Ground physics - any change in new patch?

[ReconNZ]

ground physics? I believe Luthier mentioned this latest patch would change the takeoff and landing physics/ground handling? Any sign of this? Are landings/takeoffs any different?

[Space Communist]

It does seem a little different somehow. However this might just be confirmation bias, I really can't put my finger on what feels different. I hadn't played in a while before this patch either so that's not helping.

[Tavingon]

I find that now a bad crash may result in some bits dropping off, not just a full on explosion

[RAF74_Winger]

I haven't noticed any change. The oleos still seem much too soft in the spit.

W.

[Blackdog_kt]

First thing i tested with the new patch was taking off in the Blenheim with its notorious tendency to swing to the right (and by tendency i mean you had to wrestle to keep it on the runway or it would veer off).

It worked much better than before, just a bit of steering with the brakes early on but when it picked up a bit of speed (30-50mph or so) it was easily controllable with rudder alone.

It seem that there is now more static friction to overcome so it doesn't directly swing around to starboard anymore the moment you apply power.

One more thing that would make ground handling perfect is to simulate another friction effect. Static friction is higher than "rolling" friction and it's been modeled this way in other sims too: it takes an initial burst of quite a bit of power to start the aircraft rolling, but once its rolling you have to throttle back to a much lower setting to prevent going too fast during taxi.

It's like dragging a crate across the floor: you need to apply more strength to get it moving, but once it starts moving you need less strength to keep it moving.

Currently, at least in the heavier aircraft, it seems a bit too proportional and linear. For example, to taxi a Blenheim loaded with four 250lb bombs and fuel only in the inboard tanks (55% fuel), you currently need to continuously push +0 to +1 psi boost or more. Don't let the low numbers fool you, boost is measured in relative units and as such 0 boost means full ambient air pressure at sea level, in other words full throttle minus the supercharger.

I would expect it to probably need that much to start rolling, but much less to keep rolling, especially for the slow speeds involved during taxi: for example, giving it a burst of +1 boost to start moving, then throttling back to -3 boost or something like that.

However, things are definitely moving in the right direction and yes, the ground handling physics have been revamped.

[xnomad]

I made a real lazy landing yesterday knowing how easy it is to do in this game. I came down hard and wrecked my gear and prop, I don't think that would have happened pre-patch but I'm not 100% certain.

[rfa]

Still had this happen in the beta patch...

I shot off the tail of a Heinkel at high altitude, and tracked it with outside view all the way down as it spun in. It did not explode upon hitting the ground, just "pancaked" onto it - heck, two crewmembers were still alive in fact (the pilot and bottom gunner) after the "crash". Well, at least they looked alive, meaning not slumped over as when killed by bullets. There was also no kill notification for it.

I observed that twice in the previous version (Heinkel and Dornier).

[Buchon]

There changes, the gear behavior is different, its redone as Luthier mentioned.

Not tested long but I did a land out of pit yesterday and run over the different´s surfaces is very noticeable, high grass´s push back is more aggressive now.

[Madfish]

I did a quick test of something yesterday with only keyboard flying available at the time and also wrecked my prop and gear.

It feels different now though since before the patch I was able to "land" on the hill sides without damaging the plane.

[Koala63]

Don't let the low numbers fool you, boost is measured in relative units and as such 0 boost means full ambient air pressure at sea level, in other words full throttle minus the supercharger.



Gold. Thanks for sharing Blackdog.

[David198502]

well yesterday i shot a ai spit at an altitude of 100 meters and shot on wing off.as it smashed to the ground, it didnt explode like expected.it just hit the ground and fell into pieces.
another incident was again with an ai spit.i shot it and went down in a shallow angle.as it hit the ground the wings broke off and it grinded some more meters in dirt until it came to a standstill.

[trumps]

to me there seems to be more ground effect, the 109 seems to balloon and float more when you flair for landing.

Craig

[skouras]

the aircraft is more responsive now
i use hotas warthog
and i notice a difference by far

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I havent noticed the Spit doing the sit-n-spin.. But only been on a few servers.. so not sure if the wind was even on or not..

UPDATE

Spoke too soon.. the sit-n-spin bug is still there.. Just had it happen in the HL online server.. Has anyone added this bug to the bug list yet?

[LoBiSoMeM]

lbm0u8CQsiw

Spawn with brakes on. Or just after spawn apply brakes. In mild wind your plane will not spin. In medium/strong wind, learn and practice how to taxiing.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Spawn with brakes on. Or just after spawn apply brakes. That is a work around.. but that does not fix the bug

In mild wind your plane will not spin.
That depends on your definition of mild..

Per the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

They only issue airport warnings for mean wind speeds of 18mps.. Which means there is nothing to worry about at wind speeds less than that.. And that is for airports with cement runways.. But we are seeing planes spin at far less wind speeds (more than half of 18mps) while sitting on grass runways.

So I think Ill side with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology definition for now, until someone comes up with a better one.


In medium/strong wind, learn and practice how to taxiing.
No need, in that I am able to take off in any wind setting in CoD.. Not that my skill level or anyone else changes the fact that this is a bug that needs reporting

[LoBiSoMeM]

They only issue airport warnings for mean wind speeds of 18mps.. Which means there is nothing to worry about at wind speeds less than that.. And that is for airports with cement runways.. But we are seeing planes spin at far less wind speeds (more than half of 18mps) while sitting on grass runways.

So I think Ill side with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology definition for now, until someone comes up with a better one.

You don't need to tie your Spitfire with ropes in CloD with winds below 18mps, or even higher. You just need to use differential brakes and propwash when taxiing.

If your plane starts to slowly spinning with winds acting, use wheel brakes. Wind act on control surfaces, and vertcial stabilizer works like a sail in crosswind. Thank's God for that and differential brakes, or we'll need ground crew in CloD to push our aircraft around...

The planes in CloD don't fly away or spins like crazy even in strong wind speeds. And we don't need a truck to spin a Spitfire using tailwheel, or taxiing will be really hard.

Use brakes. Or give some proof that the behaviour in CloD is really a bug. I don't think so. After all, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology don't said that you can sit on your Spitfire without brakes and with tailwheel unlocked with some wind and the aircraft will not spin.

We need more consistent data to confirm this is a bug. Can you provide some usefull info?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You don't need to tie your Spitfire with ropes in CloD with winds below 18mps
Your missing the point my friend..

I realise there is a work around for this bug..

But the fact remains that planes will sit-an-spin on a grass runway at far less than 18mps..

Your own video shows a Spit spining at 10mps and there are other videos showing planes spinning at 5mps.

Which is a bug IMHO

In either case lets provide 1C with the info on this bug to take a look at it, if they fix it fine, if not we use the work around. No big deal

[LoBiSoMeM]

Your missing the point my friend..

I realise there is a work around for this bug..

But the fact remains that planes will sit-an-spin on a grass runway at far less than 18mps..

Your own video shows a Spit spining at 10mps and there are other videos showing planes spinning at 5mps.

Which is a bug IMHO

In either case lets provide 1C with the info on this bug to take a look at it, if they fix it fine, if not we use the work around. No big deal

Why it's a bug? One Spitfire starts spin in crosswind in wich wind speed, with brakes off and tailwheel unlocked?

I don't know. You know? Please, provide us some data.

What I can see now in CloD is that planes have decent inertia and friction with ground when taking off and landing. And in taxiing in mild wind. I really don't know how a Spitfire handle each wind speed on ground. We have some real Spitfire pilot here?

I really don't know, so I cant say it's a bug.

In my humble opinion, some WWII aircraft like a Spitfire need to runs smoothly over grass surface, or will need much more power to taxiing, maneuver and take off. I believe that the Spitfire tail was made to spin with ease on ground, isn't?

q5trygRQaV0

3:52...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I really don't know, so I cant say it's a bug.
Agreed, nor can you say it is not a bug

So we will have to agree to disagree

Eitherway it does not hurt to report it and let the 1C take a look at it

One other thing that make me think it is a bug is you don't have to 'hold' the breaks to make it stop spinning..

Just 'tap and release' the breaks and the plane will stop spinning..

At least that is what I am seeing when I do a test..

And that tells me there is a bug..

In that the wind is the same before and after the tap of the breaks

Therefore once you release the breaks the plane should start spinning again

Based on your logic

But it doesn't

So, by 'tapping' the breaks you have changed someting.. or in the software sence.. initilased a variable that was not initlised prior to 'tapping' the breaks..

But again, we can agree to disagree on this.. It does no harm to report it and let 1C take a look at it

[LoBiSoMeM]

Agreed, nor can you say it is not a bug

So we will have to agree to disagree

Eitherway it does not hurt to report it and let the 1C take a look at it

One other thing that make me think it is a bug is you don't have to 'hold' the breaks to make it stop spinning..

Just 'tap and release' the breaks and the plane will stop spinning..

At least that is what I am seeing when I do a test..

And that tells me there is a bug..

In that the wind is the same before and after the tap of the breaks

Therefore once you release the breaks the plane should start spinning again

Based on your logic

But it doesn't

So, by 'tapping' the breaks you have changed someting.. or in the software sence.. initilased a variable that was not initlised prior to 'tapping' the breaks..

But again, we can agree to disagree on this.. It does no harm to report it and let 1C take a look at it

I propose in the other thread a theory: the spawn logic put the plane "flying" and the friction will not start properly without brakes on. But I really don't know if all the behavior of aircraft when taxiing with wind is wrong.

Just need to ask these guys:

139fVoI6GzU

I really don't know. If all is correct, just set "brakes on" as default when spawn, a simple change. If all the wind settings are wrong, specific work is needed. But we need some expert advise.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

So, in your testing, did the plane start spinning again 'after' your tapped the breaks?

[LoBiSoMeM]

So, in your testing, did the plane start spinning again 'after' your tapped the breaks?

If the wind is strong enough, yes. Sometimes it's start in a really slow spin, in weak wind conditions, I brake, and the inertia works ok and it'll not spin again. If i set no wind at all i never start in a spin. In the test video I made with strong wind in the other thread, I show what happens when you spawn without brakes in strong winds, and in this I posted now here I removed brakes facing strong winds with no moviment. If you just spawn in this wind speed - facing it - your plane will go backwards.

The problem resides in spawn logic, I believe, not so much in simulated physics. The physics appears to be OK after your plane stop in full brakes, the inertia works fine. The planes need to start with brakes on - user side or with this setting as default in a patch, because people who use the brakes in key/button will have problems. I use in an axis, so it's ok. After that we can see if all other aspects are ok.

Can someone find a Spitfire or other WWII warbird pilot? We have some aorund the globe. People in UK?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

If the wind is strong enough, yes.
Well sure if you have it set real high.. the plane will jump up into the air as was the case in your 50mps video.. breaks are no good in those cases :rolleyes:

But I am talking about the 5mps and 10mps cases that are WAY below the Per Australian Bureau of Meteorology warning levels of 18mps

Lets assume for a moment that your right and there is no bug and that 5mps wind speeds should cause the plane to spin.. And that when you apply the breaks it stops spinning as expected.. But if your correct, than once you release the breaks it should start spinning again

Yet it doesn't!

The plane no longer spins after you tap the breaks..

As I stated before, based on my software background, this has that feel of a variable that did not get initialized correctly and got initialized 'after' you tapped the breaks.

That is why I consider this a bug, because if it wasn't a bug than the plane should start spinning again after I released the breaks

[LoBiSoMeM]

Well sure if you have it set real high.. the plane will jump up into the air as was the case in your 50mps video.. breaks are no good in those cases :rolleyes:

But I am talking about the 5mps and 10mps cases that are WAY below the Per Australian Bureau of Meteorology warning levels of 18mps

Lets assume for a moment that your right and there is no bug and that 5mps wind speeds should cause the plane to spin.. And that when you apply the breaks it stops spinning as expected.. But if your correct, than once you release the breaks it should start spinning again

Yet it doesn't!

The plane no longer spins after you tap the breaks..

As I stated before, based on my software background, this has that feel of a variable that did not get initialized correctly and got initialized 'after' you tapped the breaks.

That is why I consider this a bug, because if it wasn't a bug than the plane should start spinning again after I released the breaks

Yes, I said the same too: spawn logic don't works Ok with brakes off. But now after all this discussion I have the curiosity to know in wich wind condition a Spitfire will start to spin into wind... :confused:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Yes, I said the same too: spawn logic don't works Ok with brakes off. But now after all this discussion I have the curiosity to know in wich wind condition a Spitfire will start to spin into wind... :confused:
But.. you also said you don't think it is a bug.. and now you agree that it could be something wrong with the code.. It is hard for me to keep up with you sometimes.. So, at this moment, do you agree that it is a bug?

[LoBiSoMeM]

But.. you also said you don't think it is a bug.. and now you agree that it could be something wrong with the code.. It is hard for me to keep up with you sometimes.. So, at this moment, do you agree that it is a bug?

Maybe. I don't know what happens for sure. Maybe it's one bug, mauye more bugs, maybe just someone that forget to set planes with "brakes on" by default. What I fell is that ground physics appears to be OK, and taildraggers can spin in not so strong winds.

The devs are aware of all that. But now I really want to see some expert opinion... If s Spitfire spins just into a hurricane, all thing is bugged...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Maybe?

Well at least I have changed your mind from no to maybe ;)

One thing for sure is from the start my opinion has been that 'this' is a bug..

By 'this' I mean it does not seem right that a Spitfire should sit-n-spin in a grass field with a 5mps wind..

Where as your opinion has gone back and forth a few times between no and yes to end up at maybe

Maybe is the fence walkers answer that allows them to jump down on either side after the fact

You always struck me as not a fence walker.. you struck me as someone willing to stand up and make their opinion known to all

But.. now.. not so much

Why is that? ;)

[LoBiSoMeM]

Maybe?

Well at least I have changed your mind from no to maybe ;)

One thing for sure is from the start my opinion has been that 'this' is a bug..

By 'this' I mean it does not seem right that a Spitfire should sit-n-spin in a grass field with a 5mps wind..

Where as your opinion has gone back and forth a few times between no and yes to end up at maybe

Maybe is the fence walkers answer that allows them to jump down on either side after the fact

You always struck me as not a fence walker.. you struck me as someone willing to stand up and make their opinion known to all

But.. now.. not so much

Why is that? ;)

I don't want to date you. I said in the other topic - in beggining -that we have issues in spawn if we start with brakes off. I'm out of your crusade of "i'm right", sorry.

Your opinion: "I mean it does not seem right that a Spitfire should sit-n-spin in a grass field with a 5mps wind."

My opinion: "I don't think the above can't happen in real world."

I never said that we don't have issues in spawn or other bugs in CloD, sorry. I'm a CONSTRUCTIVE member here.

Bye!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Oh oh.. there you go again

Well just glad I was able to help!

Not much else to say on this subject in that you flip flop says it all ;)

[LoBiSoMeM]

Bye. Be happy.

[SQB]

But... it can't be the wind because my plane does full revolutions.

So, uh, what is it then? (test done engine off brakes off)

[LoBiSoMeM]

But... it can't be the wind because my plane does full revolutions.

So, uh, what is it then? (test done engine off brakes off)

So it's a bug. Here mine plane never do full revs, always stop facing wind. :confused:

[rfa]

Another observation:

Crashlanded a Blenheim "gear-up" on an upslope, only to have it slide back down the hill tail first - at a decent rate I might add.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Another observation:
Crashlanded a Blenheim "gear-up" on an upslope, only to have it slide back down the hill tail first - at a decent rate I might add.
I had a simular thing happen.. spawned in a Spitfire.. it started to spin.. held the breaks until it stopped spinning.. than released the breaks and it remained still..

Than I fired up the engine, let it warm up a bit.. started to roll and the plane fliped up into the air and landed upside down..

The spawn point was near the edge of the runway and the plane landed upside down on the slope.. and it too started to slide DOWN the hill upside down..

So.. something seems up with either the ground physics or the plane ground contact physics..

The good news is the plane did not slide UP the hill ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

What you guys miss is the effect of wind on the wings.

It's perfectly possible for a heavy aircraft to spin in a crosswind if the wind is fast enough, because the wind generates lift that acts against its weight. A 6000lbs Spitfire is not a concentrated 6000lb brick, it has forces acting on a wide range of its body during a wind situation and we all know from basic newtonian physics about the torque effect: the same force can produce more rotation if it's applied further out from the center of rotation.

There's so many variables here that trying to convince people if it's a bug or not seems a bit simplistic. If enough lift is generated by the Spit's wing, then during a crosswind the side meeting the wind will experience a "lighten up" effect due to the produced lift, if the edges of the wing create enough drag it will result in increased torque, add the effects of the tail fin and non-lockable tailwheels and you have a 6000lbs aircraft spinning on the ground.

So, is it accurate? We don't know because we don't have the numbers to judge.

Is it impossible? Definitely not, it's perfectly possible.

Case in point, take a look at some videos of bushplanes, floatplanes, etc on youtube. Why do you think they all have tie-down attachment points if weight alone is enough to keep them immobile?

Well, it's not enough and since they also have high-lift wings by design and sizable control surfaces, wings and fins for stability and ease of maneuvering at low speeds while getting in and out of improvised fields and lakes, it's quite possible to cause damage by leaving them unattended during a windy day.

A good gust of wind and your shiny piper cub can almost flip over on its back if it's not tied down and the controls are not locked into place. That's not only because it's light, tie-downs are common on the majority of civil/general aviation aircraft regardless of weight, including heavier designs like DeHavilland Beavers/Otters and so on. These might not outright flip over, but a high-lift wing and a gust of wind could easily cause them to stand on one gear/float and come smashing down again once the gust subsides. All sorts of things can go wrong depending on a host of variables and specific aircraft design, from oil leaking out of the filler cap to fuel getting disturbed and bubbly in a half-full tank, to striking a prop-blade into the ground, to stressing a float mount, to a wingtip scraping against the ground, etc etc.

The Spit might or might not be heavier than some of these GA aircraft but we all know its wing design is focused on optimal lift generation, so parallels can definitely be drawn.

Weight is just the tip of the iceberg in all the variables concerned here and making a judgement of whether it's a bug or not is impossible without having the relevant aerodynamic data for a spitfire, much less trying to convince others about our opinion.

So, in closing, i have no way to know if what's happening with the in-game Spit is accurate, but it's basic physics to understand that it's certainly possible if certain aerodynamic properties meet some criteria. Until we get numbers an accurate judgement is impossible and the debating of it futile. Just my 2c and if anybody disagrees with it i don't mind at all. ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

What you guys miss is the effect of wind on the wings.
Nope..

That was covered a long time ago..

We have narrowed it down to a simple test that proves it is not wind, but something else

That being when you spawn your plane (most notable the Spitfire) it starts to spin into the direction of the wind..

And, if you apply the breaks the plane will STOP spinning.. As expected

But, if you release the breaks the plane does NOT START spinning again

via deductive reasoning

1) The wind speed and direction is the same before and after you apply the breaks..
2) The plane spins before you apply the breaks
3) The plane does not spin after your apply the breaks

Therefore.. something changes when you applied the breaks.. What? Not certain, but knowing a little about flight modeling I would start looking at the planes initial contact force vales (coefficients) and how they get initialized.

[senseispcc]

It seems that since the patch the landings are a little more floating when not the nose in the wind? A impression I could be wrong!

Have a nice game.