Jump to content

SD10 performance


Pikey

Recommended Posts

 

 

40nm, late manouvering, hot, at 25,000 kills.

We have a bit of a mismatch compared to an Eagle Dynamics AIM-120C - which... could be very interesting actually once we have a look at human manouvering and the radar's ability to hold notching targets. It's definitely not parity on my testing.

 

I'd like to see if Deka think this is performing as they planned. No one said they had to equalise the currently modeled AIM-120C, so I'm curious to see if this will remain as it is as per video.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The DCS AIM-120C is far different from the real thing, even for a simulation. I will not be happy if they force deka to fake out their missile because it does not match with current aim 120 implementation. This isn’t counter strike where everything needs to be exactly like the other.

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

The developers have already said in the general discussion that they will nerf the lazer guided rockets and they seem to be blaming people for that decision.

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

The developers have already said in the general discussion that they will nerf the lazer guided rockets and they seem to be blaming people for that decision.

 

I think that post was a bit of sarcasm from Deka.

If the SD10 outperforms the Amraam in Dcs at this time because of poor ED Amraam simulation, we should not blame Deka for this. Hopefully we will get a properly simulated Amraam and SD10 in the near future if it is possible with the information available.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED handles all the missiles performance. 3rd party devs don't set performance of their jets weapons.

 

I was under the impression that all BVR missiles have much shorter range in the sim than in real life. I'm fine with that. It would not be fun multiplayer to just fire at 40 nm and turn to go home and land.

 

To be honest this is why I am not much interested in 4th gen .. because the older 3rd gen actually got close enough to see each other and shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED handles all the missiles performance. 3rd party devs don't set performance of their jets weapons.

 

I was under the impression that all BVR missiles have much shorter range in the sim than in real life. I'm fine with that. It would not be fun multiplayer to just fire at 40 nm and turn to go home and land.

 

To be honest this is why I am not much interested in 4th gen .. because the older 3rd gen actually got close enough to see each other and shoot.

 

Technically the 4th planes still see each other. Except it's through the radar or the plane Facebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to be interesting and a topic for discussion. I'm curious to see what are the changes introduced by Deka and/or by ED. As far as I see we have several points here interacting with each other and with multiple nuances:

 

-The SD-10 may be performing in game according to stated public information. In that case you cannot blame Deka.

-The SD-10 greatly outperforming the best americans and russians missiles IN GAME does not sound right and creates balance issues, in any case an ED problem to solve.

-All other air to air missiles handled by ED are performing comparatively worse. This might simply be a function of the understanding of public stated max range. HB in their simulation of the phoenix and in a youtube podcast stated that on his POV the understanding the ED makes of max range is not correct, so is impossible to compare apples to apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-The SD-10 greatly outperforming the best americans and russians missiles IN GAME does not sound right and creates balance issues, in any case an ED problem to solve.

 

This is never to be of any concern for DCS.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is never to be of any concern for DCS.
I disagree. I understand your point though, DCS should simulate not balance, but it happens that because of a supposed bad simulation on ED part (this is, missiles underperforms) you end up with a bad simulation of a SD10 (this is, an export variant of an inferior chinesse missile that behaves better that the top of the spear aim120c).

 

We need to establish some kind of common framework regarding a2a missiles max ranges within this DCS universe we are in.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I understand your point though, DCS should simulate not balance, but it happens that because of a supposed bad simulation on ED part (this is, missiles underperforms) you end up with a bad simulation of a SD10 (this is, an export variant of an inferior chinesse missile that behaves better that the top of the spear aim120c).

 

We need to establish some kind of common framework regarding a2a missiles max ranges within this DCS universe we are in.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

 

Till now 120c outperformed R77 by far. And this was till now never an issue for anyone at ED. So why should it be an issue if SD10 outperforms now the 120c?

 

Only if ED has a problem that now all their Nato modules are outperformed by a 3rd party eastern module.

 

Will be funny how they explain this "Balancing". :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Till now 120c outperformed R77 by far. And this was till now never an issue for anyone at ED. So why should it be an issue if SD10 outperforms now the 120c?

 

Only if ED has a problem that now all their Nato modules are outperformed by a 3rd party eastern module.

 

Will be funny how they explain this "Balancing". :lol:

 

I dont want to start a debate of 120C vs R77 here. Lets say that while it is top secret and no one know for sure, there is info around including several analyst that agrees that the adder is worse than the aim120c both in range (due specially to its fins that are quite draggy) and in electronics. It does not say a lot about the missile that the russian air force is not introducing it into service in great numbers now that they seem to be financially better, I could be wrong though on this point.

 

Now the SD10 turns out to be an EXPORT version (we know how export versions of weapons normally are...) of a Chinese copy of the Aim120. Without any further information, I would be quite skeptcal if that weapons is actually superior to the aim120C.

 

There is an option that i could buy which is that the R77 and aim120C we have in game are from 1990, and that the SD10 is from 2015 and then much more modern, but then I would love to see 2015ish Aim120/r77 in game.


Edited by falcon_120
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're actually maintaining some sets of performance data/indication internally and would under no circumstances be biased by any "balance" despite being constrained by the current missile FM API. We do looking forward to the new missile API.

EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DCS AIM-120C is a 120C5 from the early 2000s. The R-77 we have in game (RVV-AE) was finished and being exported starting in the mid 90s. There is the R-77-1 (RVV-SD) from 2009-2012 is said to be pretty close or even superior to the 120C kinematically, but none of the soviet, severely outdated DCS aircraft have software to support it.

 

That being said, the manufacturer of the PL-12 claims it to be slightly inferior to AIM-120C.

 

Compare the timestamp (506 seconds) shot to this DCS tacview:

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2xz01qpl0hphg6m/real120C_test.acmi/file

 

The missile reaches its target with 1 second difference compared to the video and the distance on impact is only off by 0.2 miles.

 

This other attached file

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ioos6gjz7t9av8a/120C_63nm_m2.%2Ah%2At.acmi/file

 

contains a lofted 63 mile shot where the 120C arrives with enough energy to make it work at another 10-15 miles, matching and even exceeding the wikipedia values. This together should indicate that at least against nonmaneuvering targets, the ED missiles are not as astronomically off as some seem to believe.

 

Now i have no real understanding of missile aerodynamics, i can only compare official information and missile performance within DCS and get rough clues from that. But by my understanding, and correct me if im wrong:

 

-SD-10 has a slightly longer burn than DCS AIM-120C.

-SD-10 has bigger fins than DCS AIM-120C and thus should be more draggy.

 

However, i found the opposite to be true during testing. The missile is equal to AIM-120C initially, but bleeds energy way slower. It simply does not seem to follow the same rules as the other missiles, and outperforms even AIM-54C in its matchup against R-27ER (and has significantly better reach on cold opponents than R-27ER).

 

This is a big issue to me, i agree that all missiles should follow the same understanding of physics. This way, the simulator recreates the challenges each different missile carrier must face in combat more accurately. If every developer has a different understanding of how draggy missiles are, while possibly one of them may make a more realistic missile, it just gives one aircraft a missile that is too good/too bad compared to the others, making combat not only too hard/unrealistic for its opponents, but also too easy and thus unrealistic for the carrier.


Edited by Max1mus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're actually maintaining some sets of performance data/indication internally and would under no circumstances be biased by any "balance" despite being constrained by the current missile FM API. We do looking forward to the new missile API.

 

Thanks! That's what normal people expect. Unfortunately there is a vocal minory that want his plane to perform better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SD-10 has bigger fins than DCS AIM-120C and thus should be more draggy.

 

The overall Cx curve is tuned similar to AIM-7 due to the identical missile body. It has smaller fins than AIM-7, so there's slightly less drag on high mach. It is currently the case in DCS. All the SFM missiles follows the same equation of motion.

 

but bleeds energy way slower

 

The missile diameter and weight have a say on this.


Edited by LJQCN101

EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont want to start a debate of 120C vs R77 here. Lets say that while it is top secret and no one know for sure, there is info around including several analyst that agrees that the adder is worse than the aim120c both in range (due specially to its fins that are quite draggy) and in electronics. It does not say a lot about the missile that the russian air force is not introducing it into service in great numbers now that they seem to be financially better, I could be wrong though on this point.

 

Now the SD10 turns out to be an EXPORT version (we know how export versions of weapons normally are...) of a Chinese copy of the Aim120. Without any further information, I would be quite skeptcal if that weapons is actually superior to the aim120C.

 

There is an option that i could buy which is that the R77 and aim120C we have in game are from 1990, and that the SD10 is from 2015 and then much more modern, but then I would love to see 2015ish Aim120/r77 in game.

 

 

If something needs a chance is the 120. Both R-27 and Aim-7 and Aim-9 are working more accurate. If they end up nerfing the SD-10, they must also nerf the Aim 54, right?

 

This is not a question of balance, it's a question of realism. The 120 isn't realistic so the 120 needs to change. Not all of the other things. It's simpler to change 1 missile than the whole fleet.

 

If you still feel uneasy about your plane performing worse, just keep it in the hangar. Not everybody plays competitiv multiplayer games, some even don't shoot. They just need accurate assets for the own module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want a realistic JF-17 with realistic ranges. I don't care about the 120 and also, ED plans to overhaul all the missiles next year. The 120 issue is not a problem for DEKA so they shouldn't even consider it.

 

its gna be a glorious couple of months lol. People gna tell their kids JF17 was 5th gen aircraft XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missiles(and not only) in dcs should be all either equally realistic or equally unrealistic. So to be with realistic difference between each other to make the way you employ them against each other realistic(too much use of the word "realistic").

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missiles(and not only) in dcs should be all either equally realistic or equally unrealistic. So to be with realistic difference between each other to make the way you employ them against each other realistic(too much use of the word "realistic").

 

Agree, so let's hope they change the 120 soon. I can see so much tears in the horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is not a question of balance, it's a question of realism. The 120 isn't realistic so the 120 needs to change. Not all of the other things. It's simpler to change 1 missile than the whole fleet.

I agree

 

If you still feel uneasy about your plane performing worse, just keep it in the hangar. Not everybody plays competitiv multiplayer games, some even don't shoot. They just need accurate assets for the own module.

 

I am ok with that. In this case i think the problem is on the aim120 and r77 implementation by ED instead of the SD10 made by Deka. So hopefully we will have these improved not very far down the road.

 

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missiles(and not only) in dcs should be all either equally realistic or equally unrealistic. So to be with realistic difference between each other to make the way you employ them against each other realistic(too much use of the word "realistic").

 

Agreed. And I think we all would prefer equally realistic. I'd strongly prefer Deka not have to dumb down their missiles from realistic values to conform to ED's dumbed down missiles, but rather ED to step up and make their missiles as accurate as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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