Freefall57

Military power is a separate button you also have to hold. If you go full throttle without holding the afterburner or military power button, it just goes full non-military power. For both military power and afterburner, to turn on, you need to decrease the throttle (if you are in full throttle) and then push it forward holding the relevant button. There are two lights to watch (check Chuck's Guide for their placement). I don't believe there is a way to turn off the afterburner without decreasing the throttle, but you will get the hang on it.

Dmitri and Skysurfer should go online and use this new found super maneuverability of the Viggen to dominate. Out turn and out climb them all!

Fair enough @rossmum. To be honest, some 50/60s AI assets and/or a F-100 module (which is still probably quite a while away) would increase my enjoyment of the Mig-19 more than a S. That said, a S would be good too. I wouldn't say no to an extra cannon and ammo (plus if we get more Vietnam-era modules, it is a better fit).

Is the performance difference between the P and the S that big though? I thought they were very similar performance-wise (the main difference being the lack of radar and an extra cannon in the S). I reckon it would be better if Razbam teamed with Deka and did a variant that had more differences, like a J-6III/IV or F-6C, but maybe I am missing something about the S?

Roger, understood!

Just a quick question. Now that ED has moved some of the assets from the WW2 pack into the base game, is the WW2 Asset Pack still required for this campaign?

Just to clarify, while I am not a RAZBAM staff member, I have no aversion to being paid by RAZBAM or anyone else for that matter :-)

Right, but it is about the remaining issues, not the number of patches. They shouldn't be releasing patches for the fun of it and it can take time to nail an issue down (such as the VR issue). ED recently got in the habit of releasing too many patches too quickly and have pulled back as a result. Say they are working on the VR issue and ARK-5 issue, but are still coming up with workable solutions (and testing those solutions to make sure they don't create other issues), what would they be patching? So what are the other main issues or is it primarily those two?

I see what you are saying, but a better measure than the number of patches is the outstanding bugs / work. Otherwise, I could have a buggy module that I patch every update, but I add in a bug for every one removed. My patch record would look great (27 out of 27 for example) but the module would still have lots of bugs. So what are the remaining bugs / work in your view? The main ones I am aware of are: the VR issue for some users on the Caucasus map (such as yourself) and the ARK-5 controls needing improvement. There is also an issue with the external view zooming (but I would class that as very minor, you may disagree). I also encountered a minor graphical bug the other day, but it did not affect gameplay. What are some other main issues?

(Edit) Actually AeriaGloria said it better / more reasonably (I couldn't see their response before posting). Note I am being a bit tongue in cheek with my responses (although I am sincere about being concerned in general with people always stretching the truth online, plus I do like the Mig-19 and yes I would also like fixes / improvement to the controls for the ARK-5). Original response below. The irony is palpable, I can taste it, you start an inflammatory topic saying the module is dead. Lie about there being no updates and then declare any questioning of this "a form of trolling" and "aggressive reaction". If you had titled this topic something like "frequency of updates" or "need more updates", you might have actually gotten a response from the devs (or better yet you could have posted on the actual bug thread or on Discord). Instead you just get a conversation with me (Bill Gates, oh shit, I shouldn't have revealed that, forget this part). Perhaps that is what you secretly wanted, otherwise, you would have taken a different approach.

Afraid not. Not sure how I can prove that to you, but it is the truth. The Mig-19 is the first full-Fidelity Module I purchased (although I now have the Mig-21 too). I also have Flaming Cliff too (but hopefully everyone has that, it is great value). If it helps, why would I ask about the 50s / 60s pack (my very first post is about the lack of good AI opponents for the Mig-19) or the gun ammo counter placement if I was a member of RAZBAM (edit).

It would be far better if the keys worked well, because then you could turn the dial while looking forward (with the occasional glance at the dial and /or listening to the Morse code to find the right frequency). It is fairly heads down at the moment (it pays to trim your plane before doing this).

I believe it is under ADF Manual Frequency Down and Up, but it doesn't work very well at the moment. It is not very smooth using the keys (likewise with the mousewheel). It is better to use the mouse, if you can.

I have seen and experienced the problems with turning it with keys (and the mousewheel). Using the mouse works better since the last patch to the Mig-19. What other problems / differences from the real ARK-5 are there?

It works for me using the mouse to turn the dial. Last time I checked using the keys or mousewheel still needed some work. It is hard to use while flying, but that is likely a challenge in the real thing (I find the best approach is to trim out the aircraft before looking at the dial). I can't see what they would add to remove this challenge without making it less realistic (although making the mousewheel and key changes smoother / better should be done).

Good that is more accurate. What is the purpose of this topic though that I am littering? The VR bug has already been reported and is being worked up (if you wanted to put pressure on, you could add another reply to the bug thread asking for an update or ask in the Discord). Why have you posted a topic with an inaccurate and inflammatory heading? I definitely have the module and have no big issues with it (it is certainly does not in my view have "many important bugs", but I don't have VR so can't speak to that issue).

The trouble is the topic is you asserting the module is dead because it has not gotten any updates in the last few months. Yet it has got updates and not just cosmetic changes either that is another lie. There was flight model changes and flameouts were added. I am beginning to think you and the truth have an estranged relationship at best.

You are ducking and dodging the lie you told. You said "From few patches in the last few months of DCS no any update of MiG-19" yet you knew there had been two Open Beta Updates with Mig-19 changes in June and July. This means you lied. There is no avoiding this fact.

If you knew there had been two updates in July and June, but said there have been no updates in the last few months that is a lie. You knowingly lied. I am sorry you are having issues with VR and hopefully it will be fixed soon, but that is no excuse to tell a blatant lie. People on the internet have to stop lying any time they are upset or unhappy with something. Start with the truth as best you can.

YoYo, you said there have been no updates of the Mig-19 in the last few months. Someone posts the update from July 15 and you say yep like you knew about that one. If you did, why did you say there have been no updates? It doesn't make sense. It also received an update on June 4: Fixed animations and connector commands so that canopy can be opened and closed manually through clicks Fixed keyboard canopy open/close command delay Fixed keyboard canopy open/close command to have proper sequence Corrected EUP-53 instrument behavior for turn indicator Added flame out conditions due to air flow issues caused by deep stall and or tail slide Added aileron failure and damage due to excessive roll rate at high speed Increased R-3S structural load tolerance Decrease structural load tolerance at very high speeds Increased buffet vibrations when near stall Fixed damage argument for right flap and aileron

It is certainty a challenge. You can use the F10 ruler and marker tools together with some AWAC/GCI picture requests (before it goes down) to plot intial flight paths for each. Given the radar's short range, ground clutter problem, and slow update rate, a head on intercept is very difficult (especially for the first one where you are meant to visually ID it first). Instead, it is better to try to get behind the targets. Both targets will descend before attacking the airfield (presumably to sight their targets) so if you are pretty close behind them, you can kill them then (just watch out for their tailguns). Good luck!

I am unfamiliar with autostart, maybe check it has started both engines. Also check the weather if it only occurs in a particular mission, maybe there is high wind? Have you turned off the wheel brake too?

Random guess, did you turn both engines on and are you adjusting the throttle for both engines when taxiing?

I think the dim lighting might be a universal issue with the latest patch (I see people mentioning it elsewhere).

Thanks both, good to know it is not just me. It does add a bit of excitement in a dogfight; looking down and moving your stick to try to see your ammo counter (not that the Mig-19 necessarily needs more excitement in a dogfight, between avoiding stalls/spins and trying desperately to get rounds on the target as well as watching your fuel use like a hawk!).