Ground Loop Simulation in BOS

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, CptSiddy said:

I have been avoiding this problem by just taking off from the spawn. Very convenient way to take off.

 

Also a very easy way to piss off other players. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

 Also a very easy way to piss off other players. 

 

It is no one else business, stop take off shaming me! 

[BraveSirRobin]

It actually becomes their business when you slam into them as they properly taxi out to the runway.

[LukeFF]

9 minutes ago, CptSiddy said:

It is no one else business, stop take off shaming me! 

 

Sure it is - if you are going to be that person acting like a damn fool taking off like that, then people who are not engaging in said behavior are going to be rightly pissed off. 

[SCG_motoadve]

Ground around taxiways should get you stuck or make damage to the gear to avoid people just taking off straight where they spwan.

 

wasnt this modeled a few years ago?

this will stop this kind of take offs, which are annoying to anyone who is doing it the proper way.

 

Just learn to taxi, even the way is modeled now its doable, yes better brakes would be nice.

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Ground around taxiways should get you stuck or make damage to the gear to avoid people just taking off straight where they spwan.

 

wasnt this modeled a few years ago?

this will stop this kind of take offs, which are annoying to anyone who is doing it the proper way.

 

Just learn to taxi, even the way is modeled now its doable, yes better brakes would be nice.

 

They got rid of it because people were getting stuck when they moved just barely off the taxiway.

[Venturi]

Rate of Descent should be realistic for requirements to land without breaking the gear. Like it first was (yes, I remember too).

 

Taxiing should be easier without ground loops. Something is off.

[Legioneod]

36 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Ground around taxiways should get you stuck or make damage to the gear to avoid people just taking off straight where they spwan.

 

wasnt this modeled a few years ago?

this will stop this kind of take offs, which are annoying to anyone who is doing it the proper way.

 

Just learn to taxi, even the way is modeled now its doable, yes better brakes would be nice.

 

Honestly I hope this is never implemented unless in a realistic way. Many ww2 aircraft were capable of taking of from poor airfields or even dirt fields if necessary, it doesn't make much sense to me that they would get stuck just because they left the taxiway.

 

It is frustrating when players take of from the spawn instead of taxying, but there is really not much you can do to force them to taxi, unless you put obstacles in their way like some servers do.

[=IRFC=TALLY]

On 3/18/2019 at 4:54 PM, AKA_Wayno said:

I flew Navy fighters from 1950 until 1960, about 1200 hours total. I am a retired Boeing Test Engineer, 1960 until 1993. I have been flying Il-2 since it was originated. I have all the Il-2 simulations to date with early purchase on what is still to come. But I will not fly the Battle of Stalingrad sim until you fix "the terrible Ground loop simulation". No fighter airplane ever designed goes into a ground loop as you role out of the chocks! No heavy fighter plane has the ground loop characteristics that you have designed into BOS. I had one ground loop occur in my 20 years of flying. It happened on my first solo flight in a SNJ-5 (AT-6). In the P-40 that is simulated, it is almost impossible to get to the runway, in a "No Wind" condition , without ground looping  all the way out! Many other of the BOS planes have a similar problem and I refuse to fly such a glaring simulation error! This is a software failure on the programmer's part.  Please set it right!

 

Wayno sends...

Totally,  30 years as a pilot - this is really stupid.

[Cpt_Siddy]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Sure it is - if you are going to be that person acting like a damn fool taking off like that, then people who are not engaging in said behavior are going to be rightly pissed off. 

What business it is of yours, how i take off in my campaigns? 

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, CptSiddy said:

What business it is of yours, how i take off in my campaigns? 

 

It was no one's business until you announced it on the forum.

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

It was no one's business until you announced it on the forum.

As a work around for a loopy ground handling. 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, CptSiddy said:

As a work around for a loopy ground handling. 

 

Last time I played a campaign mission you didn't have to taxi.  You spawned at the end of the runway.  

 

In any case, it's pretty obvious that you're just trolling.   

[Blackhawk_FR]

Instead of playing with the troll, why not keep requesting for better brakes? 

[Psyrion]

I taxi with just rudder and a few brake inputs here and there. No problems on my end.

[SCG_motoadve]

15 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

They got rid of it because people were getting stuck when they moved just barely off the taxiway.

How about giving some margin next to the taxiways like two or 3 meters you are allowed to miss the taxiway but not more.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

How about giving some margin next to the taxiways like two or 3 meters you are allowed to miss the taxiway but not more.

 

 

I’m sure there are lots of things that they could have tried.  All of which would have made the map design more complex and expensive to produce.

[Diggun]

13 hours ago, TAFFY said:

In the P-40 that is simulated, it is almost impossible to get to the runway, in a "No Wind" condition , without ground looping

I'm a rubbish pilot in game, and have a whole 1.5 hours actual flight experience in tiger moths. But I can taxi the p-40 & take off with no problems. I suspect this is a PEBKAC issue.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Diggun said:

But I can taxi the p-40 & take off with no problems. I suspect this is a PEBKAC issue.

 

Yep

[[DBS]TH0R]

6 hours ago, Diggun said:

I'm a rubbish pilot in game, and have a whole 1.5 hours actual flight experience in tiger moths. But I can taxi the p-40 & take off with no problems. I suspect this is a PEBKAC issue.

 

Yet it was posted that some of us fly with rudder pedals. And mine feel wasted on this sim, when taxiing. So no PEBRPAC.

 

Pretty sure most of us here complaining can also taxi&TO without a problem, simply and extremely dislike the way it was modeled.

[Blackhawk_FR]

On 4/3/2019 at 11:31 PM, [DBS]TH0R said:

Pretty sure most of us here complaining can also taxi&TO without a problem, simply and extremely dislike the way it was modeled.

 

That's exacly my case. So yes of course, I won't stop playing IL2 just because of that. But... the smallest mistake when taxiing is enough to go into a ground loop. And everybody experienced how annoying it is to see your aircraft doing a 180° (or more) ground loop, while you are crushing hard your opposite brake from the beginning to stop it.

 

Just my opinion part: to me this is the only thing in the game that doesn't give you the feeling of being in a real aircraft (I have no experience on real warbirds but I fly, and so taxi, a lot with tailwheel aircrafts).

 

So increasing (even a little bit) the efficiency of brakes would be more realistic, but also: easier! 

Edited April 5, 2019 by F/JG300_Faucon

[ZachariasX]

You want to do that in *all* aircraft? It was rather unusual that an aircraft of that era had brakes as you would be used to today. If if had brakes only remotely doing what you have today, then it was usually noted specifically by the pilot.

 

Here, for instance from the Ju88 PN, brakes:

 

Taxiing is performed, if at all possible, by using the engines and the rudder. During taxiing it is inspected that the wheels can rotate freely and the brakes are not braking independently. When the take-off weight is greater taxiing is performed with utmost caution and only at slow speed; constant turning is to be avoided. Turning on one wheel is prohibited.

Brakes have to be spared: braking has to be interrupted every now and then (excessive overheat).

 

Does an A350 manual say similar things?

 

15 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

(I have no experience on real warbirds but I fly, and so taxi, a lot with tailwheel aircrafts).

The brakes those vintage GA taildragger had were either nonexistent or differed as much as a Solex‘ brakes from todays mountain bikes. Even cars of the 40 had stopping distances comparing to trains rather than todays cars. At least most of those were very slow cars.

 

In general, brakes of the 1940 you would find easy to lock (this doesn’t make taxiing easy) but on the second braking cycle you would probably have even less than we have. And you quickly find them braking uneven.

 

So you can well make brakes more efficient just because you like that. But you‘d be very surprised with „the real thing“.

[LukeFF]

It's in times like these that it helps to go right to the guys who flew these planes:

 

In the event, the flight was uneventful, but once I touched down on Farnborough's main runway and began to apply the foot brakes I immediately realized that these were very weak indeed. In fact, they faded away rapidly to zero effectiveness. 

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Ta 152.

 

If a three-pointer could be achieved, the landing run was short and the brakes could be applied without fear of nosing over.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Fw 190 A-4.

 

The landing run was lengthy as the rather ineffective brakes faded badly, having to be held continuously throughout the ground run.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Ar 234.

 

Never being impressed with the brakes fitted to German aircraft I was even less so with those of the He 177. They seemed inadequate for the job of stopping such a large aeroplane and if applied harshly would judder and set up an uneven swing that could come frighteningly near to getting out of hand...the POW who...had claimed that the He 177 could use relatively small airfields without difficulty must truly have been stretching his imagination.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the He 177.

 

The Me 262's landing run was long and was always accompanied by that unpleasant suspicion of fading brakes that one had with all German aircraft of that period.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Me 262.

 

Once the tailwheel was firmly on the ground the brakes could be applied quite harshly, thus giving a short landing run.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Bf 109.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, it sounds to me like the wheel braking simulation is at it should be. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by LukeFF

[Blackhawk_FR]

Ok, I really though bad brakes were not so common during WWII. My bad.

[Guest deleted@50488]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

 

Once the tailwheel was firmly on the ground the brakes could be applied quite harshly, thus giving a short landing run.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Bf 109.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, it sounds to me like the wheel braking simulation is at it should be. 

 

None mentions landing a Spitfire and applying full brakes... without ending in a not-so-good estate.... 

 

AFAIK there were no problems regarding the 190s and 109s, specially the 109s which were rather tail-heavy... But ingame we can, while taxiing or during the landing rollout, apply full brakes on the Vb or IX ( Spitfire ) withou any consequences...

[sniperton]

On 3/27/2019 at 11:15 PM, [DBS]TH0R said:

109 in particular has it bad. It should be difficult yes, but when using manual propeller pitch, locked tail wheel, full right rudder and toe brake combined with small amount of power or power spikes doesn't do the trick - I'm all ears.

Strange. Using the same technique I can comfortably taxi the 109, at least under normal wind conditions. I don't even bother about manual pitch, I leave it on auto. I have a very simple DIY pedal with no toe brakes -- toe brakes are on the twist axis of my MSFFB2. Locked tail wheel, full right rudder, and short spikes of power followed by stronger toe brake inputs in the rolling phase to adjust direction. It's a continuous and rhythmical throttle-steer, throttle-steer sequence providing 15-20 kph and a relative good control of the plane under most circumstances. (I only release the tail wheel while pivoting on the apron.)

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

None mentions landing a Spitfire and applying full brakes... without ending in a not-so-good estate.... 

 

Well yes, I was referring to Brown's book he wrote on flying German planes, so obviously no references to Spitfires. So, if you do have accounts from that era that do discuss this, then by all means share them. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

The problem I'm seeing here is you're using only one pilot and his impressions as a source. Here is another source, hence my disappointment with how it is modeled (Brakes @21:40) :

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

None mentions landing a Spitfire and applying full brakes... without ending in a not-so-good estate.... 

 

We can take the Hurricane as a referenc for the average wheel brake installed back then:

 

"... At typical service load, the flaps-down approach needed slight backward pressure on the control column when gliding at a speed of 85 mph IAS. A tail-down landing could be made with ease and full braking could be used on the landing run. There was no tendency to swing. At forward CG limit when gliding with the engine off, the aircraft could not be trimmed longitudinally with the flaps up at speeds lower than 90 mph IAS. With flaps down it could not be trimmed at any speed up to 120 mph IAS, the maximum permitted in this configuration. The normal approach speed with flaps down was between 80–85 mph IAS, with a little back stick to prevent the nose from dropping. After landing, the brakes could be used, but care had to be taken at forward CG as the tail tended to lift on rough surfaces. ..."

Caygill, Peter. Flying to the Limit: Testing World War II Single-engined Fighter Aircraft . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle-Version.

 

(Emphasis mine.) You see, with Real Brakes™ the Hurricane would sommersault no matter what if you just pulled them full while taxiing. But on grass and with the stick backward, you can keep the tail (and the nose) where it belongs, no matter how you pull this bicycle brake (and if you are easy on the throttle). You really had to ask for it. You can see that in the rough terrain handling. The Hurricane is rather in balance on its main wheels, this allows the tail to jump high on rough ground, same as it would do on a Spitfire.

 

In general, it was more recommended using the rudder to counter swing upon take off with these aircraft.

 

 

13 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Here is another source, hence my disappointment with how it is modeled

He says only rudder for take off, never brakes.

Edited April 5, 2019 by ZachariasX

[[DBS]TH0R]

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

He says only rudder for take off, never brakes.

 

Yup. He says rudder was enough, and that if you used full right brake with right rudder it would turn right no problem. Whilst in-game it is a problem.

[Guest deleted@50488]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Well yes, I was referring to Brown's book he wrote on flying German planes, so obviously no references to Spitfires. So, if you do have accounts from that era that do discuss this, then by all means share them. 

 

Example:

"Taxi with great care. The pneumatic brakes, applied with a bicycle-like brake lever at the top of the stick, are feather light and very effective. Since the Spitfire is extremely light on the tail – only 7 inches separates its centre of gravity from the main wheels, compared to nearly 50 inches on a Mustang – she is just waiting to give the unwary a very expensive trip to Hoffmann Propeller for a new prop."

 

from here...

[ZachariasX]

46 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Whilst in-game it is a problem.

How so? It turns fine.

[[DBS]TH0R]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

How so? It turns fine.

 

Needs, as I said earlier here, full right rudder, brake and a power spike with manual PP. Even then, it is hard work holding her on a steady heading, unless using wheel lock. Can be done, of course, but at times she just won't turn right. Especially from a stand still. As if there is absolutely no friction between wheels and the ground.

 

Unlike in this video, in-game it feels (to me) like taxiing on ice (@5:35, after landing there is a good view of pilot controls) :

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[kalbuth]

Unlocked tail wheel 109 .... turns fine and don't react to counter brake to stop the turn. Doesn't react to stopping and counter brake to get out of loop. Loops endlessly even out of power like on ice. Reacts more to right rudder than right brake while at zero speed. It makes zero sense. And that's just the 109.

All the Browns example are talking about wrong planes or just brake effectiveness to shorten landing distance. It has no connection to taxi situation and how the brake behaved in taxiing situations. Saying "see, the brakes were not efficient for a western pilot during landing runs, so them having less effect than pushing rudder at start of plane is fine!" is quite a stretch. 2 completely different situations.

 

And really, it's not a difficulty issue. Problem is not that it's difficult. It's that it is un-realistic. I'd go as far as "stupidely unrealistic".

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by kalbuth

[Legioneod]

15 hours ago, LukeFF said:

It's in times like these that it helps to go right to the guys who flew these planes:

 

In the event, the flight was uneventful, but once I touched down on Farnborough's main runway and began to apply the foot brakes I immediately realized that these were very weak indeed. In fact, they faded away rapidly to zero effectiveness. 

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Ta 152.

 

If a three-pointer could be achieved, the landing run was short and the brakes could be applied without fear of nosing over.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Fw 190 A-4.

 

The landing run was lengthy as the rather ineffective brakes faded badly, having to be held continuously throughout the ground run.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Ar 234.

 

Never being impressed with the brakes fitted to German aircraft I was even less so with those of the He 177. They seemed inadequate for the job of stopping such a large aeroplane and if applied harshly would judder and set up an uneven swing that could come frighteningly near to getting out of hand...the POW who...had claimed that the He 177 could use relatively small airfields without difficulty must truly have been stretching his imagination.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the He 177.

 

The Me 262's landing run was long and was always accompanied by that unpleasant suspicion of fading brakes that one had with all German aircraft of that period.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Me 262.

 

Once the tailwheel was firmly on the ground the brakes could be applied quite harshly, thus giving a short landing run.

 

Eric Brown, on flying the Bf 109.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, it sounds to me like the wheel braking simulation is at it should be. 

 

I'd like to hear some first hand account from some German pilots. Brown isn't the sole or even primary authority on any of these aircraft.

 

EDIT

Not saying it's not ture, brake fade makes perfect sense, especially depending on the brake type.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Legioneod

[[DBS]TH0R]

10 minutes ago, kalbuth said:

Unlocked tail wheel 109 .... turns fine and don't react to counter brake to stop the turn. Doesn't react to stopping and counter brake to get out of loop. Loops endlessly even out of power like on ice. Reacts more to right rudder than right brake while at zero speed. It makes zero sense. And that's just the 109.

All the Browns example are talking about wrong planes or just brake effectiveness to shorten landing distance. It has no connection to taxi situation and how the brake behaved in taxiing situations. Saying "see, the brakes were not efficient for a western pilot during landing runs, so them having less effect than pushing rudder at start of plane is fine!" is quite a stretch. 2 completely different situations.

 

And really, it's not a difficulty issue. Problem is not that it's difficult. It's that it is un-realistic. I'd go as far as "stupidely unrealistic".

 

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'd like to also add, that the technique show in the G-4 Red 7 video (pushing the stick forward in order to lower the tail wheel force on the ground, since the plane is tail heavy) has little to no effect in this sim.

 

Point being - the problem we are trying to point out here happens during taxiing. Not take of or landing runs.

Edited April 5, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Brown isn't the sole or even primary authority on any of these aircraft.

 

Never said he was, but at the same time he was arguably the most experienced test pilot in the UK at that time. 

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

Never said he was, but at the same time he was arguably the most experienced test pilot in the UK at that time. 

No doubt he was experienced but I still take his views on certain things with a grain of salt. Some of his statements have been disputed/disproved by pilots with much more experience the aircraft he tested.

[sniperton]

18 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

No doubt he was experienced but I still take his views on certain things with a grain of salt. Some of his statements have been disputed/disproved by pilots with much more experience the aircraft he tested.

Thing is, Brown had a very wide base for comparison, something that other pilots with more experience in this or that type did not have.

[Legioneod]

9 minutes ago, sniperton said:

Thing is, Brown had a very wide base for comparison, something that other pilots with more experience in this or that type did not have.

 

Doesn't really matter when his statements on certain types is incorrect and proven wrong. 

You're not going to know the real capabilities of an aircraft after only flying it for a handful of hours, compared to someone who has flown it for thousands of hours.

 

He can make general comparisons but he's no expert on the individual types.

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Legioneod