SD-10 downgrade

I did read it, they were looking at PL-12, there are two separate missiles with different files, SD-10 and PL-12. SD-10 is export, PL-12 is not for export with higher specs, that is what Tango was referring to.

 

Here he is referring to them in sequence, .12 for PL and .15 for SD

yes i was mistaken about that maybe i will share the pic i refer too in this post

I did read it, they were looking at PL-12, there are two separate missiles with different files, SD-10 and PL-12. SD-10 is export, PL-12 is not for export with higher specs, that is what Tango was referring to.

 

Here he is referring to them in sequence, .12 for PL and .15 for SD

OK - so I did ultimately understand. Thanks! :thumbup:

Chiron thanks for showing the differences, I assume Fi search is seeker scan zone. Need to look up what everything else does, very interesting. Interesting shuffling of stage thrust and fuel flow to come up with the same 70kg of fuel, looks like slower acceleration

Edit: trying to find out what the Cx0 values each do, two are for subsonic and supersonic, and J20Stronk mentioned that lift was increased

SD-10 isn't tracking properly and losing the target when it should enter the terminal phase.

I've observed 4 of 6 missiles miss their targets at 40 NM range because they are apparently just losing track. I don't think they're going dumb.

What is the new SD-10 battery run-time?

EDIT: Ughh... OK

It appears the new run-time is 68 seconds?

SD-10 isn't tracking properly and losing the target when it should enter the terminal phase.

 

I've observed 4 of 6 missiles miss their targets at 40 NM range because they are apparently just losing track. I don't think they're going dumb.

 

What is the new SD-10 battery run-time?

 

 

EDIT: Ughh... OK

 

 

It appears the new run-time is 68 seconds?

It’s in the screen shots above.

Working time of power system: from 100s down to 80s.

I don’t see CCM_k0 parameter. So by default it should be 1 which is Medium.

0 is immune to decoys.

Something is wrong then, as I'm firing inside of 40 NM with good shots, lofting, and optimum release angle (firing at the RADAR dot not the target).

Aircraft speed is around Mach 0.90.

Please see the following. They all missed, but shouldn't have. Targets are turning, but they are not evading. There are 6 missile shots in these images.

Hard to tell, might be better with a track. I just flew and SD-10 flew fine for me

Hard to tell, might be better with a track. I just flew and SD-10 flew fine for me

i dont know Aeria but i am not with u in that a lot of variables has changed and need to be tested again and we need to change our way of launching SD-10 cuz its different now and i dont know why DEKA is not responding to this thread at least ........ we need some attention here to clear this subject we deserve that

r u flying in MP ?

any level of explanation that deka could give would be nice ...

wondering if making it balanced was one of the stable release requirements.

if so ED needs to reassess what their community wants or they are going to have a hell of a time when we have the EF2000

i dont know Aeria but i am not with u in that a lot of variables has changed and need to be tested again and we need to change our way of launching SD-10 cuz its different now and i dont know why DEKA is not responding to this thread at least ........ we need some attention here to clear this subject we deserve that

 

r u flying in MP ?

I think it’s fine. If you look at the charts people posted it’s pretty close, and definitely feels a bit more real now. I’ll try in MP, only done SP and MP guns on the new build.

There’s not much you have to change about firing, just fire it like you always do, it’s just a few miles shorter in range with a high altitude BVR shot, all the DLZ cues work for me

Deka is not going to respond to every thing, they talked to us plenty on the battery thread where the mentioned CFD results and we know ED was going to run CFD on SD-10 with their program which is different then the one Deka uses. I think this is just the result of that Info they got. The program you use can make a big difference!

Deka has said a few times they are not interested in balance when it comes to SD-10 modeling. Only time I ever heard them mention balance was about CM-400AKG, which practically gives one side a tri seeker cross map ballistic capability, a type of weapon not even in game yet

I think it’s fine. If you look at the charts people posted it’s pretty close, and definitely feels a bit more real now. I’ll try in MP, only done SP and MP guns on the new build.

 

There’s not much you have to change about firing, just fire it like you always do, it’s just a few miles shorter in range with a high altitude BVR shot, all the DLZ cues work for me

 

Deka is not going to respond to every thing, they talked to us plenty on the battery thread where the mentioned CFD results and we know ED was going to run CFD on SD-10 with their program which is different then the one Deka uses. I think this is just the result of that Info they got. The program you use can make a big difference!

buddy MP field is a lot different than SP i tried SD-10 in SP and i dont see a different yes but in MP first SD-10 lose lock more than before second SD-10 start to love chaff a bit third SD-10 lock area small now so when u defend and notch SD-10 go stupid cuz he lost lock and when he reacquire the target again he pull alot of G so the result SD-10 lose energy more than before according to battery life time so if u can before shoot from 40nm at 40k feet now u will barley make it in 35nm if u are lucky and to heat things up is 26nm shoot with supporting the missile so he wont lose lock like i explained i am not saying that SD-10 must be invincible every missile can be defeated there is no such a thing is 100% shoot but what i am saying here it would be nice that deka come out and talk to us cuz we asked before about this missile and they acted like ( Dont worry we have our own source we can't declare it but things is good ) and the result is SD-10 nerfed so that is mean that ( Deka info is not reliable ? i am not judging here i love what Deka did actually and i love JF-17 but that situation need to be clarified that is all .

and at the end i am not asking Deka to gave us the invincible spear to the battlefield cuz is up to u what u will do with JF-17 or how u will fly it and its super cool fighter

what annoying me more is why they didn't announce in change log that SD-10 will be nerfed or edited according to a new data

why we should discover it by luck

Things miss the change log all the time. When was the last time you heard an AMRAAM change announcement? They announced the CFD rework, the first change it got, and another announcement when it got loft. In the meantime is has gotten changes every single patch, they haven’t announced or explained every single change. Just that they are working to improve its physics and guidance and that original 10-20% range improvement right when this first happened. It would be nice to see ED publish a white paper on it, but this seems pretty normal to me to not have something announced unless it’s a big change, and even if then they will never mention the documents that provided that change, just CFD if that’s what they did becuase that’s non restricted way of getting info. I think there’s a very good reason they mentioned CFD out of nowhere on the battery thread

Also your MP sounds like a chaff problem. I’ll give it a try, I know things are different in MP in regards to lag and proximity fuses and syncing, but it really sounds like you just got chaffed and notched. You should really post a track if you think there is a problem. You have seen the lua and you posted everything that changed. The changes are small and specific, and would not cause it to just go dumb. The seeker field of view is smaller, but I don’t see how that could cause extreme issues, it just means it might not re acquire in extreme situations that the target is far off the nose. It might be worth comparing the value to other missiles and seeing what the number translates to.

And about launch range, it’s a 70km missile, firing at 40nm of course you’re going to run into limitations with the battery life, it just happens sooner, and in my personal opinion seems to be realistic. Before you could make some insane shots. I know even in real tests SD-10 has exceeded max range, but those were probably perfect scenarios.

But yeah you should post a track, if there’s an issue. I’ll try it in MP but from what you tell me it just seems like chaff, the seeker view being smaller also has its consequences of course, but I really don’t see a massive difference. It’s a very small difference, no fox 3 will do well going after something in the notch and chaffing.

I just can’t see this as a nerf like you say, it has always been their opinion that the SD-10 was not perfect especially with how it performed at certain altitudes, this is a iterative change meant to improve its authenticity, Deka and ED have both said they would not nerf it or any missile

let me do some test tomorrow and post it here so we can discuss in a motivation way cuz so far i love what Deka do and how fast they fix bugs and JF-17 problem they are super active and i specially love JF-17 more than any other module ( my opinion ) and looking forward to talk to u tomorrow with some test trk

Sure I’ll do some tests too

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’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.

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

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

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.

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:cry: 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 :music_whistling:

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.

That's very very bad news.

They must boost Hornet and Viper sales so, Phoenix and SD-10 must be downgraded at all costs.

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.

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.

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.