Jump to content

Sd-10 Modeling Data


DCS FIGHTER PILOT
 Share

Recommended Posts

As I’m sure all of you are aware, there is a major discrepancy between ED modeled missiles and your own. I for one a very happy with what you guys have done with the SD-10 and was hoping that it would inspire much needed changes in ED’s missiles. Though it has inspired change I’m not sure if it will be enough. I know I am just the middle man here but if you could provide some much needed data to back up your modeling it would go a long way. If you have already then my apologies for this message but if you have not, why? It would clear up so much controversy and would set the benchmark for ED to shoot for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They cannot say their sources, but understand that they are using the real coefficients. They got this data from somewhere, but you won’t find out where.

 

The best thing that a user can do to collect data on it is run CFD on the 3D model. I don’t know what CFD program Deka used, but when Nighthawk did his CFD his results were pretty close to in game values

Link to comment
Share on other sites

............... I know I am just the middle man here but if you could provide some much needed data to back up your modeling it would go a long way. If you have already then my apologies for this message but if you have not, why? It would clear up so much controversy and would set the benchmark for ED to shoot for.

 

Why not the other way around, instead of asking Deka to proof it to you that their modeling is right, you deliver them data (your research) to backup your oppinion about their missile.

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the thing, I have little doubt that Deka modeled the SD-10 close to being correct. It is ED that I doubt. I was hoping that Deka could share with ED their data so that they would see how off they are. That does not look like it will happen.

 

Sharing their info with ED is part of the 3rd party license and QA process I believe. Plus SD-10 is not perfect at all altitudes right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They cannot say their sources, but understand that they are using the real coefficients. They got this data from somewhere, but you won’t find out where.

 

The best thing that a user can do to collect data on it is run CFD on the 3D model. I don’t know what CFD program Deka used, but when Nighthawk did his CFD his results were pretty close to in game values

 

Really what ED needs to do is redo all the missiles (starting with A/A) with some standardized process for the aerodynamic/thrust behavior. And the 3rd parties have to use that system, so that there is some standardization for the missiles. Maybe they're all off by 10% compared to real world numbers, but they are ALL off by 10% in the same direction, so that relatively speaking we still get something approaching relative performance.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really what ED needs to do is redo all the missiles (starting with A/A) with some standardized process for the aerodynamic/thrust behavior. And the 3rd parties have to use that system, so that there is some standardization for the missiles. Maybe they're all off by 10% compared to real world numbers, but they are ALL off by 10% in the same direction, so that relatively speaking we still get something approaching relative performance.

 

You don’t remember when ED stated all missiles will be re done and they will publish a white paper explaining their performance? It was around late december

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we cannot answer any question coming from CIA, obviously.

 

:thumbup:

 

Best reply in the thread.

 

I thought it was known that Deka are working with official sources? I guess not.

 

Instead of asking Deka how realistic their data is, how about asking ED to fix their missiles?

 

Relative performance

 

Even this would work as a temporary fix.


Edited by Tiger-II

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t remember when ED stated all missiles will be re done and they will publish a white paper explaining their performance? It was around late december

 

I do. I'm not holding my breath for it.

 

The other thing they need to model are seeker performance and guidance logic. But at a guess that's gonna be a guessing game for anything more modern than 90's era missiles.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even guessing somewhat accurately could be problematic, legally speaking, due to how US classification laws work.

 

The guidance logic is, IMHO, more important than the raw missile physics. This becomes even more important when discussing SAMs, as they don't all just fly straight towards the target, and it consequently affects defence strategies and missile evasion.


Edited by Tiger-II

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I’m sure all of you are aware, there is a major discrepancy between ED modeled missiles and your own. I for one a very happy with what you guys have done with the SD-10 and was hoping that it would inspire much needed changes in ED’s missiles. Though it has inspired change I’m not sure if it will be enough. I know I am just the middle man here but if you could provide some much needed data to back up your modeling it would go a long way. If you have already then my apologies for this message but if you have not, why? It would clear up so much controversy and would set the benchmark for ED to shoot for.

 

 

 

 

The ONLY reason ED changed the flight model on the AIM-120 is because of all the people who were crying about the SD-10 actually challenging SPAMRAAMERS. It's hilariously and disgusting at the same time due to ED stating they realize their missile codes are off and were giving the code a revamp....BUT THEY ONLY REVAMPED THE AIM120. Why not revamp the R77, 27-ET, 27-ER, etc?

 

 

Because since christmas 2019 was arriving ED was probably fearful that no one was is going to buy ED produced hornet and falcon modules during their winter sale unless they buffed the aim-120

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY reason ED changed the flight model on the AIM-120 is because of all the people who were crying about the SD-10 actually challenging SPAMRAAMERS. It's hilariously and disgusting at the same time due to ED stating they realize their missile codes are off and were giving the code a revamp....BUT THEY ONLY REVAMPED THE AIM120. Why not revamp the R77, 27-ET, 27-ER, etc?

 

 

Because since christmas 2019 was arriving ED was probably fearful that no one was is going to buy ED produced hornet and falcon modules during their winter sale unless they buffed the aim-120

 

They have said a few times they can only do one missile at a time, all the changes are made based off of CFD they run, which takes a lot of time, computing power, and money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have said a few times they can only do one missile at a time, all the changes are made based off of CFD they run, which takes a lot of time, computing power, and money

 

Yeah but I bet they have now put all the other missiles very far down their list. We won’t see anything for the other missile for a long time. I’ll be surprised if we see any Russian missile get any upgrade this year.

 

And they could fix the GOD like aim-120 that is completely resistant to any type of countermeasure and manoeuvre. That missile never and I mean NEVER stops track you even when you are in a perfect notch and dropping a ton of chaff in any situation that missile can never be tricked in anyway it is literally completely resistant to anything even physics.

 

Plus the Aim-120 is getting a further improvement on it guidance system. How do you improve What is already completely perfect.


Edited by Blinky.ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notch AIM-120 all the time. Slow down to make your notch bigger so you can be less precise, put your air brakes out, chaff as you turn into notch, and dive, make sure you are below the missile

 

Interesting, I see your point about slowing down as to make less Doppler. I usually keep high speed to make large leads for the missile, as if cranking in case notching doesn’t work out.

 

I will have to try this out. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High speed beaming is good for making the missile pull a lot of lead, however unfortunate current guidance in DCS means fox 3 always does pure pursuit when they are beyond Pitbull range, so it’s not as useful until they are within 7nm miles other then making them travel a bit further. I often slow down in a crank also while diving at radar gimbal limits, if you slow down head on(after they fire) the missile has to travel further, in addition to the pull needed to keep up wit your crank and the thicker air from your dive, sometimes that’s good enough to not even notch and chaff if they fire near max range. Obviously getting slow at the merge is bad, but you’re pretty invulnerable at slow speed diving in a notch until they are within heat seeker range

 

It is always surprising how many people trust there DLZ:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, I see your point about slowing down as to make less Doppler. I usually keep high speed to make large leads for the missile, as if cranking in case notching doesn’t work out.

 

I will have to try this out. Thanks

 

hi speed is excellent not for notching just for energy battle if u want to defeat aim120c even without chaff but u have to understand who it work cuz sometimes i found myself with no chaff and no flare and that is a perfect moment for energy battle and keep in mind better use terrain mask not just mountain u can even use tree ( drive the missile to the ground and fly in tree level ) and if u want a 100% notch fly below the missile and near to ground so u can be in ( green zone ) to confuse missile guidance there is a video in Growling sidewinder channel explaining this but against sam this video will be helpful for u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drag them to the deck and defeat them kinematically.

 

Flying behind tall objects works pretty well, too.

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...