SD-10 NERF?

[Chizh]

u can explain them pls cuz u said u didn't reduce battery life and u were concern about dragging issue then why all this changes

I don't know about changing battery time.

This question to Deca team please.

[Chiron]

I don't know about changing battery time.

This question to Deca team please.

 

dont ignore me here that is not right

 

Life Time / Fi search / cx_k0 / cx_k1 / cx_k3 / another value i dont know about / working time system

 

explain this pls that is what i am interested in

[Krippz]

dont ignore me here that is not right

 

I don't think that's the way you should talk to a developer that took time out to respond to people in this thread and share insight. He'll get to you if he can.

[Terrorban]

I want to clarify the situation a bit to reduce the amount of insinuations.

 

We investigated the SD-10 model in CFD and compared the data on the drag coefficient with what would be in the game. After which we wrote our recommendations in Deca.

 

Let's discuss PL-12/SD-10 zero-lift drag.

 

 

Fig. 1 shows in-game drag curve (before corrections) and CFD one. As you can see here is a major error at supersonic speed - decreased zero-lift drag about 30% from CFD and high peak around transsonic.

CFD data is obtained on 3.9M elements good quality mesh using SA-turbulence model. Coeffs referenced to 0.0324 sq.m area.

 

We sent these results to the Deca, after which we obtain a missile correction.

 

 

As you can see, the gap in the supersonic part has decreased by about half. In the transonic region, the peak has grown even more.

 

This means that the missiles at high altitudes and speeds continues to fly better than the CFD one.

 

This is great and all but can you also provide same exact data, in the same graphical manner, for AIM-120C and place it Side by Side so we can understand what is so unbelieveable with the performance of SD-10 when compared with what you have done with the new AMRAAM in game now?

 

I would love to see the differences and inaccuracies since you guys keep saying things are not correct with the SD-10 as they should be when compared. Please also specify which SD-10 model was used by ED for this study. There is nothing confidential about saying just the model name as we already specify NATO weapons that way in this game. So far neither Deka nor ED have specified what version of SD-10 they have referenced when developing the in game model.

 

I would also like to use this opportunity to ask, will you change the performance and behaviour of AIM-54 with your own personal study results? True Grit are also working on Meteor missile it seems. What involvement will you have on the development of that missile?

 

My concern is with the missile performance in general. If all missiles will be behaving in similar manner and have no unique profile to them anymore, this standardises the Air to Air game aspect.

[Chiron]

I don't think that's the way you should talk to a developer that took time out to respond to people in this thread and share insight. He'll get to you if he can.

 

my friend i asked the question 3 times and he ignored it he first asked me what u interesting in to know and then i told him 3 times and he keep answering everyone ( what do u think is that ) if its not he ignoring me

[AeriaGloria]

Thanks to Tiger who pointed it out, the side of the missile in game and on all Pakistani JF-17s says SD-10A, but no physical differences are know to the original SD-10

[Chizh]

dont ignore me here that is not right

 

Life Time / Fi search / cx_k0 / cx_k1 / cx_k3 / another value i dont know about / working time system

 

explain this pls that is what i am interested in

Life Time is the value of battery time of missile, i.s. controllable flight.

[Chizh]

This is great and all but can you also provide same exact data, in the same graphical manner, for AIM-120C and place it Side by Side so we can understand what is so unbelieveable with the performance of SD-10 when compared with what you have done with the new AMRAAM in game now?

We have plans to publish diagrams of aerodynamic research, and those parameters that will work in the new AMRAAM model.

 

I would love to see the differences and inaccuracies since you guys keep saying things are not correct with the SD-10 as they should be when compared. Please also specify which SD-10 model was used by ED for this study. There is nothing confidential about saying just the model name as we already specify NATO weapons that way in this game. So far neither Deka nor ED have specified what version of SD-10 they have referenced when developing the in game model.

We don't know what SD-10 model exactly. For aerodynamic research we used that 3D model, which is included in the JF-17 module.

 

I would also like to use this opportunity to ask, will you change the performance and behaviour of AIM-54 with your own personal study results?

Our weapons team is very busy with current developments, but we will try to help the Heathblur team to finalize the AIM-54.

 

My concern is with the missile performance in general. If all missiles will be behaving in similar manner and have no unique profile to them anymore, this standardises the Air to Air game aspect.

The development of weapons in the core DCS team will allow the development by one standard, and release weapons of the same quality. This is a big plus for the game, since it relieves the game of an armaments race, when external developers, wishing or not, sometimes try to make their weapons better than they are in reality.

[falcon_120]

I think that is a good approach indeed, all weapons managed by ED to standardize quality or at least a common ground, eg. What max range is, so even if its done wrong, it will be equally 'wrong' for all sides.

 

I'm sorry for those who keep seeing ghosts and cospirancies in ED, buffing or nerfing weapons to sell more. Which every now and then get dismantle by facts, like the A10 gun being worse of what it actually is for many years because an engineer kept thinking that his data was right, only to be corrected recently. If conspiracies were true, i'm sure ED would have made the A10 gun a super weapon to sell more copies of 'blue' A10, beimg some years ago their only high fidelity module.

 

All I can see in every iteration of DCS world is that ED is guided by evidence, even when sometimes they make mistakes caused by its stuborness or their decisions are not welcome by some fanboys who see their favourite aircrafts not excelling as they think they should.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[AeriaGloria]

Well that’s odd, since the original life time value was 180 and now it’s 120, and working power time of system was 100 seconds and now 80. I thought maybe it was same as working power time but in different measures however 180/120 is higher then 100/80.

[Harlikwin]

The development of weapons in the core DCS team will allow the development by one standard, and release weapons of the same quality. This is a big plus for the game, since it relieves the game of an armaments race, when external developers, wishing or not, sometimes try to make their weapons better than they are in reality.

 

That sounds like a good path forward. Any chance you will double check the Razbam magic missile and 530D? And the polychop mistral?

[Krippz]

The development of weapons in the core DCS team will allow the development by one standard, and release weapons of the same quality. This is a big plus for the game, since it relieves the game of an armaments race, when external developers, wishing or not, sometimes try to make their weapons better than they are in reality.

 

That's very good to hear and what our simulator needs.

[VirusAM]

We have plans to publish diagrams of aerodynamic research, and those parameters that will work in the new AMRAAM model.

 

 

We don't know what SD-10 model exactly. For aerodynamic research we used that 3D model, which is included in the JF-17 module.

 

 

Our weapons team is very busy with current developments, but we will try to help the Heathblur team to finalize the AIM-54.

 

 

The development of weapons in the core DCS team will allow the development by one standard, and release weapons of the same quality. This is a big plus for the game, since it relieves the game of an armaments race, when external developers, wishing or not, sometimes try to make their weapons better than they are in reality.

 

Thanks Chizh, for taking the time to interact with us.

I am not interested in people whining....

But i am very interested in the fact that ED team is planning to do all the missiles (and i hope also weapons in general not only AA missiles) for all the modules.

I think this is a very big and welcome news.

Thanks again

[Terrorban]

We have plans to publish diagrams of aerodynamic research, and those parameters that will work in the new AMRAAM model.

 

We don't know what SD-10 model exactly. For aerodynamic research we used that 3D model, which is included in the JF-17 module.

 

Our weapons team is very busy with current developments, but we will try to help the Heathblur team to finalize the AIM-54.

 

The development of weapons in the core DCS team will allow the development by one standard, and release weapons of the same quality. This is a big plus for the game, since it relieves the game of an armaments race, when external developers, wishing or not, sometimes try to make their weapons better than they are in reality.

 

I do appreciate all the effort you guys are promising at the moment. Please do not change half things now and then leave it untouched for another year or two as it is getting quite frustrating.

 

I hope this time when you say that there is a change coming, it will not stay half complete for long period of time because the development focus changed to the next latest ED released module.

 

Please fix the core game before introducing new content. With more modern jets coming to this game, it is now clear that performance simulation part is going to be far from accurate, for obvious reasons. Even the real pilots have already said that this is just a game and the aircrafts behave similar but not like the real thing.

 

I just hope that you guys actually finish weapons development so we do not have to see so many changes coming to them each time there is an update. Fanboyism or not, fluctuating weapons performance is really annoying. People on here will always have constant debate about everything available in DCS and it would be quite professional if developers, including ED not get influenced by them.

 

Standardizing all weapon behaviour seems to be the safest way out of the political debates since there will always be constant heated arguements around these war machines.

 

For further clarity, can you also specify how much involvement ED will have when the 3rd Party Developer is designing a new weapon for their module? Forcing a developer to abandon it's work and replace it with your own after they have completed it sounds like a waste of their time and resources.

[deadpool]

We have plans to publish diagrams of aerodynamic research, and those parameters that will work in the new AMRAAM model.

 

 

We don't know what SD-10 model exactly. For aerodynamic research we used that 3D model, which is included in the JF-17 module.

 

 

Our weapons team is very busy with current developments, but we will try to help the Heathblur team to finalize the AIM-54.

 

 

The development of weapons in the core DCS team will allow the development by one standard, and release weapons of the same quality. This is a big plus for the game, since it relieves the game of an armaments race, when external developers, wishing or not, sometimes try to make their weapons better than they are in reality.

 

Hi Chizh,

 

I can absolutely understand the motivation behind having some sort of "ruling authority" on realism for DCS, as the thread title clearly reveals there are some loud voices out there.

 

Now here are my thoughts why it shouldn't be ED, sadly:

 

1.) ED has enough on their plate. They just postponed a prime module for an entire year because they misjudged their ressource planning.

Does taking over the missile development for the 3rd party devs mean that the F-16 is going to have to wait even longer? Will you finish development on the Phoenix guidance, as it is currently a heavily modded and pressed into shape version of the AMRAAM Fox-3? Where will the time for that come from?

 

2.) People have been saying for years that the ranges for the missiles in DCS so far (in particular the AIM120B) are Airquake ranges. Whenever I spoke of BVR, I said it meant "Barely visual range". (And I don't mean this in a condescending way towards you developers).

It took the arrival of the SD10 from Deka to challenge this and to successfully get changes on the range of the AMRAAM initiated! This would not happen if everything had been in the hands of ED. We would still have the same AMRAAM ranges!

 

3.) Notching and radar in DCS are very arcade and joke'ish. It looks as if it's build that way for competitions where you can pull off these maneuvers to gain an upper hand instead of having to go realistic routes. I would love to see that notching aspect of missile guidance challenged by a third party developer! And I have my hopes up for TrueGrit Virtual Techologies here.

 

So these are my three big points why I don't think consolidating this in the hands of ED is a good idea.

[TAW_Blaze]

@Chizh:

 

These missile flight model updates are great, however it all results in handicapped missiles regardless because they are gimped by poor guidance.

 

What is happening in this area?

 

- When can we expect to see modern missiles be able to extrapolate target trajectory in case the lock is momentary lost?

- When can we expect to have more reasonable representation of ground clutter filtering?

- Are ECCM updates planned at all? i.e. chaff modeling

 

Currently all active missiles are just returning to 1 G neutral when notched resulting in physically impossible intercept geometry even if the target is found. It is enough to be in the notch for a split second and it will spoof most of the missiles.

 

People are notching at altitudes above 20 000 ft with < 20 degrees look down angle where there is no ground clutter within 10 - 15 miles yet a missile with an active radar range of < 8 miles is getting notched.

[Blinky.ben]

Hi Chizh,

 

I can absolutely understand the motivation behind having some sort of "ruling authority" on realism for DCS, as the thread title clearly reveals there are some loud voices out there.

 

Now here are my thoughts why it shouldn't be ED, sadly:

 

1.) ED has enough on their plate. They just postponed a prime module for an entire year because they misjudged their ressource planning.

Does taking over the missile development for the 3rd party devs mean that the F-16 is going to have to wait even longer? Will you finish development on the Phoenix guidance, as it is currently a heavily modded and pressed into shape version of the AMRAAM Fox-3? Where will the time for that come from?

 

2.) People have been saying for years that the ranges for the missiles in DCS so far (in particular the AIM120B) are Airquake ranges. Whenever I spoke of BVR, I said it meant "Barely visual range". (And I don't mean this in a condescending way towards you developers).

It took the arrival of the SD10 from Deka to challenge this and to successfully get changes on the range of the AMRAAM initiated! This would not happen if everything had been in the hands of ED. We would still have the same AMRAAM ranges!

 

3.) Notching and radar in DCS are very arcade and joke'ish. It looks as if it's build that way for competitions where you can pull off these maneuvers to gain an upper hand instead of having to go realistic routes. I would love to see that notching aspect of missile guidance challenged by a third party developer! And I have my hopes up for TrueGrit Virtual Techologies here.

 

So these are my three big points why I don't think consolidating this in the hands of ED is a good idea.

 

 

Also to add how will you priorities 3rd party weapons against ED’s. For example the Aim-120 has all the Attention ED has to give. Yet Deka can’t even get the API they need from ED for the dual ignition sequence for the SD-10. Is there even a indication to which year we can see that coming? It is a gigantic feature of the missile.

 

This also include the Brm-1 90’s and the anti runway bombs. All need ED to make their part for them to work correctly. So I agree ED has too much to deal with the 3rd party weapons will just end up forever in the bin

Edited May 25, 2020 by Blinky.ben

[AeriaGloria]

It is up for debate whether this variant of SD-10 has dual impulse motor or not. A dev mentioned it long Ago when talking about API restrictions, and when we asked Foxwxl they told us it was a different more advanced variant, so I am unsure if this is a feature of SD-10A

[deadpool]

Also to add how will you priorities 3rd party weapons against ED’s. For example the Aim-120 has all the Attention ED has to give. Yet Deka can’t even get the API they need from ED for the dual ignition sequence for the SD-10. Is there even a indication to which year we can see that coming? It is a gigantic feature of the missile.

 

This also include the Brm-1 90’s and the anti runway bombs. All need ED to make their part for them to work correctly. So I agree ED has too much to deal with the 3rd party weapons will just end up forever in the bin

 

Yeah, there's a nice GBU-24 thread especially for the F-14 guys. Waiting for quite some time for that, hinging on the Paveway III guidance.

[L0op8ack]

It is up for debate whether this variant of SD-10 has dual impulse motor or not. A dev mentioned it long Ago when talking about API restrictions, and when we asked Foxwxl they told us it was a different more advanced variant, so I am unsure if this is a feature of SD-10A

 

 

SD-10 need no dual impulse so far, unless Deka want to model PL-15.

But the coming beast 'Eurofighter Typhoon' will need 'Meteor' sooner or later,

so the 'dual impulse' will be in ED's TODO list.

Edited May 26, 2020 by L0op8ack

[GGTharos]

There is 'two stage' capability already which covers the METEOR, although not perfectly.

 

Unfortunately to cover what METEOR does is harder than 'dual pulse' because what METEOR is has is:

 

Stage 1 - boost (ok, easy in DCS)

Stage 2 - sustain (easy in DCS BUT) which is throttle-able (we don't even know how/when to change thrust)

 

So stage 2 operates for a long time, which is the easy part, but it is also able to change thrust, which not only isn't available in DCS, but even if it was we don't know how/why you would change thrust.

[TAW_Blaze]

There is 'two stage' capability already which covers the METEOR, although not perfectly.

 

Unfortunately to cover what METEOR does is harder than 'dual pulse' because what METEOR is has is:

 

Stage 1 - boost (ok, easy in DCS)

Stage 2 - sustain (easy in DCS BUT) which is throttle-able (we don't even know how/when to change thrust)

 

So stage 2 operates for a long time, which is the easy part, but it is also able to change thrust, which not only isn't available in DCS, but even if it was we don't know how/why you would change thrust.

 

Apart from experimenting with what's possible modeling a METEOR in DCS is pointless. It has no contemporary opponents and the majority of relevant infrastructure is nonexistent in DCS.

 

I'd much rather see this effort go to something actually useful.

[Chizh]

For further clarity, can you also specify how much involvement ED will have when the 3rd Party Developer is designing a new weapon for their module?

 

Yes of course. When we start developing weapons for third parties, this will be indicated.

[Chizh]

1.) ED has enough on their plate. They just postponed a prime module for an entire year because they misjudged their ressource planning.

Does taking over the missile development for the 3rd party devs mean that the F-16 is going to have to wait even longer? Will you finish development on the Phoenix guidance, as it is currently a heavily modded and pressed into shape version of the AMRAAM Fox-3? Where will the time for that come from?

Yes you are right. We are currently short of time in some tasks. Therefore, we plan to expand our Weapons department so that we can work not only on domestic tasks, but also on the development of weapons for third parties.

 

2.) People have been saying for years that the ranges for the missiles in DCS so far (in particular the AIM120B) are Airquake ranges. Whenever I spoke of BVR, I said it meant "Barely visual range". (And I don't mean this in a condescending way towards you developers).

It took the arrival of the SD10 from Deka to challenge this and to successfully get changes on the range of the AMRAAM initiated! This would not happen if everything had been in the hands of ED. We would still have the same AMRAAM ranges!

It is not true.

SD-10 did not affect the AIM-120 studies in any way. In addition, the range of 120 did not increase noticeably. There is an increase there only in case of shooting at a maneuvering target. In general, the range of 120 was quite real earlier too.

 

3.) Notching and radar in DCS are very arcade and joke'ish.

What is wrong there?

[Chizh]

@Chizh:

 

These missile flight model updates are great, however it all results in handicapped missiles regardless because they are gimped by poor guidance.

 

What is happening in this area?

 

- When can we expect to see modern missiles be able to extrapolate target trajectory in case the lock is momentary lost?

- When can we expect to have more reasonable representation of ground clutter filtering?

- Are ECCM updates planned at all? i.e. chaff modeling

 

Currently all active missiles are just returning to 1 G neutral when notched resulting in physically impossible intercept geometry even if the target is found. It is enough to be in the notch for a split second and it will spoof most of the missiles.

 

People are notching at altitudes above 20 000 ft with < 20 degrees look down angle where there is no ground clutter within 10 - 15 miles yet a missile with an active radar range of < 8 miles is getting notched.

We have plan to improvement of guidance, CCM and ECCM issues of course.

But these are very difficult issues, since they are almost completely closed in all countries.