SD-10 NERF?

The issue with BRM-1 90mm laser guided rocket is that it needs to spin like Vikhr (as it uses a similar one axis control scheme), right now that is only possible with a beam riding configuration, instead of the semi active laser homing of the real one

Is it booster and cruise mode of motor?

If yes, that it is not problem. Everything can be configured in a script.

Its not clear, but Deka at some point hinted that that SD10(A?) they have modeled should have secondary boost motor for terminal engagements. That's what ben was talking about.

Also, Chiz, you guys might consider releasing missiles in "matched pairs" or something as the one missile at time tends to really screw multiplayer, one way then the other way etc.

Its not clear, but Deka at some point hinted that that SD10(A?) they have modeled should have secondary boost motor for terminal engagements. That's what ben was talking about.

 

Also, Chiz, you guys might consider releasing missiles in "matched pairs" or something as the one missile at time tends to really screw multiplayer, one way then the other way etc.

It was just mentioned by Deka in one of the other many “SD-10 Nerf” threads that it would require PL-15 to be in game. At this point I’m just going to chalk it up to translation differences, perhaps Deka speculating about future missile development while we may be thinking they are talking about the current SD-10A.

In addition, the range of 120 did not increase noticeably. There is an increase there only in case of shooting at a maneuvering target. In general, the range of 120 was quite real earlier too.

Range did increase mainly due to the new lofting. Someone wrote that at high altitudes the resistance of the atmosphere is to low in DCS, will there be a change?

Lofting gives insane range improvements right now.

What I like is that the Aim-120B without loft fits quite well into the russian Aim-120B estimation chart, only that it has lots of excess speed or energy during tailchase scenarios at the given ranges. R-27 is almost stalling at the ranges from their graphs.

climb to 50K ft fox 3 mach 6 missile :thumbup:

Is it booster and cruise mode of motor?

If yes, that it is not problem. Everything can be configured in a script.

 

 

 

What is problem to develop semi-active laser missiles? You can see S-25L, for example.

Hi Chizh,

What was described to me was 'dual pulse', so think about it like 3 stage motor:

1) Boost

2) Slow burn (delay burn, doesn't do much, doesn't produce much thrust - it just delays the ignition of stage 3)

3) Boost

So if you think of the boost-sustain motor like a 2-layer grain (burn the boost grain, continue burning the sustain grain after), dual pulse would be a bit like 3-layer. Of course, we don't know anything about the real configuration of such a rocket - ie. is 'boost 1' and 'boost 2' equal? What is the timing - ie how long does the 'delay grain' burn for?

It's important to know because you cannot change how long the delay grain burns for, it's set for x seconds and that's it, so at short ranges 'dual pulse' is not useful.

In addition, the range of 120 did not increase noticeably. There is an increase there only in case of shooting at a maneuvering target. In general, the range of 120 was quite real earlier too.

But this is not true. With AIM-120B the maximum range at high altitude has increased to pre-2.5.5 AIM-120C level. AIM-120C on the other hand can theoretically kill a target from 200+km and still arrives at mach 3.5. This was not possible before either.

This track shows a 200km 120C having by far enough energy to hit the guy, arrives at faster speed than AIM-54.

AIM-120C_200km_Mach3.5.trk

This track shows an 80+km AIM-120B on a flanking target. Arrives almost at the same time as AIM-54. Completely impossible with the old AIM-120B, even old AIM-120C would have much trouble to achieve this (you can test in versions prior to 2.5.5 to confirm this). This also exceeds the 70km wikipedia sales figure value.

AIM-120B_arrives at 80+km.trk

It seems to be as Blackpixxel mentioned a little above, at least over 40.000 feet. The only limiting factor seems to be battery life. But why is it 80 seconds if the missiles can reach 200-250km by design? If the reason is truly just INS drift, this creates many more questions. Why is the public focus with newer missiles like meteor the engine, when battery life is really the biggest issue? Why does the 1970s AIM-54A have a so much better battery, is size more important than technology there?

Range did increase mainly due to the new lofting. Someone wrote that at high altitudes the resistance of the atmosphere is to low in DCS, will there be a change?

 

Lofting gives insane range improvements right now.

 

 

What I like is that the Aim-120B without loft fits quite well into the russian Aim-120B estimation chart, only that it has lots of excess speed or energy during tailchase scenarios at the given ranges. R-27 is almost stalling at the ranges from their graphs.

Is ED going to fix the issues with SD-10 now after they have forced changes on it which broke other aspect of the missile? I know they read this forum and are aware that the missile needs fine tuning again. Please, do not just make one big change and call it a day.

I understand that ED talks alot about transparency but they cannot just make a massive change like this before communicating with people who are actually paying for these modules.

Announcing a company decision after it has been made is not transparency, it is an announcement.

For the sake of transparency, I would like to know what ED's future plans are for SD-10 and all the other JF-17 weapons? Will they review the performance again and amend some side effects which were introduced with this missile change? What esle is ED planning on changing? Are you guys also looking to make changes to the aircraft's performance and flight model?

I am asking because in order to adjust my expectations, I need to have some idea on what to expect in the future. Please give people who are paying for modules on your game some clarification.

We have plan to improvement of guidance, CCM and ECCM issues of course.

But these are very difficult issues, since they are almost completely closed in all countries.

On that note are we going to get optimal control, kalman filters, and range gating as well?

Is it booster and cruise mode of motor?

If yes, that it is not problem. Everything can be configured in a script.

 

 

 

What is problem to develop semi-active laser missiles? You can see S-25L, for example.

Deka has informed us in known problems that the BRM-1 laser guided rockets are currently beam riding, however they are meant to be laser spotting but that can only be fixed from the ED side of the house.

On that note are we going to get optimal control, kalman filters, and range gating as well?

 

Why do i never see you asking for the downsides of more realistic tracking? Like AMRAAMs not tracking reliably when there are mountains in the backround. It doesnt seem like youre interested in a specific, most realistic set of down- and upgrades, but rather buffs and buffs until the missile is undefeatable.

This is generally an issue im seeing with these threads. People seem to want better performing missiles no matter what, and scientific evidence is usually hand-picked to feed the bias.

Im glad to see that ED, in these threads often represented by Chizh, is not falling for it unlike some 3rd party developers unfortunately. This doesnt mean ED does not have its own interests, the neglecting of russian equipment, from AI SAM systems to air to air missiles is absolutely ridiculous, but thats a different topic.

Hold on if there is ground clutter that would really just limit the max detection range no? How would it make tracking beyond this more unreliable? Its a PD seeker after all. The introduction of everything I mentioned above yes would make the missile better but its also realistic to what the missile should have.

Why do i never see you asking for the downsides of more realistic tracking? Like AMRAAMs not tracking reliably when there are mountains in the backround. It doesnt seem like youre interested in a specific, most realistic set of down- and upgrades, but rather buffs and buffs until the missile is undefeatable.

 

This is generally an issue im seeing with these threads. People seem to want better performing missiles no matter what, and scientific evidence is usually hand-picked to feed the bias.

 

Im glad to see that ED, in these threads often represented by Chizh, is not falling for it unlike some 3rd party developers unfortunately. This doesnt mean ED does not have its own interests, the neglecting of russian equipment, from AI SAM systems to air to air missiles is absolutely ridiculous, but thats a different topic.

This is a very narrow sighted statement. There have been countless debates on weapons sometimes outperforming and overperforming. The most recent one I can think of was how the anti ship missiles were doing too much damage and were not being picked up by enemy ani missile system. That got fixed after many complaints.

Similar thing was happening with the glide bombs and people complained for it to be fixed.

Just because you chose not to look at those threads does not mean we have not been asking for balance for the sake of simulation.

Negative aspects of any weapons are well kept secrets. If you know of anything specific, please bring it forward.

Also what do you mean by "people"? You mean everyone including you? If you have an opinion, share it but dont clump everyone together in your narrow observation.

I have never seen much complaints once the appropriate evidence was provided to justify the change. This time it is not the case. ED has said many times that they allow the development of systems based on public available information from the source. This time anything that the manufactorer stated regarding these weapons publically is being taken as either military bias or simply not good enough.

Chizh has also been very vocal in Russian section. There will always be bias from everyone based on their political opinions. We are just trying to look past that and get some believeable performance based on what we hear and read outside of DCS.

In the end even DCS does not simulate everything properly, it is very bare bone sandbox game. The jets may feel right but the world they fly in has so many missing aspects.

Yes you are right. We are currently short of time in some tasks. Therefore, we plan to expand our Weapons department so that we can work not only on domestic tasks, but also on the development of weapons for third parties.

 

 

It is not true.

SD-10 did not affect the AIM-120 studies in any way. In addition, the range of 120 did not increase noticeably. There is an increase there only in case of shooting at a maneuvering target. In general, the range of 120 was quite real earlier too.

 

 

What is wrong there?

Hi Chizh,

thank you for taking some time to answer questions here!

to 1.) Awesome!

to 2.) Especially when lofting them now they do fly a considerable bit farther out than before, don't they?

to 3.) You do a 180° turn in the horizontal without chaff above the horizon and the missile will still go dumb, not reaquire etc.

Not every time, but every once and so often that it shows.

And the notching part was also aimed at the PD radars of the F16 and F18, though I can speak mainly for the F16.

People go into a notch (with thousands of feet separation to clutter) and still end up disappearing from your radar screen completely.

The non-doppler component of the RWS mode should have kept them on the screen (and would have in case of an F14s radar)

BR,

Deadpool

How is there a non Doppler component of RWS? The AWG-9 requires to be in pulse and main lobe cutter removed, so it only works in an uplook situation and has to be deliberate

Why do i never see you asking for the downsides of more realistic tracking? Like AMRAAMs not tracking reliably when there are mountains in the backround. It doesnt seem like youre interested in a specific, most realistic set of down- and upgrades, but rather buffs and buffs until the missile is undefeatable.

 

This is generally an issue im seeing with these threads. People seem to want better performing missiles no matter what, and scientific evidence is usually hand-picked to feed the bias.

 

Im glad to see that ED, in these threads often represented by Chizh, is not falling for it unlike some 3rd party developers unfortunately. This doesnt mean ED does not have its own interests, the neglecting of russian equipment, from AI SAM systems to air to air missiles is absolutely ridiculous, but thats a different topic.

People are asking to have commonly known behavior of radar guided missiles finally represented instead of the broken mechanics we have currently. This would significantly help improve the realism of all missiles.

Not sure what "downsides" you meant by flying near ground, most aspects are already represented or already worse than they should be. Flying not in the notch generally results in the clutter being ignored unless you're flying under the trees, and if you're anywhere near a good notch all radar guided platforms will miss. The main issue with notch reliability is actually the network desync..

The problem is not that the missile we have is not the end all be all missile.

The problem is that all missiles suffer from absurd behavior that is very far from any realism. Implementing appropriate radar techniques would solve many of these problems. The exact implementation on a particular missile is most likely not even available privately, but a generic approximation of i.e. range gating would bring much more realism than not having it at all.

I think in general people exagerate about the current state of DCS missiles. Can they be better? Sure! Are they horrendous, no way!

I also do think that the amraam is in a very good state right now. The same way the SD10 is in a very good state. I mean both are very dangerous missiles with nice real BVR range, and closer to what i'd expect from them and in line with every piece of documentation and pilot talk i've always read. The only missile that i do think needs love really soon is the R77, that thing is basically a close range weapon now.

I think in general people exagerate about the current state of DCS missiles. Can they be better? Sure! Are they horrendous, no way!

 

I also do think that the amraam is in a very good state right now. The same way the SD10 is in a very good state. I mean both are very dangerous missiles with nice real BVR range, and closer to what i'd expect from them and in line with every piece of documentation and pilot talk i've always read. The only missile that i do think needs love really soon is the R77, that thing is basically a close range weapon now.

They work fairly well against poor or average defense techniques. Albeit even often arguably poor against bad defense techniques if you happen to have a good timing.

A very simple example is a target having a stable G turn in a certain direction, if it happens to go through the notch at the perfect moment, even if for a split second the missile returns to 1 G and will miss even if reacquired because after the neutral 1 G moment the intercept geometry is impossible. This actually occurs a lot, resulting a lot of situations where a bandit should absolutely be dead but gets to live another fight.

If it only had a simple extrapolation method, a sustained G in plane turn should not be able to spoof it if the notch is only occuring momentarily.

Typically if you go against an AI he will notch you every time with a 2 G U-turn casually, notching for maybe not even 100 ms. I haven't checked in the recent months but ~ half a year ago this was the case.

How is there a non Doppler component of RWS? The AWG-9 requires to be in pulse and main lobe cutter removed, so it only works in an uplook situation and has to be deliberate

I think you are mistaken.

Take an AWG-9 set it to RWS or even TWS (any PD mode) and have MLC to AUTO.

If your radar is now looking up more than 3° it will disable the MLC.

Now your radar sweeps across the sky and you get returns for the different planes.

MLC means that those returns with a doppler shift of less than 133 kts +/- will be analog filtered out. They won't reach the weapon computer and won't be shown. not even on your DDD.

Now given a target above 3° will generate a nice fat return, albeit without a large doppler shift as he is notching. You will still get the blip and all the other bonus features that come with it (making the target go boom for example).

And that "return" is what I mean by the other component to a radar return other than the doppler one.

Now why am I saying this? Because that's what happens automatic in the F-14's radar system.

In the F-16 radar system the MLC so to speak won't disengage and you will lose the fricking contact from your scope .. even when you're looking up.

The F-16 should have even more automatisms in it's radar. (Same goes for the FA18)

They work fairly well against poor or average defense techniques. Albeit even often arguably poor against bad defense techniques if you happen to have a good timing.

 

A very simple example is a target having a stable G turn in a certain direction, if it happens to go through the notch at the perfect moment, even if for a split second the missile returns to 1 G and will miss even if reacquired because after the neutral 1 G moment the intercept geometry is impossible. This actually occurs a lot, resulting a lot of situations where a bandit should absolutely be dead but gets to live another fight.

 

If it only had a simple extrapolation method, a sustained G in plane turn should not be able to spoof it if the notch is only occuring momentarily.

 

Typically if you go against an AI he will notch you every time with a 2 G U-turn casually, notching for maybe not even 100 ms. I haven't checked in the recent months but ~ half a year ago this was the case.

Yeah, it's still the case and it's absolutely arcade. Right now you can notch when the missile is looking almost level. You can notch when you're 6000ft away from the ground and the missile is just a few hundred feet away from you. It's just a huge big counter that reminds me more of dark souls than flight simulations.

I still have never heard of an F-16 or other modern fighter that isn’t F-14 that can track in the notch with radar. Just becuase the F-14 is older, I don’t think that necessarily means something later has all the same features.

I still have never heard of an F-16 or other modern fighter that isn’t F-14 that can track in the notch with radar. Just becuase the F-14 is older, I don’t think that necessarily means something later has all the same features.

The doppler component is used in a heavy zero speed clutter environment (ground or chaff) to be able to have some criteria to make out the target.

Imagine you are running after a guy who stole something from you. Now even if it's very crowded it's a safe bet that he will keep on running and thus you can easily make him out even in a crowd.

But if he stops running in a crowd, you'll lose him .. if he stops running on an open space, you would be pretty dumb to lose him.

Are you telling me that in order to get a look down / shoot down capability the entire set of modern radars has sacrificed the little MLC AUTO switch from the F-14 and made itself completely blind for beaming targets? I think not.

A modern radar might be even more awesome. Think of a line going straight from your radar to the target.

You ---------------------------------------> Target                   Ground

Then your radar would be awesome enough to know the target range when locked and apply range gates to it .. so that returns outside of that gate won't even be taken into account for drawing conclusions on its position.

You ---------------------------------------> Target                   Ground
                                     |    Range gate   |

I’m not denying it’s an awesome feature, but there’s no evidence F-16 or JF-17 can do that. Just becuase it was there on an older plane doesn’t mean the newer different planes can do the same thing

If there’s evidence of such feature on F-16/F-18, or JF-17, I’ll gladly eat my words

So an aircraft 40 years later would have inferior tech? :)

These are some of the most basic radar DSP techniques used for many many decades now. It's been a while since I've read the radar book but as I recall most mechanical airborne pulse-doppler radars use chirped frequency with a fairly low duty cycle setup. Then comes all the magic of DSP.

But really it's not difficult on paper to implement time of arrival filtering compared to a known fixed point transmission, if you know where a target is i.e. in a track mode. In a search mode it might be tricky but if you implement a "spotlight" kind of mode where you look at a patch of sky this could also be done. I'm saying on paper because I haven't done it myself, but given the software can run in fast enough cycles I don't see a problem.

In any case some kind of range gating exists by default to throw out targets that lie outside your normal cycles, i.e. you have no interest in getting false detections because your waves bumped into a 747 from a transmission 4 cycles ago.

Disabling MLC based on look up angles is a very simple thing to do. I'm surprised you mentioned that because I don't recall having issues with this in the 16, but I didn't actually test in detail - I know for fact however in the F-15 this works just fine, but that's FC radar.

I’m not denying it’s an awesome feature, but there’s no evidence F-16 or JF-17 can do that. Just becuase it was there on an older plane doesn’t mean the newer different planes can do the same thing

 

If there’s evidence of such feature on F-16/F-18, or JF-17, I’ll gladly eat my words

It's like saying "there's no evidence that 2019 model car has automatic air conditioning if 2018 model has" - from the point of pure logic you theoretically could be right; most likely you're wrong.

Here's why:

Without going into detail - if you look at major radar system components it's (very roughly) transmitter, receiver, antenna, and indicator. Range gate is logic, "built into" the indicator part, i.e. it incurs very little weight, space or cost penalty to implement for modern electronics. The more modern radar is, more sophisticated the software, more features it packs - if you have the algorithms, know-how, etc. - space, power and compute capacity needed are all reduced each year following Moore's law. The only advantage AWG-9 can have vs. AN/APG-68 and similar is the size of its antenna and consequently raw detection range. DSP etc. - miles ahead on newer radars.

That's why, BTW, AWG-9 was replaced by AN/APG-70-based AN/APG-71 in F-14D - the newer AN/APG-70 was - naturally - seen as superior.