Quote:
Originally Posted by dafat1
Landing without bouncing is of course a matter of skills, like in the real world. But the mass of the planes seems indeed to be undermodeled while the tendency to flip over when landing off an airfield is for sure overmodeled on planes with a tailwheel. I'm a real world pilot and fly tailwheeled planes a lot and land them on grassfields and it never happened to me in real, while I always flip over when I land in IL2 beside an airfield. 
Really looking forward to radionavgation!  |
In regards to landings, I am not a real pilot. But I do 'support' the thoughts of mr dafat1 above. The 'doesn't behave heavy enough but instead has some other oddity' is a super common phenomenon in 1990-2010 game physics. Most easily seen on armored vehicles doing stuff (WWII online for example) but any object can be used as an example.
The tendency to stand on the nose could partially be explained by the differences in using our controllers, lack of acceleration sensation and differences in aircraft/brake design. Our controllers make it easy to apply maximum brake force without feeling a thing. Modern planes may have more easily modulated brakes and perhaps not even as powerful ones as in WW2. And in either way, the real pilots might brake much less than we do by reflex and seat of pants feeling.
A training video I saw for the IL-2 Sturmovik (plane) from 1943 taught to brake, then come off the brakes and repeat the process when having touched down. This probably to avoid standing on the nose, but since the pilots were such noobs they needed to teach them a simple way to avoid it rather than threshhold braking.
--
Radio Navigation seems awesome! I need to go learn morse code now.