OverStratos

Only early series MiG-19P had the 23mm cannons. They were later replaced by the same NR-30 cannons of the MiG-19S but without muzzle brakes. Razbam MiG-19P is a late version updated to also use R-3S AA missiles. When you say that it can only use one rocket pod, do you mean one per wing? Also, Germans never had MiG-19P, only S and PMs.

MiG-19P Update: - Увеличена до 500 км/ч скорость, при которой происходит автоматическая уборка закрылков. При снижении скорости до 500 км/ч теперь происходит автоматический выпуск закрылков, если выбрано положение "посадка" или "взлёт". - Выпущен набор для создания собственных вариантов окраски МиГ-19П. - Добавлено руководство на русском языке. - Добавлены альтернативные текстуры кабины. Теперь их можно выбрать в особых настройках модуля. (заменяют скачанные с сайта DCS, которые теперь можно удалить) - Новые изображения в главном меню и на экране загрузки.

yes, it was included but forgot to add it in the changelog, sorry. - New cockpit and external model with VR improvements - Fixed seated pilot being ejected 500 meters away from the cockpit

OB = Open Beta

The MiG-23 airframe was used for two main types of aircraft: frontline fighter/interceptor and ground attack variants. Most know fighter variants were the MF, ML and MLD. These were mainly focused on air-to-air combat, but can also use most Soviet non guided rockets and bombs and the radio guided Kh/X-23 missile. The bomber variants were the MiG-23B, BN and MiG-27. These lacked the radar having a laser rangefinder and much better forward visibility. Later variants of the MiG-27 were able to use PGMs and ARMs. There was also the MiG-23UB two seater training aircraft.

Russian language manual should be available in the next OB update. Google Translator: Руководство по русскому языку должно быть доступно в следующем обновлении OB.

I wonder why those pilots seem to omit the plethora of characteristics in which the Su-27 is vastly superior to the MiG-23MLD, including the radar. Regarding the baseline R-27 I can tell that it´s also superior to the R-24. The R-23 is equivalent to the AIM-7E, while the R-24 is close enough to the AIM-7F in high altitude range and about equal at low altitude. Both the R-23 and 24 use monopulse seekers, that the Sparrow only got in the M version.

AFAIK, the only armament that MiG-23MLD shares with the MiG-29 is the R-73 as R-27s were never added. This leaves the MLD with the same R-24s for BVR as the MLA, giving the R-27 armed MiG-29 the edge. Also, I don´t understand what you mean by "barely keeping up".

It is, particularly during turns (ITR and STR), were it´s not bleeding speed as it should pass a certain G load and AOA. It also needs limitations and consequences added to the top speed limit. Aircraft aerodynamic deceleration parameters(-Nx) are within 2-5% of the real aircraft deceleration performance charts, both with airbrakes or without them. We are working to improve this, but right now it could be considered good enough. We have detailed data to work on the MiG-19 flight model and this is verifiable in the current iteration available. More work is being made to shorten even more the gap between simulated and real performance. The fuel cutoff valves need indeed electrical power. The valves charged with closing fuel flow to the engines are electro-pneumatic valves. They use compressed air from the pneumatic system to close the fuel flow. There´s a really small chance from battery power to be cut from this system.

From the pilot´s manual, when the aircraft is approaching max AOA, the pilot should stop pulling and let the stick move forward slightly. Visually, this means to allow Gs to decrease slightly as this aircraft doesn´t has an AOA meter. This allows to recover lateral stability and the aircraft will keep turning at a good rate. If an increase in speed is noticed this means you can pull more.

There was a problem with the coordinates for pilot ejection. This was fixed now and it´s waiting for the next update. Not sure if that is creating the issue, we will test to see.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=236511 Who would had thought that I was able to find the link:D Everyone can also check the open beta changelog per updates to see every improvement and fix to the FM since then.

Regarding the "wing flex" visual effect, you won't see it on this aircraft. Because of the wing thickness and design, it is really sturdy so it won't flex enough for this to be visible. We are sorry, but we won't use arcady effects to make our modules look cooler, we are entitled with realism in DCS.

Sorry people, I'm not a PR guy, so I apologize if my post is somehow crude. I'm not also a native english speaker so I try to do my best to explain stuff. As it was pointed out many times before by me, we can't work on a FM with "feel" data neither fix it. The MiG-19P FM is based on the MiG-19S practical aerodynamics manual which is equivalent to a Western performance manual. Many aspects of the FM were tunned specifically for the P variant which is draggier and heavier than the S. Most of the FM behavior in the aircraft now is correct, this includes under high AOA situations, turn and pitch rate, etc. Still to include are several aircraft limitations in regarding to maneuvering, landing and engines as well as the ITR and STR performance. If anyone still has doubts about the MiG-19 FM you are welcome to open a new thread with your proof, I will make it a sticky and we will happily discuss there. I just want to point out that please bring charts and documentation as proof. Regarding our proof, there's is a thread in this sub-forum with enough info about the 19 FM quality. Pardon me if I don't provide the link, but I'm writing from my phone. About the M2000 and Harrier FM I'm sorry but I don't know anything about that as they are not my work. However, comparing those FMs to the MiG-19 one is not correct as the later was done with gained experience, new knowledge and new tools.

Thanks for the list. I was looking for the issues in the forums to check if I don't miss any for our bug list. This pretty much resumes all the important aspects. Also, even if the issues are easy to fix, coders have an schedule and right now the first modules are the ones that need attention. Soon it will be the MiG-19 turn.

Because of some internal schedule problems the improved cockpit has not been released yet. We are working to make it available along with some other updates.

All the issues that remain in the MiG-19 will be fixed and also some new features will also be added. These includes more tunning to the FM for an even more realistic ITR and STR behavior, better engine simulation, dedicated sounds and many more. Currently all the coding force is focusing on the modules that arrived before the MiG-19P, so as soon as they are available work will continue on it.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4039005&postcount=9 So far there have been a few reports of poor performance only in VR. After extensive testing and feedback, the module doesn't seem to have any issues while using regular displays. I advice to check werever there may be any problem related with the PC, drivers or configurations.

A few changes were made to the cockpit and a few problems that could be the cause of the lower performance in VR were found and fixed. So far in testing the FPS improved and the fix should be available in the next update for you to test. One thing is important to notice however. When the dynamic radar ground return is active this could cause a drop in FPS as this representation is kind of resource heavy.

Airbrakes won't generate any pitch change in this aircraft. Regarding the flaps, last time I tested flaps were indeed changing pitch and generating drag. I'll check again to see if there's any issue.

Hello, That interview was reviewed before in a thread in this very subforum. I'll write again what I posted there: 1) The aircraft they are talking about is a J-6, our is a MiG-19P. 2) There're no indications in the aircraft performance manual or flight manual of any adverse behavior in the transonic range of speeds. 3) The article is wrong regarding the "long arm" and "short arm" "technology". The "Automatic Flight Control" system, ARU-2V in Russian, is not there for anything transonic behavior related. 4) The current adverse yaw behavior of the aircraft is based on the real world data.

Hello, The R-3S missiles were a late update made to the MiG-19P so the airframe was not designed for them. Because of this missiles will fall if you pull more than 6Gs. The only thing that is designed to withstand all the Gs the aircraft can pull (8G) are the ORO-57K rocket pods. The other limitations are as usual at least until 4th gen aircraft for full external tanks and bombs (5G)

I understand but I don't agree. Discord gives the oportunity to more directly evacuate your doubts and recieve quick answers as it is a more direct communication method. You just go there and post your question. Official statements and status updates will always be posted here off course.

You should really go to our Discord, these discussions are taking place there all the time.

Well, I guess you could always set your airquake to be in a determined era and since every "modernity" is always preceded by another. :) But, yeah I understand.