Jump to content

How does the SD-10 missile compare to the AIM-120C?


MobiSev

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
Directly contradicts what ED said earlier today on how the team will be reviewing A2A missiles in the coming months

 

AIM-120 are still scheduled for new guidance features in the future, which is when it will be reviewed.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end this is EDs simulation so whatever they say goes. I suppose they will not be revisiting the old missiles anytime soon and Deka were not completely honest about their missile behaviour.

 

 

Seems kind of shady, this whole situation but I wont lose any sleep over it.

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Deka were not completely honest about their missile behaviour.

 

 

Seems kind of shady, this whole situation but I wont lose any sleep over it.

 

lol what?

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

AIM-120 are still scheduled for new guidance features in the future, which is when it will be reviewed.

 

My post was mostly directed towards the other comment showing the Facebook post. The picture implied that the "review" had already been completed and nothing will be changed as ED believes it is already performing correctly. It directly contradicts what various official sources have said on the forums that the review would prob be coming sometime next year or so.

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

Should the SD-10 have equal speed, but be less draggy than this AIM-120C-D shot in this F-35 demonstrator sim?

 

That demonstration was an AIM-120 shot from 15.7nm, 10,000' above the target, and mach 1.04. And the target never manuevered. A DCS AIM-120 would have no trouble hitting that, either.


Edited by Jester2138
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post was mostly directed towards the other comment showing the Facebook post. The picture implied that the "review" had already been completed and nothing will be changed as ED believes it is already performing correctly. It directly contradicts what various official sources have said on the forums that the review would prob be coming sometime next year or so.

 

 

I apologise if I misunderstood the facebook post but it looked to me like ED are saying that the AIM-120 is performing correctly and SD-10's performance is inaccurate, which Deka were saying that they spent a lot of time and manpower on.

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is so stupid that people are only talking about the AIM-120 instead of the missiles in general. It really looks like these bluefor people only care about their benefits instead of truely talking about realistic. Nobody is talking about how R27 is underperformed, I only see massive blue boys want their missiles to be godlike. Nobody is talking about how in some servers the Chinese destroyers are defending the blue team.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise if I misunderstood the facebook post but it looked to me like ED are saying that the AIM-120 is performing correctly and SD-10's performance is inaccurate, which Deka were saying that they spent a lot of time and manpower on.

 

that's what it looked like to me as well. The picture said that they believe everything was fine with the 120 and it is performing correctly. Official ED statements here in the forums said that they will be reviewing the missile soon. To me, that implies that they are not sure about the 120 and needed to review it as well as missiles in general, contradicting the picture. That's all I was saying.


Edited by MobiSev

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

Well, on the positive note, this thread will die now. Certain people got what they wanted. SD-10 will now be "fixed". Now I am sure they will move on to some other JF-17 weapon and do the same. Lets go with how BRM1 can 1 hit kill shilkas.


Edited by Terrorban
typos

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally can't wait to hear what they say (they being ED) especially because it contradicts a certain CFD which if I am correct, the Aim-54 was used in a very similar process to gather performance data.... So I look forward to it.

 

On one hand its acceptable, on the other it isn't. Speaking 120 vs 54 here, I'm curious to see what the reasoning is.

 

And additionally, If I am incorrect about the 54's development process than the above is useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new missile FM looks like much more capable of dealing with Chizh's objections to the CFD. The previous FM is not capable of representing the drag curve as well as the new, often resulting in an inability to tune both low and high to something reasonable together.

[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

The new missile FM looks like much more capable of dealing with Chizh's objections to the CFD. The previous FM is not capable of representing the drag curve as well as the new, often resulting in an inability to tune both low and high to something reasonable together.

 

Well consider me interested, is there any reference to what his objections were? (IE a linked forum/post) But I imagine... knowing how some of these topics go it might not be available to the public anymore.

 

Either way, I'm interested to see what ED has to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I kind of doubt that ED will be giving out any clear official statements before the new year break, I would like to know if the changes to the SD-10 will hit in the coming update (hopefully next week).

 

If Deka could clarify that for us, that would be much appreciated as well.

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of his objections was quoted in a previous post here.

 

 

 

The current FM used in most missiles is the 'AFM' that appeared in FC2 or 3, I don't recall which. It's fine, but the way it represents the drag and lift graphs is via equation.

This means you're limited to whatever shape the equation outputs - you can manipulate it with the permitted parameters, but that's where it ends.

 

 

The new FM (used by Sparrow) allows you to define those like a table, so you can give them any shape you want.

 

 

So, what's the difference? With the current FM your high-mach drag will be monotonically decreasing, so you can't compensate for the high-altitude, low drag causing the missile to fly far. If you 'tune it out', you lower low altitude performance.

 

 

The new FM would allow you to have the curve 'come back up' at high altitude, increasing drag at higher mach that the missile won't reach at lower altitudes as easily, allowing for better control of the missile range at high altitude.

 

 

It's not perfect, and we're not sure what the issue is (atmosphere? Other effects like the missile having to fly at higher AoA?) but it helps, and then you can tune better for all altitude bands.

 

 

Well consider me interested, is there any reference to what his objections were? (IE a linked forum/post) But I imagine... knowing how some of these topics go it might not be available to the public anymore.

 

Either way, I'm interested to see what ED has to say.

[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

One of his objections was quoted in a previous post here.

 

 

 

The current FM used in most missiles is the 'AFM' that appeared in FC2 or 3, I don't recall which. It's fine, but the way it represents the drag and lift graphs is via equation.

This means you're limited to whatever shape the equation outputs - you can manipulate it with the permitted parameters, but that's where it ends.

 

 

The new FM (used by Sparrow) allows you to define those like a table, so you can give them any shape you want.

 

 

So, what's the difference? With the current FM your high-mach drag will be monotonically decreasing, so you can't compensate for the high-altitude, low drag causing the missile to fly far. If you 'tune it out', you lower low altitude performance.

 

 

The new FM would allow you to have the curve 'come back up' at high altitude, increasing drag at higher mach that the missile won't reach at lower altitudes as easily, allowing for better control of the missile range at high altitude.

 

 

It's not perfect, and we're not sure what the issue is (atmosphere? Other effects like the missile having to fly at higher AoA?) but it helps, and then you can tune better for all altitude bands.

 

Well understood, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, on the positive note, this thread will die now. Certain people got what they wanted. SD-10 will now be "fixed". Now I am sure they will move on to some other JF-17 weapon and do the same. Lets go with how BRM1 can 1 hit kill shilkas.

 

I don't think we've been provided any evidence since release so it will unlikely be changed until new missile FM is available.

EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we've been provided any evidence since release so it will unlikely be changed until new missile FM is available.

 

 

Then I suppose ED knows something that you guys are not aware of and they are talking to people about how there are some errors with the missile you guys developed.

 

 

lvK1zD5.png

 

 

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I suppose ED knows something that you guys are not aware of and they are talking to people about how there are some errors with the missile you guys developed.

 

 

lvK1zD5.png

 

 

 

If ED knows something then they should talk to us directly.

EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I suppose ED knows something that you guys are not aware of and they are talking to people about how there are some errors with the missile you guys developed.

 

 

lvK1zD5.png

 

 

 

If ED knows something then they should talk to us directly.

 

And who knows, maybe ED is incorrect...

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

May be ED is not allowed to model correct aim120c neither to say that it is not correct currently, as it is in active service in many countries and they don't want everyone to know their capabilities and how to dodge them ?

So they have no other options but to keep claiming it is correct as it is.

 

What really is beyond me is why 3rd parties and ED do not coordinate beforehand when it os clear that weapons models should follow the same standard.

 

Or may be ED are experienced enough to know what they do talk about have really valid reason for doing it.

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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