![]() I have pretty much all of the dcs modules as I like to support but JF17 will not be one of them because of this small detail. Tharos and I don't have time for that, but it seems even that doesn't make any change. ![]() It actually goes closer to the Phoenix than to the amraam in sim. I am surprised that deka and some people in the community trying to convince that such a huge margin between aim120c(5 possibly) and sd-10a is real.Įspecially in favor for the sd-10a missile from early 2000. I'm hoping this is a typo and my amraams will be getting boosted instead of nerfed in a year from now, but yeah - this definitely doesn't make me feel confident about the case you guys are trying to build, based on some document that actually implies the amraam is overperforming and info from a missile from 20yrs ago. ![]() ![]() The performance of radar and external or internal tracking hardware onboard the AMRAAM In addition to the flight characteristics of the missile, the tracking capability of the missile was not Such as the AMRAAM will over-perform their real flight characteristics. In some cases, this causes missiles to underperform in other cases, missiles Similarly, other missiles exhibit performance characteristics that are not representative of "A comparison of the calculated performance of the AMRAAM to the performance of in-gameĮmployment of the AMRAAM shows that the missile is not properly modelled in Digital Combat 2 - have you actually looked at the amraam 120c5 cfd study document ( The authors seem to be implying that the ED implementation actually overperforms compared to the real world missile? I'm quoting their conclusions from page 39 : 1 - have you seen any official statements from ED regarding the amraam c version we were given? This topic seems to be going on forever based on inaccurate data that are being thrown around over and over again?Īlso it seems it's not just ED or DEKA who present the same ballpark figures for pl-12, both in the gaming/sim world but also real world intelligence providers/military sources. I don't understand why there's multiple people who seem fixed on proving ED and affiliated developers wrong at this stage, when all the delivered work is clearly work in progress and stated as such (early access etc). In any case, ED have accepted that the missile's performance is correct, DEKA stand by their implementation, the amraam will be getting reworked next year etc. I would guess that places it circa 2015/2016 ? Right now it's a fictional poop o' pterus, same as my f/a 18 etc They're targetting the block 2, but for now they're delivering an updated block 1 with block 2 software upgrades/capabilities. Feel free to test it out more however.The developers have stated a few times that the airplane is introduced in a semi complete state right now, but eventually it'll have working aar possibly an hms etc (if you take a look at the cockpit the switches are there). At the moment it appears to just fly straight after losing lock and doesn't feel like it has an INS. SD-10 New AIM-120 API May 2023 DSplayer.zipĮDIT 2: Ok one of my buddies decided to test this out and it does appear that there is probably something that is required from the JF-17's so that the INS works correctly and I am unable to change anything so it works properly. It's for your root DCS installation folder. Most of the values should be the same as the normal SD-10 with some variables rearranged so I could manage them a bit easier when comparing with the AIM-120C-5. I'll post it here so you guys can give it a check. The last time I attempted to do that, there were some unforeseen abnormalities when using the modified SD-10 but that was months ago.ĮDIT: I've actually decided to port it over myself now and it seems to perform pretty well with my 5 mins of testing. Technically it would be easy to convert over from the SD-10 to the newer AMRAAM API for personal testing but I am currently unable to at the moment. There is no (perceivable or visible) difference between the aerodynamic and engine modeling for the AIM-120 API and the SD-10 API as the majority of the differences are purely seeker based (and those seeker changes seem to be in the backend). New API has Kalman filters which probably results in refined PID factors + missile is less sensitive to notch if the target keeps flying the same way (not necessarily on linear trajectory).īehavior of control surfaces and aerodynamic modeling shouldn’t change, SD-10 has been on the latest aerodynamic API as AIM-120/AIM-7/530D for quite a while. We know that they both likely have PID controllers. Second thing would be to map the specific missile to both feature sets and specific features toconfirm if new new one provides distinct benefits. interaction with other information sources (e.g. Later likely covers more details in following areas: It would be interesting to know the total feature sets of both API models.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |