SD-10 NERF?

[Max1mus]

Sorry, but we cannot analyze and debug the tacview. Only proper TRK from game.

 

Well you can easily recreate it. F-15 at mach 1.5, 46000 feet, headon E-3 at 32.000 or so set to no reaction to threat. Launch at 190 kilometers, missile impacts at 53km distance and mach 3.4. Only misses due to battery life.

[Chiron]

I don't know what argument you are making here...

 

I said that riojax and other people are demanding ED provide proof that the time is 80 instead of 100, but at the same time these same people did not demand Deka provide evidence of their missile performance. They were fine taking Dekas word without evidence but when it comes to making performance on par or worse than the AIM-120, now they demand evidence. They only cared that it was *better* than the AIM-120 rather than realistic.

 

i am sorry who said that exactly ??

 

what evidence are u talking about ?? then do u have a certificated document for every missile in this game ??

 

and what u are saying that if i want from ED some evidence about every missile in this game they will provide me with the proper document ??

 

and who said that we are comparing SD-10 with aim-120 family . they said from the start and not just Deka that SD-10 is between aim-120 B and C

 

u misunderstand our conversation here if u are some aim-120c lovers then u can just watch and dont interfere we are talking cuz the missile is dying and still there is some energy left and by down lifetime battery the missile die early with some energy left

Edited May 23, 2020 by Chiron

[SuumCuique]

Way to take something out of context.

 

Saying that the best public source is Wikipedia, does not mean, that DEKA used Wikipedia as the source for their simulation. We at the very least know, that DEKA had access to simulators of the JF-17.

[Chiron]

I would like to point out, that during an interview related to Deka... they admited that their best source of dat awas WIKIPEDIA

 

So yeah, if you are so outraged over EDs modification and want proof, just remember that Deka's best source of data is freaking WIKIPEDIA

 

 

as i recall aim-54 wasn't build with a certificate data

[Chiron]

Yes... and when SD-10 was first launched it was severely outperforming the AIM-120C in almost every way by a decent margin... Even now, with the nerfs, it still has longer range than the newly updated AIM-120C.

 

are u flying JF-17 my friend ?

 

and ofc it will fly longer than aim-120c its larger with 2 motor stages

Edited May 23, 2020 by Chiron

[Sajarov]

I don't know what argument you are making here...

 

I said that riojax and other people are demanding ED provide proof that the time is 80 instead of 100, but at the same time these same people did not demand Deka provide evidence of their missile performance. They were fine taking Dekas word without evidence but when it comes to making performance on par or worse than the AIM-120, now they demand evidence. They only cared that it was *better* than the AIM-120 rather than realistic.

ED doesn´t have data about the SD-10 missile. They only made a CFD analysis of the missile.

 

Deka made his own CFD analys and they have some info about the battery life of the SD-10.

 

 

We must believe them as there is no public evidence about it.

SD-10 has some weak points but also it has some strong points against AIM-120C5. That´s it.

 

 

The fact that Deka made an aircraft with no documents to provide to us left me skeptical DAY ONE.

Why Deka and not the others? I want to believe that it is not a case of racism.

[AeriaGloria]

Way to take something out of context.

 

Saying that the best public source is Wikipedia, does not mean, that DEKA used Wikipedia as the source for their simulation. We at the very least know, that DEKA had access to simulators of the JF-17.

 

If you listen to the video that’s exactly what they say Kocrachon. Wikipedia still has stuff wrong, but for a pretty secretive plane it really is the best starting point for educating yourself about it, that’s all they meant

 

The white paper used public info and CFD, no module maker will release their documents or name their sources explicitly

[LJQCN101]

I would like to point out, that during an interview related to Deka... they admited that their best source of dat awas WIKIPEDIA

 

So yeah, if you are so outraged over EDs modification and want proof, just remember that Deka's best source of data is freaking WIKIPEDIA

 

 

WIKIPEDIA is a joke actually. Try applying 3rd party using Wikipedia then.

 

Fun fact, Wikipedia is blocked in China.

[Chiron]

Its not out of context.

 

The problem means that they can make any value and theres little chance that anyone outside of Deka can verify the authenticity of the data. While raw data is not out there for the AIM-120 or R-77, there is public information that provides decent details on the possible min/max ranges of these missiles to compare against.

 

That information does not exist for the SD-10, which calls everything into question when we have to take the word of the people who are trying to profit off of it.

 

Heres what annoys me. People say "Ed is nerfinig it because its making bluefor mad and want to sell their own modules", why cant it be "Deka wants it to be better than the AIM-120 as a way to sell the JF-17 to more redfor players*.

 

You guys are attaching yourselves to Deka like they are not in this to make money either. None of you were being Objective when the missile was severely outperforming everything, but now that its nerfed you are some scientists who need the data to back it up? Its a joke.

 

do u want to know why we are so attached to Deka ?

 

cuz we finally found a 3rd part team that fix bugs and make it possible to fly more than any other in this game and they take it in serious way that is why

[Chiron]

do u think ?? i can pm people who complaining about Mirage bugs from a years of demanding fixing and no one responding

[Chiron]

and excuse me answer this question

 

what dev team delivered a near to full module since DCS started ???

[Sajarov]

Wow what a pathetic attempt at bait.

 

Or how about the fact that every other 3rd party is already using stuff in game? I already pointed out that unlike Deka, Heatblur provided public whitepapers on the AIM-54

 

RAZBAM has been transparent on working with the French Airforce around the 530.

 

 

We get *nothing* from Deka, but we are supposed to take their word? I don't trust that.

 

Again, there is a level of public data on *all* these other missiles, but not on the SD-10, which calls into question the accuracy when Deka won't give us a glimpse of some reliable data.

 

Again, people here are demanding PROOF from ED but not PROOF from Deka.

It is not a Bait. It is a plausible reason, sadly.

Heatblur provided public papers because these papers are public.

 

Has Razbam released any paper about the 530? And ED about 120C5?

 

 

 

Why you say that DEKA used unrealiable data? do you have reliable data? Nopes, then that is your opinion based in NOTHING. So Why are you attacking DEKA? Why you do not trust DEKA? Because SD-10 has more battery life than 120C5 according to them? or because they are chinese?

[Chiron]

Again... I said not all 3rd party devs are like RAZBAM.

 

Heatblur has also been a quality developer who also provided a WHITEPAPER on their missile.

 

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0HkS5CdnxlkSEAwPxpxI7_-gnzgEJ7d3E8ErgV9izO1Vi3ZYGo0-5oPH4

 

sorry i am not gonna comment about this doc cuz u are relaying on info about how heatblur created the missile where then the official proof :megalol::megalol:

[AeriaGloria]

Its not out of context.

 

The problem means that they can make any value and theres little chance that anyone outside of Deka can verify the authenticity of the data. While raw data is not out there for the AIM-120 or R-77, there is public information that provides decent details on the possible min/max ranges of these missiles to compare against.

 

That information does not exist for the SD-10, which calls everything into question when we have to take the word of the people who are trying to profit off of it.

 

Heres what annoys me. People say "Ed is nerfinig it because its making bluefor mad and want to sell their own modules", why cant it be "Deka wants it to be better than the AIM-120 as a way to sell the JF-17 to more redfor players*.

 

You guys are attaching yourselves to Deka like they are not in this to make money either. None of you were being Objective when the missile was severely outperforming everything, but now that its nerfed you are some scientists who need the data to back it up? Its a joke.

 

Out of context? The full sentence from the video is “the best source of public info will be Wikipedia.” This is in response to a question asking to give a summary of what the JF-17 is. Absolutely nothing about them using it, and when asked later in the video they refused to name their sources of info, just like almost all third parties and module makers won’t state where they got their info.

 

Look I can’t convonce you if you think every single one of us was never objective. You had a point against one person asking for documents. But a lot of do take this very seriously and have been participating in every thread about it.

 

I don’t know what sources you have for AMRAAM and R-77, but I don’t think they could be much better sources of info then the stated 70km range for SD-10 which was received from several tests and spoken about at great length by the original designer, putting it between AMRAAM bravo and Charlie. If you like I can attach the whole interview with the original SD-10/PL-12 designer, it’s very informative.

They have been around for a long time the AMRAAM and R-77, so theirs a lot of places that use the brochure range for AMRAAM and R-77, perhaps that’s what you mean, just becuase there is fewer websites that have the brochure range of SD-10 doesn’t make them any less valid.

 

And the HB white paper? The only real world info it uses are the parameters of USN tests from the 1970s, that’s all, the rest is all CFD and info they made themselves. The never name a source for battery life or seeker or anything besides the range from the tests, tests that everyone already knows about becuase it’s an old missile. You will not find equivalent data for Aim-120 or R-77, other then at one point they reached brochure range from the altitude and speed each country uses as a baseline.

Edited May 23, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[Chiron]

It is not a Bait. It is a plausible reason, sadly.

Heatblur provided public papers because these papers are public.

 

Has Razbam released any paper about the 530? And ED about 120C5?

 

 

 

Why you say that DEKA used unrealiable data? do you have reliable data? Nopes, then that is your opinion based in NOTHING. So Why are you attacking DEKA? Why you do not trust DEKA? Because SD-10 has more battery life than 120C5 according to them? or because they are chinese?

 

as Deka said cuz its ''' made in china '''' most of people around the world think cuz its '''' made in china '''' that is mean its a crap quality

[Chiron]

Theres no information on the AIM-120C because up until recently, it performed like a video game because its from the LOMAC days when they wer etrying to force WVR combat tactics. And as we have seen with Chizh, he is taking the time to provide us with information and documents and samples on request, he even said details *will* come out with the update in June, which is still more than Deka has done for us.

 

As for RAZBAM and the Super 530? I admit, I don't know, but probably not because RAZBAM has been using fake shit from the start, such as giving an older harrier JDAMs when that version didn't use it... So RAZBAM is even worse than Deka in this scenario.

 

But HeatBlur did the right thing, while also providing a high quality module, and I would expect some level of similar evidence from Deka if I am to trust their missile performance.

 

then why u assume that Razbam is right with their info and Deka not ??

 

i think if u watched this video that u are referring to u will see when he asked him what is your source he didn't replay if its wiki why he didn't say its wiki ?

[Chiron]

and one last question cuz i will not convince u with something u dont understand

 

DO U HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT SAID THAT DEKA IS WRONG AND SD-10 INFO IS WRONG ?

 

if u are not then why u are talking

[Chiron]

And, again, you ignored my statement on this.

 

The problem is the public info being in the wiki is the fact that there is almost *no* public information so there is almost no way to verify even the tiniest bit of data. While the AIM-120C and AIM-120B don't have full on specs out there, there is a ton of different data that can be used to at least get an idea of a missile is accurate or not. So far, the only "Public Info" we have about the SD-10 is it performs in between the AIM-120B and AIM-120C. Which right now, it outperforms both still even after the nerf, and when first launch, severely outperformed them.. So if all we have is that tiny bit of information, either we can say that the AIM-120C is severely under performing and needs a larger buff, or that the SD-10 was way over tuned and needed to be nerfed.

 

who the hell said that SD-10 is out performance Aim-120c and dont tell me u are relaying on Range and SD-10 after nerf still outperformed aim-120c ??

 

after this statement i am done talking looks like there is a lot info u dont know about

[L0op8ack]

logic chain:

1. people need evidence;

2. we cannot provide where it's from;

3. so, wiki is the best, the end.

 

 

If somebody cannot accept it, believe what you believe please.

[AeriaGloria]

Which right now, it outperforms both still even after the nerf

Prior to this patch, it out performed the AIM-120C in nearly every category. The only advantage its supposed to have is kinetic.

 

Before or after this patch? It does have several advantages that aren’t kinectically, like 38G limit, it is not entirely worse. It’s greater amount of rocket power but greater drag means its range has bigger NEZ as well

Edited May 23, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[Chaogen]

then why u assume that Razbam is right with their info and Deka not ??

 

i think if u watched this video that u are referring to u will see when he asked him what is your source he didn't replay if its wiki why he didn't say its wiki ?

 

You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem along with the inability to articulate your argument, which just comes out completely contradictory.

 

You can not argue that a degradation in performance can only be done with peer reviewed information when the basis for the performance in the first base was not established with peer review information in the first place.

 

Certified Missiles. That's a new one. Like any arms manufacturer is going to certify the performance of weapon like this or its operation. But you can use multiple information sources to substantiate a baseline. The SD-10 lacks those. To which you can add to that some basic scientific analyses such as CFD, but a simple we should trust them statement is completely irrelevant and self-serving. And a definitive conflict of interest if you will.

[Terrificfool]

Wow, this sure has gotten heated. Looking at Nighthawk's graph it seems a compromise had to be made... whether or not the part of the curve that is most important to match is the part before the missile motor cutoff, or after the missile motor cutoff.

 

For dialing in the maximum range of the weapon, obviously getting the part after the motor cuts off is going to have a much larger effect on the achievable range. And considering it closely matches an outside party's CFD results lends credence to the change. Nighthawk has published some compelling evidence that suggests his CFD analyses are pretty accurate.

 

Just a reminder to everyone in the thread: if someone wants to claim that their analysis is superior/more accurate, they typically have to provide hard supporting evidence. If you claim 'our analysis is right' without providing objective supporting evidence, then the claim cannot be accepted on anything but blind faith.

[Tippis]

I can not say anything about SD-10 battery. We have not any data.

I don't know.

So presumably, this change was made in error and will be fixed back to its original value?

Edited May 23, 2020 by Tippis

[Paradox]

This is pretty silly. As end users in DCS we all accept that developers know things they can't tell us. This is true of almost every module.

 

Deka have their reasons for modelling the SD-10 like they did. What reason is there to change it other than ED doesn't like it?

 

Scummy

 

Will the same thing happen to True Grit's Meteor?

 

When the Mirage came out they were asked to use ED's version of Magic II and Super 530D and they were TERRIBLE missiles, did not perform to a single parameter until Razbam made their own versions with more accurate data and more care.

[nighthawk2174]

I have not know about work-time of the SD-10 power system.

But I suspect that it should be something like AMRAAM. It makes no sense to do longer because an inertial system produces unacceptable errors.

 

Wait but why ignore Deka on this they said their very confident on their number while your 80sec is purely an assumption... Also good to see my CFD is quite close to yours well within what I'd consider a good margin of error for different solvers with different 3d models.

Edited May 23, 2020 by nighthawk2174