Ground handling in CloD
 

Is it just me or is it fubar?

1) the acceleration of planes on grass is ridiculous

You have to taxi with the throttle wide open. Geoffrey Wellum mentioned that you started a Spit then you had to throttle back for warming up, otherwise the machine would roll through the next hangar in a blink of an eye - although obviously an exageration, it shows that opening the throttle just a little bit (1 inch for startup) would be enough to move the machine. I've seen Hurricanes taking of from grass airfields. I've also taken off from a grass field in a Tiger Moth - it was nothing like in Clod, not like a freight train.

2) brakes

You had to be very crareful with them, or the aeroplane would turn on its nose. In CloD it wont, unless you're rolling at 60 mph. Differetial brakes have hardly any effect, which brings me to the next point:

3) turning - the rudder and differential brakes have no authority. How come?

I mean the FM is rather convincing, these planes fly much like real planes do - a lot better than the old il2 - but on the ground...well it's very far off, I'm afraid.

I don't find this to be the case at all.

Disagree again. I use differential braking all the time when taxiing 109s.

+1

The nose tipping tendancy of most aeroplanes under brakes in CLOD is overdone imo. There are many statements in the various test reports that discuss this.

Differential braking works quite ok I think, but for the Spit and Hurri you have to set your brake axis/key to the "all wheels" (don't know the command name in the english version) breaks command in order to have differential braking combined with the rudder.

On other planes (109, 110,..) you can set different axis/keys for left/right wheel brakes.

It shocks me that you don't find it off.
You have to taxi with 25% throttle or more- that's insane.

Also, you can't even turn on the ground properly - yest I've set up my controls properly, the gauges show that - not to mention acceleration on takeoff.

Seriously, doesn't it all feel totally wrong? (PS, the problem is a lot more pronunced on RAF planes)

Also, how can you seriously say that the nose tipping is overdone? Double the effect and even then it would be overdone. In clod you can pull the brakes brainlessly without any effect (in RAF planes).

Negative here - I need to throttle way back if I want to stand still. Better than % it would be great to see Boost and RPM values. I see your A2A sig - You know why they had 2 ack-acks hanging on the tail when doing engine run up (I prefer WAAFs actually :D) at 2000RPM. I agree this tendency is not present in CoD (simplification perhaps...), but as for the taxiing and acceleration, it's not too bad.

Yeah - braking in RAF is a bit off, should be more responsive imho, but it's not all that bad. You need to slow down, turn your nose and accelerate.

Negative, I have to be very careful with brakes in RAF planes, otherwise I would nose over. In fact, these tail draggers were quite infamous. Can't tell if it's overdone or not.

As for what IvanK says - we never taxied in a Spitfire but this gentleman is a professional pilot and he happens to fly warbirds, too. I would not argue wit him dude ;)

Earlier you said that "wide open throttle" was necessary to taxi.

What exactly are the gauges showing you that tells you turning on the ground is not proper? AFAIK there is no "ground turning" gauge.

No, it really doesn't all feel totally wrong.

Interesting post, I'm currently flying (few hours by the moment) a real taildragger (Mudry CAP10B) and I feel that COD has no propwash effect modelled, that in reality makes unnecessary to use so much the brakes.

About not flipping nose down in CoD, it depends on the plane. It is reported that real 109 could full brake without flipping, just with stick pulled back. Since there's no porpwash in CoD, it's useless to pull back the stick anyway...

So... we want a realistic propwash!

I the Spit at least (don't know for other planes) you have a gauge showing you brake pressure, you see it going up when braking.

Pulling back on the stick is most certainly not useless when braking. When landing the 109, you can brake much harder with the stick back than with it neutral.

I agree, the friction on the ground is too high - and yet the 'planes are turned by wind too easily - and if you look at wartime footage hurris only have to throttle-up and run for a few yards before the tail lifts (probably into the wind though), unlike in CloD.
Of course the devs have to balance the friction and the (along the 'plane axis and perpendicular) drag in a way that also makes the 'plane air handing seem right, so if they've got one wrong the other has to compensate for sensible ground handling. Draw your own conclusions.
You don't specify allied or axis. If I remember rightly the allied fighter brakes operate on a single lever (though the distribution to the wheels is modified by the rudder bar, but I've never been convinced CloD models this correctly), while the 109 has toe brakes - I think.

S!

56RAF_phoenix

Yesterday I did some circuits in a 109 and I was astonished to see how different it was on the ground. There's (almost) nothing wrong with how the 109 handles on the ground. Proper acceleration, even on grass, effective rudders, and I had to be very careful with the brake. How come Spitfires and Hurricanes are so different - even using differential braking? (The brake pressure gauge is what I meant in my previous post, that is, I'm sure my controls are set up correctly - of course there's no gauge for ground handling, don't take me for an idiot)

I agree about the wind too.

As for distance vs tail up:
I've read a Spitfire pilot's account that they slowly gave +5 boost until the tail came up, and only then did they move the throttle further forward. Try giving only +5 boost in CloD and you're up for a cross country ride (on the grass that is :D )

Hi Tuckie,

What is the effect of propwash on the ground you are talking about?
(I thought propwash would minimize the effectiveness of the tail control surfaces)

~S~

By prop wash you mean the effect of the airflow generated by the prop?

That's one thing I LOVE about Rise of flight. Before startup your controls are floppy, no force feedback whatsoever. Then you start up the engine and the more thrittle you apply, the stiffer the elevator is. The Ailerons however, remain floppy, without resistanc,e as there's no airflow over them yet. Then as you start rolling, they start to bite too, and you start to feel them on the stick.

I'm not sure if such a thing is modeled in CloD, I wish it was.

Did the plane threaten to groundloop at any time? After touchdown will the plane roll out relatively straight without any rudder input? Taildraggers, especially those that are heavy on the tail wheel (main gear well forward of the CG, like the 109), will wind up with busted gear, or on their back, or both without any rudder correction.

My experience in Clod (exlusively Spit 1a) is 14% throttle open is the minimum to start the engine. With this aperture the engine runs smooth and the plane is motionless. Usually I take advantage of these moments to calibrate the compass, gyro and gunsight. After a while I open to 20% to accelerate the warm-up but at this aperture the plane starts to move. For taxiing I open to 1800-2000 RPM but the thing I find most unrealistic is the propwash effect on the rudder, I think it is undermodelled. I have to give full rudder and 70-80% throttle to feel some effect on it.
Cheers

Agree 100% this is an issue for me in RAF fighters and I think the Stuka too

It is awful at the moment. And the braking seems digital to me, full on or off.