Anybody else think the ground is too soft?
 

I just played a mission in IL-2 1946 for old time's sake. It was fun. I shot down one plane, ran out of ammo, returned to base. Over the runway I forgot which game I was playing for just a second... I flared too high, stalled, bounced, broke a wingtip off on the pavement, collapsed my landing gear and destroyed the engine.

Whoops.

This wouldn't have happened in Dover. Landings are stupidly easy in Dover. All of them. Throttle back, hold her straight, and she'll grease on so smoothly it's hard to even know when she's down until you hear the wheels rolling. Every single time.

I'm very much enjoying so many features in Dover... but I miss the punishing landings in '46. I don't want the plane to forgive my sloppiness. I feel like I've been cheated out of the satisfaction from setting up a perfect approach and sliding on a perfect three-pointer. I want that perfect landing to be difficult.

Anybody else thinking the same?

There is a debate that 1946 was overly hard and unrealistic...
Having flown both I prefer 1946 landings as they make you sweat but speaking to real pilots they seem to think Clod feels more right?
I have not failed a single landing in Clod.
But if one take the way our planes are blown around by wind while on the ground one has to think the flight model/plane weight is an issue. :)

I've always felt landings in '46 were overly difficult and agree that CoD landings are probably too easy. Somewhere in the middle would be a good bet I think.

Crash landings in CoD are simply superb though. Ploughing through a field of wheat, wheels up, you can almost feel the straps cut into your shoulders as you slew to a stop. CoD beats '46 hands down in this department.

PPP

one of the main things that was missing in 1946 was the ground effect, which helps you "float" on a cushion of air as you flare the plane, having said this though some planes were still prone to autorotation or wing stall when reaching such critical moments.

I know for sure they did one thing right this time around:

They made proper shock-struts that simulate real Oleo-legs.

It's designed to work by moving a cylinder within another cylinder and dampen everything by the use of hydraulic fluid and compressed air or, nowadays, nitrogen. The nitrogen is compressible and will take care of the sharp bumps and roughness of the runway, while absorbing the weight is done by the hydraulic fluid. The fluid is forced to move through some orifices that allows for quick compression, but slow extension. That way, you won't be bounced off the ground again so easily. Compare it to a spring, that only compresses, stores the energy and releases it all as soon as the compression force is gone. That would give you the typical kangaroo landing :p

IL-2 1946 was horrible at simulating this, IL-2 Clod is a different world. Much more realistic.

One can discuss, however, how much abuse the gear can handle. I wish for the ability to damage the shock-strut, flatten the tire, break uplock/downlock mechanisms more easily. I also wish that certain ground textures had their own "roughness" properties, allowing the sim to simulate MUCH rougher terrain that would potentially destroy the landing gear quicker and cause the plane to dig it's nose into the ground. IRL pilots were advised to land with gear up when ditching because the hazard of ending upside down, unable to get out of the cockpit and potentially catch fire.

I think landing feels good in CoD now.

hmm, imo in both simulations its far too easy.

I haven't tried CoD yet, but I can tell you that some of the modded planes in IL-2 feel pretty much like the real thing, especially the modded Bf109, which not only has a better 3d model, but which behaves in an incredibly realistic way on the ground.

The mod developer mentioned a bug that basically prevented other planes in the sim to operate in the same way, he said that the struts are there but the loads are wrong, hence the stiff landing gears of many planes ingame.

With as much hours in the cockpit as you guys have , you should have perfect landing almost everytime. I am a real world pilot, although I never flew taildraggers, but to me it seems clod is much better than 1946 in terms of landings. Only people with real world type hours can state anything about the particular aircraft .

I was thinking about this today. I bet my opinion of the landings in this sim will change immediately once we get some functioning wind. Especially if random wind gusts can be modeled. That'll change the whole game for the better. Right now every approach is exactly the same because the air is so dead, so we only need to learn one approach for each aircraft.

PeterPanPan, I agree with you. We need a middle ground somewhere between '46 and Dover.


Edit: I think the game knew I was saying bad things about it. After posting this, my very next landing was with a dead engine. I made it to a friendly airfield, lined up ok... and just a half second before the wheels touched down, a friendly truck decided to drive across the field and cut in front of me. I clipped him with the right wingtip, slammed sideways into the ground, bounced around a lot, and ended up standing the Spit on its nose.

:):):)

@sternjaeger II which mod? i've got ultrapack 2.0

besides, 3.0 is about to be released soon :)

Yeah, I've gotten rid of my parachute because of this. Every time I eject, I fall down, bounce a few times and then, I'm up on my legs again, completely unhurt!

Ground too soft? Come on! :rolleyes:

I guess CoD, despite its problems, is in a quite awkward situation: Now, everybody thinks he is the most accomplished test pilot and can figure out very subtle issues in 5 minutes, before heading to the forums and presenting his "results". Imo, this gets more and more distracting with respect to the real issues CoD has...
For an additional example, see the 'pink guys' further down this forum :twisted:

The ground is too soft?...absolutely YES!
I would like to post a video to support the thread..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XuMy...layer_embedded
I was eyewitness at this event.
This is what happens in RL. I think all sims I played (Il-2 included) are to much permissive.
Cheers

ouch !!! dont try this at home!!!

Looks to me that he hits a small incline in that vid, pilot error, most runways iirc are flat :rolleyes:

Just my two cents, S`

they are supposed to be flat, but if you bounce like this first thing you have to do is to go full power to try to cushion the "second" landing or to go around if you can.

i don´t know whats the reaction time for that particular engine, but at least you have to try to do something. if you leave your power back, you know that the second landing is going to be nasty.

And by the way, I think that COD landings are fine. Landing an airplane (no crosswind/flat runway) IS easier than most people think.

LoL, it's that guy's own fault if he tries to land on a jumping ramp...now imagine what would've happened on 'hard' ground - definately more than just a broken wheel (and maybe a ripped-up shock absorber or two ) :rolleyes:

He's very lucky that the prop didn't hit the ground otherwise the engine would have been screwed.

easy guys...

The pilot was gonna go land on the hard tarmac runway, but he touched down before it, and that little ramp shot him back up in the air.. at that point there was nothing he could do: if you give full power as you suggest it's very likely the plane will spin out of control for the massive torque, since the Merlin has some 1650HP on a huge four bladed prop.

He was lucky to come out of it with such minor damage actually (although it looks like he clipped the ground with the prop on the last bit..), but this video also shows how things do bend in real life, not just break as it happens now (or at least in IL-2 1946!).

yeah, that was a quite close call. And besides the engine, gears etc, the propeller parts zipping around aren't really the healthiest thing for the onlookers.

That is one thing that rof still reigns supreme on with the bending/yield effect

The aircraft was airborne for less than 2.5 seconds after hitting that bump. I can't think of any aircraft that could have lessened the second touchdown or avoided it with full power applied exactly after that bump.

My main grind with landing is that it just doesn't feel right, feels like I'm landing in jelly rather than grass. Il2 felt better.

I clearly remember this (I was close where the vid is filmed, and the vid clearly shows what I'm saying) 'he touched down before' because... the plane approaching the runway suffered a spark misfire or something like that...anyway some power loss because of which the plane sinked on the ground and then bounced into the air ( the vid shows a puff of smoke and then u can hear the engine sound not properly harmonic!-I think the pilot gave some throttle but the engine simply flops!)
...wow the worst english I ever wrote...!!!:grin: sorry

anyway..coming back to the thread.. Il2 series have always forgiven such situations!

Hmm an F-15 with afterburners engaged and pulling hard on elevators? j/k ;)

..I dont think that a piston engined aircraft save you from such situation simply slamming forward the throttle..Consider the torque! The torque has always been feared by Spit-pilots.

As a RL pilot, two issues strike me as very significant. One, once wind is implemented then landings will be much more "interesting", and two, on the flare and contact, dump the flaps immediately or "float" and suffer the consequences.

this is frightening to hear (as a RL pilot), imagine having zero flap and getting briefly airborne after a 'bounce'........without the flaps giving the lift at low speed you will hit even harder on the second landing and or you could get a wing drop at the same time....very messy, I see no reason why the pilot could not have used some power fed in slowly to initiate a go around or at least soften the second landing given the engine did sound a little sick.

JETS can.

well, at least you have to do something, and if not full (torque), some power must have been applied and relaxing the pull on the stick would have made things a little bit better.

I have seen many student pilots that after bouncing on the runway or after a very high flare, the only thing they do is just to try another flare qhile they keep back pressure on the stick.

My point is that you can´t completely solve the situation as if nothing had happenned, but at least you have to try something to minimize the second impact. Doing nothing is the worst thing to do.

But giving it a second thought, if you land like that... maybe is better not to try something than can lead to an even worse situation.

Misfiring is clearly audible from the video. It also show how tough landing gears Mustang have!

probably a Fiesler Storch, those things fly even if you blow at them! :cool:

Many microlights and smaller GA planes will be fine with a full-throttle slam, unless you really are at the brink of stall..

I can tell you from personal experience that pilots will say the craziest bollox to justify their mistakes.. :rolleyes:

The plane was sounding quite rough (a long misfire or maybe some problems with the valves), but whichever the case he was coming down for a long final, I think he got scared by the noise and tried to put down the plane asap, but forgot (or didn't know) about that hideous bump. If anything he was very very lucky, let's not forget that the landing speed in that thing is around 110mph and mustangs' laminar wings are not always that forgiving at low speed..

whipper, I dunno where you got your license man, but where I come from that's a HUGE "no no". Landing is a critical moment aerodynamically, and you need all the lift possible, like if you have to go for a go-around..

Here's good video to show how to land 109 (landing @ 1:00):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO9mEv5Ve54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTnoH...eature=related

Sally B - FTW!

Walter Heichhorn is THE pilot
http://www.t6-team.de/walter_eichhorn.html

Yep, he's probably most experienced 109 pilot nowadays? I've read somewhere that his "109 instructor" was Erich Hartmann himself, don't know if it's true?

Ahhh the old "is the glass half full or half empty discussion". I love these.

The reality is we tend to use in sequential order as our memory recollects as the baseline of things.

If you were to time warp back to 1940 and actually were tied tightly into your create back then and were sent up over London...you'd probably say that this isn't as hard as IL-2 1946. And then everyone would be like "What???"

It's all a matter of what your expectations are. And what your experience with it was before. If you never had done this prior to CoD...then this thread wouldn't be here.

If it was the goal to be like 1946...they'd do it. But then pretty much everyone here has a copy of that laying on their table. Mine is being used to prevent a water ring on my desk at this moment with my mountain dew can sitting on top of it.

But the glaring truth is it's not supposed to be the same.

my share
 

Attachment 6077
Attachment 6078
Attachment 6079

cheers

I think it's him and Steve Hinton, and probably Charlie Brown.

Apparently he met Hartmann before his first flight on the 109, and Bubi gave him some hints on how to tame the beast. Gosh I would have paid to sit there with them..

Pupaxx, where/when was this again?

Perv.

I know!!! :mrgreen:

Ah...

The old sim pilot's axiom: Harder must be more realistic.

:rolleyes:

Glad to see the forum getting settled in now. No need to worry about game play issues, time to get back to the old tried and true topics.

One of the better ones is: "Real pilot experiences cannot be trusted, because I'm a sim pilot, and I have books, and wiki, and stuff..."

Carry on lads.

My biggest issue is I frequently don't know at exactly what point my plane touched the ground. I line up, slow down, flare... keep flaring... I wonder is it down yet... how about now... ok, I gotta be down by now... maybe... and eventually the plane seems to be rolling instead of flying. I'm missing the bump effect. Give me a noticeable bump and I'll be happy with it.

Of course I could always fix my own problem by just pounding the plane into the ground. :-P

I'd mention again my own real-life pilot's certificate here, but that appears to have become unfashionable so I won't.

Anyway, once wind effects are modeled I trust it'll be a whole new game.

:cool:

Flying legends July 2008 - Duxford same as video.
Video grabbed on youtube - Picts shot by myself

I haven't missed a Flying Legends since 2004, so I suppose this happened on a Sunday (I always do Saturday).


P.S.

Pupaxx ma sei romano? :)

Yes indeed! E' il mio 'english' frascatan-pecoreccio a tradirmi?
E tu? Voli on line qualche volta?
Ciao

It is already out....
make space on your HDD, it is 6Gb :)


~S~

Does anyone know if Force Feedback addresses this...do you get a rumble when you touch down?

Yes it does, and bump is quite noticeable indeed. At least with MS FFB2.

Rough landing. Plane damaged, but dont blow up like in il-2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XuMylC7gSc

You might should read page 2 again...:rolleyes:

did touch a little bit :D

But ooooffff, you'd be sh**tin bricks hard, 'specially in a beautiful bird like that. very very lucky it wasnt worse!

That "little" prop "touch" probably cost him $100,000 to $200,000.

Nah,that's too much,if there's propeller damage it will take up to 10k per blade,if there's a bent propshaft things shouldnt be too bad,bear in mind there's a reduction gearbox between the prop and the engine. My rough impression is that he didn't do much damage to the prop,but a new landing gear,wing dimensional check and wing spar inspection and x-ray aren't a cheap buy either..

The gear box would not insulate from possible engine damage...same as if you hit a rock or piling with an outboard motor, the shock travels all the way to the crankshaft/flywheel:grin:

Yes, but it is extremely rare that the powerhead takes any damage from it. Apart from the gearcase itself, propshaft, prop and pinion gear usually takes the hit. I would assume that having a reduction gear between the prop and crank does reduce the risk of engine damage quite a bit.

Back on topic:

I did a quick test with both 110 and hurricane at bouncy landings, they seem to break at the same kind of punishment as the P-51 in the video. I've destroyed these components:

-Landing gear kinematic failure
-Landing gear shock failure
-Landing gear downlock destroyed

And blown the tires.

Normally the tires blow causing a nose-over. Actually 99% of the time they blow, then the other failures seem a little random, which is OK.

I don't think the impact force is too wrong, It also seems that fuel and payload plays a role here and that's good to see! :)

As for landing, having landed a real plane a few times, I was shocked how easy it actually is. The secret of being idolized as a pilot is much the same as a magician. Don't reveal your tricks/how it's done, it's so much easier than most people imagine.