Landings a bit too easy

[SCG_motoadve]

Before it was real bad and broken, but maybe they went too far on the easy .

Landings seem very forgiving and easy.

 

Just made a deastick landing in a 109 coming slow and ran out of elevator for the flare, it should have bounced real bad, or break the gear,and the landing was made like perfect.

 

Better now than before but it feels like landing a plane like FSX (too easy).

I have never flown a WWII fighter but have 1000s of hrs in real planes , and tail wheel too.

 

Maybe an in between the past model and the new one?

I know this affects smoothness so if that is the case, I can live with the way it is now.

 

Love the patch and the work done.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

There's always one   ;)      

[SCG_motoadve]

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Having only flow Cessna in real life I found the old landings a lot more taxing but after time I prided myself on them! I also feel they are too easy now but .......... is it because Im just used to the old .............. I would like it the old way but that is because I like what I know! 

 

If it can be proved that it is too easy then change it back

[unreasonable]

Having only flow Cessna in real life I found the old landings a lot more taxing but after time I prided myself on them! I also feel they are too easy now but .......... is it because Im just used to the old .............. I would like it the old way but that is because I like what I know! 

 

If it can be proved that it is too easy then change it back

 

Now that would be an interesting thing to try to prove!  Maybe statistical analysis of player landing success/failure vs RL records?  Would be fun to try, but obviously so many variables that could affect the results.

 

Otherwise if the physical strengths and behaviour of the gear etc is more correct now than before, I suspect that you are right: we just got used to it.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Now that would be an interesting thing to try to prove!  Maybe statistical analysis of player landing success/failure vs RL records?  Would be fun to try, but obviously so many variables that could affect the results.

 

Otherwise if the physical strengths and behaviour of the gear etc is more correct now than before, I suspect that you are right: we just got used to it.

 

LOL DONT OPEN THE CAN! PANDORA NEEDS SLEEP!!!!!!!! DONT MAKE HERE ICH HER BOX

Edited October 20, 2016 by AeroAce

[FuriousMeow]

I didn't think they were hard before. I had no issue with them what-so-ever.

 

However, hard does not equal realism.

 

Therefore, if modeled accurately now then that is all there is to it.

 

Here is a very bouncy 109 landing, although it is crosswind so that does add difficulty - and the field isn't a fully level object while most fields in this series are... so can't really say one way or the other based on this one film.

 

https://youtu.be/dO9mEv5Ve54?t=68

Edited October 20, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[Guest deleted@50488]

I find them JUST PERFECT now...

 

Landing has never been much problematic in IL2 - I simply apply the exact technique I use IRL... and it works, only being tricky when I come with serious damage in my back...

[VBF-12_Stele]

I was surprised how easy it was compared to the previous version, but I think I'm ok with that. The planes feel like there is actual weight to them when they land and not jumping around like a model airplane.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Harder is not more realistic, it is just harder.

 

One day, simmers will understand this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I can dream can't I?

[JG1_Labroisse]

This is a good one too:  

 

at 12:45 you can just barely see his speed at about 170 kph or so at touchdown.  At that speed he bounces a little, but not the vault into the air like we had before the last update.

[Falco_Peregrinus]

I fly light sports plane for fun (so not really comparable to a WW2 beast..), have not the thousands of hrs like others here, but I find that what is like now is really realistic and good, IMO.

[SCG_motoadve]

Harder is not more realistic, it is just harder.

 

One day, simmers will understand this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I can dream can't I?

I agree with you,and  I prefer now than before.

[Bullets]

As someone who has had a fair amount of flying experience I would say it feels a hell of a lot more "real" after this update. Have yet to test hard landings ect (really test the suspension changes) but the way the wheels and the friction between them and the ground feels a whole lot more believable now!  

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

It's probably just me but the kites now seem to float in ground effect, like they should.

 

Conky

[Guest deleted@50488]

I'd say they were a bit too difficult before, although very easy to master with just a bit of training.

 

Now, that we were already trained and the fine tuning occurred it looks like a bit too easy, but for a newcomer it'll feel probably as difficult as it felt to us each time a new aircraft was released :-)

[GP*]

Harder is not more realistic, it is just harder.

 

One day, simmers will understand this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I can dream can't I?

Now wouldn't that be amazing...

[216th_Jordan]

Hello all,

 

It's probably just me but the kites now seem to float in ground effect, like they should.

 

Conky

I also wondered about this. Is groundeffect modeled in this game?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It is according to devs.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I've never really thought about it really. How much ground effect should our fighters have IRL. Should they float a lot or not so much? I wouldn't expect them to hang much without power even in ground effect. Cessna 152 or Ju52 sure, but a 109 or 190? I am open to being educated on this.

 

There is definitely some modeled in game. It'd be weird if there was none for sure. I won't get to fly until Monday night. Has it substantially improved in this area.

Edited October 21, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[150GCT_Veltro]

Landig is fine. I was a bit worried waiting for the 2.004 but i think it'is more realist now, it does feel more realistic i mean, and is not so easy. You still jump a bit and this is fine.

 

Good work, at least testing 190 e 110.

Edited October 21, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I've never really thought about it really. How much ground effect should our fighters have IRL. Should they float a lot or not so much? I wouldn't expect them to hang much without power even in ground effect. Cessna 152 or Ju52 sure, but a 109 or 190? I am open to being educated on this.

 

There is definitely some modeled in game. It'd be weird if there was none for sure. I won't get to fly until Monday night. Has it substantially improved in this area.

Personally I don't notice anything weird in terms of ground effect. Depending on how fast and close you're to the ground (ground effect is max. at your wing's chord lengh between aircraft and ground) it can be quite significant.

 

My guess is people try to land too fast. The Bf-109 F-4 with full flaps has a touchdown speed of 135 km/h but I see a lot of guys desperately trying to settle it at 180 with full flaps which will not work. Similar thing for bombers which usually have a lower landing speed than fighters.

Edited October 21, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka__

[Lusekofte]

This is a joint simulation of FM and simulated aerodynamic and atmosphere. I have never seen a simulator managing to simulate the 109 fatal landing accident rate, but I do like the fact that people think it is possible. Guys we are flying a combat flight simulator, if you ask for something to be fixed . Things happened if listen to. 

It is not RL , it is coding and it always affect something else. 

All in all this game float on the very awesome feeling of flight, and still do. Hard do not mean realistic, neither is easy. In real life the same pilot do both based on mistakes and miscalculations and sometimes just nailing it

[216th_Jordan]

Cessna 152

 

A Cessna 152 will have little ground effect as the wings are quite far away from the ground. What is important for ground effect is that the vortexes the wing creates on its tips are stopped from forming because they get interrupted by the ground, thus, more lift.

 

Check out this monster. You can clearly see the vortexes and what impact they have on the water.

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I know how it works and you can absolutely ride it in a 152. I'm just curious how much ground effect we should expect from our fighters in game.There have been several experimental planes as the one illustrated and even a few production machines built around the ground effect principal.

[216th_Jordan]

Alright, I misunderstood you then. I think it would be very hard to determine the ground effect those old birds really have, wingshape and other stuff playing a large role that can not easyly be simulated. But I feel there are differences: for example it feels like the Mig-3 doesn't have much ground effect although its wing is low, but that is just an impression.

[GridiroN]

They are landing gear. The goal of any air fighter manufacturer should be to make landing easy so the pilot doesn't die...

 

The 109 had a ton of pilot fatalities because the undercarriage was so narrow. The 109's in-game have some pretty series shocks; you can go watch videos of airworthy 109's taking off and landing and the landing gear behavior is much more realistic now. The bounce looses much more energy than it did in the in-game model pre-2.4. 

 

Even on a good landing pre-2.4, my plane would bounce and yaw itself down the runway until it settled to a stop. 

 

That being said, taxi'ing the 109 is now much harder, so if you want the game to be hard, there ya go. 

[Eagle-OnePirabee]

Until the last patch I found landing my BF109 quite tricky business and usually would need a quick prayer or two before commencing one. My condition was made a little worse by the twist function rudder on my Logitech joystick which I was far from mastering before the update - oh together with the introduction of my newly acquired Pro Flight Saitek foot rudders. However, and this is the interesting part, I now manage landings far better - umm, though there's still the matter of the float from ground effect and a certain tendency to drift into the grass during the roll out. Blame that on me please and my noobish conquest of the Saitek.

 

If you ask me, though, I think the update saved my bacon. You've no idea how many times the staffelkapitan tore a strip off me or threatened to have me posted to a searchlight unit in Bavaria for all those bounces. Teehee!

 

Pirabee.

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's not that easy. I pancaked a MiG-3 last night on a otherwise pretty decent approach but with just a little too much speed and not enough room to dump it before touch down. Hit hard on the left side and the gear collapsed though it stayed partially attached and I was able to keep the plane on the ground.

 

I walked away (good) but I'm sure that MiG-3 would need some serious time at the depot being repaired.

 

Yes, the bounce is less but you can still stuff it up pretty badly. It's not too easy! :D

[andyw248]

It's not that easy. I pancaked a MiG-3 last night on a otherwise pretty decent approach but with just a little too much speed and not enough room to dump it before touch down. Hit hard on the left side and the gear collapsed though it stayed partially attached and I was able to keep the plane on the ground.

 

I walked away (good) but I'm sure that MiG-3 would need some serious time at the depot being repaired.

 

Yes, the bounce is less but you can still stuff it up pretty badly. It's not too easy! :D

 

I agree - there's still ample opportunity for screwing things up, especially in the Russian planes. I think in the video promoting the new ground model they stated that we would see some differences between the Russian and German shock absorbers, and it seems the Russian planes have retained their stiff landing gear. So all the landing skills that we acquired over the past three years are still very valuable!

[-TBC-AeroAce]

ground effect is proportional the size of the aircraft! Hence why the take off delay from the FAA or CAA is proportional to the size of the aircraft!

 

And dont someone bring up acronoplanes

[busdriver]

ground effect is proportional the size of the aircraft! Hence why the take off delay from the FAA or CAA is proportional to the size of the aircraft!

 

 

Respectfully take off or landing spacing between aircraft is NOT because of ground effect (which reduces induced drag). Spacing behind big airplanes is predicated on the wake turbulence generated by the airplane you are following. Wake turbulence is greatest behind a heavy, clean (no gear or flaps), and slow airplane.