Switch SD-10 to new scheme API used by AIM-120C

[Mike_Romeo]

@uboats is there a way to get the PL-12 on the double racks ? I rather have 2 PL-12 and on one wing and 2 SD-10 on the other to compare them instead of having only one per wing. Also is there a way to activate PL-12 on public servers without deactivating "pure script required" and having users to edit the lua themself first ?

[Torbernite]

2小时前，Mike_Romeo说：

@uboats is there a way to get the PL-12 on the double racks ? I rather have 2 PL-12 and on one wing and 2 SD-10 on the other to compare them instead of having only one per wing. Also is there a way to activate PL-12 on public servers without deactivating "pure script required" and having users to edit the lua themself first ?

I think they are very possible to move to SD-10 with new API in next update before making other change to PL-12 payload file.

[Wyvern]

10 hours ago, uboats said:

 

i think that j-11a is not the one in game.

 

I mean... Its hard to tell, I dont know about the cockpit, howvever you can faintly see the hud in one of the pictures, and it seems to be the Russian type, it has the russian nose cone, the white antenna section, AL-31 engines, no MAWS, and it had the RKL-609 pods, which only the J-11A and the Su-30MKK carries.

Anyway, I am going off topic here, I'll make a new post in the J-11A thread

[ShadowFrost]

Removed, new test series will arrive later. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by ShadowFrost

[Redounet]

jeff lua with pl12 on all pylons for simultaneous testing with sd10 

 

JF-17.lua

Edited May 20, 2023 by Redounet

[E-TF[101] Breeze]

I did a little testing as well, I noticed a lot of inconsistencies with the tracking. The missile spazes out very often, stops tracking during turns as well sometimes. against jamming targets the probability of kill is very little even under 20 NM with burn through. The ammram doesn't do that though, I'm not sure why there is a difference in tracking sometimes with the ammram and the PL12, they are both on the same scheme.
 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by E-TF[101] Breeze

[AeriaGloria]

  Very interesting. The new API seems to be really focusing on jamming and chaff effects on the seeker. Who knows if over done or under done, I know many people with AMRAAM say it is over done. 
 

If the API is not ready, I’ll be very happy when this and more missiles get this API. And we can have a more dynamic battlefield 

[Punkmonkey22]

I may have missed something obvious previously but... since when have we been able to modify official module loadouts? Done it with mods like the A-4e, but thought modules were encrypted? Does this mean I can put my beloved LD-10 on other pylons if I edit??

[Chenstrap]

7 hours ago, Punkmonkey22 said:

I may have missed something obvious previously but... since when have we been able to modify official module loadouts? Done it with mods like the A-4e, but thought modules were encrypted? Does this mean I can put my beloved LD-10 on other pylons if I edit??

The answer is kind of half and half. The way to do it is to modify the Unit payloads. These will be under savedgames/DCSopenbeta/MissionEditor/UnitPayloads followed by a long list of planes. Then you can switchout the weapons pylon per pylon. This github has all the weapon names data mined. Some are ez, some are a garbled: https://github.com/pydcs/dcs/blob/master/dcs/weapons_data.py Be warned, doing this may break IC.

With that said the weapons may not work for your module of choice. The high fidelity modules are hard coded to use certain weapons. So you cant put like an SD-10 on a Hornet for example.

The FC3 jets dont seem to have this limitation. IE you can put SD-10s, PL-12s, PL-5s, and PL-8s on the J-11 and I believe it will work okay.

One thing to note is that the AI are much more flexible in the weapons they use. For example, say you want to create a Red Flag mission on the Nevada map, and you want the AI aggressors to have red weapons but you want to fight the F-15/F-16 Aggressors, not Migs/Flankers. You can make a loadout for those jets and the AI can use and shoot the missiles just fine, even if the player can't. This can be useful for some scenario making. IE you can give the HARM to the F-4 for SEAD, or the AMRAAM for CAP to emulate an upgraded German or Greek F-4 that got the AMRAAM. Plus, because the loadout is saved to the miz file, if you share the mission with someone the AI will still have the updated weapons. There are some weapons the AI just cant use due to radar/other limitations though (Su-33 I couldnt make use Anti Ship missiles using this method alone for example).

 

 

 

[Punkmonkey22]

1 hour ago, Chenstrap said:

The answer is kind of half and half. The way to do it is to modify the Unit payloads. These will be under savedgames/DCSopenbeta/MissionEditor/UnitPayloads followed by a long list of planes. Then you can switchout the weapons pylon per pylon. This github has all the weapon names data mined. Some are ez, some are a garbled: https://github.com/pydcs/dcs/blob/master/dcs/weapons_data.py Be warned, doing this may break IC.

With that said the weapons may not work for your module of choice. The high fidelity modules are hard coded to use certain weapons. So you cant put like an SD-10 on a Hornet for example.

The FC3 jets dont seem to have this limitation. IE you can put SD-10s, PL-12s, PL-5s, and PL-8s on the J-11 and I believe it will work okay.

One thing to note is that the AI are much more flexible in the weapons they use. For example, say you want to create a Red Flag mission on the Nevada map, and you want the AI aggressors to have red weapons but you want to fight the F-15/F-16 Aggressors, not Migs/Flankers. You can make a loadout for those jets and the AI can use and shoot the missiles just fine, even if the player can't. This can be useful for some scenario making. IE you can give the HARM to the F-4 for SEAD, or the AMRAAM for CAP to emulate an upgraded German or Greek F-4 that got the AMRAAM. Plus, because the loadout is saved to the miz file, if you share the mission with someone the AI will still have the updated weapons. There are some weapons the AI just cant use due to radar/other limitations though (Su-33 I couldnt make use Anti Ship missiles using this method alone for example).

 

 

 

Ah right ok then. To be honest I just wanted to put existing JF-17 weapons on more pylons on the jet to give more loadout options. Not interested in adding new weapons to anything and I don't do MP so IC isn't an issue. I assume to add to a pylon station I just copy the line from another pylon as I would on the Skyhawk? 

[Low_Quality]

I beg you, do not change the API of SD10, they are already excellent missiles now, they do not need this API, which is often very stupid and does bull<profanity>

[Mike_Romeo]

Agree

 

[E-TF[101] Breeze]

Agreed

[Wyvern]

Agreed

[=BoB= David]

8 people here agree that API of 120s sucks, maybe ED might start considering looking at it again, and redoing it, because that API really sucks and rather it was a step backwards in some ways... I understand that the old API was simple, couldn't simulate many functions and so on, but in the end it turned out that 120s are a joke.. And ED stopped somewhere in the middle of the rework that could have resulted in the weapon being usable and actually being comparable to what it can do in reality, at least within the declassified information and in our simulator..

[Pede]

On 5/19/2023 at 5:41 PM, ShadowFrost said:

Given that both the PL-12 (new API) and SD-10 are available to the public, and I have not used any tools that are not available to the public, I am allowed to publish this data.

 

Here is a test series that I've ran to compare PK between the builds. I haven't looked into the why of the differences in PK between the two models, or if my testing process was flawed, this is not the first test of this nature I have ran so the process pretty well established and has been verified, however, when I review it, it will be checked against. 

And as a final note, there should not be any statistical probability in this data set. There are ten tests, which are run through 50 iterations, the SD-10 and PL-12 both ran through an identical sequence of tests, therefor, the random values DCS sets, are 1-1. Any difference between the two is due to a specific reason, intentional or otherwise. 

 

 

This is consistent with my own testing, which pit the SD-10 agaisnt the Aim120C5. 

[caladain]

I'd really like the PL-12 added an official option while this testing is going on, as I primarily test/fly on multiplayer servers, etc.    Still love the Jeff, it's a great module.

[Napillo]

Still need INS with the SD-10, and shortcutting it by using the Aim-120 scheme doesn't seem to help.

[ShadowFrost]

The test series will be redone with additional data, it was still valid. However, due to the apparent changes in HOJ, many of the longer range test shots timed out only a few seconds short of their targets. So its not entirely fair to compare that alone. I will build in some additional medium ranged shots as that should be a more correct comparison. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by ShadowFrost

[FlankerFan35]

On 5/23/2023 at 10:07 PM, Napillo said:

Still need INS with the SD-10, and shortcutting it by using the Aim-120 scheme doesn't seem to help.

This, I'm truly sick of the SD-10 being an R-27ER until active. This feature is especially important on a low/mid performance jet like the JF.

[DSplayer]

1 hour ago, FlankerFan35 said:

This, I'm truly sick of the SD-10 being an R-27ER until active. This feature is especially important on a low/mid performance jet like the JF.

Unfortunately, this is basically an ED issue and Deka can't really do anything about it outside of switching schemes.

[FlankerFan35]

8 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Unfortunately, this is basically an ED issue and Deka can't really do anything about it outside of switching schemes.

ikkkkk big sad.

[dedlike.]

im still dissapointed that the SD10 cant shoot at datalink contacts like it should, i personaly dont thing going to the 120 API would do much good, on one had i wish they could improve on their own API /SD10 code to suport all features the missile actualy has, on the other hand, considering how it hasnt happend over the years yet, i dont think it will happen ...

all in all im just sceptical when it comes to using EDs APIs since they keep changing stuff often, and alot of times not for the better

[Wyvern]

From what I found, the ED AIM-120 template in fact is worse for missile performance. Especially at close range, it simply will overcorrect and miss targets (close range = Dogfight Mode)

I would keep the current api. The missile is simply more reliable with it. AIM-120 API is suboptimal, to say it nicely...

Edited June 23, 2023 by Wyvern

[Default774]

Something to note is that the PL-12 has a 30° radar beam width in lua which I don't think is quite right. For reference the aim-120 has a beam width of 15°.

I'd like to know why this was done as it causes the seeker behaviour of the pl12 to differ slightly from the 120.

Aside from slightly higher (imperceptible) CCMk on the pl12, 0.11 Vs 0.10 for the 120, and the aforementioned beam width the seekers are identical.

Furthermore, isn't the pl12 supposed to have an R-77 based/derived seeker (ccmk 0.2)?

Edited June 26, 2023 by Default774