Jump to content

JF-17 Thunder Discussions


probad

Recommended Posts

You can do some pretty accurate guess work for a lot of things, and not so accurate for others.

 

Propellant for example, you can get within ball park, as well as aerodynamics. The basic guidance will be PN, and you can use lofting and other guidance methods from other missiles (And why not, the PL-12 is certainly modern enough). But when it comes to the details of the missile-aircraft interface, in particular say, the missile data-link, ECCM capability, search/target capture parameters etc, it's ALL guess work.

 

In other words, I'm pretty sure they can get it to be about as accurate as other missiles in-game.

 

Deka added the PL-12 to the game recently and someone compared it to the AIM-120C, and it's a significantly better performing missile - it burns for more than twice as long and the effective range was basically double. I know nothing about the actual stats of the missile, but does that seem right? Their quick test is here: https://streamable.com/cupzi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem correct at all - I don't have the links handy right now, but a Chinese official stated - quite some time ago - that the SD-10 (an export version of the PL-12) had a bit less range than AMRAAM. The SD-10B was supposed to address this.

 

Thing is, here's where things get tricky:

 

The PL-12 is a heavier missile (by 20kg - 180kg vs 160 for the new 120Cs), so it actually stands to reason that it may have a longer range. More weight typically means more fuel, BUT:

1) We don't know the state of Chinese rocketry. Their fuel might be 'weak' ... though I have no reason to believe that.

2) We don't know the state of Chinese manufacturing capability for rocket motors and other details. The rocket motor casing might be heavy, which will take away from the amount of fuel you can pack in there

3) Similarly, internal component size and weight might be of lesser technology, so again, more weight there.

4) It is overall a larger missile with a bit more drag, so it depends on that fuel to get it going really fast before it is expended

5) We don't know the rocket motor configuration. All boost tends to give better performance that boost-sustain these days, boost-sustain means lower peak speed but your rocket motor will run longer, possibly (but not necessarily) resulting in higher average speed out to certain ranges.

 

 

Also, we don't know how Deka configured the drag parameters.

 

Deka added the PL-12 to the game recently and someone compared it to the AIM-120C, and it's a significantly better performing missile - it burns for more than twice as long and the effective range was basically double. I know nothing about the actual stats of the missile, but does that seem right? Their quick test is here: https://streamable.com/cupzi

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That someone who compared the missiles would be me....

In short, and I know people love to have this argument. I imagine the PL-12 is closer to where it should be than the aim-120. The aim-120C barely goes 12 miles straight-line at 5,000ft .83mach launch. I wish ED would tell us what type of performance targets they are trying to hit with the aim-120cs but either way it seems that it has been under-performing as of recently. The PL-12, while much better in comparison to the DCS aim-120C, hit the targets of CFD data for the aim-120C based on a 7.5-7.7 second burn time. If I recall correctly, it was like 5% better in most aspects than what the aim-120 "should" do from the data I've seen.

 

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

 

Compared to the data above (which you can argue is or isn't accurate), the aim-120 is under-performing somewhere around 40-60%. Now if that is what ED has matched to their own dataset that is fine. But I doubt that is the targets they are trying to hit internally (the performance of the aim-120 currently).

 

The above pdf is what I used as reference to what a real world aim-120C-5 should do, the PL-12 just barely surpasses that by around 5% in straight-line comparisons at various altitudes. So while it is way over-performing compared to the aim-120C-5 (DCS), when they should be comparable missiles by most accounts. That may be due to issues with the aim-120c in DCS currently.

 

TL;DR The PL-12 is close to what some people think the aim-120C-5 (IRL) should do, but is way better than the aim-120C-5 (DCS) in game.


Edited by ShadowFrost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That someone who compared the missiles would be me....

In short, and I know people love to have this argument. I imagine the PL-12 is closer to where it should be than the aim-120. The aim-120C barely goes 12 miles straight-line at 5,000ft .83mach launch. I wish ED would tell us what type of performance targets they are trying to hit with the aim-120cs but either way it seems that it has been under-performing as of recently. The PL-12, while much better in comparison to the DCS aim-120C, hit the targets of CFD data for the aim-120C based on a 7.5-7.7 second burn time. If I recall correctly, it was like 5% better in most aspects than what the aim-120 "should" do from the data I've seen.

 

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

 

Compared to the data above (which you can argue is or isn't accurate), the aim-120 is under-performing somewhere around 40-60%. Now if that is what ED has matched to their own dataset that is fine. But I doubt that is the targets they are trying to hit internally (the performance of the aim-120 currently).

 

The above pdf is what I used as reference to what a real world aim-120C-5 should do, the PL-12 just barely surpasses that by around 5% in straight-line comparisons at various altitudes. So while it is way over-performing compared to the aim-120C-5 (DCS), when they should be comparable missiles by most accounts. That may be due to issues with the aim-120c in DCS currently.

 

TL;DR The PL-12 is close to what some people think the aim-120C-5 (IRL) should do, but is way better than the aim-120C-5 (DCS) in game.

 

Interesting :thumbup:.

Win10, Intel 3rd Gen. Core i7 3.8Ghz, 20GB ram, Nvidia Geforce 1060 6GB Opentrack (Download it from HERE), PS3 Eye, Saitek x52-pro Joystick,

DIY Rudder Pedals,

Google Cardboard with DCS World

English is not my native language

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem correct at all - I don't have the links handy right now, but a Chinese official stated - quite some time ago - that the SD-10 (an export version of the PL-12) had a bit less range than AMRAAM. The SD-10B was supposed to address this.

 

Thing is, here's where things get tricky:

 

The PL-12 is a heavier missile (by 20kg - 180kg vs 160 for the new 120Cs), so it actually stands to reason that it may have a longer range. More weight typically means more fuel, BUT:

1) We don't know the state of Chinese rocketry. Their fuel might be 'weak' ... though I have no reason to believe that.

2) We don't know the state of Chinese manufacturing capability for rocket motors and other details. The rocket motor casing might be heavy, which will take away from the amount of fuel you can pack in there

3) Similarly, internal component size and weight might be of lesser technology, so again, more weight there.

4) It is overall a larger missile with a bit more drag, so it depends on that fuel to get it going really fast before it is expended

5) We don't know the rocket motor configuration. All boost tends to give better performance that boost-sustain these days, boost-sustain means lower peak speed but your rocket motor will run longer, possibly (but not necessarily) resulting in higher average speed out to certain ranges.

 

 

Also, we don't know how Deka configured the drag parameters.

 

Interesting stuff. It seems pretty hard to find any public info about the SD-10/PL-12, and there don't seem to be any test firing videos online to compare against. What I did find was this Chinese SAM based on the PL-12, burn time of this one (assuming it's not been slowed down), is around 11s:

 

 

Supposedly it's derived from the SD-10A with an extra booster added on - so you'd think the PL-12/SD-10 would burn for the same/less time, not more. It'd be interesting to know what stats/info Deka is using to base their missiles on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff. It seems pretty hard to find any public info about the SD-10/PL-12, and there don't seem to be any test firing videos online to compare against. What I did find was this Chinese SAM based on the PL-12, burn time of this one (assuming it's not been slowed down), is around 11s:

 

 

Supposedly it's derived from the SD-10A with an extra booster added on - so you'd think the PL-12/SD-10 would burn for the same/less time, not more. It'd be interesting to know what stats/info Deka is using to base their missiles on.

 

Yeah I'm curious to know as well, but I'd imagine of all the factors that it'd (burn time) be the easiest to get correct in terms of coding unless its performance currently is just a complete placeholder. Though are we getting the SD-10A or B? as that makes a difference. I imagine they've gotten data for the SD-10 (or at least enough) just like the rest of the weapons, the hard part would likely be how it actually acquires track and etc. but no missile has that correct in DCS yet.

Even though it has an extremely long burn time (I'm thinking 18 seconds (DCS PL-12))

But, there are reasons that the burn time might be longer than it should be real world compared to DCS. (Now I have no clue if they are doing it for this reason, if they indeed are) But a missile should have different drags depending if the motor is on/off, DCS's missile API doesn't support changing that yet so it might be a work around they've done to hit the performance numbers they want to hit. (Think Heatblur and the bandaids for the aim-54 which will be on it until they can adjust the things they need)

 

Now, I think that is probably not the case buts its a possibility. Either way, I'd rather it have a slightly longer burn time and hit correct straight-line performance data (if that is the case) than not until the missile API is where it needs to be once it is corrected.

 

I'm sure Deka/Uboats will fill us in once they are at a break in their work schedules.


Edited by ShadowFrost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wow, at first I thought we were gonna get a Beijing map along with it flying through that brown cloud :lol:

 

Anyhow, it does look like its decently well along in that video, the cockpit will probably need some better texture work, but it looks like the basic systems functionality is there at least.

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

I will buy the JF-17 over the Viper any day of the week, specially having the Hornet witch has the same capabilities + a tail hook.

 

:thumbup: You get it right!

**************************************

DCS World needs the Panavia Tornado! Really!

**************************************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll buy both!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

This. But my previous statement stands.

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

Please give us an update on the JF-17 :)

 

We haven't had one in a while. It would be nice if Deka could give us some news.

Modules owned:

 

FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B, JF-17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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