SD10 performance

[AnarchyZG]

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?

 

For AIM-54 they might have gotten the kinematics right (or at least they sounded convincing), however I get the feeling that seeker performance (range, area coverage, resistance to notch, ground clutter, countermeasures etc.) is a bit...optimistic. Isn't it a bit strange that it is easier to defeat a modern aircraft radar with huge antenna and transmitting power then something crammed into a missile from mid 80s?

 

Last thing any true flight sim fan would want is an "arms race" between module makers inflating the capabilities of simulated weapon systems to cater to competitive multiplayer crowd (essentially a pay to win scenario that has proven to be a disaster for every game that implemented it)

[karambiatos]

Guys this entire thread is ridiculous this is war all and there is no balance in war.

 

Learn to deal with it and get better at flying instead of complaining about things like balance in A SIMULATOR. :doh:

[metzger]

Guys this entire thread is ridiculous this is war all and there is no balance in war.

 

Learn to deal with it and get better at flying instead of complaining about things like balance in A SIMULATOR. :doh:

 

It's like you guys can't or don't want to read ? Who speaks about balance ?! We speak about relative difference between aim120 and sd10 to be the same as their relative difference irl. As now they have different way to model them which end up in normally inferior weapon to be superior because of the different way they are modeled in the sim.

[karambiatos]

It's like you guys can't or don't want to read ? Who speaks about balance ?! We speak about relative difference between aim120 and sd10 to be the same as their relative difference irl. As now they have different way to model them which end up in normally inferior weapon to be superior because of the different way they are modeled in the sim.

Perhaps one missile is just better than the other?

Perhaps you are all just whining because you can stand losing or cant stand winning but needing to use your heads at the same time.

 

But i find it funny everyone jumps for calls of balance when their widdwe aim120/f15 is in danger the fact that the difference in simulation between the aim120 and russian radar missiles has been in for years isn't a problem at all because you are easily winning against them, but now the shoe is on the other foot and it's frankly hilarious.

So war is war and it's not balanced for your feelings.

[metzger]

Perhaps one missile is just better than the other?

Perhaps you are all just whining because you can stand losing or cant stand winning but needing to use your heads at the same time.

 

But i find it funny everyone jumps for calls of balance when their widdwe aim120/f15 is in danger the fact that the difference in simulation between the aim120 and russian radar missiles has been in for years isn't a problem at all because you are easily winning against them, but now the shoe is on the other foot and it's frankly hilarious.

So war is war and it's not balanced for your feelings.

 

Oh god you got to be kidding me.... From your comment it seems more like you are looking for way to win with super weapon rather than someone else.

 

with the risk of repeating, no balance is requested. If irl sd-10 has twice the range of aim120 I am totally ok to be like this in the sim as well but this doesn't seems to be the case irl since both missiles are almost identical irl.

[Auditor]

I think some of the most ridiculous posts in this thread are the ones insisting the JF-17 and the SD-10 have to be "Worse" because of it's history of being created from the data of other aircraft designs and not because of any physical reason.

 

It just has to be "Worse". The ""copy"" can't be better than my "original". Something something China something something America. tl;dr nerf your experimental data in favor of my feelings on NATO aircraft that I have developed by being surrounded by them for most of my life

 

 

Can we just close this before some people make even bigger fools of themselves?

Edited December 3, 2019 by Auditor

[metzger]

A quick google search:

 

"Designs are quite similar...The PL-12 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM. The two share a comparable aerodynamic configuration, although the PL-12 is a little longer, wider and heavier than the AMRAAM ....

 

According to Chinese claims, PL-12 is more capable than the American AIM-120 A/B, but slightly inferior than the AIM-120C."

 

But in sim, it is modelled right now very superior to the 120C. So all I am asking is, make it as per irl differences. And when/if aim120 and 27ER and the rest of the missiles get updates, update sd-10 as well. Why make it so complicated

?!

[Terrorban]

Where are all these people suddenly coming from asking to tone down the simulaton because other modules do not have it realistic enough. This is just the worried multiplayer crowd who are most likely not even going to buy the jet (since they are asking its features to be toned down). Their heads are so closed from flying the planes from the 70s and 80s that they believe that something made in 2000 should underperform those american jets even when it is obvious they do not have certain features properly simulated.

 

 

I'm sure these are the same people that went crying to Heatblur to nerf their pheonix missile because it makes the jet "OP" and were rightfully ignored.

 

Now everyone praises heatblur for their level of simulation. I hope deka do not listen to these people and mess up their reputation in the early days.

[Auditor]

I'm sure these are the same people that went crying to Heatblur to nerf their pheonix missile because it makes the jet "OP" and were rightfully ignored.

 

Now everyone praises heatblur for their level of simulation. I hope deka do not listen to these people and mess up their reputation in the early days.

No, they were fine with that because it was on "The right side". Notice most of the complaining is really about which side the SD-10 will be representing.

[Sn8ke_iis]

I was curious other than the references to Wikipedia, what open source information are you guys basing this whole debate on?

 

Now the size of a missile and the width of it's fins can be easily determined from a photograph, but what about the weight? The thrust value of the rocket motor?

 

The mass listed on the wiki page for the AMRAAM has 352 lb/152 kg, but has no citation.

 

This is Raytheon's page on the AIM-120. No data on range, speed, etc.

 

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amraam

 

If you follow the link for the citation of the range of the AMRAAM (>57, which is obviously vague). The source clearly states:

 

"Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate! Especially the range figures are rough estimates only."

 

It's just some random guy named Andreas Parsch who's into missiles that made a webpage.

 

This is a quote from one of the sources linked in the SD-10 wiki page.

 

"Absolute determination of AAM capabilities is greatly hampered by the efforts of governments and manufacturers to deny information, such as that regarding missile range and countermeasures, which would allow potential adversaries to gain an advantage."

 

Now I'm all for a good aviation nerd debate, but you guys do realize this is all conjecture and educated guessing? Right? One guy in the thread said there should be better chaff resistance for the AMRAAM. How do you know that? How do you know how well notching works? Especially if there is a data link from AWACS or multiple aircraft looking at the target from different angles.

 

DCS is a hobby flight simulation product that people fly for fun. As far as I can tell, none of the figures and capabilities you guys are quoting as gospel are based on any kind of reputable source or verifiable intelligence product. We aren't going to get an accurate BVR/EW simulation for these weapons in the next 10-20 years, probably longer because export versions of these missiles will still be in service in various countries.

[nighthawk2174]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mnCsA6-d5ZzV1uL7UeaNgyg_E66vGt6A

 

in the end CFD is just about the only way we can be sure of numbers

[Sn8ke_iis]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mnCsA6-d5ZzV1uL7UeaNgyg_E66vGt6A

 

in the end CFD is just about the only way we can be sure of numbers

 

"The missile's geometry and aerodynamic characteristics were modelled as accurately as

possible without having access to classified sources."

 

All the math is open source as they are physics equations that have been around for 100 years. I appreciate the work they put in for this analysis for our hobby simulator but we still keep coming up against the same issue. Accurate data.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Sn8ke_iis
typo

[Krippz]

You guys realize that if the current AIM-120 is using the old guidance logic and lacks a proper CFD it will undoubtedly underperform to a contemporary missile that has a proper guidance model and CFD study right? Maybe the onus should be on ED to iterate the 120’s....

[nighthawk2174]

You guys realize that if the current AIM-120 is using the old guidance logic and lacks a proper CFD it will undoubtedly underperform to a contemporary missile that has a proper guidance model and CFD study right? Maybe the onus should be on ED to iterate the 120’s....

 

Yup, agreed and considering that guidance issue6s only exacerbate drag issues. In the end I'd love to see third parties get full access to the missile API to build their own missile guidance (APN, optimal control, lofting equations, etc)

[falcon_120]

Guys dont turn this into a flame war or about why a pakistan plane cant be better that western equipment because that is not what is being discussed. Lets stick to the facts we have:

 

-Manufacturer info and public data says or seem to sat that his SD10 missile is somewhat between Aim120B and Aim120C.

 

Based on that, I guess we could all agree that the missile in the context of DCS should have somehow relative performance that reflect that statement (given that manufacturer claims are good enough which is a different animal altogether).

 

In my case I am ok since i fly both with blue and red planes and for sure will buy the jf17, but that does not change the fact that I also want something that allows me to replicate RL limitations and tactics (i.e. my missile X has less range that missile Y).

 

Edited: After reading the previous poster I totally agree that actually this is something for ED to improve rather that for Deka to change. Hopefully thus will be approached ASAP.

Edited December 3, 2019 by falcon_120

[falcon_120]

You guys realize that if the current AIM-120 is using the old guidance logic and lacks a proper CFD it will undoubtedly underperform to a contemporary missile that has a proper guidance model and CFD study right? Maybe the onus should be on ED to iterate the 120’s....

Amen to that

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[rrohde]

I hope deka do not listen to these people and mess up their reputation in the early days.

 

I agree - and I am sure that Deka - as all other developers - should only listen to their SMEs and engineers when it comes to their respective module development.

 

DCS is a simulation, not an arcade shooter, so usually phrases such as "nerfed" or "OP" don't apply, and should thus rightfully be ignored.

[Max1mus]

Simple question. Should the SD-10 outperform this

 

 

AIM-120C/D shot?

 

Because the current DCS version does, test it and count down the time and distance on impact if you want. And its not just AIM-120. It plays in an entirely different league drag wise than all DCS R-27, the Matra 530, the 77. It has a cold no escape zone on the deck between R-27ER and AIM-54. Somethings wrong.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Max1mus

[metzger]

Guys dont turn this into a flame war or about why a pakistan plane cant be better that western equipment because that is not what is being discussed. Lets stick to the facts we have:

 

-Manufacturer info and public data says or seem to sat that his SD10 missile is somewhat between Aim120B and Aim120C.

 

Based on that, I guess we could all agree that the missile in the context of DCS should have somehow relative performance that reflect that statement (given that manufacturer claims are good enough which is a different animal altogether).

 

In my case I am ok since i fly both with blue and red planes and for sure will buy the jf17, but that does not change the fact that I also want something that allows me to replicate RL limitations and tactics (i.e. my missile X has less range that missile Y).

 

Edited: After reading the previous poster I totally agree that actually this is something for ED to improve rather that for Deka to change. Hopefully thus will be approached ASAP.

 

Yes, what I am trying to say the whole time, instead people started screaming about balance for some reason. I am just slightly worried that ED improvement will not come so soon as we would like, so until then, we either have the unrealistic(based on the facts available) tactcs and limitations or DEKA should release with that in mind and update accordingly and in coordination with ED.

[shaHeen-1]

Glad to see everyone is so excited by a module no one really knew anything about a couple of months ago. Really looking forward to tomorrow. Got a new hotas on mail-order. Should be arriving soon.

[MobiSev]

For AIM-54 they might have gotten the kinematics right (or at least they sounded convincing), however I get the feeling that seeker performance (range, area coverage, resistance to notch, ground clutter, countermeasures etc.) is a bit...optimistic. Isn't it a bit strange that it is easier to defeat a modern aircraft radar with huge antenna and transmitting power then something crammed into a missile from mid 80s?

...

 

ED did not give HB access to the missile guidance part of the code. As a result, the HB team had to base the 54 guidance on a 120 template.

[MobiSev]

A quick google search:

 

"Designs are quite similar...The PL-12 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM. The two share a comparable aerodynamic configuration, although the PL-12 is a little longer, wider and heavier than the AMRAAM ....

 

According to Chinese claims, PL-12 is more capable than the American AIM-120 A/B, but slightly inferior than the AIM-120C."

 

But in sim, it is modelled right now very superior to the 120C. So all I am asking is, make it as per irl differences...Why make it so complicated

?!

 

Yes, why are making this so complicated. It is very simple...ED has said that they are going to be fixing their missiles in the coming months. So, they have, by their own admission, modeled their missiles incorrectly. You should be raging in the correct forum, namely the "DCS World 2.5" section instead of asking Deka to nerf their missile

Edited December 3, 2019 by MobiSev

[Matchstick]

Yes, what I am trying to say the whole time, instead people started screaming about balance for some reason. I am just slightly worried that ED improvement will not come so soon as we would like, so until then, we either have the unrealistic(based on the facts available) tactcs and limitations or DEKA should release with that in mind and update accordingly and in coordination with ED.

 

What are the "facts available" that show that the SD-10 performance in DCS is "unrealistic" ?

 

Not just that it's currently better than the DCS AIM-120C but that the missile's absolute performance is wrong.

[Schmidtfire]

Where are all these people suddenly coming from asking to tone down the simulaton because other modules do not have it realistic enough. This is just the worried multiplayer crowd who are most likely not even going to buy the jet (since they are asking its features to be toned down). Their heads are so closed from flying the planes from the 70s and 80s that they believe that something made in 2000 should underperform those american jets even when it is obvious they do not have certain features properly simulated.

 

 

I'm sure these are the same people that went crying to Heatblur to nerf their pheonix missile because it makes the jet "OP" and were rightfully ignored.

 

Now everyone praises heatblur for their level of simulation. I hope deka do not listen to these people and mess up their reputation in the early days.

 

Exactly this. Im pretty sure that at least half of the people in this thread fly Viper, Hornet or Eagle and won't even touch the JF-17.

 

We KNOW that the 120 will be updated. Why should Deka make SD-10 to match a missile we know is not performing correctly at the moment? Only one reason and it is called game balance. Not belonging in a sim environment.

 

 

This if anything might be a good catalyst for ED to actually update their missiles to perform as they should. Not only 120 but R-27 aswell.

[Coxy_99]

All missiles need updating, INS guidance etc etc.