SD-10 NERF?

I just posted one with AIM-120C doing the same. This is weird. Would like Chizh to explain.

I suspect atmospheric effects are in play here, you get a lot less resistance at high altitudes. This isn't an AIM-120 thing, though the fact the 120 is slick helps vs missiles that are not. Complex interaction etc.

Oh boy, I guess im in on the purse swinging contest.

About the data, at the end of the day there are actual open source military intel providers that do this for a living, have credible numbers that you can buy. Janes probably being the most famous of them, but there are plenty of others. And while it may be cost prohibitive for us mere mortals to buy the info, I'm pretty sure ED probably has a subscription. And one would hope the 3rd party devs might be able to spring for one too. And no, its probably against policy to post that stuff out in the open. Frankly I find the folks posting here about Wikipedia laughable as its a laughable source and very far from the only open source one.

As for ED taking over 3rd party weapon modeling. This makes a ton of sense to me. With things like CFD you basically need a repeatable model way of doing it for everything you have so at least the results are relatively comparable. So I have 0 problem with ED being the ones doing that, its not about nationalism or any other stupid thing, its about using the same methodology every time to get consistent results. And frankly If they do the SD10, I hope they end up doing the Phoenix and The 530/magic etc. So that at least from a drag curve perspective its all on the same page. I'd also like it if they might share that data with the community since its not "real".

<flame suit on>

I suspect atmospheric effects are in play here, you get a lot less resistance at high altitudes. This isn't an AIM-120 thing, though the fact the 120 is slick helps vs missiles that are not. Complex interaction etc.

Isn't it the case that the drag above 40,000' is way off?

We have not yet taken and are not planning to develop the SD-10. But in the future we plan to make all weapons for all modules ourselves in ED studio.

Yes please!!!! Do this Soon!!!!

We did not touch the battery working time of SD-10.

Hmm this is confusing cause even on this very thread we are being told ED are the ones who changed the battery life. And on other forums Deka are saying they still believe it is meant to be the original time of 100s not the 80s from the new update

Hmm this is confusing cause even on this very thread we are being told ED are the ones who changed the battery life. And on other forums Deka are saying they still believe it is meant to be the original time of 100s not the 80s from the new update

^ Yup odd

We did not touch the battery working time of SD-10.

what ? really ? something is not right here Deka said its 100 sec and from what we saw it went down according to this patch . Deka didn't reduce it and u are saying u didn't reduce it then who did ?

logic chain:

1. people need evidence;

2. we cannot provide where it's from;

3. so, wiki is the best, the end.

 

 

If somebody cannot accept it, believe what you believe please.

With all due respect, from this logic can follow only two conclusions:

a) The data is too classified to even reveal document names, paragraphs, sentences or snippets. Therefore there is no reality in which this data is accurately implemented in a consumer-grade simulator without being subject to the same legal repercussions one would face for sharing classified documentation online.

or

b) There is no reliable data, everything simulated is a best-guess approximation based on publically available snippets that can be freely shared. (I.e. all missiles, weapon systems and quite a few flight models in DCS)

Both of these lead me to conclude that the simulation is not a perfect approximation and not based on hard fact. Pretending you hold all the knowledge but it's too secret to share, only detracts from your perceived trustworthiness. Especially when you are the only one with a financial stake in the debate.

Don't misinterpret this as something that I'd feel detracts heavily from the product, as I see this as simply the nature of commercial combat flight simulation. To me it reflects exclusively on your position as a 3rd party vendor.

With all due respect, from this logic can follow only two conclusions:

 

a) The data is too classified to even reveal document names, paragraphs, sentences or snippets. Therefore there is no reality in which this data is accurately implemented in a consumer-grade simulator without being subject to the same legal repercussions one would face for sharing classified documentation online.

 

or

 

b) There is no reliable data, everything simulated is a best-guess approximation based on publically available snippets that can be freely shared. (I.e. all missiles, weapon systems and quite a few flight models in DCS)

 

Both of these lead me to conclude that the simulation is not a perfect approximation and not based on hard fact. Pretending you hold all the knowledge but it's too secret to share, only detracts from your perceived trustworthiness. Especially when you are the only one with a financial stake in the debate.

 

 

Don't misinterpret this as something that I'd feel detracts heavily from the product, as I see this as simply the nature of commercial combat flight simulation. To me it reflects exclusively on your position as a 3rd party vendor.

Actually, option 3 is the most likely. Which is kind of like your option 2 but sourced from someone like Janes or other open pay-for sources, but you get sued if you share it cuz thats part of the agreement you signed with them for whatever data they put together. Actual defense intelligence is a pay-to-play game. I find it laughable that you somehow think this stuff is just randomly on the internet for all to see, and someone doesn't actually have a business finding, collating and selling said data for exorbitant sums.

We did not touch the battery working time of SD-10.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/287928410687406080/712703973081219072/unknown.png

i dont understand then what is this ? i am confused now :helpsmilie:

what ? really ? something is not right here Deka said its 100 sec and from what we saw it went down according to this patch . Deka didn't reduce it and u are saying u didn't reduce it then who did ?

DCS underpants gnomes.

DCS underpants gnomes.

LOL

With all due respect, from this logic can follow only two conclusions:

 

a) The data is too classified to even reveal document names, paragraphs, sentences or snippets. Therefore there is no reality in which this data is accurately implemented in a consumer-grade simulator without being subject to the same legal repercussions one would face for sharing classified documentation online.

 

or

 

b) There is no reliable data, everything simulated is a best-guess approximation based on publically available snippets that can be freely shared. (I.e. all missiles, weapon systems and quite a few flight models in DCS)

 

Both of these lead me to conclude that the simulation is not a perfect approximation and not based on hard fact. Pretending you hold all the knowledge but it's too secret to share, only detracts from your perceived trustworthiness. Especially when you are the only one with a financial stake in the debate.

 

 

Don't misinterpret this as something that I'd feel detracts heavily from the product, as I see this as simply the nature of commercial combat flight simulation. To me it reflects exclusively on your position as a 3rd party vendor.

no spywork please.

I don't know what argument you are making here...

 

I said that riojax and other people are demanding ED provide proof that the time is 80 instead of 100, but at the same time these same people did not demand Deka provide evidence of their missile performance. They were fine taking Dekas word without evidence but when it comes to making performance on par or worse than the AIM-120, now they demand evidence. They only cared that it was *better* than the AIM-120 rather than realistic.

You're being a jerk. They're the ones who had access to the simulator that they built their entire module off of, including the weapons. ED did not and has not claimed they had any access to this information. Are you going to claim that the plane itself isn't accurate next? They have the same amount of documentation for both IE: nothing they can show you because it's super classified material of objects that were made in the last twenty years.

All this because of what: they won't show you detailed, classified Chinese documentation of a missile that's only ten years old? Keep in mind, posting anything newer than 35 years old is grounds for a warning on this board. The plane itself is 20 years old, tops. It sounds like you're trying to bait people into getting banned or visited by the secret police, even if they went out and got the sourced information.

tl;dr: You're being a jerk over something you know nobody can provide you, even if they had it. Deka's word is law because they are the closest to the first-hand source of the matter. End of story.

what ? really ? something is not right here Deka said its 100 sec and from what we saw it went down according to this patch . Deka didn't reduce it and u are saying u didn't reduce it then who did ?

From post numer 13 in this thread i understand that it was DEKA themselves who did this right?

From post numer 13 in this thread i understand that it was DEKA themselves who did this right?

My understanding is ED say they didn’t make the change to the battery life, and Deka does not agree with the decrease in battery life. So that leaves some open ended belief.

So maybe ED didn’t change the coding themselves but did they possible say to Deka you’ll be decreasing the SD-10 battery life to 80s. Obviously I would have no idea

But no matter who coded it all we seem to know is Deka doesn’t agree with the new time so how many other party can make this decision? That kinda narrows it down for me with what I can gather.

My understanding is ED say they didn’t make the change to the battery life, and Deka does not agree with the decrease in battery life. So that leaves some open ended belief.

 

So maybe ED didn’t change the coding themselves but did they possible say to Deka you’ll be decreasing the SD-10 battery life to 80s. Obviously I would have no idea

 

But all we seem to know is Deka doesn’t agree with the new time frame then it only really leaves one other party to have made the decision don’t you think?

i dont know but if they want to fix Drag according to their CFD program

why :

Life Time / Fi search / cx_k0 / cx_k1 / cx_k3 / another value i dont know about / working time system

fuel flow rate per sec / thrust i think this value related to Drag stuff but all above why ?

that is why i am a bit confused Deka wasn't happy with their comment and what they say is

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4346129&postcount=44

we need some explanation here

Fuel flow rate is how fast the rocket motor goes through fuel. Cx_k0 and others are different zero lift drag coefficients it seems. Fi search is seeker scan area in radians.

I did wonder about Fi_search. I heard it was in radians, which if so it was about 60 degrees before and now it is a little over 10. I wonder if this is not the gimbal limits but actually beam width of the antenna(as Fi_excort was the same value, 1.05 and didn’t change so excort must be the gimbal limit)? Because it seems to fly fine for me way beyond 10 degrees of lead.

And for some reason my google translate has trouble with deciphering what the specifics of each Cx0_k parameter and the .value just below Cx_k4 that was changed. Only two seem to have M numbers in them, I assume subsonic and supersonic, and earlier someone did mention that lift had been increased..

I also wonder how liftetime is different the the working time of the power system. As that working time of the system in seconds being changed from 100 to 80 is what I think most people are interested in.

Which parameter are you interested in?

u can explain them pls cuz u said u didn't reduce battery life and u were concern about dragging issue then why all this changes

I did wonder about Fi_search. I heard it was in radians, which if so it was about 60 degrees before and now it is a little over 10. I wonder if this is not the gimbal limits but actually beam width of the antenna(as Fi_excort was the same value, 1.05 and didn’t change so excort must be the gimbal limit)? Because it seems to fly fine for me way beyond 10 degrees of lead.

 

And for some reason my google translate has trouble with deciphering what the specifics of each Cx0_k parameter and the .value just below Cx_k4 that was changed. Only two seem to have M numbers in them, I assume subsonic and supersonic, and earlier someone did mention that lift had been increased..

 

 

I also wonder how liftetime is different the the working time of the power system. As that working time of the system in seconds being changed from 100 to 80 is what I think most people are interested in.

no my friend not just lifetime if ED had a problem with Drag issue and they want to fix it by force fine but why they put their hand on other values that they dont belong to them they dont own the missile and i dont ever agree that ED start to take control of all missiles cuz they are not that good TBH Razbam asked them for help and they provided them a rubbish missiles so no offence DCS is a ( TEAM WORK ) we got better result when there is a lot of different teams as u are owner and u want to put some rules u are 100% right but dont talk about a problem and want to fix it by also fixing other stuff in the way that is nonsense and i dont think that Deka is doing cheap work here and deserve to treated better

Which parameter are you interested in?

The 80s battery life that everyone keeps asking about.

Where is it coming from?