SD-10 downgrade - Page 5 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-22-2020, 11:21 PM   #41
Tiger-II
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blinky.ben View Post
I’m starting to agree with a few people here. I read a lot of forums and there has been a few things that to me sound like ED protecting their product. Just cause the SD-10 doesn’t feel right mean absolutely nothing. You have ZERO idea what a SD-10 feels like. But ever sense the JF-17 got released the F-18 F-16 community has been crying about the JF and every patch the JF get weaker. Once the crying children get what they want they cry over something else and then next patch the JF again gets weaker. Sorry but I’m starting to get the feeling ED are protecting their products and as the sole owners of DCS they get to influence 3rd parties on their products. When it comes to Chaff this missile is one of the worst for being chaff hungry.

There is several real life meeting and reporters coming from the CIA, chief of Air Force and head of navy all stating Chinese missile are becoming very advanced and even the most advanced in areas. So why should the train of thought be the SD-10 has to be stupid compared to the almost chaff resistant Aim-120. If anything the as-10 should be just as good as the aim-120. And there is no eveidance that supports it other wise expect for people’s opinion that it’s not American.
I agree.

If people actually looked at my post a bit more critically they would see the missile is lofting to very high altitude (58000 ft) for a 40 NM SHOT fired from 32000 ft at >= Mach 0.95.

That same missile WITH PLENTY OF KINETIC ENERGY is then FALLING SHORT of the target FOR NO APPARENT REASON.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a 40 NM shot and the flight time required is EXCEEDING the battery run-time of the missile???!!!

I simply refuse to believe it.

I can't believe PAKAF would accept a missile with such a short life-time.

Either:

1) There is a problem with the missile and it is going dumb before it should

or

2) There is another bug within DCS that is just plain breaking or causing bad missile guidance.

I also found that the SD-10 gets WORSE the closer to the target the aircraft is at the moment of firing it. It seems to fire its rocket for less time for short-range shots, and it can't reach the target due to a total lack of energy.


The screenshots above show 6 seperate missiles. THEY ALL MISSED WITH GOOD LAUNCH PARAMETERS, and even kinetic energy to spare that it wasted by guiding short of the target.
__________________
Intel 80386 with 80387 Math Co-Processor | 16 Mb | Color VGA
"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

Last edited by Tiger-II; 05-22-2020 at 11:27 PM.
Tiger-II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 03:09 AM   #42
AeriaGloria
Senior Member
 
AeriaGloria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LA
Posts: 2,651
Default

Ben, it has same CCM as R-77. Agat helped Luoyang with the AMR-1 seeker, which was first unveiled at an air show in 1996, the missile didn’t enter operation 2006, and is the first active radar air to air seeker made by China, I’m sure they have way better stuff now, I’m just saying it’s seeker is actually quite older then the first service date of the missile. Remember also SD-10 is made for export, and its seeker and performance is not as good as the version the Chinese has for themselves, the PL-12

Tiger, what post are you referrring to? I checked the whole thread

EDIT: found the post I guess I thought that was Chiron. These are all very high altitude, what was the TOF when you took those shots? Becuase at that high altitude and over max range you are probably running up against the battery time limit, also a lot look very slow as if they are already out of energy, which is not surprising to me after a 40nm shot(stated range being around 37nm/70km) after a patch when max range is reduced 3-4 miles. If you can upload a track we can see exactly what happened

Last edited by AeriaGloria; 05-23-2020 at 03:35 AM.
AeriaGloria is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 03:49 AM   #43
Blinky.ben
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeriaGloria View Post
Ben, it has same CCM as R-77. Agat helped Luoyang with the AMR-1 seeker, which was first unveiled at an air show in 1996, the missile didn’t enter operation 2006, and is the first active radar air to air seeker made by China, I’m sure they have way better stuff now, I’m just saying it’s seeker is actually quite older then the first service date of the missile. Remember also SD-10 is made for export, and its seeker and performance is not as good as the version the Chinese has for themselves, the PL-12
Well if you put it like that it kinda makes sense
Blinky.ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 06:44 AM   #44
L0op8ack
3rd Party Developer
 
L0op8ack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: the Forbidden City
Posts: 459
Default

Eventually, all weapons will be handled by ED, and gamers WILL get a fair play and the 'Made In China' parameters as expected by most of the community.
We, the Deka team, will pay NO attention to missile performance stuff, that's all I can tell.

Last edited by L0op8ack; 05-23-2020 at 06:46 AM.
L0op8ack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 07:01 AM   #45
AeriaGloria
Senior Member
 
AeriaGloria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LA
Posts: 2,651
Default

Thanks for the response, that makes sense with the original statement of ED doing their own CFD. I know ED has made it seem that is their plan to do the performance for all missiles, and I guess there is some benefits to that considering the way the newer missiles have been re done. I just hope they can do it fast enough to keep up with all the 3rd parties!

But hey I wouldn’t complain if it ends up like AIM-7/AGM-88 and gets moving control surfaces, the 3D models are so gorgeous for all the JF-17 weapons.

I do wonder what will happen to Deka’s “missile team” though maybe this will help increase resources for third parties, with all the planes Razbam is doing it will help them!

Thanks for letting us know, I’ll ask ED next time missile performance changes
AeriaGloria is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 07:22 AM   #46
Racoon76
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: France
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L0op8ack View Post
Eventually, all weapons will be handled by ED, and gamers WILL get a fair play and the 'Made In China' parameters as expected by most of the community.
We, the Deka team, will pay NO attention to missile performance stuff, that's all I can tell.
It's not very fair. I really think we have one of the best modules with the JF17. So without making controversy, degrading the performance of the SD10 is just a way to hide the shortcomings of ED missiles. The "Made in China" argument expected by the DCS community is really lousy and an antiquated vision.

In addition if ED is now managing the missiles, we can expect worse.

Last edited by Racoon76; 05-23-2020 at 07:27 AM.
Racoon76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 10:43 AM   #47
Sajarov
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 193
Default

That's very very bad news.

They must boost Hornet and Viper sales so, Phoenix and SD-10 must be downgraded at all costs.
__________________
Intellectual freedom is essential to human society — freedom to obtain and distribute information, freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate, and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices - Andrei Sakharov.


Sajarov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 11:17 AM   #48
shaHeen-1
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 898
Default

I mean how else will hornets get to use the super carrier they paid for and ED worked so hard to build if Jeffs keep shooting them down? See this from the other side's perspective guys.
shaHeen-1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 12:46 PM   #49
Exile5121
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 76
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by L0op8ack View Post
Eventually, all weapons will be handled by ED, and gamers WILL get a fair play and the 'Made In China' parameters as expected by most of the community.
We, the Deka team, will pay NO attention to missile performance stuff, that's all I can tell.
Well, conspiracy theory +1
that's super crappy of ED

simulation, not a game by usual standards.
Exile5121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2020, 12:51 PM   #50
Tiger-II
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L0op8ack View Post
Eventually, all weapons will be handled by ED, and gamers WILL get a fair play and the 'Made In China' parameters as expected by most of the community.
We, the Deka team, will pay NO attention to missile performance stuff, that's all I can tell.
I'm not bashing Deka for what's happening. You have produced an incredible piece of work.

I can only guess that instead of ED fixing their side and increasing missile ranges, they've made the SD-10 to be shorter range.

Unless I've confused kilometers and miles (possible) I thought the SD-10 was supposed to be capable of around 50 NM when launched from high altitude and speed?

I did some more research prior to writing this post. Here's what I found:

SD-10/PL-12 = 21 km max range
LD-10 = 60 km max range

SD-10A/PL-12A (the version I thought we had): 105 km max range ("comparable to AIM-120C4").

21 km = 11.3 NM
60 km = 32.3 NM
105 km = 56.7 NM

Convention states that "max range" assumes a high altitude, high speed launch (with the launch platform typically at Mach 1.0), lofting the missile at optimum offset against a non-maneuvering target.

Assuming we have the SD-10A, these shots were well inside the missile max range.

If ED are deliberately downgrading all missiles - why? Are they being forced to do so by an outside agency?? No other explanation makes sense.

You can't change the laws of physics, and not all of us out here can be fooled by something that's obviously wrong.

Shortening missile ranges is equivalent to doubling the effect of gravity on dumb bombs - absolute nonsense.
__________________
Intel 80386 with 80387 Math Co-Processor | 16 Mb | Color VGA
"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

Last edited by Tiger-II; 05-23-2020 at 01:17 PM.
Tiger-II is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:17 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.