Nose Overs

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

I realize that IL2 BoX's ground handling has been made a bit simpler and easier for practical reasons. I see the practical reasons for this, although I do sometimes wish that ground handling was a bit more true to reality.

 

With that said, the brakes on most aircraft simply feel... wrong. It's as if the game has an automatic anti-skid built in which not only prevents the player from locking the wheels, it also prevents the player from slowing down too fast resulting in a nose over.

 

I'm perfectly okay with everything about the current ground handling system except for this one bit, it just bugs me. What do you guys think? Is this something that you would like to see changed?

[303_Bies]

I also posted about this topic. I also had an impression brakes are far too weak and nose overs nearly impossible, but it's only my opinion comparing brakes in IL2 with old legacy IL2 and DCS.

I think the braking power in IL2 can be correct.

One simple question is the most important here:

 

How able brakes in WWII planes were in reality? 

Personally i doubt the developers of IL2 series would intentionally dubmed down braking power to avoid nose overs of novice players since in old legacy IL2 you can easily nose over if you overuse the brakes, in DCS also and noone complained. Remembering about not applying instant full brakes is very easy even for novice players like my friend who tried to land a few times.

Weak brakes may make stopping after landing easier but at the same time they make taxing harder. So no reason for artificially weakening breaking power when we consider novice players.

 

The developers staded in some DD's they were fine tuning braking powers so what would be the reason of - supposed - dumbing down the brakes? Overall ground handling? Some simplifications? I can hardly belief.

 

If the brakes are really artificially weakened there definitely should be 2 options - assisted brakes and normal brakes for people with analogue contollers.

But anyway 95% people used digital 0-1 imputs to brake in old IL2 and avoided noseovers easily and 50-70% in DCS and noone complains.

So i doubt the devs weakened brakes artificially.

Especially overall ground handling in IL2 is rather demanding so why they should intentionally dumb down just one aspect?

 

I use IL2, Legacy IL2 and DCS but i don't have CloD so a question for CloD suers:

How is the braking power in CloD in compare with IL2?   i.e. Bf 109 E

 

Let's discuss this matter, maybe Jason or somebody from devs will give some answer. Who knows.

 

cheers and have a nice day

Edited June 26, 2018 by bies

[klebor]

It may depend on particular plane.

With Mustang in IL2 we will be sure, P-51's simply love to nose over if brakes are applied to early or too hard.

 

Quote

"The thrust has a bigger moment arm around the tires contact points compared to the weight. It won't nose over below a certain RPM (it will be specified in the training). Below that RPM:

• The weight will counter the thrust
• The propeller downwash will produce downward force on the horizontal stabilizer
• Applied brakes will resist the rotation of the wheels (airframe rotating around wheels)

From a training video for the comparable big-engined F6F Hellcat, the narrator says:

You can't gun this engine to full takeoff RPM and manifold pressure while holding the plane with the brakes, if you exceed 2,000 RPM the tail will lift and you risk nosing over.

Answer is yes it can happen.

Note: for comparison, the max RPM is 2,700 for the Hellcat."

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by sereme1

[303_Bies]

Yogiflight

Quote

I asked after the introduction of the Bf110 E2 in the Question for Developers thread, why the brakes of the 110 are so uneffective. Han's answer was, that the brakes are made so effective, that the aircraft can brake down to zero speed after landing, as it was historically. The issue, I guess, might be, that effectivity of the brakes in game is linear, so they brake in high speeds as good as in low speeds. But IRL the effectivity in low speeds is much higher.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by bies

[MicroShket]

Well, soon we will be able to compare it, as I think. Here we can see some good braking. 

 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

AFAIK the only thing to be dumbed down was the rough terrain. I have no idea how braking should be. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

So far all aircraft I tested had sufficient brake power (that 'dumbed down' complain is thrown around wildly without proper testing). Furthermore brakes in reality showed different states of wear within the allowed tolerance so there is always some room for 'tweaking' things if required. Still theres ways to test your hypothesis.

 

One is to test it at stillstand doing a runup to full power. Both the 109 and 190 will remain still with no overnosing tendency which matches pilot tellings.

 

The Spifire will nose over and start to mover slowly which is also correct. 

 

Those are just examples to show that unlike a random opinion things can look quite different when tested under proper circumstances.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The OP is just following the hard core living room pilot's mantra that "harder is more real", when in fact more real is more real, harder or not.

[LuftManu]

19 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The OP is just following the hard core living room pilot's mantra that "harder is more real", when in fact more real is more real, harder or not.

Thank you BlitzPig_EL. You just sum up the 90% of the complaints right now... in various sims.

Hope people can open their eyes..

Edited June 26, 2018 by LF_ManuV

[Finkeren]

IIRC it was stated a long time ago, that the brakes were modeled very slightly too weak in order to be usable for people who use a button and not a pedal (or other slider) to control brakes. Otherwise people who don’t have pedals would nose over and ground loop all the time because they can’t use brakes in gradients.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Finkeren

[RedKestrel]

I have definitely nosed over a few planes when I came in too fast and jammed the brakes at the end of the runway. Its not as touchy as Il-2 1946, but in that game as soon as you touched the brakes the nose dipped unless you were already very slow. And Il-2 1946 DEFINITELY had simplified ground handling, so using it as a point of comparison might not be very useful. 
 

[Yogiflight]

You might not forget, we are talking about breaks and tyres of the 1940s, not of today. So the braking effectivity might be a bit less than with today's aircrafts. And then you are mainly landing on dirtstrips and grass airfields, which surely have far less grip than a concrete runway. If modelled correct, the tendency to nose over should be higher, when landing on Gumrak, for example. Did anyone test this?

[303_Bies]

2 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

Did anyone test this?

I'll try for sure today.

Do you have some idea which plane available in IL2 could have bigger tendency to nose over?

cheers

[Yogiflight]

Just now, bies said:

I'll try for sure today.

Do you have some idea which plane available in IL2 could have bigger tendency to nose over?

cheers

According to 5tuka, the Spitfire seems to have the tendecy. But TBH, I don't really have an idea.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Spitfire, Mig-3, Lagg-3 should nose over when abusing brakes. It really depends on your landing technique (touchdown speed, braking pattern, stick pulled back / neutral after touchdown, ect).

 

With only some care it's quite easy to avoid nose overs which is what I percive as realistic.

[BMA_Hellbender]

Oh boy, if it’s noseovers you want, you’re all going to be in for a treat once we get the Sopwith Dolphin and Halberstadt CL.II. And they don’t even have brakes. Not to mention that a noseover in the Dolphin (affectionately known as the “flipper”) kills you outright, and in the Halberstadt tends to kill the rear gunner.

[InProgress]

 

I  dont know, used to happen to me a lot at the beginning of playing this sim.

[Warpig]

Brakes are fine as they are.  Not all of us have dedicated brake axes to be able to adjust braking pressure. Those of us that use a button command to brake would be screwed if braking was made too sensitive.

[=SqSq=switch201]

3 hours ago, Finkeren said:

IIRC it was stated a long time ago, that the brakes were modeled very slightly too weak in order to be usable for people who use a button and not a pedal (or other slider) to control brakes. Otherwise people who don’t have pedals would nose over and ground loop all the time because they can’t use brakes in gradients.

 

Yes, this is what I also read somewhere on these forums. If this is the case though it would be nice to have the game detect if you are using a button or an axis for breaking and adjust accordingly.

 

But really I am totally fine with the way it is. I have no idea how it was in real life so I can not speak to that.

[-SF-Disarray]

I had some free time this morning so I ran some tests, as suggested. I couldn't for the life of me find Gumark so I used Vnukovo which is paved so that shouldn't make a difference. I tried to hit the top landing speed listed for each plane while holding the breaks on full while applying no back pressure after touchdown, giving the plane the best chance to nose over. All tests were made on the Autumn map on the right hand strip when approaching from the north. The results follow:

 

Spitfire Vb/IX

    Both the Vb and IX showed no tendency to nose over on landing. Both planes did nose over into the ground, however, when the breaks were held under full engine power at a standing start.

Mig 3

    Showed no tendency to nose over or under full engine power from a standing start.

LaGG 3

    No nose over tendency was shown while landing. The plane did display a tendency to nose over while on the ground under full engine power, though not so much as to put the prop into the ground.

 

Landing at higher speeds than those listed could result in a nose over on landing, I suspect that is in part why that is the top landing speed, but I did not test this aspect. I know the PE-2 will nose over if you come in fast and with an insufficient landing angle.

[Rjel]

I bent the prop on a couple of Mc.202s over the weekend by getting on the brakes too hard. I've done it with 109s lately too trying to keep my roll out straight.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

The only plane that I am a risk of nosing over is the PE2 but I am quite good at landings. 

[F/JG300_Gruber]

On 6/26/2018 at 1:43 PM, Finkeren said:

IIRC it was stated a long time ago, that the brakes were modeled very slightly too weak in order to be usable for people who use a button and not a pedal (or other slider) to control brakes. Otherwise people who don’t have pedals would nose over and ground loop all the time because they can’t use brakes in gradients.

 

Well, if this is true, it would be a good idea to unlock the full effect of the brakes when the command is bound to an axis and not a button. 

Some planes like the Bf110 and the Ju87 have very weak brakes and would make good use of some extra braking action. It could prevent some collisions on taxiways.

 

[Finkeren]

2 hours ago, F/JG300_Gruber said:

 

Well, if this is true, it would be a good idea to unlock the full effect of the brakes when the command is bound to an axis and not a button. 

Some planes like the Bf110 and the Ju87 have very weak brakes and would make good use of some extra braking action. It could prevent some collisions on taxiways.

 

 

Not a simple, nor un-controversial, thing to do. Making aircraft systems behave differently depending on which controls you use is not something you do lightly in a sim.

 

It is necessary for the mouse control system to make it actually usable, but otherwise we should not do it unless absolutely required. Personally I don’t have trouble getting any aircraft in the game to stop without using the full length of the runway, so I honestly don’t see an urgent need to change anything.

[Yogiflight]

If you touchdown near the beginning of the runway, you don't need brakes anyway. I very rarely use my brakes during landing.

In the 110, when you are landing, it makes allmost no difference if you brake or not.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Yogiflight

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Almost every propeller plane should be able to hold brakes and apply maximum power or non take off power.
Very few planes did not have the ability to lock wheel brakes.

Yes lets build planes in 1940's but use brakes from 1800's?
(To clarify that statement @LukeFF Car in the late 1800's had very bad brakes you could stand on them and they could not lock wheels as cable driven,
Around early 1900's They started using hydralic brakes with air assist which can fully lock the wheels on pretty much Any Vehicle.and surface)
 

Edited June 28, 2018 by =TBAS=Sshadow14

[F/JG300_Gruber]

10 hours ago, Finkeren said:

 

Not a simple, nor un-controversial, thing to do. Making aircraft systems behave differently depending on which controls you use is not something you do lightly in a sim.

 

It is necessary for the mouse control system to make it actually usable, but otherwise we should not do it unless absolutely required. Personally I don’t have trouble getting any aircraft in the game to stop without using the full length of the runway, so I honestly don’t see an urgent need to change anything.

 

I'm not speaking about getting to a stop after landing, obviously if one get short of runway, it's because he is doing something wrong with his landing pattern/procedure.

I refer to circulation on a taxiway where sometimes one spawns or stops or starts moving right in front of you. In certain planes (Ju87 in particular) very often it ends up in a collision and a finish flight for both planes. So I wouldn't mind a bit more braking action, I don't think it can hurt anyone. Even with button-controlled brakes, I bet that it still feels too weak !

 

But anyways, I wont complain (loud) if it stays as it is, in my book there are some other, more important corrections to implement in the game. 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by F/JG300_Gruber