SD-10

[Max1mus]

Why when a missile is slightly underperforming, everyone comes crawling out of their holes trying to prove how it should be better, but when a missile has too much range at high altitude (like the SD-10 here), people will try their very best to defend it.

 

Why is the community so biased towards overperforming missiles? Because they want to use them? It is surely slightly disappointing, especially since 3rd party devs know this and are trying to make a profit out of it.

[Tiger-II]

Why when a missile is slightly underperforming, everyone comes crawling out of their holes trying to prove how it should be better, but when a missile has too much range at high altitude (like the SD-10 here), people will try their very best to defend it.

 

Why is the community so biased towards overperforming missiles? Because they want to use them? It is surely slightly disappointing, especially since 3rd party devs know this and are trying to make a profit out of it.

 

Did you check my ACMIs?

 

SD-10 is about where it should be. I wouldn't say it is "over-performing", nor would I scream it is under-performing, based on what I've seen in limited testing so far.

 

Can you provide ACMI as I have done, proving it is over-performing?

 

Here's a link to TacView (free for 21 days): https://www.tacview.net/download/latest/en/ ... but I really think you're trolling. If you aren't, then you really don't understand missile physics.

 

You must remember that all my tests are against a non-maneuvering target. This is how missile ranges are defined IRL. Obviously, if I fired at a competent pilot, the chances are the missile would be defeated, probably most of the time.

 

I'm assuming the AIM-120 behaves similarly at this point. I'm going to go have a break, then fly the same test routines with the F-16.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Tiger-II

[Blinky.ben]

Why when a missile is slightly underperforming, everyone comes crawling out of their holes trying to prove how it should be better, but when a missile has too much range at high altitude (like the SD-10 here), people will try their very best to defend it.

 

Why is the community so biased towards overperforming missiles? Because they want to use them? It is surely slightly disappointing, especially since 3rd party devs know this and are trying to make a profit out of it.

 

You really need to eat your own words. You are the ONLY one who’s none stop whining about the SD-10 and you clearly are the Biased one here. I’m guessing that your opinion of the new Ironman aim-120c with its 180 degree turn to hit targets it over shot completely within limits. Why don’t you just stay in the forums that you like which I presume is the F-18 and let the people who like the JF stay here.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Blinky.ben

[Max1mus]

Did you check my ACMIs?

 

SD-10 is about where it should be. I wouldn't say it is "over-performing", nor would I scream it is under-performing, based on what I've seen in limited testing so far.

 

Can you provide ACMI as I have done, proving it is over-performing?

 

Here's a link to TacView (free for 21 days): https://www.tacview.net/download/latest/en/ ... but I really think you're trolling. If you aren't, then you really don't understand missile physics.

 

You must remember that all my tests are against a non-maneuvering target. This is how missile ranges are defined IRL. Obviously, if I fired at a competent pilot, the chances are the missile would be defeated, probably most of the time.

 

I'm assuming the AIM-120 behaves similarly at this point. I'm going to go have a break, then fly the same test routines with the F-16.

 

Check a few posts back please. I showed a track of an SD-10 killing a target at mach 3 WAY above its maximum range at 10-12.000 meters mach 1.

 

Developers in DCS do not like to debug from tacview.

 

Also, i criticize everything.

 

-EDs testing process seems severely flawed and their testers are biased, leading to things like near unchaffable AIM-120s when ED wanted to keep their average "PK" up close the same.

-Heatblur is prioritizing features that increase the competitive performance in both BVR and BFM and have not fixed issues that make the F-14 (with its 70s avionics and 80s-90s missiles) the best fighter in the simulator in a group environment (with 1-2 regular fighters mixed in at least).

-The upcoming Eurofighter developers are showing a great interest in making it perform well competitively, so it may end up being another round of this bullshit when the thing releases, but we will see.

 

Clearly Deka Ironworks is not alone with this, and this 3rd party arms race of making parts of modules overperform within the uncertainty of documented evidence is definitely putting them in a spot where its hard to not do it aswell. But this not war thunder, there should be no pay to win and all modules should be modeled objectively and perform as they should within their respective time frames.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Max1mus

[Tiger-II]

Check a few posts back please. I showed a track of an SD-10 killing a target at mach 3 WAY above its maximum range at 10-12.000 meters mach 1.

 

Developers in DCS do not like to debug from tacview.

 

 

OK - I will check it, but did you try the setup in the latest OB that dropped yesterday where all this was changed?

 

 

What matters to me is: reproducibility. If you are in an MP session it is possible there was a desync issue causing weird things to happen (this is famous in DCS).

[Tiger-II]

Also, i criticize the AMRAAM just as much as the phoenix and SD-10. EDs testing process seems severely flawed and their testers are biased, leading to things like near unchaffable AIM-120s when ED wanted to keep their average "PK" up close the same.

 

You know SD-10 has >80% PK? 1 out of 5 missiles MISS (assuming launched correctly).

 

I tried to play your track but I need the F-15C.

 

Can you get TacView and create an ACMI? I think playing track will cause this to happen.

 

I know ED won't use ACMI to debug issues (tracks contain internal simulator data), but for analysis purposes as we are doing here it is fine.

 

 

...or...can you at least explain the setup? In my testing here, there is no way I could get the missile to hit a target >50 NM. I think it is extremely unlikely, because the battery will expire before it reaches the target.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Tiger-II

[Max1mus]

You know SD-10 has >80% PK? 1 out of 5 missiles MISS (assuming launched correctly).

 

I tried to play your track but I need the F-15C.

 

Can you get TacView and create an ACMI? I think playing track will cause this to happen.

 

I know ED won't use ACMI to debug issues (tracks contain internal simulator data), but for analysis purposes as we are doing here it is fine.

 

 

...or...can you at least explain the setup? In my testing here, there is no way I could get the missile to hit a target >50 NM. I think it is extremely unlikely, because the battery will expire before it reaches the target.

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699244810418126868/723190029425442856/Tacview-20200618-044250-DCS-superlongrange.zip.acmi

[Tiger-II]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699244810418126868/723190029425442856/Tacview-20200618-044250-DCS-superlongrange.zip.acmi

 

Well...

 

1) Try this with the latest OB!!!

 

2) You are comparing to the AIM-54 which IS NOT USING THE NEW API!

 

3) You seem to have hacked the SD-10 onto the F-15. I assume the battery life is programmed into the file for the missile.

 

EDIT: Target is HOT ASPECT flying straight at you and not maneuvering, and the time the missile actually impacts, range to target is 37 NM. Thus, the target was not actually 60 NM away, but 37 NM away.

 

I see nothing wrong with this. 37 NM = 68.542 km. Missile had a good loft to 83300 ft, you are 10000 ft above the target at 42000 ft, and flying at Mach 1.1 at launch. It looks very reasonable.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Tiger-II

[Chiron]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699244810418126868/723190029425442856/Tacview-20200618-044250-DCS-superlongrange.zip.acmi

 

again u are stick to your track that we already explain ist impossible for JF-17 to perform this shoot . i dont know what is your mind our how are u thinking ( cuz its wrong btw )

 

1-JF-17 rarly fly 1.2 mach at this alt

2-JF-17 Radar can't lock targets from this distance

3-i will say it again and again hot target and none maneuver targets mean this distance is not true cuz the target is flying toward the missile and decreasing the distance

4-yet u still stick to compare Aim-54 to SD-10 and BTW in rl ( its and ancient weapon ) and Aim-54 in a bad condition right now if u dont wont to be abais do it with aim-120 and SD-10

5-if u want to be fair then how about u test aim-120c under this conditions with Aim-54 and show me .... after the last patch lets try 70nm for aim-120c and see the result :thumbup:

 

stop thinking like this and start read about missile physics cuz from what i see in your tacview this missile will normally hit the target not a big deal and remember the deputy chief Designer of SD-10 said the test they made at 10km with 1.2 mach and the condition of the shooter and defender is hot aspect try this also and tell me about your result 10km i think is angel 32 try this and show me the result but again but but but but but but but shoot with JF-17

Edited June 18, 2020 by Chiron

[Tiger-II]

Target: 39300 ft. Mach 0.65.

 

Me: 42380 ft (+3080 ft). Mach 0.89.

 

Lofting missile at +15 degrees.

 

Distance at launch: 71.68 NM

Distance when missile dead: 7.69 NM (missile); 45.63 NM (me).

 

Straight-line distance when missile dead: 37.94 NM (70.26 km).

Tacview-20200618-163627-DCS-JF-17 - Caucus - Kobuleti - Ramp - Training - MP.txt.zip

[Tiger-II]

again u are stick to your track that we already explain ist impossible for JF-17 to perform this shoot . i dont know what is your mind our how are u thinking ( cuz its wrong btw )

 

1-JF-17 rarly fly 1.2 mach at this alt

2-JF-17 Radar can't lock targets from this distance

3-i will say it again and again hot target and none maneuver targets mean this distance is not true cuz the target is flying toward the missile and decreasing the distance

4-yet u still stick to compare Aim-54 to SD-10 and BTW in rl ( its and ancient weapon ) and Aim-54 in a bad condition right now if u dont wont to be abais do it with aim-120 and SD-10

5-if u want to be fair then how about u test aim-120c under this conditions with Aim-54 and show me .... after the last patch lets try 70nm for aim-120c and see the result :thumbup:

 

stop thinking like this and start read about missile physics cuz from what i see in your tacview this missile will normally hit the target not a big deal and remember the deputy chief Designer of SD-10 said the test they made at 10km with 1.2 mach and the condition of the shooter and defender is hot aspect try this also and tell me about your result 10km i think is angel 32 try this and show me the result but again but but but but but but but shoot with JF-17

 

 

I've got the same set-up as his track, so I'm now going to try this with the F-16. I just posted the results with the JF-17.

[Chiron]

I've got the same set-up as his track, so I'm now going to try this with the F-16. I just posted the results with the JF-17.

 

he is unbelievable he test with wrong parameters and think he is right WTH is that

[Tiger-II]

he is unbelievable he test with wrong parameters and think he is right WTH is that

I know.

 

 

If anything, all these tests are proving the SD-10 is about where it should be. :thumbup:

[Chiron]

I know.

 

 

If anything, all these tests are proving the SD-10 is about where it should be. :thumbup:

 

and also useful guid for JF-17 pilots so they can understand SD-10 better and also help to find the optimal range and alt and speed also

[shagrat]

Why when a missile is slightly underperforming, everyone comes crawling out of their holes trying to prove how it should be better, but when a missile has too much range at high altitude (like the SD-10 here), people will try their very best to defend it.

 

Why is the community so biased towards overperforming missiles? Because they want to use them? It is surely slightly disappointing, especially since 3rd party devs know this and are trying to make a profit out of it.

The same reason you want it to perform worse... PvP: Everyone tries to negotiate a personal advantage, trying to tip the odds in his favor, I guess.

In competition most people want to win... and with no hard evidence/real life data available, it's mostly trying to convince developers ones personal interpretation and guesses is more valid than others, because of Track/TacView/obscure chart from the internet/forum post "proves" or "disproves" someone's point of view.

Fact remains, no one who actually knows how the real world missiles perform will tell more than "it's different in real live", if he would risk to voice his opinion, at all? :dunno:

[Terrorban]

Even though Max1mus sounds like he cares for this game, his reasoning comes from the same logic pot which ED stirs in their community. ED reduced SD-10s performance based on CFD they ran on an ingame 3D model of SD-10 alone which I am guessing was not even laser scanned by Deka. They did not believe in Dekas missile characteristics so they made up their own because community cried enough.

[AeriaGloria]

That’s really harsh TB, I would hardly call a CFD based study “made up.”

 

This also goes to what I want to say to you Max1mus, I understand where you are coming from. But hear me out

 

The SD-10 is as close to CFD as it can be reasonably made with the current drag modeling of the DCS API being used, it’s much too draggy in subsonic, and the balancing act has meant that ED is still sending recommendations to Deka. No missile is perfectly close to CFD, I’m sure the new AMRAAM and AIM-7 are extremely close, but they’re probably not perfect. Becuase of this most missiles do over or under perform depending on launch parameters as you well know. I believe all the drag numbers it uses are the four in LUA, so it’s probably that difficult. If there’s a set of numbers that make it perform more accurately at all speeds and altitudes I’m sure Deka and ED would embrace that. But what we have right now is as close as they have been able to make it, it is still being tweaked like the most recent changes this patch, and it should get the same high fidelity modeling of AMRAAM once that API is available for all third parties, so by all means it is being changed for the better becuase people know it overperforms slightly the way it does and want it to be better.

 

I’m sure AMRAAM-C can go quite further then it’s 105km range also depending on how it’s launched;)

[Tiger-II]

Another ACMI, this time featuring the F-16 and AIM-120B and C models.

 

Target at 39300 ft and Mach 0.65 (I set 0.80 so not sure what's up with that)

 

AIM-120B:

 

F-16 at 42000 ft and Mach 1.04 (deliberately slightly fast so I'm not accused of bias) lofting again at +15 degrees.

 

Launch distance: 79.35 NM

Missile dead distance: 21.59 NM (missile); 50.05 NM (me)

 

Straight-line distance when missile dead: 28.46 NM (52.70 km) << expected

 

AIM-120C:

 

F-16 at 44000 ft and Mach 1.00 (deliberately slightly fast so I'm not accused of bias) lofting at +14 degrees.

 

Launch distance: 59.45 NM

Missile dead distance: 5.87 NM (missile); 33.63 NM (me)

 

Straight-line distance when missile dead: 27.76 NM (51.41 km) << unexpected. Same FM as -120B?

Tacview-20200618-180342-DCS-JF-17 - Caucus - Kobuleti - Ramp - Training - MP.txt.zip

Edited June 18, 2020 by Tiger-II

[AeriaGloria]

No, AIM-120C has all the things it should have, wing and tail area size differences along with lower drag, the single all boost motor, it has a lot of FM differences in DCS

[Tiger-II]

No, AIM-120C has all the things it should have, wing and tail area size differences along with lower drag, the single all boost motor, it has a lot of FM differences in DCS

 

 

Does it have the same battery life as the B? It appears both run out of power.

[foxwxl]

First I need to say I am by no means a BVR or missile specialist, so for me these discussions about changes to certain values is interesting.

With my limited knowledge in BVR I always assumed there are certain "universal" tactics and maneuvers you use to support your missile as best as possible, as well as the same for defending against a BVR attack? Now, from what I learned, you usually get SA first (picture from AWACS, RWR indications), then you try getting a lock on the (highest) threat, try to fire an early shot to force the enemy defensive and your wingman presses on or any other typical tactic to engage in BVR.

This discussion despite the technical details, trackfiles, charts and quotes, looks to me like "mine should be longer than yours, because I want to have the longest" instead of working with what you have and improve your skill and tactics, don't you think?

There is and never was a balance between weapon systems, it is always a leap frogging on both sides to have an advantage, so by definition, there is no such thing as "overpowered", only "different from real life" which usually is hidden from us, by this unfortunate thing called "classified information" so the people who know for sure can't/won't tell and the rest of us can make educated guesses, right? I mean over 60 km could be 61 km or 580 km and anything in-between, an AIM-120 launched from an orbital platform in geosynchronous orbit could easily have a maximum range of thousands of kilometers if the battery holds long enough and I am sure heavy monsoon rains will degrade the "performance" to some extent... from what I understand the new modeling is pretty sophisticated and already very close to what we would expect a missile to behave, taking into account a lot of factors from burn time, weight reduction from fuel, drag/air density, acceleration, guidance etc. which seems to get results matching most of the info available.

So the most important fact we should acknowledge is: we don't know what either range or the performance is in real life, exactly, we are just extrapolating and guessing around from the little info available for the public.

I am as well doubting the fact, that any minor changes to the current parameters will massively influence the tactics employed or the way you would defend a missile... in the end its only about getting more or less range/performance, to give one side an advantage or the other side a disadvantage, so it is easier to win an engagement, no more no less.

Just my 2 cents and not meant to offend someone in particular, just my observations.

 

:thumbup:

 

IMO, only the pilot that matter. Too many people are just too much rely on their weapon and forget about tactics, teamworks, if their weapon is not superior than others, they just cry.:D

[foxwxl]

Does it have the same battery life as the B? It appears both run out of power.

 

80 seconds for both.

[Chiron]

:thumbup:

 

IMO, only the pilot that matter. Too many people are just too much rely on their weapon and forget about tactics, teamworks, if their weapon is not superior than others, they just cry.:D

 

and u forget a very very important element Training lots of it and also Test ...... how can u expect to defeat other pilots if u dont know what your Jet and your missiles can do a lot of practice needed here that is why when i choose aircraft i fly it many hours and days of training in MP Ground and create special missions to training on some situations and try to apply it in MP or SP ( for me i prefer MP ) missile can be a powerful tool but ( a Tool ) u need to learn how to use it ... some people hate SD-10 and want it to be nerfed again and wasting a lot of energy in talking rather than training ( nonsense ofc )

 

If u want to be Good dont use words use your throttle and your Joystick :smilewink:

 

 

Edit : this words not for u Fox :)

Edited June 19, 2020 by Chiron

[Tiger-II]

80 seconds for both.

 

 

Interesting then as to why the C has less range than the B? Check my ACMI.

 

 

I'm going to try this again.

[Tiger-II]

and u forget a very very important element Training lots of it and also Test ...... how can u expect to defeat other pilots if u dont know what your Jet and your missiles can do a lot of practice needed here that is why when i choose aircraft i fly it many hours and days of training in MP Ground and create special missions to training on some situations and try to apply it in MP or SP ( for me i prefer MP ) missile can be a powerful tool but ( a Tool ) u need to learn how to use it ... some people hate SD-10 and want it to be nerfed again and wasting a lot of energy in talking rather than training ( nonsense ofc )

 

If u want to be Good dont use words use your throttle and your Joystick :smilewink:

 

 

+1