Not possible anymore to fly with half wing?

[deWaardt]

Hi all.

 

Yes, this might sound strange.

When I just got the game a few months ago, me and some friends were goofing around in a training server, and we collided.

My PE-2 was missing some 1/3rd of it's right wing, his Bf-109 disintegrated.

 

Afterwards, I noticed I could still fly the aircraft, and I managed to level it out, just before hitting some trees.

 

 

This made me think, can I fly with some wing missing in this thing, and make it back home?

So I respawned, jumped in the gunner seat and shot the about 1/3rd of my wing off.

I managed to regain control, and fly it all the way back to base.

 

Now I was playing today, and some bf-109 zoomed past me, but clipped my left wing instead of properly pulling away.

After that I tried to regain control, but the plane just started shaking and twisting horribly, turned inverted, and back upright 2 times within a couple of seconds, dropped speed and altitude quickly and lawndarted.

 

This made me interested, I started a quick mission and gunned my wing. Now every single time the plane is not controllable. It just twists and shakes horribly. I noticed after a couple of tries that flaps could help me to atleast level the wings, but I would still be in a steep nosedive, not being able to gain altitude, and speed also dropped very quickly, even though I had maximum throttle and rpm.

 

 

I eventually tried the same thing in the HE-111, as I know some other people have flown it succesfully with some wing surface missing, and the same thing. It started twitching and shaking, not even going in a spin but just... doing strange things.

 

 

 

Did something change in the physics/damage model that now made it impossible to return with some wing surface missing?

If it did, is this more realistic or less realistic? I know there were cases of aircraft returning with wing surface missing in the second world war in real life, but these cases were rare.

[kendo]

Yep...

 

Game Update 2.004 - point #3 on the change list

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12826-game-updates/?p=401302

[FuriousMeow]

That is something that is a questionable change no doubt driven by some "I shot part of the plane's wing off and they kept flying!"

 

Except for things like this:

 

 

Il-2 1946 had one of the worst modelling of wing physics ever. The worst would be the earlier '90s games like AoE or AoTP or 1942:PAW because they didn't even model it - but some seem to think becuase it wasn't possible to fly a plane with half a wing it should be impossible because of 1946 that really was not that great of sim.

Edited November 6, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[Dakpilot]

Due to prop rotation I would imagine which wing is damaged would influence this behaviour

 

(not tested this change yet)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SharpeXB]

There was an Israeli F-15 pilot who flew and landed it with one wing completely gone.

[FuriousMeow]

Yes, but speed factored into it and the fact the F15 has a bit of a lifting body too.

 

But yeah - it was better before because planes that were over controlled went in with missing lifting areas - now it is basically inevitable that the plane will go in if any area of lift is gone.

 

It would be nice to stop giving into the vocal whining. The TBF picture shows just how little aileron was required to keep it flying level - with a busted fuselage too that caused it to be bent. The last vocal whining fest led to the Albatros series being absolutely way better than they were historically in RoF and the Camel to be not just a novice killer but a fairly worthless plane all around even in the hands of the competent.

Edited November 6, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[Cybermat47]

Due to prop rotation I would imagine which wing is damaged would influence this behaviour

 

(not tested this change yet)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Jusging from the photos FuriousMeow posted, I think you might be right. They're all tractor piston prop aircraft, and all have their left wing missing.

[deWaardt]

Yep...

 

Game Update 2.004 - point #3 on the change list

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12826-game-updates/?p=401302

Ah, well okay

 

That is something that is a questionable change no doubt driven by some "I shot part of the plane's wing off and they kept flying!"

 

Except for things like this:

 

*snipped pictures*

 

 

Il-2 1946 had one of the worst modelling of wing physics ever. The worst would be the earlier '90s games like AoE or AoTP or 1942:PAW because they didn't even model it - but some seem to think becuase it wasn't possible to fly a plane with half a wing it should be impossible because of 1946 that really was not that great of sim.

I'm sorry, I don't exactly get what you're saying.

I am under the impression that some aircraft can be kept under control with some wing surface missing, but the only thing I have to back that up is some pictures.

There have flown thousands and thousands of aircraft, but only numerous of pictures of aircraft returning with missing wing surface.

 

This picture is a great one:

 

Due to prop rotation I would imagine which wing is damaged would influence this behaviour

 

(not tested this change yet)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Jusging from the photos FuriousMeow posted, I think you might be right. They're all tractor piston prop aircraft, and all have their left wing missing.

 

In my case I had the right wings missing.

The closest video I still have was from some goof-around of me trying to shoot both of my wings off.

Left wing didn't fully come off, but this was the result:

 

 

Here is some more footage from before last update, recorded at on oktober 1th:

 

 

I'm sorry for muting the audio, but the video contains me and a friend talking.

My friend does not want his voice on YouTube.

 

 

 

The PE-2 is still some kind of controllable after this update, but you will go down very fast. No way you can hold it up. 10/20 degree nosedive it is. Only way I seem to be able to level is by dropping the flaps, but this will also instantly cause the airspeed to drop, still leading to a loss of control after a couple of seconds.

 

When a wing breaks, you can either level out and bail, or attempt a crashlanding.

 

I have not been able to fly the HE-111 after gunner some of the wing off.

This video shows the HE-111 with some wing surface missing:

https://youtu.be/GbhKwIXgSh8?t=51s

 

Although this is an older version of the game and I am unsure whether this is realistic or not.

Edited November 6, 2016 by deWaardt

[216th_Jordan]

Well just considering that an aileron can cancel out the lift of that wing portion makes it very well thinkable that planes can keep flying with larger parts of wings missing.

[FuriousMeow]

Ah, well okay

 

I'm sorry, I don't exactly get what you're saying.

I am under the impression that some aircraft can be kept under control with some wing surface missing, but the only thing I have to back that up is some pictures.

There have flown thousands and thousands of aircraft, but only numerous of pictures of aircraft returning with missing wing surface.

 

We used to have a believable response to when a plane lost a lifting surface but due to some complaining it was changed to be more like the awful modeling of the old Il-2 series. Aircraft are impossible to fly with a missing lifting surface even with full aileron, high speed and even adding in yaw now in this series.

 

These planes shouldn't be impossible to fly with missing lifting surfaces, at least if there is half or more of a wing present and enough speed.

Edited November 6, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[Falco_Peregrinus]

[deWaardt]

We used to have a believable response to when a plane lost a lifting surface but due to some complaining it was changed to be more like the awful modeling of the old Il-2 series. Aircraft are impossible to fly with a missing lifting surface even with full aileron, high speed and even adding in yaw now in this series.

 

These planes shouldn't be impossible to fly with missing lifting surfaces, at least if there is half or more of a wing present and enough speed.

So, because some players complained aircraft's ability to fly with missing lifting surfaces has been nerfed?

 

Isn't this game more of a simulator?

I don't think nerfing things based on community opinion is correct.

We can't change facts, even if we hate these facts.

 

 

I did some testing today, and here are my results:

 

(Video not yet done uploading, should be within a few minutes)

 

 

It's still possible, but it's almost impossible now.

Fortunately it rarely happens that some wing surface falls off, I usually go down due to snapped control cables or shot up engines, but I think it's sad to nerf this because some people complained.

Edited November 6, 2016 by deWaardt

[Blutaar]

Stop it, its just feelings, you must show empirical data and not some storys or pictures, damn whiners. :o

[216th_Jordan]

Stop it, its just feelings, you must show empirical data and not some storys or pictures, damn whiners. :o

 

What has that got to do with it?

[Blutaar]

Just a joke because thats what you hear all the time from some people in the forum who whants to say "all is good".

[Monostripezebra]

Did something change in the physics/damage model that now made it impossible to return with some wing surface missing?

 

It´s harder now, but not impossible...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6aTngPcy8I

[Czar66]

...

It's still possible, but it's almost impossible now.

Fortunately it rarely happens that some wing surface falls off, I usually go down due to snapped control cables or shot up engines, but I think it's sad to nerf this because some people complained.

I see that you had a load of bombs on the aircraft. Could a test with a lighter Pe show better stability on this scenario?

Good test.

 

Edit: Whats the actual load on these aircraft guys...? Fuel/munition.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Czar66

[deWaardt]

It´s harder now, but not impossible...

 

*snip*

I see that in your tests, you damage both wings.

I only damage one wing.

 

Having the other wing damaged as well changes the flight characteristics.

 

 

I showed in my video it's not completely impossible, just very hard. And actually getting the plane back to base doesn't appear to be an option anymore.

 

I see that you had a load of bombs on the aircraft. Could a test with a lighter Pe show better stability on this scenario?

Good test.

 

Edit: Whats the actual load on these aircraft guys...? Fuel/munition.

 

I tested with full fuel and bombload, similair to what I used to fly the PE-2 with half-winged pre-2.0004

 

I will try some with a very light load.

Edited November 6, 2016 by deWaardt

[TG-55Panthercules]

I see that you had a load of bombs on the aircraft. 

 

I would have thought that the first thing the pilot would do in a case like this would be to jettison any remaining ordnance (assuming those controls still worked) - certainly would be my first instinct.  Probably should run this test with no bombs.

[deWaardt]

I would have thought that the first thing the pilot would do in a case like this would be to jettison any remaining ordnance (assuming those controls still worked) - certainly would be my first instinct.  Probably should run this test with no bombs.

In all scenarios with the PE-2, I got rid of the bombs. Just not immediately after wing detachement because I don't have enough hands to do these actions at the immediate point of wing loss.

 

I retested with 10% fuel, no bombs and no gun ammo. I was able to fly for a bit like this, but the chances of me being in this situation anywhere during combat is unlikely.

So I later tested a more realistic situation with 40% fuel, full gun ammo but no bombs, and I was unable to return to base.

 

I was able to do a crashlanding though, but I was also able to do so with a full load.

 

 

 

It is possible to fly like this, although returning to base isn't gonna work, unless you are within minutes of your base.

 

 

 

 

My honest question is, "is this realistic?"

 

I don't know if the plane is meant to jerk and shake like that if a wing gets torn in half, and I don't know how flyable it would be in real life with half the wing missing.

If the current state of the game is a realistic representation of how the plane would handle in real life after such damage, I'm totally fine with this. It's a fact that it works like this and it shouldn't be changed.

 

If this is unrealistic, and in real life the aircraft would probably still have been controllable, but only in this game they modeled it different so you can't fly as the aircraft would do in real life, I don't like this and in my opinion it should be changed to the realistic representation.

 

 

But the problem is, I can't judge because I don't know.

From what I read above, the only reason they changed this is community complaint.

 

I was under the impression that this game was more of a simulator game.

This isn't a Battlefield game where we can nerf and buff weapons based on what the community wants.

 

I kinda fail to believe the reason this change was made due to community complaint.

If you can't shoot the enemy aircraft down because it continues to fly with half a wing, just put more bullets into it. If a wing is torn in half, it's a sitting duck and you should be able to easily finish it off.

If you can't do so, train some more and get better at the game. Not dumb the game down.

 

If community complaint is really the reason.......

I would like to file a complaint about the Bf-109, I want it to turn slower so I can get on his tail more easily. I also want it's engine to be toned down a bit because it's so hard to keep up with them in a straight line.

[kendo]

I don't believe it was changed solely to satisfy complainers. I suspect that they have looked at the situation and decided that a revision was called for and that this is more realistic than how it was previously. 

 

They have in many cases of dispute refused to make changes - usually after investigating and concluding that things were ok. In some cases they have concluded the complaint was justified and made a revision. See this post:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11664-fm-claims-respond/?p=179317

 

Of course they may or may not be correct in these decisions   and in the specific case here. Maybe it has changed from being unrealistically easy to too difficult? I'm not in a position to say.

 

Maybe they'll revise it again - pull things back a little?

[deWaardt]

I don't believe it was changed solely to satisfy complainers. I suspect that they have looked at the situation and decided that a revision was called for and that this is more realistic than how it was previously. 

 

They have in many cases of dispute refused to make changes - usually after investigating and concluding that things were ok. In some cases they have concluded the complaint was justified and made a revision. See this post:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11664-fm-claims-respond/?p=179317

 

Of course they may or may not be correct in these decisions   and in the specific case here. Maybe it has changed from being unrealistically easy to too difficult? I'm not in a position to say.

 

Maybe they'll revise it again - pull things back a little?

Yeah, it was definitely very easy before this update, but they could have gone overboard in this update.

 

We'll see, it's not critical anyways.

I mean, how often do you lose a wing in a combat scenario with your bomber?

Tail and engines are the top reason I go down 

 

I would like to hear more about this topic. I feel like it could be unrealistic at the moment, but who knows.

Maybe it's perfectly realistic and I am not meant to get back to base after someone sawed my wing off.

[Rjel]

Ah, well okay

 

I'm sorry, I don't exactly get what you're saying.

I am under the impression that some aircraft can be kept under control with some wing surface missing, but the only thing I have to back that up is some pictures.

There have flown thousands and thousands of aircraft, but only numerous of pictures of aircraft returning with missing wing surface.

 

This picture is a great one:

 

Every book or magazine that I've seen this photograph used in has stated the B-26 spun in with the loss of the entire crew. Not only is most of the left wing sheared off, so is the rudder. There wouldn't have been much the pilots could've done to save themselves.

[deWaardt]

Every book or magazine that I've seen this photograph used in has stated the B-26 spun in with the loss of the entire crew. Not only is most of the left wing sheared off, so is the rudder. There wouldn't have been much the pilots could've done to save themselves.

That's interesting.

 

I saw this picture, and an aftermath picture of this aircraft landed on the ground.

This one:

 

The aftermath picture is probably another aircraft then.

[FlyingH]

I heard the expression "we came home on one wing and a prayer" from a member of a WWII bomber crew when he was talking about his wartime experiences. He said that was how it felt after beeing shot up by flak over Germany! The left wing wasn´t torn off but it was perforated like a colander! (That plane looks more like a B 25 to me!)

Edited November 6, 2016 by FlyingH

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Yup, B-25 - you can see the window for the gunner position to the right. I don't have an opinion on this thread by the way - fortunately I've never had to be aboard an aircraft without a wing to know how it goes.

[Czar66]

...

I tested with full fuel and bombload, similair to what I used to fly the PE-2 with half-winged pre-2.0004

 

I will try some with a very light load.

Nice. Probably, just a thought, this wasn't a "fix" to please some group that I didn't know it existed or whatever. Maybe it's a tune to reach some higher level of "fidelity" that they found being off or undermodeled.

 

Few items I'd like to add to this that you can dismiss as needed or being actual irrelevant. (I'm not an engineer or anything like that):

 

For the picture above of a B-26: Anyone knows where in the mission it was hit? Heading to the target, or far going back to base after bombing. 

 Why it 'may' matters: Fuel level on it's intact wing or even if the actual operations of this aircraft is common the use of wing fuel tanks first than the central tanks helping the aircraft in this scenario placing it's center of gravity further away from the remaining wing's tip. The weight of the intact wing is absolutely crucial.

 

Does this sim simulates fuel weight on the wings? Honest question, might be obvious that yes but I don't really know.

 

Procedure on wing mounted engine aircraft on a asymmetrical lift scenario on engine controls (RPM, Throttle)

 

I guess is better to analyse much further from the common pre conception...rather than go pointing fingers at the devs right away. That's how I view things, just an opinion.

 

This is a good thread so far, don't get me wrong.

The physics might be still off, or right on the spot. I have no idea.

 

That picture with the Avenger missing a wing: WOW

 

S!

 

[Rjel]

That's interesting.

 

I saw this picture, and an aftermath picture of this aircraft landed on the ground.

This one:

 

The aftermath picture is probably another aircraft then.

That's a B-25 if I'm not mistaken.

[Feathered_IV]

I can't think of a single flight sim that hasn't had the crazy one-wing behaviour at some point.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

In ROF there were ocasion to glide without wings at all - that was controversial but loosing just part of wing - one shuld be able to glide or even fly. It looks like that there is no lift calculation - just enters predefine damage state. Imho how plane would react to loosing lift surface should also reflect how it happend - for example if you lost wing during high G manuvering abality to regain control and "normal" flight would not be possible.

[Cybermat47]

[Dakpilot]

Visual damage effects are not always directly correlated to FM results, it is a sim not RL, fairly sophisticated but not to the level people expect

 

In RoF when you lost wings, this was a visual/dm representation bug, not really to do with FM or aircraft being able to glide without wings

 

there are other sims with more complex system modelling which fair even worse in this respect 

 

To get the effect/accuracy people would want, and why not, we all want things to get better  you will need a lot more CPU cycles and time/money spent than we really want, or are prepared to pay for

 

surely as with most other aspects this will improve in time  as tech and the sim coding gets more sophisticated, as witnessed in ground handling and many other things

 

Cheers Dakpilkot

[deWaardt]

That's a B-25 if I'm not mistaken.

Yea that's definitely a B-25.

I couldn't find the original source anymore, but the aircraft still in the air is a B-26, and the landed aircraft is a B-25

 

Thank you guys for pointing that out, I didn't see it at first.

 

 

 

I can't think of a single flight sim that hasn't had the crazy one-wing behaviour at some point.

Lol yeah.

GTA 5 beats it to all in terms of realism though

https://youtu.be/yDkeqOMmEoI?t=1m5s

Edited November 7, 2016 by deWaardt

[Monostripezebra]

Lol yeah.

GTA 5 beats it to all in terms of realism though

https://youtu.be/yDkeqOMmEoI?t=1m5s

 

one wing? Pah, back then in RoF we did not need much wings at all!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPvZ7jHg-Pk

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azxEFpU56ss

Edited November 7, 2016 by Monostripezebra

[Holtzauge]

Hilarious!

[Crump]

With enough dynamic pressure....anything will fly.

 

one wing? Pah, back then in RoF we did not need much wings at all!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPvZ7jHg-Pk

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azxEFpU56ss

 

Good illustration of the aviation adage; "The probability of survival is directly proportional to the angle of arrival."

[MiloMorai]

Yea that's definitely a B-25.

I couldn't find the original source anymore, but the aircraft still in the air is a B-26, and the landed aircraft is a B-25

 

Thank you guys for pointing that out, I didn't see it at first.

 

The engine nacelle says it is a B-25 and not a B-26.

[JG13_opcode]

I showed in my video it's not completely impossible, just very hard.

Seems historical to me.

 

How many planes were able to limp home with half a wing missing? 5? 20? Even 1000, which seems unlikely, would be less than 1%.

[deWaardt]

Seems historical to me.

 

How many planes were able to limp home with half a wing missing? 5? 20? Even 1000, which seems unlikely, would be less than 1%.

True, but it just doesn't feel very realistic, and I'm kinda hoping for some confirmation whether it's realistic or not.

I don't think the plane should be jerking so much once a piece of the wing is lost. Also, note how the plane instantly does in a smooth flight trajectory after I bail-out.

I'm just not sure.

[Crump]

Seems historical to me.

 

How many planes were able to limp home with half a wing missing? 5? 20? Even 1000, which seems unlikely, would be less than 1%.

 

Exactly.  In additional to power available to power required change, the AC and CG both will shift completely changing the stability and control of the aircraft.  Depending on that behavior math outcome....

 

You may or may not have even have a survivable aircraft after losing a portion of the wing.

 

You are simply a test pilot of a brand new design.

Great example is the fuel imbalance accidents experienced in the Lear 35 series.  Enough of a wing tank fuel imbalance and the aileron control is over powered.

 

If the pilot does not notice the aileron trim moving to the stops then the autopilot will kick off when the trim stops are reached to allow the pilot to input full opposite aileron and scream a little.  He will be unable to stop the aircraft from inverting and spiraling into the ground.

 

Several Lear 35's have gone down will all souls on-board due to fuel imbalance.