æck

This quote alone shows that I did not "get you wrong" Yes what happened to the customers is unacceptable, but no part of that is RB's fault. They have no such responsibility before DCS users -> ED does.

Stopping work after not getting their many months worth of payment for prior work is "greedy"? You expect them to continue to work for free, so their uncompensated work can continue to fill the pockets of those who wronged them? It will always amaze me how entitled DCS fans can be. Absolutely incredible.

i'll have to be a bit careful here regarding forum rules about documents newer than 1980, so here goes: The source is the manual "Samolot MiG-21bis Instrukcja Uzytkowania" as published by Muzeum Lotnictwa Polskiego in their digital archive. The front page indicates that the document is declassified. https://www.muzeumlotnictwa.pl/index.php/digitalizacja/katalog/1363

What's meant by the DCS manual is that the radar can't be manually slewed around by the pilot like in later jets. It's still gyro stabilized to the horizon within a range of ±70° in roll and +30° to -25° in pitch.

they made 1100 MLA airframes alone, that's more than all F-14s combined. it was a very common variant. for comparison they produced 1353 MiG-23M and 278 MiG-23MF, which is more but not by much.

that was true for early variants, but MiG-23MLA has a G limit of 8.5 and wing loading comparable to other contemporary fighters. (370 kg/m2 compared to 544 kg/m2 on MiG-23M, they literally removed a ton of weight overall) Western pilots who inspected the MLA did criticize the cockpit visibility and fuel consumption, but it wasn't all negative. There's a quote I often post about this: "Dutch pilot Leon van Maurer, who had more than 1200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23MLs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal, and had superior BVR capability"

This is an old render not associated with DCS, it was posted on April Fools day

it's more of a side upgrade rather than something taken from MLD, the flares in the Iraqi modification are ASO-2, which are 26mm compared to the MLD's 50mm flares.

tradition I suppose, back when gunsight reflectors were very small it made sense to center it on the pilot's dominant eye instead of the aircraft centerline. but I will say from having sat in the 23 it's really not noticeable in person, it only seems off in photos.

why on earth are you guys against the module getting changes that make it more like the real thing? why even play simulator games if that's not what you're after? I personally like the new changes and hope the FC3 modules get a similar touch-up.

you're in luck! Lucas (community manager of RAZBAM) made this translated version a while ago: R-24_Guide.pdf and yes it won't alert the target, and the seeker can be cued by the IRST.

You don't need radar lock to launch it, but unlike R-24R it requires the missile seeker to be locked on before launch. That's what ultimately limits the R-24T's range as the acquisition range is extremely dependent on target and aspect. For example, at 11km altitude the 24T can detect a rear aspect F-15 in AB at over 90km (though is still limited to 50km like 24R). While front aspect mil power at sea level is only 6km. there's more information in the R-24T manual: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/145783/

I only translated this diagram, the rest is in russian.

It is, even in the real aircraft. As has been mentioned several times in this thread it's due to the aircraft disturbing the direction of the airflow (remember the UUA is on the side of the fuselage). The real charts were plotted with this discrepancy included, so it doesn't matter what the true AoA is as long as the AoA as indicated on UUA matches the real charts.

according to the MiG-23ML aero manual you must be at 4 G or below when the wing is actively moving. and as I understand it this isn't strictly a structural limit, but just that it puts too much strain on the wing sweep mechanism causing it to temporarily jam.