples of how good books can be as a source of information. It's always been the case that someone wrote off of someone else, and in that regard, wikipedia is nothing else than just another book, simply none you can hold in your hands.

[metzger]

Wikipedia is a horrible source to use and is not reliable in the slightest. However, for the record, it says that the 120C-5 has a range of greater than 57nm, which can mean anything over 57 nm, not 57nm exactly.

Yes but this is the same number deka said - 60 miles no ? They also give 120km for the 27ET and 130 to ER. And what those numbers means ? What shoot parameters ? What closure rate ? Altitude ? Weather ? All parties should agree on the same standard otherwise they can model whatever they want and claim some nonsense number. Next 3rd party will model mig23 and hey we have ultra good sources those r-24 can hit target at 50 miles we make it that way ed fix the rest to match.

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[DarksydeRob]

Well it may speed up EDs 120 rework if people moan so win win I guess. In the meanwhile we get to play around with the guessworked SD-10 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[nighthawk2174]

Yeah that's my hope too that with third parties using more realistic drag values it will highlight how bad ED missiles are. The 120 in-game needs not only a drag reduction but optimal control, smaller vgate, and better chaff resistance, oh and a lofting code that doesn't kill its speeds at the top of the loft and will actually work most of the time.

[Hummingbird]

With missiles so similar wouldn't it be possible to calculate within reason which should have the longest range? i.e. not the exact range, just which should go the longest based on the rocket motors specific impulse and the drag of the missile.

 

The AIM-120C for example is a lot less draggy than the SD10, whilst being lighter at the same time, so it wouldn't need as powerful a motor to achieve the same range.

[Harlikwin]

With missiles so similar wouldn't it be possible to calculate within reason which should have the longest range? i.e. not the exact range, just which should go the longest based on the rocket motors specific impulse and the drag of the missile.

 

The AIM-120C for example is a lot less draggy than the SD10, whilst being lighter at the same time, so it wouldn't need as powerful a motor to achieve the same range.

 

Well, that's assuming they have the same "E" or that the motor is capable of producing the same ISP... Or equal performance of propellant and so forth. As you might recall from your basic gas dynamics and rocket nozzle design courses back in high school, nozzle design and efficiency is quite altitude/pressure specific.

[nighthawk2174]

With missiles so similar wouldn't it be possible to calculate within reason which should have the longest range? i.e. not the exact range, just which should go the longest based on the rocket motors specific impulse and the drag of the missile.

 

The AIM-120C for example is a lot less draggy than the SD10, whilst being lighter at the same time, so it wouldn't need as powerful a motor to achieve the same range.

 

hmm hard to say if the 120 is less draggy as I understand it the SD10 is smaller/skinnier than the 120 so in theory it should have less drag? It depends on the dimensions, nose cone shape, and how draggy the fins end up being.

[aaron886]

as I understand it the SD10 is smaller/skinnier than the 120

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-12#SD-10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

[nighthawk2174]

nvm ty, in that case assuming roughly similar nose cones (a massive contributor to drag) the SD10 should be draggier.

[CommanderRabb]

All I ask of the JF-17 is that it's modeled accurately and flies realistically, along with all of its weapons.

 

It should not be balanced. This is a simulator, not that P2P/P2W combat game with planes.

 

ED needs to fix it's AIM-120 so that it performs properly, whether that's equal to or better than the SD10.

Edited December 3, 2019 by CommanderRabb

[metzger]

All I ask of the JF-17 is that it's modeled accurately and flies realistically, along with all of its weapons.

 

It should not be balanced. This is a simulator, not that P2P/P2W combat game with planes.

 

ED needs to fix it's AIM-120 so that it performs properly, whether that's equal to or better than the SD10.

 

And how in a proper simulator a pakistan copy of chinese copy of f-16 is superior to f-16 or 120 in this case ? No body ask for balance just for realistic differences between the aircraft we have in the sim. I doubt they have more reliable sources than ED, who are doing millitary projects as well. They all claim their sources are reliable and model accurate but some are wrong obviously.

[LJQCN101]

who are doing millitary projects as well.

 

We do as well.

[Matchstick]

And how in a proper simulator a pakistan copy of chinese copy of f-16 is superior to f-16 or 120 in this case ? No body ask for balance just for realistic differences between the aircraft we have in the sim. I doubt they have more reliable sources than ED, who are doing millitary projects as well. They all claim their sources are reliable and model accurate but some are wrong obviously.

 

If you have data showing that the JF-17 (which almost no-one has got to try yet) or the S-10 are incorrectly modelled then I'm damn sure Deka would love to have that info.

[shaHeen-1]

And how in a proper simulator a pakistan copy of chinese copy of f-16 is superior to f-16 or 120 in this case ? No body ask for balance just for realistic differences between the aircraft we have in the sim. I doubt they have more reliable sources than ED, who are doing millitary projects as well. They all claim their sources are reliable and model accurate but some are wrong obviously.

 

Ever tried a Huawei phone? Same way

[metzger]

If you have data showing that the JF-17 (which almost no-one has got to try yet) or the S-10 are incorrectly modelled then I'm damn sure Deka would love to have that info.

 

Oh please... but whatever, I don't care, bugging out this is pointless.

[sylkhan]

We do as well.

 

:thumbup:

[sylkhan]

Oh please... but whatever, I don't care, bugging out this is pointless.

great, have a good day

[shaHeen-1]

We do as well.

 

Jf17 module is too good for that to not be the case.

[Floydii]

Has anyone brought up the basic-ass modelling of Electronic warfare and countermeasures in DCS yet?

 

Complaining about this missile or that missile isn't a reflection of reality is a bit moot when the supporting ecosystem of EW, Integrated Air and Missile Defences and Radar writ large is lobotmised, either through lack of modelling or deliberate (security based) omission.

 

If you're playing PVE, turn down the difficulty on your JF17 enemies to offset perceived inferiorities with the US jets its going up against (or, learn to fight and win as is). If its PvP you're at, you're already playing in a shady world of half truths where the jammer you are running isn't the real deal and your radar isn't only partly functional. Just learn the numbers of the reality of this simulation and play to that.

 

Frankly, the comments that indicate that surely a joint Pakistani/Chinese aircraft and its weapons could not possibly compete with an older block f16C running basic C model AMRAAMs smack of a view that America has the monopoly on good aircraft.

[metzger]

Has anyone brought up the basic-ass modelling of Electronic warfare and countermeasures in DCS yet?

 

Complaining about this missile or that missile isn't a reflection of reality is a bit moot when the supporting ecosystem of EW, Integrated Air and Missile Defences and Radar writ large is lobotmised, either through lack of modelling or deliberate (security based) omission.

 

If you're playing PVE, turn down the difficulty on your JF17 enemies to offset perceived inferiorities with the US jets its going up against (or, learn to fight and win as is). If its PvP you're at, you're already playing in a shady world of half truths where the jammer you are running isn't the real deal and your radar isn't only partly functional. Just learn the numbers of the reality of this simulation and play to that.

 

Frankly, the comments that indicate that surely a joint Pakistani/Chinese aircraft and its weapons could not possibly compete with an older block f16C running basic C model AMRAAMs smack of a view that America has the monopoly on good aircraft.

 

Actually, the f-16 we have is from 2008 and jf-17 is slightly earlier than this 2007 I think so it is the jf17 older not the other way around. Not sure about SD-10 but I believe it is also copy of aim120C5 as on paper numbers are quite similar, the AIM120C8 or D is still way to confidential to have chinese counterpart and even more - modeled in a sim.

[Schmidtfire]

How is this even an issue? :doh:

Deka simulates the SD-10 as good as they can with avalible data. ED is working on missile improvements for AIM-120 and R-27 (like they did with Sparrow). It is known that they underperform and will be looked at.

 

It is not a good path trying to ”balance” a sim. Leave that to mission makers. Or should we balance AIM-54 Phoenix performance based in relation of how AIM-120 or R-27 performs in DCS?

[sylkhan]

... that America has the monopoly on good aircraft.

 

Lol, it's just an illusion due to marketing, and far from the reality ( a lot of better planes/arms, in the world)

 

.. but I believe it is also copy of aim120C5 as on paper numbers are quite similar,

 

You believe wrong.

[metzger]

How is this even an issue? :doh:

Deka simulates the SD-10 as good as they can with avalible data. ED is working on missile improvements for AIM-120 and R-27 (like they did with Sparrow). It is known that they underperform and will be looked at.

 

It is not a good path trying to ”balance” a sim. Leave that to mission makers. Or should we balance AIM-54 Phoenix performance based in relation of how AIM-120 or R-27 performs in DCS?

 

Who is asking for balance ? I was asking just for following the same standard between all parties so modules/missiles have the expected differences between each other.

I agree the best would be ED to update 120 but knowing ED timings we might end up in sd-10 being the superior missile for years.

Realistically Sd10 should be at most similar to 120 if modelled otherwise it might be more realistic for the missile itself but the overall realism between the modules will degrade. Anyway, this is my opinion, only time will show how it will work out.