Sn8ke_iis Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 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. Yahtzee!!!! There's a lot of people on this thread who simply aren't as knowledgeable as they think they are or lack critical thinking skills. Even that awesome white paper in the Google drive link (reading through it right now) had to at some point make an educated guess about thrust values. And for the record I was going to buy this module probably next year on sale to support the developer. I have more modules than time. But I think I might buy it to check out these new missiles. Is there a preorder discount like the F-16, perhaps through their website like HB? 2019 has been a great year for DCS. F-14, F-16, two new 3rd party developers with full fidelity modules. Good times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danvac Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 DEKA should release with that in mind and update accordingly and in coordination with ED. Why just DEKA? Shouldn't also other 3rd parties downgrade their missiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy_99 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Unless you work for the manufacture that produces them everything is guess work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matchstick Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Is there a preorder discount like the F-16, perhaps through their website like HB? The module is out tomorrow so not much of a window for pre-ordering :) But there is meant to be a $10 discount, making the module $69.99, for the rest of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keks Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Holy shit this is pathetic. Some of you guys are way worse than a 13yo who just found out that the new League of Legends hero is a counter to the one he plays and now tries to lobby to his own advantage because, I dont even know its just a game. Fun fact: The aim-120 issue is known and ED has even announced that they will work on it. So I dont get why people are suddently so agitated. The "muh realism" part is just cringe. It saddens me tbh. That the "nerf this" sorry, "make this more realistic" discussion always comes up as soon something new is released. 8 out of 10 times it is not justified, people just fear that they lose they advantage because of it. Stop it. Get some help. Even more so when, like I sad, the problem is known and ED announced that they will in fact rework the missiles. What else do you guys want? Seriously. Thank you Deka for taking the risk of making a rather unknown (compared to the iconic cold war jets) plane and thank you for inovating and pushing the limits of this awesome video game (there I said it: game) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contact409 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 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. check your post at 36, 40. you are the one who`s asking the balance. and JF-17 never was a copy of F16, it was a product developed of late Chengdu F7 fighter which is a chinese version of MIG21. study up before saying it`s a copy of so and so. I`m done with this post for sure. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I9-9900K-Gigabyte 2080Ti Gaming OC, 32G DDR4000 RAM, Track IR5, HOTAS Cougar + über Nxt Hall Sensor Mod, Slaw Device RX Viper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 check your post at 36, 40. you are the one who`s asking the balance. and JF-17 never was a copy of F16, it was a product developed of late Chengdu F7 fighter which is a chinese version of MIG21. study up before saying it`s a copy of so and so. I`m done with this post for sure. It's meant to be a highly economical and modular replacement for the F-16. If replacement=copy then yes it is a copy. It combines China's vast experience in building plane tech (a lot of it based on Russian tech) with Pakistan's experience of flying and operating the F-16 for many decades. Im not very knowledgeable about fighters and I struggle to imagine what this thing has in common with an F7 or Mig21 except the gun and maybe some out of sight mechanical system. Mig21 is a supersonic cruise missile with big wings and a human strapped to it. I don't see the resemblance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTeo Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 The fuselage is very similar to a Mig 21 if you look carefully. It's very much like a Fishbed with bigger wings, LERX and a tail inspired by the Viper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RampantCoyote Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 2019 has been a great year for DCS. F-14, F-16, two new 3rd party developers with full fidelity modules. Good times! F-14, Christen Eagle, MiG-19, F-16, I-16, Fw-190 A-8, and now the JF-17. Record year. 2020 is going to have a tough time matching this, although the Kiowa Warrior and P-47 are a good start. I would love to see a bunch of aircraft exit Early Access, too - particularly the Tomcat, Hornet, Viper,and Razbam aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoqumba Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 That's the end of the topic. You win! Got the desired result. This is the third time SD-10 has been weakened. To be honest, I'm curious about what you really think. On the one hand, you are constantly asking for advanced modern airplanes, preferably those from the red camp. On the other hand, you can't tolerate their advantages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon_120 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 That's the end of the topic. You win! Got the desired result. This is the third time SD-10 has been weakened. To be honest, I'm curious about what you really think. On the one hand, you are constantly asking for advanced modern airplanes, preferably those from the red camp. On the other hand, you can't tolerate their advantagesSorry what are the news? How its been teaked for a third time? Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoqumba Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Sorry what are the news? How its been teaked for a third time? Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk Hello! Because of the controversy, dis decided to weaken part of the performance of SD10 at the request of ED. At the same time, dis may assist ed to develop a new missile API. Unfortunately, we still have to wait for a while before we can experience real beyond visual range air combat:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 That's the end of the topic. You win! Got the desired result. This is the third time SD-10 has been weakened. To be honest, I'm curious about what you really think. On the one hand, you are constantly asking for advanced modern airplanes, preferably those from the red camp. On the other hand, you can't tolerate their advantages I still dont know why this argument is on going. One side seems to want the missile to be implemented according to best available data. dekas seems to have done that. the other side wants the relative best-known performances between the various DCS missiles to also stay constant. This is also a valid need that both sides want as long as it reflects the data. But this job lies with ED and not with Deka. I don't see why Deka should even bother reading this thread. They have nothing to do with this. It makes no sense to alter the SD10 in anyway unless it is departing from the best available data that Deka has and no alteration request has been made for "SeCuRiTy ReAsOnS". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 (edited) well..... Edited December 3, 2019 by NineLine 1.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJQCN101 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Hello! Because of the controversy, dis decided to weaken part of the performance of SD10 at the request of ED. At the same time, dis may assist ed to develop a new missile API. Unfortunately, we still have to wait for a while before we can experience real beyond visual range air combat:( We don’t develop missile API. EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoqumba Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 We don’t develop missile API. 呃!不好意思不好意思!起来看qq,发现已经聊起来了,想发个回复,我有点误会409大佬的话了 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel_108 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 No worries, DCS is an arcade game anyways. No matter what other people say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LF_Luftmanu Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Is this for real? I want an AIM 54 with INGAME missile standards too. I have no words. I am little upset to be honest. Why needs the SD-10 to be nerfed if the AIM 120 is not working correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoqumba Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 I still dont know why this argument is on going. One side seems to want the missile to be implemented according to best available data. dekas seems to have done that. the other side wants the relative best-known performances between the various DCS missiles to also stay constant. This is also a valid need that both sides want as long as it reflects the data. But this job lies with ED and not with Deka. I don't see why Deka should even bother reading this thread. They have nothing to do with this. It makes no sense to alter the SD10 in anyway unless it is departing from the best available data that Deka has and no alteration request has been made for "SeCuRiTy ReAsOnS". I'm sorry, my reply seems a little rude! It's just me... I always dream of a modern, red plane. From the bottom of my heart, I hope that the plane I like is powerful, which I'm a little upset now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawk2174 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Yeah in the end Deka has 0 control over the missile API all they can do is plug in some numbers in a lua file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaHeen-1 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 I'm sorry, my reply seems a little rude! It's just me... I always dream of a modern, red plane. From the bottom of my heart, I hope that the plane I like is powerful, which I'm a little upset now Now you gotta make the hornets and eagles waste ALL 120s with the help of the jamming pod I guess. Then you can use your 4 SD10s if they aren't already long cold to get more 120s. Goodluck. They could have at least waited a couple of weeks to change it. No need to put a drag on the module just as it is about to go on sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LF_Luftmanu Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 This is a huge step backwards. So we can confirm that if ED has nerfed this one, they will probably nerf or have nerfed more weapons in the past? Realism? where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTeo Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Hopefully it's only temporary and they will bring it back in line when they fix the AMRAAM. Also hopefully, that happens sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel_108 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 It really is a shame. I wouldn’t bet on a missile rework for the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sajarov Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 check your post at 36, 40. you are the one who`s asking the balance. and JF-17 never was a copy of F16, it was a product developed of late Chengdu F7 fighter which is a chinese version of MIG21. study up before saying it`s a copy of so and so. I`m done with this post for sure. But hey! They do not ask for balance when they fight with a 2006 F/A-18 or a F-16C Block 50 (2008?) against a 1993 Su-27S and 1991 MiG-29S. No R-77-1 and the performance of the R-27R is similar to the AIM-9P5. :doh: But Hey! ED said that the performance of the R-27R is close to their charts. :lol: We need proper missiles. If ED does not fix their missiles is their problem. :megalol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts