What Happened to the SD-10?!

In the recent update it appears as if the SD-10 got a nerf, and probably a much needed one. It seems as if the drag has been increased and the top speed of the missile when fired at over mach 1 at 30000 ft is now around 2400-2500 knots instead of a whopping 2700-2800.

BUT MOST OF ALL, WHY WAS THIS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CHANGELOGS?

Is someone trying to hide something? Why are these things never mentioned? It makes it very hard to follow what is going on in the development process.

They got new data for battery life, for everything else they probably just got new data from documents or CFD

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=273965

Don’t know if it happened, but ED said they would do CFD on SD-10 eventually, they use a different program then Deka, so if they did that after they finished AMRAAM CFD this could be the result of the more data acquired. In the thread if you look at the LUA it’s a very precise refinement of certain characteristics

I dont mind, But I would like to know why. in the name of realisim sure. If it is for balance I'll join the lot with the pitchforks.

Well in the battery life thread, they mentioned CFD as just one source, I’m sure they just got better data

Or ED asked deka to nerf SD10 so hornets can make it back alive to do case landings on the new super carrier. XD

they use a different program then Deka

This is really interesting and important. CFD results can change by a lot depending on the details of the algorithms solving the equations, the setup used etc. In order for CFD results to be comparable to each other it's really, really important to avoid these issues. Using the same program/code is a very good first step to ensure that.

Or ED asked deka to nerf SD10 so hornets can make it back alive to do case landings on the new super carrier. XD

+1

This is really interesting and important. CFD results can change by a lot depending on the details of the algorithms solving the equations, the setup used etc. In order for CFD results to be comparable to each other it's really, really important to avoid these issues. Using the same program/code is a very good first step to ensure that.

I 100% agree with you here. All missiles need to come from the same testing. But you think ED would do CFD on the SD-10 if they Thought it should be better? Doubt it

My argument is CFD doesn’t test how long the missiles battery would last or how good it is resistant to chaff. But it keeps getting worse and worse cause A bunch of kids can’t Handle not winning every time in their F-18’s

about to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon. wonder if the change is something ED forced and part of the NDA means they (Deka) are not able to respond. if thats the case...

about to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon. wonder if the change is something ED forced and part of the NDA means they (Deka) are not able to respond. if thats the case...

Mind my ignorance, what is NDA

I 100% agree with you here. All missiles need to come from the same testing. But you think ED would do CFD on the SD-10 if they Thought it should be better? Doubt it

 

My argument is CFD doesn’t test how long the missiles battery would last or how good it is resistant to chaff. But it keeps getting worse and worse cause A bunch of kids can’t Handle not winning every time in their F-18’s

When the SD-10 came out ED said they would test it with their own different CFD program, and Deka was looking forward to it.

Chaff resistance did not change, and for battery life who knows, but they did say they got new data for it.

I think it is possible to estimate using CFD how much energy it takes for the control surfaces to move, looking at the size of the equipment bay, and making an estimate.

Mind my ignorance, what is NDA

Non disclosure agreement

Mind my ignorance, what is NDA

No Dissent Agreement

I 100% agree with you here. All missiles need to come from the same testing. But you think ED would do CFD on the SD-10 if they Thought it should be better? Doubt it

I work in a different field that still uses CFD (or rather, a more complex version of CFD), so take this with a grain of salt.

When it comes to computational stuff it's hard to define what it means to "do things better". A lot of things can affect your results like what grid setup you used, what resolution you're running at, what algorithm you're using to solve the equations, how you're getting the cells in the grid to "talk" to each other, for how long you ran your simulation, etc.

Before you run the code you need to choose all these things based on what exactly you are looking for out of that code. There are cases where choosing different setups (say, different resolutions to save on computational powers) will give wildly different results for the same setup. A lot of work goes into understanding and limiting these numerical effects, but if you don't do a direct comparison of results (which is what ED and Deka are doing) you can't really say who is doing things "better". This is why I said things need to be "consistent" - if missile dynamics are estimated through CFD with the same setup, even if that setup introduces numerical issues and gives "wrong" results compared to real world behavior, at least every missile is wrong in the same fashion.

I do agree re battery life and CM resistance. As far as I know both of those are individual lua variables though, so it's much easier to obtain some sort of consistency than with CFD results.

@Aeragloria: I highly doubt CFD will help much with battery life. You obviously can estimate how much pressure is being exerted on various parts of the missile, but from there to estimating how much you need to take off the battery is a huge step. It's probably also unlikely to matter much, I imagine the main sink of power is the radar, autopilot etc rather than the control surfaces themselves.

 

Yup, this is why I hope ED just redoes all the various missiles in the game. At least they will all be wrong vs real life, but possibly more right relative to each other in the game.

 

The other parameters really need more work. Lets be real and acknowledge that Chaff mechanic in game is pretty oversimplified and doesn't have much to do with RL. At best I like to think of it as some sort of unified parameter that includes ECM resistance to various jammers as well, cuz most modern missiles aren't gonna bother going for bits of mylar. But I do think this and other parameters need quite a bit more depth in game.

But it keeps getting worse and worse cause A bunch of kids can’t Handle not winning every time in their F-18’s

DCS SD10 is still considerably better than all amraam types, when it's supposed to be on par IRL.

Funny how you call people names, not realizing that perhaps you have more in common with those "kids" than you know.

DCS SD10 and amraam will eventually be on par, not because of balance, but because that's how it's supposed to be.

Are the LD-10's effected by the changes of the SD-10 too ?

They have all the same changes

DCS SD10 is still considerably better than all amraam types, when it's supposed to be on par IRL.

 

Funny how you call people names, not realizing that perhaps you have more in common with those "kids" than you know.

 

DCS SD10 and amraam will eventually be on par, not because of balance, but because that's how it's supposed to be.

Well if you go to this forum which is really going off at the moment you will see a lot of evidence from real military analysts and data saying NO the SD-10 is not meant to be like the Aim-120C but it does in fact have better range.

Be warned tho you’ll be offended cause there is more comments from others suggesting the F-18 should mind their own business just like this forum being a JF-17 forum so maybe you should live in the F-18 forums. You won’t be offended as much.

BUT MOST OF ALL, WHY WAS THIS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CHANGELOGS?

I agree with this. But I must say that I don't have problem with the tweaking or changing in the name of realism as long as it works.

DCS SD10 is still considerably better than all amraam types, when it's supposed to be on par IRL.

 

Funny how you call people names, not realizing that perhaps you have more in common with those "kids" than you know.

 

DCS SD10 and amraam will eventually be on par, not because of balance, but because that's how it's supposed to be.

So U do know the real performance of SD-10 or U just think Chinese missile SHOULD NOT better than the US counter party ?

come one guys missile is losing energy extra fast i failed to kill anyone in 20nm in GS server yesterday and also i feel like i am shooting R-77 not SD-10

So U do know the real performance of SD-10 or U just think Chinese missile SHOULD NOT better than the US counter party ?

At least Deka's JF-17 Quick Guide says SD-10's overall performance should be between AIM-120B and AIM-120C. Let's see how new ED's AIM-120 behave to be released in June.

come one guys missile is losing energy extra fast i failed to kill anyone in 20nm in GS server yesterday and also i feel like i am shooting R-77 not SD-10

Been fine for me, lots of 20nm+ kills online, even GS