CloD spawn "unparked" aircrafts as if they are in air, not grounded.

too

influence of the wind is too strong


where is the difference, ok, the second sentence is missing the "on parked aircraft" - but i set that as given because the whole topic was about parked aircraft on the ground.....

Both sides are right.

The guys who say "planes shouldn't spawn with breaks on" please go play an arcade game. Are you leaving your car without handbrake or gear in standing somewhere? Especially if the area is not flat (wind effect)? Come on...

But then again, a plane turning like that at 5m/s? I doubt it.

But I'll just repeat myself here: Let's just ask vintage plane pilots and listen to their experiences!

I believe the current wind effects while on the ground are too strong. But yes, planes should spawn with brakes applied and tail wheel locked.

does the tailwheel look work in CoD anyway ? i know there is a command.
Does any of the CoD flyables had one historicaly ?

My God, Madfish... I wrote a lot of postings saying that IF YOU SPAWN WITH BRAKES ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE WIND OVER PARKED AIRCRAFT ISN'T TOO STRONG!

Your Spitfire will not turn like wihout inertia if you remove brakes after spawn. Is that what's I'm talking about. Your plane will not start to goes backwards in 70-80km/h winds if you remove brakes AFTER spawn.

The problem is in spawn logic. I'll post AGAIN the video with takeoff and landing in REALLY strong winds, more than 100km/h...

[youtube]iS1FmGZpZbk[/youtube]

Let's move on into the subject, please... The tailwheel is one cool... It's really necessary all this wind to spin an aircraft with tailwheel loose? I don't know...

But the problem is that if you release the brakes the aircraft can begin to slide again.

Test it yourself. Don't happens this way ;)

Here is the bug, not in wind acting in general. Your aircraft only will goes backwards in REALLY strong wind, as in real world. In this last video, as you can see, after landing i removed brakes and reduce throttle to idle facing more than 100km/h wind, and my Spitfire remais in the same spot! :-P

an additional idea would be to spawn alwasy with chocks - like in IL2 on carriers.
That would free your hands for starting operatons abs simulate the use of real chocks ans supporting groundcrew......

Well it is not a question, it is an observation..

The observation being that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology does NOT send out warnigs to civil airports for wind speeds less than 18mps (39mph)

The question?

I don't recall anyone asking that question?

But at least we agree on the answer, in that I pointed out in my 1st post in this thread that the plane should stop turning once it is 'in line' with the wind. Assuming it is the wind that is causing it to spin.

In essance we really don't need to know the exact number.. What we do know is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology does NOT send out warnigs to civil airports for wind speeds less than 18mps (39mph). Which means there is no fear of a plane moving due to winds less than 18mps (39mph).

Agreed

Which means there is a 'bug' in IL-2 CoD because we are seeing planes move, turn, spin at speeds far less than 18mps (39mph).

That would be interesting, but, does this tail dragger have the same surface area and weight of a WWII configured Spitfire? If not I don't see how the test results will prove anything one way or another.

One thing I have learned over the years about software companys is that 'talk is cheap'.. Ill belive it when I.. if I see it! ;)

In Summary
IMHO it is a bug that a WWII configured Spitfire will sit and spin in winds of 10mps (22mph) based on the FACT that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology does NOT send out warnigs to civil airports for wind speeds less than 18mps (39mph). Which means there is no fear of a plane moving due to winds less than 18mps (39mph).

LoBiSoMeM.. You really need to slow down and read peoples posts before you respond.. Because I knew how wind works before I even posted in this thread.. Which I proved in my very first post in this thread.. Which is why I consider the Spit spinning a bug.. In that wind speeds of 10mps (22mph) or less should NOT cause a 4,000lb+ plane to spin in a grass field.

At last!

I am glad I was able to change your mind on how wind works! Becuase in your posts prior to my examples you were saying it is NOT a bug.. And now your admiting it needs to be fixxed.

LoBiSoMeM.. You really need to slow down and read peoples posts before you respond.. Because I have been on subject the whole time! And my notes from Australian Bureau of Meteorology are on topic too. The topic being we know the Australian Bureau of Meteorology does NOT send out warnigs to civil airports for wind speeds less than 18mps (39mph). Which means there is no fear of a plane moving due to winds less than 18mps (39mph). Yet we see a 4,000lbs+ Spitfire in game spinning in a grass field, which NOW even you have come around to admit that it is a bug that needs fixxing (tweaking). I am just glad I could assist you in realsing that!

Actully I fear it is you that will never learn and talks too much and reads too little. In that in my very 1st post in this thread I pointed out the plane should stop spinning once it is facing into the wind.

In Summary
IMHO it is a bug that a WWII configured Spitfire will sit and spin in winds of 10mps (22mph) based on the FACT that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology does NOT send out warnigs to civil airports for wind speeds less than 18mps (39mph). Which means there is no fear of a plane moving due to winds less than 18mps (39mph).

Is it just me..

Or did this statment make others laugh too? :rolleyes:

how do you put brake on directly?

i try to config the command brake crew...and don't seem to work :(

+1

Bingo!

rotfl

I use an axis and let it in full before begin spawn in a mission.

ACE, get yourself a lady or man. Maybe five posts to "try" be "cool"?

You need a life ASAP.

Spawn with brakes on... We already move on... "Australian Bureau of Meteorology"... :rolleyes:

Oh oh..

I have seen this before.. When Lo realise he is wrong he resorts to personal attacks to take the focus off the fact that he is wrong

Oh well.. This thread was interesting for awhile, too bad these types are allowed to carry on like this

Testing things and making videos showing stuff of Cliffs of Dover sim?

Yes, people of my kind need to be banned of forums. We need more users like you, with relevant contributions...

Lob...Ok listen

Do you know what a personal attack is?

Because you do it EVERYTIME... do you understand this?

It doesnt do anything for you my friend and people get pi$$ed off real quick and will have no further dealing with you or take anything you say serioulsy..

SO

some friendly advice, yes we like having folks like you around testing and helping out the community..what we DONT want is you always reverting to personal attacks to aid your discussion..

You seem to speak good english so im guessing you understand where im coming from.

like i say, just some friendly advice :)

Hardly

But like you said, you don't care.. So from here on out Ill fight fire with fire since the mods are not able or willing to care

I wrote it in the thread regarding good moderation, I wrote it in a PM I sent to Alpha. I will write it here again because there is NOTHING worse than moderators openly pointing fingers at forum members. Especially if those posts are not beneficial to the thread in terms of additional content.

Those red posts should be done by PM and nothing else.

Writing in threads is only causing additional stress and not relaxing the situation but making it worse.

Also you can't expect members to always go back to read posts that are maybe long gone because the thread progressed. Often a thread progresses too fast and they will never even see what you wrote. Not in this case but there have been cases. I don't see the meaning of this.

Please, moderators. Could you please get rid of that bad habit? It's really unprofessional and doing nothing good at all. Pretty please?


That said I must admit the thread got way out of hand. I don't think closing it would be such a bad thing since I can't see anything new coming to the table but spam.

Solving this problem is easy:

1) PATCH: Spawn planes with locked tail wheels and brakes on
2) Ask vintage plane pilots about plane behavior during winds
3) Eventually test if the physics engine works right when the new engine is done (until then a big fix would be a waste of time anyways)

I'll fight fire with proper modeled wind...

[youtube]lbm0u8CQsiw[/youtube]

Out of here, will install the beta patch... And the topic must be open, Madfish. We have USEFULL info here.

[QUOTE=LoBiSoMeM;331773]:

CloD spawn "unparked" aircrafts as if they are in air, not grounded.

QUOTE]

Exactly - you have just agreed to what I was referring to IRL. Planes are parked with parking brakes or chocks in place. I am agreeing with you and hope that the devs have a look at having aircraft spawn with the parking brake or chocks in place so that we have to disengage or remove the chocks before starting to taxi.

[QUOTE=Catseye;332054]Yes, no need to great tweaks in winds or friction. But we need wind SOUND too. Will be nice!

Glad to see you finally admited there is a bug that needs fixing.. tweaking.. changing.. adjusting.. what ever you want to call it this week.. Glad I could help!

You are always really helpfull! Thanks a lot!

My pleasure! S!

Red text is to differentiate between talking as a normal forum member or not: when i'm posting like this i'm just discussing things, when i'm posting like this i'm moderating.

If anyone is willing to put up with having to read every single thread with new posts in all sub-sections of this forum and weed out the posts that break forum rules then be my guest and apply for the job.

Mods call them as they seem them, some prefer PMs, i prefer to keep things out in the open to be able to self-moderate my moderating practices: i can't be picking favorites if i do everything out in the open because people will jump on me and rightly so, it's a way to maintain my own impartiality first and foremost and ensure i treat everyone the same.

There's more than one ways to skin a cat, i have my reasons for going at it the way i do. I'm open to feedback but i can't agree with and follow everything i'm told.

There's also another reason and it's more important to me. I don't know, i have this weird notion that flight sim forums are usually comprised of somewhat older people that can be reasoned with.

I could just as easily save myself some time by handing out a couple of bans and telling people in a PM "two days for now, next time it's permanent". I could certainly have banned both Ace and Lobi 3-4 times each for what they've said on this thread alone (and there's also a rule against questioning moderation on top of it all), but i didn't and in return i get some mild "flak" about the red text. :confused:

Well, if my willingness to lay my cards on the table is not appreciated but instead, mistaken as an OK to bargain with mods against enforcing the rules, maybe i should start doing things the way i'm asked: anyone who causes trouble can disappear in a "covert" manner with a simple PM to the tune of "you broke rule XYZ" and nobody else will know why or for how long. Are you trying to tell me this is what we want here? Because if the majority asks for it to be this way then yes, i'll be obliged to do it that way.

Doesn't make much of a difference to me (apart from saving me tons of time spent reasoning with the most common "offenders"), but it will sure make a lot of difference to some people here ;-)