Has the JF-17 been nerfed by ED?

Question in the title.

No, over.

You should ask "Has the SD-10 been nerfed by ED?"

It feels like the SD-10 has been nerfed by a lot

I doubt it since someone will make a video detailing the difference and the blowback would be huge for doing a ninja downgrade.

 

Not worth the hassle after ED said that they will be completely transparent with the community.

 

The only thing that has been confirm is that ED believes that SD-10 has WIP errors with proof and will discuss them with Deka.

You should ask "Has the SD-10 been nerfed by ED?"

It feels like the SD-10 has been nerfed by a lot

I wouldnt say nerf but tune it to more realistic one (its not by ED i believe but by Deka). Its still dangerous high PK missile but you could still dodge and beat it. I like it more than 120.

@L0op8ack, thank you for the response as I believe you are on the dev team correct? If ED did downgrade this module it would be the last one I purchased from them. I like competition, fair competition, not people who get whiny when they can't win all the time. Salute to Deka, the JF-17 is a great aircraft!!

@L0op8ack, thank you for the response as I believe you are on the dev team correct? If ED did downgrade this module it would be the last one I purchased from them. I like competition, fair competition, not people who get whiny when they can't win all the time. Salute to Deka, the JF-17 is a great aircraft!!

 

Yep I’m with you on this.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Blinky.ben

I didn't check the range since I dont care about that. I did notice that the SD-10 now loses lock easily and flies past the enemy. On the other hand, the new AIM-120 is doing exactly the same so not sure if Deka tweaked their missile's performance or ED broke/balanced something.

When talking about SD-10, people always concentrate on the missile has out range the AIM120.

 

But we have to mention that range is only one aspect of a A2A missile, like our missile engineer had emphasized, SD-10's chaff resistance and maneuver ability is lower than 120C. These should also be taken in account for comparison.

 

And JF-17 could only carry 4 SD10s with much more drag added. Personally I don't see there is anything OP ATM.

I cannot really assume anything for sure in this matter.

 

Personally, I would prefer that developers dont let these rumors get worse before they decide to respond. Right now the general idea within the JF-17 community is that the jet's flight model and the SD-10 has been "nerfed" by the request of ED.

 

I am not making any judgement yet since this is just the beginning of these rumors. If the developers dont give a clear statement, I fear this is going to spread and get worse.

 

Currently I am on Deka side. If anything was changed, I am sure they would have provided the chages or explained why and when this happened. I see no proof of that in the patch notes or changelogs.

 

I have noticed some different behaviour with the SD-10 which I have stated above however, this might not be related to Deka but time and more testing will tell.

I doubt it since someone will make a video detailing the difference and the blowback would be huge for doing a ninja downgrade.

 

Not worth the hassle after ED said that they will be completely transparent with the community.

 

The only thing that has been confirm is that ED believes that SD-10 has WIP errors with proof and will discuss them with Deka.

This

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

The Grimm reapers did some testing

Edited December 24, 2019 by Blinky.ben

When talking about SD-10, people always concentrate on the missile has out range the AIM120.

I'm less concerned that the SD-10 out ranges the 120C by ~10% at max aero (47NM vs 44NM) and more by it's +50% energy retention (790TAS vs 520TAS at impact).

 

But we have to mention that range is only one aspect of a A2A missile, like our missile engineer had emphasized, SD-10's chaff resistance and maneuver ability is lower than 120C. These should also be taken in account for comparison.

I haven't noted lower manoeuvrability (the SD-10 is usually faster than the 120C) but have only been testing vs non-manoeuvring or easy AI.

 

And JF-17 could only carry 4 SD10s with much more drag added.

The JF-17 with 4 SD10 + 2PL5 is faster than a F/A-18C with 6 120C + 2 9X (I don't see that as a problem).

 

Max range performance testing of the SD10 is easier/simpler to test

 

Personally I don't see there is anything OP ATM.

 

... but don't like terms such as OP, nerf, etc. as IMHO they don't have a place in DCS, discussion should be about RL performance and physics modelling.

 

Game balance is done via mission design i.e. weapon loadouts, player slots, etc.

@L0op8ack, thank you for the response as I believe you are on the dev team correct? If ED did downgrade this module it would be the last one I purchased from them. I like competition, fair competition, not people who get whiny when they can't win all the time. Salute to Deka, the JF-17 is a great aircraft!!

You should not, or maybe yes, what I mean is... if a "downgrade" is a result of factual/scientific evidence its not such downgrade and no one should feel offended by it, as far as all the process is totally transparent and acknowledge by both ED and DEKA. I would prefer that people dont get too carried over and emotial on this since all the perception i've always received from ED is that they are quite an engineering/data oriented group of people which is the best thing you can get in a genre like this.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Nothing changed to dogfighting capabilities. Here's a test from a user at the F-16 forum:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4145616&postcount=163

Keeping in view the amount of whining going on.......I am afraid that ultimately JF17 will be made much inferior. After all its a business and you have to make masses happy. Its not fair though.

I'm less concerned that the SD-10 out ranges the 120C by ~10% at max aero (47NM vs 44NM) and more by it's +50% energy retention (790TAS vs 520TAS at impact).

 

 

I haven't noted lower manoeuvrability (the SD-10 is usually faster than the 120C) but have only been testing vs non-manoeuvring or easy AI.

 

 

The JF-17 with 4 SD10 + 2PL5 is faster than a F/A-18C with 6 120C + 2 9X (I don't see that as a problem).

 

Max range performance testing of the SD10 is easier/simpler to test

 

 

 

... but don't like terms such as OP, nerf, etc. as IMHO they don't have a place in DCS, discussion should be about RL performance and physics modelling.

 

Game balance is done via mission design i.e. weapon loadouts, player slots, etc.

If U want to compare range, use the TACVIEW Mach vs relative time charts, this should give you a better idea. Talking the missile's range on the XXnm basis does not make much sense since launch/target conditions may vary from test to test and DLZ does NOT stand for true missile performances.

 

When carrying 4 SD10 the A/C could barely make a speed M1.3 on burner, F/A-18 could do almostly the same.And F/A-18 itself is not a fast A/C compare to Eagle / Viper. And do remember that F18 can hit the burner for a much longer time than Jeff. When drop the tank for a BVR combat, fuel is always a Major concern on the Jeff.Also the twin plyon & SPJ can not be dropped, in case of emergency speed is also a weakness of the Jeff.

 

Also for very obvious reason, no "REAL" performance data will be used in a civilian game, not the 120 nor the SD10, I hope U can understand what I'm saying.

Nothing changed to dogfighting capabilities. Here's a test from a user at the F-16 forum:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4145616&postcount=163

 

 

Thank you for the clarification. What about the new missile behaviour I mentioned above?

If U want to compare range, use the TACVIEW Mach vs relative time charts, this should give you a better idea. Talking the missile's range on the XXnm basis does not make much sense since launch/target conditions may vary from test to test and DLZ does NOT stand for true missile performances.

 

Agreed, I've done standardised head-on tests at M1.2 @ 32,800 ft (10 km) vs a non-manoeuvring MiG-23 with multiple runs/shots to bracket max range and impact speeds as recorded in Tacview.

 

In the test, the JF-17 max range LAR cue = 38 MN (70km) which is as expected, however DCS's SD-10 performs better and can be fired at longer ranges than the HUD and LAR cues suggest, and still hit the target with more speed than a 120C.

 

In game missile shots are likely to be at lower altitudes and/or at short ranges.

 

... for very obvious reason, no "REAL" performance data will be used in a civilian game, not the 120 nor the SD10, I hope U can understand what I'm saying.

 

Understood, a standardised test can't say what's right or wrong but does allow comparison between missiles and/or DCS versions.

 

I think we can both agree the JF-17 hasn't been nerfed by ED or Deka but is part of an iterative process.

 

Have a Merry Christmas

Is there a filter I can turn on that hides all posts with "SD-10" in them? Here i thought I was gna read a thread about flight model physics but no its another pointless SD10 cryfest. "Cryfest" they should give the SD10 that nickname.

Yeah lord.

 

The JF17 is about on par with the F16 and F18 IMO. And really inferior in payload, and other aspects, IF the SD10 is 10% better then who cares.

As i said in the F-16 forum, the JF-17 dogfight ability is superior to the 16s and 18s only at very low weight and low altitude. The more you add weight and drag, the more you'll see that its engine suffers in comparison to the others, which is to be expected if we look at the data that is available.

I was testing, not scientifically but…

Question in the title.

 

No it hasn't, nor should it be.

For realism SD-10 shouldn't nerfed, it is the AIM-120 should be buffed.

Really can't be bothered with SD-10 drama anymore. I will let these internet engineers deal with it.

 

I am sure, everytime someone gets hit in pvp server with this missile, they will head stright here.