Anybody else think the ground is too soft?

[White Owl]

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?

[Bobb4]

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.

[PeterPanPan]

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

[Sternjaeger II]

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.

[Strike]

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.

[omgclod]

hmm, imo in both simulations its far too easy.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by omgclod

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.

[janpitor]

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 .

[White Owl]

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.

[omgclod]

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

besides, 3.0 is about to be released soon