OverStratos

MiG-23 development is not stopped.:)

You don´t need to explain why you want to have a small issue fixed. It is totally correct and understandable. Please, keep helping us find this problems.:thumbup:

@notproplayer3, the answer to you was originally because you wrote the following: This has nothing to do with the issue being mentioned here and is considered direct bashing of the product without proof. You have all the right to point out the flagrant issues you mention with something to prove why they are wrong in an appropriate thread. If you continue to do this moderation action will be taken. As you can notice by reading my posts, the issue in question pointed out by Tiger-II is being worked and it was acknowledged. thanks for providing a track file, this helps us in finding what the problem may be.

Don´t worry, you´re genuinely presenting an issue that may turn to be an intermittent bug, because after some testing I was not able to replicate it. However, if you can do this again and save a track file, this would be very helpful for us. Also, in the case of the increased G issue we will also check this. thanks I was mostly giving an answer before to those that hurry to trash the flight model without any actual proof.

The issues that appear to some may be related with the navigation system or the radio-altimeter. We are working in this.

At really high altitudes the aircraft may recover by itself with no need to do anything else than just set controls neutral and throttle to IDLE. In case of using the procedure, the stick forward movement must be quick.

Those missiles appear when you select the wrong payload in the mission editor. For some reason they are still available to be selected. The correct selection is R-3S and not K-13 IIRC. Have to check.

The fuel gauge only shows the main consumption tank (Tank No.1) quantity and as AeriaGloria said this works by measuring fuel consumption, not actual fuel quantity in the tank. The external tanks when empty can be noticed by a green lamp in the lower front dash. Also, the MiG-19P RD-9B engines are very efficient at high altitude even with AB engaged.

Hello Tiger-II, Thanks for the feedback. Last time it was tested the aircraft could not statically reach that altitude while it should be possible to reach in a zoom climb while carefully flying and this is realistic. For us to be able to check the issue could you upload a track file with everything configured as you said? This is with all the external payload and reaching the altitude shown in the screens. Thanks Eagle Dynamics has an strict control over every module quality. There were some cases when modules were still not up to the level of realism required by DCS, but it was always told to the userbase that work was still being made by the developer to fulfill this goal. This is not the case of DCS MiG-19P and it is also why it is an approved quality product by Eagle Dynamics. The charts posted by Ramsay above are just a little example of the level of quality of the aircraft flight model, but there´s also an entire thread in the MiG-19 sub-forum with more data available about the FM, which is not a common sight for other developments. Since that analysis was posted the aircraft FM has improved a lot more and there´re still some new features that will be added to it. As I posted in the flight model discussion months ago, anyone is welcomed to bring more data to the table and prove which aspects of the FM are wrong. Thanks

RD-9B engine quirks will be added as soon as coders have more time to get into the aircraft. The engine is not so affected by AOA or airspeed as it is by negative airflow, too quick movement of the throttles and the time it stays in some regimes.

Thanks for letting us know and we are glad that you like it. Coders work is mostly focused on the first two modules now, but there´s a good list of the remaining issues and bugs with the MiG-19 that will be addressed soon after.

There is enough data regarding R-24 performance, so nothing will be made OP here. This also means it will not be UP either.

I´m not a radio-electronics specialist, but as far as I have read the N003 has external coherence and also uses Doppler filters for special "Doppler modes" of operation. Also, specialists which I have talked to told me that the radar it is in fact a Doppler one, just not as capable as those later present in the 4th gen.

Ok, just to stop all speculation. Cuban MLAs were exactly the same as Soviet MLAs, just with different IFF equipment. Second, we are working to have access to MiG-23MLD information, but there´s nothing definitive yet.

Not an export version, but a change in the proximity fuse from the R-60M optic one to a radar one on the R-60MK. Same limited all aspect missile.

Depends on speed. A straight wing MiG-23 will have a really small turn radius and high angular speed, and at low speeds overloads are not too high, combined with the R-60MK this could be really dangerous. This is of course one out of many possible scenarios, in the general diapason of turning performance the Mirage has the advantage so the 23 pilot should use more the vertical against such an opponent.

There´re no later or earlier R-3S, nor there were modifications to it. The missile entered service in 1961 being already a much better missile than AIM-9B and was replaced by R-13M later. The original R-3 was a more exact copy of the AIM-9, but was only a test prototype and never used in combat units or in service. -The PRD-80A engine in R-3S was not a copy of Sidewinder Thiokol. Soviet engine was shorter (1570 mm vs 1900 mm in AIM-9B). -Burning time up to 3,2 sec (AIM-9B - 2,2 sec), max thrust impulse 38 kN vs 36,47 kN of AIM-9B. -IR seeker gimbal limits +/- 28 deg for R-3S, +/- 25 deg for AIM-9B -R-3S max range 7,6 km, AIM-9B max range 4,8 km.

The R-3S was indeed based on the AIM-9B, but it was a much improved and capable missile, having more range, heavier warhead and improved seeker.

If you can provide any data about how less docile the aircraft should be, that will be very good. :) So far we believe the aircraft FM is pretty close to the real one, but we are open to new accurate information always.

Most of the cases and in most of the countries the interceptors are going to be guided by GCI, being ground stations or AWACS. That "Soviet centered CGI" doctrine is a myth and it needs to die already. There was also two Soviet main aviation forces, which were the Air Defense know as PVO, which was in fact more CGI centered (while not at the level many still think) and the Air Force, the VVS, which advocated for a more freely and fluid engagement doctrine. Well, the fact was that in the 70ies it was still not possible, technologically speaking, to deploy a radar with such capabilities in a fighter. That capability came with the MiG-31 in the 80ies. And the MLA could also use the R-24 with far greater performance than the R-23.

Thanks for letting us know For a time now some users have mentioned that they have some problems in VR with the aircraft while the majority doesn´t seem to have them. We found some issues months ago that was possible were impacting the VR FPS and those were fixed and the framerate was improved. I fly myself with the Rift S with near to max settings, but with a 2080Ti and everything run smooth in any map. Anyhow, we will continue to search for probable problems that may be causing this.