Question - why is taxiing so difficult?

[SharpeXB]

Just sit on one of the online servers and watch out many people ground loop while taxiing.

 

Well that's certainly not a measure of how accurate or inaccurate the physics modeling is. It's just a demonstration of how little practice people have before they go online.

 

In my neck of the woods we have one of the largest WWII airshows in the nation. Well over 50 warbirds and not once have I seen a ground loop while they taxi.

 

I'll go ahead and assume that pilots entrusted to fly rare million $ aircraft are all experts. Very different from players in an online video game. I've been to airshows too and you're right, I've never seen any of the pilots crash into each other or take off straight across the airport. Edited May 16, 2016 by SharpeXB

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Only Old Men Go To War

 

Have to correct you it is named "Only old men go to battle" 

[SharpeXB]

Have to correct you it is named "Only old men go to battle"

It's on Amazon Prime Video! :-D

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You are correct Luse. Good to know Sharpe! For those who don't have it, a group of Canada-base enthusiasts added subtitles and put the whole thing on YouTube.

 

I must say, it's my favourite movie, they really managed to capture the events well there. The story goes that during the first screening, when they turned on the lights they found several Heroes of the Soviet Union in tears including Pokryshkin.

[216th_Jordan]

Okay I will bite... Why would "Heavy's" be that much different? If anything wouldn't they have bigger brakes etc.? And when you mean pretty damn close... In what regard? If you're talking about using the same technique in RL vs what you have to do in RL then yes it's pretty good however where I think you and I differ is when it comes to how effective differential braking works as it does in RL. I can easily stop a low speed ground loop with braking in RL but not in this sim. With very little power you can get the FW to ground loop multiple times even with full brakes and opposite rudder. In my neck of the woods we have one of the largest WWII airshows in the nation. Well over 50 warbirds and not once have I seen a ground loop while they taxi. Just sit on one of the online servers and watch out many people ground loop while taxiing. If you tell me it's a training issue it's not given I have been trained in RL. Out of curiosity what do you use for brakes and rudders?

I'm answering regarding the differences in weight for the stability and correctability while taxiing. If you look at a ship as a very heavy object that is manoubering you will see that a ship will have to start countering movements often before they become obvious. that is because a heavy ship is a very inert system. now if you look at a light ship the movements needed to correct will be much more direct.

 

I also think brakes are a bit underpowered mostly right now but apart from that heavyness is an important factor for handling of almost anything.

[wtornado]

Just watched it ,Good movie.

[beepee]

 

 

With very little power you can get the FW to ground loop multiple times even with full brakes and opposite rudder.

 

Even with the tailwheel locked?

[neofightr2]

Interesting to hear because if you have T-34 experience then while not a taildragger, it for sure is an aerobatics capable plane that has a higher P/W ratio and higher wing loading than many of us have flown so nice if you could share some of your experiences and make comparisons to the BoS and DCS FM. Took a quick look at the specs and climbrate was quoted at 7.5 m/s which sounds low given that it seems to have a pretty good P/W ratio. Is the 7.5 m/s some sort of average and is the max climb rate higher?

It's been over 17 years since I flown a t-34. As a student, we really weren't expected to know climb rates verbatim. We were expected to know how to handle the plane in all circumstances. I remember it took over 10 minutes to get over 20k feet. The plane was a really fun and robust craft. It had really good handling and was designed to go into a stall and get out of one whenever the pilot wanted to.

 

The one thing of many I learned while playing IL2 excellent sim model, is those pilots of that age really had to be one with the engine. That torque response is crazy. I was spoiled with the turboprop and it's constant rpm I rarely had to use the rudder once I had the plane properly trimmed. I was actually shy to use the rudder because of the approach turn stall stories I had heard over the years. 

 

The other thing that simply can't be modelled in a computer sim is turbulence. I am sure most remember the bumpy flights you get on an airliner. Well it's much worse on a small craft with high speed and straight edge wings. I felt like you were in a blender during certain parts of the year. Thankfully you would get use to it, but I am sure a lot of people got real sick from the motion. Just imagine non-stop jarring up/down and side to side, sometimes really violent during the summer months at low altitude.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Turbulences are modeled ingame to some extent and appear quite believeable. What is not modeled is thermals, which can often appear as very rough "tubulences" in real life.

The other thing that simply can't be modelled in a computer sim is turbulence. I am sure most remember the bumpy flights you get on an airliner. Well it's much worse on a small craft with high speed and straight edge wings. I felt like you were in a blender during certain parts of the year. Thankfully you would get use to it, but I am sure a lot of people got real sick from the motion. Just imagine non-stop jarring up/down and side to side, sometimes really violent during the summer months at low altitude.

As a glider pilot I definetly can sign this one.

Edited May 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Plesski]

Hi guys

 

Could you please tell me which plane is the easiest to taxi as this sole feature is what keeps me away from MP as I don't want to spoil anyone experience by accidentally crushing with one on the runway. And yes I practice in SP a lot but frankly it gets boring as hell after some time.

 

P.

[216th_Jordan]

I would not worry too much about it. I find the Yak with tailwheel locked to be fairely well manouverable on ground

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

As Jordan said, the Yak-1 is very docile. The Il-2 is also extremely benign on the ground. Both are easy to taxi, take-off, fly and land.

 

That being said I wouldn't worry too much about going on MP with little experience. I flew on MP from the beginning and all I ever got was a good laugh after ground-looping at 180 km/h with the La-5 (before the tailwheel stability was fixed), or watching other Pe-2s bouncing throughout the whole runway. ChiefWH's advice of taking off from a quiet airfield is valuable though - you'll find it much easier to taxi, line up and take-off when you're alone without 20 other planes trying to do so without proper spacing and invariably crashing into each other, and your flight length will only go up in the order of 5-10 minutes at most.

[wtornado]

As Jordan said, the Yak-1 is very docile. The Il-2 is also extremely benign on the ground. Both are easy to taxi, take-off, fly and land.

 

That being said I wouldn't worry too much about going on MP with little experience. I flew on MP from the beginning and all I ever got was a good laugh after ground-looping at 180 km/h with the La-5 (before the tailwheel stability was fixed), or watching other Pe-2s bouncing throughout the whole runway. ChiefWH's advice of taking off from a quiet airfield is valuable though - you'll find it much easier to taxi, line up and take-off when you're alone without 20 other planes trying to do so without proper spacing and invariably crashing into each other, and your flight length will only go up in the order of 5-10 minutes at most.

You think there would be less traffic with just a couple of hundred online pilots that fly this game but, nope you can get some nasty runway traffic sometimes.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Hi guys

 

Could you please tell me which plane is the easiest to taxi as this sole feature is what keeps me away from MP as I don't want to spoil anyone experience by accidentally crushing with one on the runway. And yes I practice in SP a lot but frankly it gets boring as hell after some time.

 

P.

If you want to be 100% save I'd avise to go for practise on any server with either the Ju-87 or IL-2. Each of which is a bit more forgiving than the figthers and work the same way respectively (main difference in german and russian planes lies in the brake function).

 

Just get on a server and pick an airfield further apart from the action and you should be able to practise fine.

[Capt_Stubing]

Well that's certainly not a measure of how accurate or inaccurate the physics modeling is. It's just a demonstration of how little practice people have before they go online.

 

I'll go ahead and assume that pilots entrusted to fly rare million $ aircraft are all experts. Very different from players in an online video game. I've been to airshows too and you're right, I've never seen any of the pilots crash into each other or take off straight across the airport.

Umm  No... I'm certainly giving you my opinion whether you want to believe my anecdotal evidence is up to you.  I have RL experience in a number of tail draggers and I think this sim is inaccurate in terms of ground handling.  Way too sensitive and way to unresponsive in many ways. Especially for birds that are over 10000 pounds.   By just stating these planes are bigger and have more HP doesn't mean they should be all that harder to taxi than any other tail dragger. Certainly you have to be aware of the power but getting a plane to move using differential braking is not rocket science and shouldn't require more than a few minutes to figure out.  

[Holtzauge]

It's been over 17 years since I flown a t-34. As a student, we really weren't expected to know climb rates verbatim. We were expected to know how to handle the plane in all circumstances. I remember it took over 10 minutes to get over 20k feet. The plane was a really fun and robust craft. It had really good handling and was designed to go into a stall and get out of one whenever the pilot wanted to.

 

The one thing of many I learned while playing IL2 excellent sim model, is those pilots of that age really had to be one with the engine. That torque response is crazy. I was spoiled with the turboprop and it's constant rpm I rarely had to use the rudder once I had the plane properly trimmed. I was actually shy to use the rudder because of the approach turn stall stories I had heard over the years. 

 

The other thing that simply can't be modelled in a computer sim is turbulence. I am sure most remember the bumpy flights you get on an airliner. Well it's much worse on a small craft with high speed and straight edge wings. I felt like you were in a blender during certain parts of the year. Thankfully you would get use to it, but I am sure a lot of people got real sick from the motion. Just imagine non-stop jarring up/down and side to side, sometimes really violent during the summer months at low altitude.

 

Thanks for your input. It’s always interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has stick time in something closer to what is modelled here in IL-2 and how it compares with what they have flown. If the T-34 climbed to 20 kft in 10 mins that’s over 10 m/s in average climb rate which is a bit more than you get in a private plane. Also interesting to hear about the T-34 stall handling characteristics and that they were so benign.

 

Looking at the big picture I share your enthusiasm with Il-2. However, I noticed you have joined the forum lately and when it comes to flight models you should know that it’s a bit of work in progress. Both the Il-2 and DCS FM’s have undergone major revisions and there is every reason to believe we will see more tuning in the future. As an example, I started a thread about the IL-2 Me-109G2 climb rate which at the time had a stellar 24 m/s climb rate. In addition, the acceleration times were half of what they should be. Just as there is now a lively discussion about taxiing here, so was there a lively discussion about climb rates back then and the acceleration times are now much closer to the Finnish tests and the G2 climb rate has been reduced to around 21 m/s which I still think is too high but that’s another story. The point I’m trying to make is that if you in IL-2 experience something like the torque you mentioned above it may very well be something that is now static or, in the next release you may be surprised to find it changed. So, there is every reason to scrutinize every aspect of the sim, taxiing included, in order to see if what is modeled makes sense or if there is room for improvement.

 

Another good example of FM iterations and tuning which coincidentally concerns taxiing is the DCS Fw-190D9 which exhibited very strange taxiing and take-off behaviour in the first releases resulting in big forum discussion over there reminiscent of what you see here now. However, the DCS ground handling FM was tuned and nowadays you don’t see much discussion about this anymore. Does this mean DCS got it right and it really should be simpler here in IL-2? I don’t know but people (including pilot’s like yourself) over there in DCS don’t complain about the ground handling in the same way as here and they for sure don’t have to contend with the “crazy spinning” feature we have here.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

I have RL experience in a number of tail draggers

 

-snip-

 

You never answered my question: does that mean that other taildragger pilots who think things are modeled well are wrong?

 

You're trying to argue from a position of authority again... 

[Cloyd]

You never answered my question: does that mean that other taildragger pilots who think things are modeled well are wrong?

 

You're trying to argue from a position of authority again... 

Something you seem to do with regularity.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Rather, I'd say arguing from a position of experience.

 

Which does lend authority to the argument.

 

Yes?

[neofightr2]

Turbulences are modeled ingame to some extent and appear quite believeable. What is not modeled is thermals, which can often appear as very rough "tubulences" in real life.

As a glider pilot I definetly can sign this one.

This is what I am referring to. I just lump thermals into turbulence. I suspect if the devs try to visually portray this most people would get nauseous from the video jerking around so much. I remember how I got so used to the experience it was almost to the point of being numb to it. The only time I noticed it was when trying to reach for a switch or knob and watching my hand go everywhere else but there. Pretty amusing actually.

Thanks for your input. It’s always interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has stick time in something closer to what is modelled here in IL-2 and how it compares with what they have flown. If the T-34 climbed to 20 kft in 10 mins that’s over 10 m/s in average climb rate which is a bit more than you get in a private plane. Also interesting to hear about the T-34 stall handling characteristics and that they were so benign.

 

Looking at the big picture I share your enthusiasm with Il-2. However, I noticed you have joined the forum lately and when it comes to flight models you should know that it’s a bit of work in progress. Both the Il-2 and DCS FM’s have undergone major revisions and there is every reason to believe we will see more tuning in the future. As an example, I started a thread about the IL-2 Me-109G2 climb rate which at the time had a stellar 24 m/s climb rate. In addition, the acceleration times were half of what they should be. Just as there is now a lively discussion about taxiing here, so was there a lively discussion about climb rates back then and the acceleration times are now much closer to the Finnish tests and the G2 climb rate has been reduced to around 21 m/s which I still think is too high but that’s another story. The point I’m trying to make is that if you in IL-2 experience something like the torque you mentioned above it may very well be something that is now static or, in the next release you may be surprised to find it changed. So, there is every reason to scrutinize every aspect of the sim, taxiing included, in order to see if what is modeled makes sense or if there is room for improvement.

 

Another good example of FM iterations and tuning which coincidentally concerns taxiing is the DCS Fw-190D9 which exhibited very strange taxiing and take-off behaviour in the first releases resulting in big forum discussion over there reminiscent of what you see here now. However, the DCS ground handling FM was tuned and nowadays you don’t see much discussion about this anymore. Does this mean DCS got it right and it really should be simpler here in IL-2? I don’t know but people (including pilot’s like yourself) over there in DCS don’t complain about the ground handling in the same way as here and they for sure don’t have to contend with the “crazy spinning” feature we have here.

Agree with your points. There is always that fine balance between enjoyable gameplay and tedious realism.  Thank god for time acceleration else I would not be playing the campaigns of these games (especially rise of flight). BTW entering and exiting T-34 stalls was benign the actual tumbling however was a violent as it gets. I swear it felt I dropped 10k feet by the time it was over only to discover it was just 3k or so.

Edited May 17, 2016 by neostar

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Something you seem to do with regularity.

 

Do you even know what an argument from authority is?

 

I don't think you do. 

Rather, I'd say arguing from a position of experience.

 

Which does lend authority to the argument.

 

Yes?

 

Authority, yes. Validity, no.

 

Very important difference there - it's what makes an argument from authority - the notion that because somebody is "authoritative" on a subject means that anything they say on a subject is instantly valid.

 

So again - what makes his taildragger experience any more valid than other taildragger pilots' experiences?

Edited May 17, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[Cloyd]

 

 

Do you even know what an argument from authority is? I don't think you do.

 

Yes, I do. No, you are wrong. There, now that's settled.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Yes, I do. No, you are wrong. There, now that's settled.

 

Nah. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Why don't you check your PC hangups at the door, and let the grownups speak their mind?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Why don't you check your PC hangups at the door, and let the grownups speak their mind?

 

Sorry, what are you on about?

 

Maybe you're literally upset about the fact that you weren't able to formulate a well-thought response to the question I asked so you resorted to making sophomoric statements about "the grownups." Now that's pretty grownup!

 

Who knows? 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[216th_Jordan]

Provocative or not Space_Ghost is right here with his question.

 

What I would like to stress is that if the tailwheel would have more drag to it the planes would become more stable when taxiing. Maybe some models would need some tweaking in that respect (La-5 for example). Considering a tailwheel half the size of a frontwheel the countertorque of the wheel will be twice as high PLUS the wheelspeed being double as high as the frontwheel it will also produce more drag by that. I don't know if these parameters are modeled right now.

Edited May 18, 2016 by 71st_AH_Jordan

[BlitzPig_EL]

So, are the pilots that you agree with Space_Ghost the ones that are correct because YOU think they are?

 

Why are you not making the same argument about their assertions, but only focusing on CaptStubing?

 

All  you have been doing is trying to deflect the conversation and discredit anyone the veers from the fan boy line that all is well and this is how it works in real life.

[Capt_Stubing]

You never answered my question: does that mean that other taildragger pilots who think things are modeled well are wrong?

 

You're trying to argue from a position of authority again... 

Yes I am.  And yes I have authority based on my experiences flying and taxing tail draggers.     Actually Mr. Ghost what are your credentials?  If you don't have any RL experience I'm not sure what you can add if anything to this thread other than to argue.

Edited May 18, 2016 by 14./JG5CaptStubing

[sport02]

all of that is stupid ,

for taxiing some real pilots think the game is ok and others pilots think the game is bad  , it's a general comment of the thread , we will not continued indefinitely with that  .

it's simple

Edited May 18, 2016 by sport02

[SKG51_robtek]

The way the 190 behaves in some situations on the ground i.e., is not correct and against the laws of physics, that is a fact, imo and others.

That fact automatically sets all ground FMs as questionable, as the physics in the game engine are the same for every plane, the only difference is the data of the planes itself.

That is something that has to be corrected, and as it has been said, more difficult is not automatically more correct or realistic.

The normal replacement pilot then had not so much experience and still was able to do a "Alarmstart" in a hurry without circling and crashing his plane.

My two cents.

[216th_Jordan]

The way the 190 behaves in some situations on the ground i.e., is not correct and against the laws of physics, that is a fact, imo and others.

That fact automatically sets all ground FMs as questionable, as the physics in the game engine are the same for every plane, the only difference is the data of the planes itself.

That is something that has to be corrected, and as it has been said, more difficult is not automatically more correct or realistic.

The normal replacement pilot then had not so much experience and still was able to do a "Alarmstart" in a hurry without circling and crashing his plane.

My two cents.

 

It surely does not violate laws of physics but some parameters might be wrong. Its fairly easy to taxi 190 with tailwheel locked, the problem is that it is too hard when it's unlocked. Anyways, I've already stated my ideas concerning this a few posts above.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Problem is that you weren't allowed to taxi it with tailwheel locked in reality and it probably didnt even work the way it does ingame because of sideway ground friction being higher in reality. I've never seen an aircraft drifting on dry earth or grass surface while ingame it's fairly easy to do.

 

Usually, when using a fixed tailwheel, it's nessecary to push the tail up when trying to turn even slightly, otherwise the aircraft will just continue to go forward.

[BlitzPig_EL]

And now we face the spectre of breaking the undercarriage as well.

 

I think the devs really hate us.

 

It's the only thing that makes any sense anymore.  I mean really, pages of issues with ground handling, and how do they respond?

 

Make it even more difficult.

 

Is this an AIR combat simulator or is it a ground handling test of the tolerance of your customer base?

 

There are so many areas than need polishing, yet it seems so much time is spent on an area that is so totally secondary to the purpose of the sim, that is, AIR COMBAT.

 

No one is buying this sim to drive around on the ground, we are playing to TO FLY.

 

sheesh...

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I disagree EL, I appreciate the work they're putting into this. To me the indestructible landing gear was always annoying, particularly in aircraft which were famous for breaking or retracting a landing gear leg during bad landings like the LaGG-3 or La-5.

[wtornado]

Let us assume 81,164 people that are members of this forum have either BOS or BOM

or both.

 

It could be a little less but with people that do not sign up to forums it could be more too..

 

In this discussion right now we are maybe 50 members from the first thread to here?

 

378 replies and only 7876 views total for the whole IL-2 BOS/BOM population.

 

Now out of the 81,164 people there are what maybe 200-250 people that fly online

in the Full Real servers?

 

The rest of the pilots that try to fly excluding the regulars disappear sooner or later from

online play.

 

 

I mean you do see out of the 81,164 people excluding the 200-250 that do fly online

the odd pilot that takes off from his/her spawn point because it is much easier to do

rather than taxi and fight with the plane.He/she do finally get airborne sooner or later.

 

What do you tell that person that is not use to flying?Hell if it works for you go for it.

 

Of course the 20 regulars out of the 200-250 online pilots get pissed about it but that is

online play in full real settings with new players I mean they would like to try to fly with a few

online pilots too seeing they bought the damn game too.

 

I had to reprogram all my controls again(getting used to it)this morning flew a bit and left.

 

I bought BOS and that is fine I do not need to go any farther in purchases I have my moneys worth.

[seafireliv]

The landing gears were indestructible? Come to think of it now, I never did break my gears on landing. Ok, I can go along with that then. No gear is indestructible.

Edited May 19, 2016 by seafireliv

[LLv24_Zami]

The landing gears were indestructible?

Come to think of it now, I never did break

my gears on landing. Ok, I can go along with that then. No gear is indestructible.

Agreed.

[sport02]

do not pay attention for stupidity

Edited May 19, 2016 by sport02

[SharpeXB]

Problem is that you weren't allowed to taxi it with tailwheel locked in reality

Actually the film above mentions several circumstances in which you should lock the tail wheel when taxing. In crosswind conditions or when taxiing behind parked aircraft that might run up their engine and cause you to weathervane into the parked planes.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I never said you shouldnt taxi with locked tailwheel, just not around corners. If you differ with that I suggest reading the Focke Wulf manual instead of watching random videos and use them as a base for debate.

 

Regarding the landing gear thing, haven't noticed any damage changes yet (have practised high speed taxiing on rought surface and very bumpy landings without breaking a gear yet). What I did notice though is that if you hit the ground hard the gear might paritally retract back by the force of impact. Didn't notice that before.

 

Geras did break quite often back in alpha / beta but I think it as tuned down a bit over time.

Edited May 19, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka