Landing & Taking off incredibly easy

[recoilfx]

Has anyone noticed that landing and taking off is incredible easy compare to Il2?

I was expecting to have harder time flying in CloD, but aside from gunnery(which is now harder with more head movement), everything else is incredibly easy compare to Il2.

Torque is easy to handle even with rapid changes in throttle, the Huris and Spits are much less bouncy at landing (which might be a good thing, as I always thought Il2's spit was a little bit too bouncy). I landed on a dime next to the Buckingham palace on my Spit the first try.

Yes, it's full switch.
I don't have real life pilot experience, so what do you pilots think?

Also, another thing I've always hated about il2 remains in CloD - if my wing touches the hanger at <1mph, the whole plane spins and recoils at an incredible rate, taking off the tail and the other wing. That's just shoddy physics.

[Ali Fish]

i thought this last night whilst contemplating the games many issues.

im thinking the ground physics could be a placeholder for whats to come. And that what You expereince is from il2'46. all be it in not quite the same game engine. same as the sound too. clearly the sound engine hasnt been completed.

might be nice for the devs to have a list of what is or is not a placeholder. and what is or not complete. it would stop a bunch of bugs posts and discussions on the affected areas.

i also dont think ive landed a plane yet in anywhere near realistic conditions. head, tail & sidewinds have not been takin into account with my opinions.

[whoarmongar]

I think that landing the Hurricane especially must have been relatively easy, German pilots flying captured british aircraft reported that they were easy to land, also remember that RAF pilots managed to land Hurricanes onto the carrier HMS Glorious

[Blackdog_kt]

Some of the ground physics might be a bit dodgy at present. According to a translated post by the developers from the Russian forum, it seems we still have about 50% of the game's features being optimized and not yet released, stuff that will gradually be available with the patches.

For example, after one my first sorties when i first got the sim, i tried to taxi a 109 from the runway to the hangars. When my wheels moved off the grass surface and touched the tarmac in front of the hangar, the game engine treated it as a collision with the aircraft breaking up and jumping up in the air :grin:

That being said, i find that landings are easier for another reason too and that's something that's actually realistic. It seems that the sense of speed and altitude above ground is much better than IL2:1946 and that makes it much easier to accurately judge your approach and flare.

As for winds and weather effects they are definitely there, i just don't know how many and which missions have them to enough severity that they would be noticeable. For example, the cross country flight in the QMB seems to have a definite crosswind just as you spawn on the airfield. If you choose a light airframe like a Tiger Moth, you can see that it weather-vanes to the right before you start the engine.

Since the weather is static and not dynamic yet, the best way to know is to open the mission in FMB and see if any weather layers are enabled for the particular mission, but overall it's in the game and it works. Another forum user has also done some testing with extreme crosswinds recently and posted his findings via a youtube video.

[Extreme_One]

I can't be that good - can I? (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=21566)

[BigPickle]

I think landing in the 109 is well tricky, near stall speeds it turns into a brick. The blenhiem can be unruley too at low speeds.

[PE_Tigar]

I find it more realistic now (I have ~300 hours in singles and ~10 hours in twins, all piston). Sturmovik airplanes are all way too bouncy and they float too much. Torque on takeoff I find similar to Il2 1946, that's why it actually seems easy to many, it was already quite good. I find that, especially in the Bf-109, I need to push the nose to get the tail wheel off the ground during the takeoff run, which is also pretty realistic in my book (I have only a few hours in a taildragger, so not too much RL experience there).

[Mags]

Yes, I also find the landings very easy. Even the dreaded 109 is easy.
Maybe it's my eleven years of 'old' Il-2 flying that counts?

Today I tried to taxi into a hangar but that was a bad idea, as Blackdog found out.
Placeholders I hope, because I like this sim more and more.

[scissorss]

Today I tried to taxi into a hangar but that was a bad idea, as Blackdog found out.
Placeholders I hope, because I like this sim more and more.

Why what happens when you taxi into a hangar? I do it after every landing with no problem. :confused:

[Mags]

Hi, scissorss.

I taxied in very slowly and my 109 jumped right up and swiveled around, shredding bits of the wing. This was on an airfield in northern France, can't remember exactly where.

Well, if you do it regulary I guess I have to test some more.

[SlipBall]

I don't have the game yet, but I can say that in IL2 landings were more difficult than rl small aircraft:grin:

[scissorss]

Hi, scissorss.

I taxied in very slowly and my 109 jumped right up and swiveled around, shredding bits of the wing. This was on an airfield in northern France, can't remember exactly where.


Hmm that seems like abnormal behavior of the 109 :-P , but I cannot say I have experienced this phenomenon myself. Then again I don't fly the 109 often either, maybe it is limited to that aircraft alone?

[1.JaVA_Platypus]

WHat??? Take-off easy??? Try takeing off in the cross-country mission!!!!!!

[man]

I do agree that landing is just a little bit more easy than il2 1946, I notice that my hurricane behave much better when flying under 120 miles/hour. Taking off feels the same to me as it was in il2 1946.

[ATAG_Doc]

Wait until I get my copy and see how easy it is.

[Ali Fish]

ive been attempting cross wind landings at a wind setting of 22 with high gust factor and its certainly not so easy anymore.

[Viper2000]

CoD aeroplanes on average have a somewhat lower wing loading than the aeroplanes in IL2 1946, which makes them inherently easier to land.

It's also easier to feel your way down because the graphics are much better.

I'm slightly surprised by how docile the ground handling is (you can let your feet pretty much go to sleep during both the takeoff and landing rolls, which certainly hasn't been my experience in the three types of tail wheel aeroplanes I've flown IRL).

OTOH, this sort of stuff isn't exactly easy to get data on.

Hopefully the Su26 will be especially helpful in this department when/if it arrives, since they have extremely good data on its landing gear design, and can probably arrange some test flying for one of the devs in a 2 seater quite easily.

[MikkOwl]

I can relate to it being a bit easy. I intentionally put a H-111 into a flatspin, with both engines running fully. Then I sat there as it descended straight down turning violently along the horizon for perhaps 30-60 seconds. Instead of being flattened and exploding as I expected, it touched down safely without any injuries or destruction. EDIT: Yes, vulnerability was on. This was the original steam version before any beta patches.

[ElAurens]

One thing to remember, most of us have far more hours of stick time than real WW2 pilots would ever dream of logging.

Put a n00b at the controls and see what happens...

;)

I don't think the control manipulations in CoD are any "easier" than IL2, in fact I seem to be "dancing" on the rudder pedals a lot more on takeoff in Cod than IL2. I have to agree that the improved visual/sensory environment of CoD is the main factor in making it seem "easier" to take off and land.

[unreasonable]

I am certainly finding landing the 109 easier than in IL21946 - actually managed to land one in The Mall so I could pay my respects to the King at Buck House.

T/O requires lots of right rudder and a forward stick push from neutral trim, which is just as the RL accounts I have seen would suggest.

In IL2 the most difficult landings were the grass strips on the older design maps as these were very narrow making lining up harder: the newer maps (eg Slovakia) had open grass airfields which were much easier. The cut grass strip area in the CoD maps seems to be a little wider.

Also agree about the grapics quality issue - much easier to estimate height.

I suspect the gear is too strong though.

[Buchon]

I did manage to damage my landing gear several times, even punched my tires.

The new physics and the landing gear model is a lot better, and the grip of differents surfaces has improved alot too, that is more realistic now.

In IL-2 1946 is just wrong, its not full modeled :

The lack of the mentioned improvements, and the crazy and unrealistic bouncing, makes the landings frustrating, impossible to do outside of landing tracks, very unreal for a plane with a landing gear of a WWII.

I like how is in ClOD, has improved a lot, very satisfactory now.

[unreasonable]

I like how is in ClOD, has improved a lot, very satisfactory now.

+1

[Trumper]

OTOH, this sort of stuff isn't exactly easy to get data on.


Actually it wouldn't be that hard.Alot of the restorations that fly now have data recorders fitted to them to measure the stresses and strains.
http://www.uk-warbirds.net/operators_hfl.html
There are more warbirds from both allied and axis side flying now than since the war and pilots from both ww2 and todays pilots flying them are still around.
Where there's a will there's a way.
This is something i can't understand about the audio,realistic engine sounds,they say they can't sent anyone to record them,mmmmm.

[Blackdog_kt]

What they actually said is that they couldn't afford to send one to record them, not that they couldn't ( cost of shipping the equipment but most of all, paying for the cost of running an antique engine with massive servicing costs for a few hours). ;)

[ElAurens]

Exactly.

People just don't understand that running a Spit/Hurri/109/P51/whateverwarbird costs about $2000 US per hour.

And add to that the fact that most war bird owners consider us flight simmers merely as pests, and you start to see the reality of the issue.

[Sauf]

And add to that the fact that most war bird owners consider us flight simmers merely as pests, and you start to see the reality of the issue.

Prolly cause we'd point at their a/c and tell em the gunsight/cockpit/paintscheme/.50 cal/seat position/ is PORKED!

[Trumper]

:confused: Sorry to disagree BUT there are Merlin engines that are run upon test beds for the public.There are Merlin engines that fly at air displays and i have seen several people with professional standard cameras and audio recording equipment.
If you wanted to hire out a Spitfire then yes i agree on costs BUT they are around and accessible if you want to make the effort.
There is no excuse for lawn mower sounds in 2011 and 6 years into the development of this sim.
Yes i know this isn't a Merlin LOL :) but i managed to take this on amateur equipment years ago,there are better recordings around and available to use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQQj1boxAbg&feature=related

[ElAurens]

there are better recordings around and available to use.


Nice vid, not high enough quality for game sound though.

I also will take issue with your claim that there are recordings available to use.

A. Name them. Where are these recordings?

B. Do you think that their authors will just happily donate their use so someone else can use them to make money?

C. Does no one understand that this is a business and that it's all about the money?

[Trumper]

:) My point is it is all doable.This game has been in development for a long time and really should and could be better sound wise than it is.
There is enough talent in the community to make mods to improve things surely there are people who over a period of time could record real life engines to be used in a sim.
An interesting point as is the legal ownership of audio though.Does it belong to the person owning the engine the noise is emitted from or by the person who records the said noise?
I would guess the person recording otherwise cameras and other audio recording devices would be banned from airshows.