Jump to content
istari6

Way to increase fragility for ground collisions?

Recommended Posts

I'm a new IL-2 pilot, coming over from many hundreds of hours in DCS.  One of the biggest differences is in the "toughness" of the airframes.  IL-2 aircraft seem unrealistically robust, able to smash into the ground at surprisingly high speeds and still stay intact.  I've flown through forests at 500 kph, clipped a wing and then somersaulted into the ground, coming to a rest with my pilot alive and ready for the next mission.

 

I've been surprised what an "immersion-killer" this is for me personally.  DCS really feels much more dangerous, where almost any contact with the ground can be disastrous, and dead-sticking to a landing and surviving it is a real accomplishment.  

 

Are there any mods or config settings that can affect this parameter?  I'm running full realism already, is there any way to crank the realism further?

 

Thanks!

 

BTW - just to be clear.  I'm not claiming "oh noz! the game is broken!".  Although I'm still learning the game, there are aspects of IL-2 that are clearly superior to DCS.  For example, I was flying a 109 over an enemy column the other day and an AAA round blew a hole in my right wing.  I was so busy gaping at the detail exposed of the underlying wing spar and internal systems, that I didn't jink and the next round blew my tail off :).  I love the realism of the damage models.  It's just that the unrealistic hardiness of the airframes really detracts from immersion for me personally.    

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that death by ground is determined almost strictly by g-forces.  If they think you could have survived the g-force of the collision, then you survive.  They don’t try to determine if you would have lost enough pieces during the collision to make death likely even if the g-forces didn’t kill you.

 

btw, I don’t think the airframes are that tough.  They appear to fall apart quite realistically as you tumble across the ground.  The pilots, however, survive a lot of punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dcs killed my immersion when I could fly the dora missing 3/4 of its right wing lol.  I dont think there are any mods but I think also while crash landings seem a little too survivable here that ww2 aircraft move slower than the average dcs aircraft and may be more rugged.  Deadstick landing the ww2 planes in dcs was not too difficult either but it has been a while since I've touched it.  I remember the first time Hartmann met Krupinski that Erich saw his plane come in smoking and summersault on landing, only to crawl out and demand another aircraft.  Ancedotal as it may be I think it shows even an airframe as fragile as the 109 can survive a nasty landing.

 

I think this is spot on:

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The pilots, however, survive a lot of punishment.

Edited by Joeasyrida
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said something similar in a similar thread months ago.

 

Someone responded with this video, and it did shut me up:

 

 

Turns out, those airframes won't necessarily desintegrate as we tend to think.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe shouldn’t use the one sim to pass judgement on “unrealism” of the another.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Joeasyrida said:

Dcs killed my immersion when I could fly the dora missing 3/4 of its right wing lol

 

I completely agree, you think after spending years on these flight models they would be incredible. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I never compared no sim to no other sim. Actually I dont even own 'that' other sim.

 

I did though argue that our ingame airframes seemed to undestructible, until I saw the video above. 

 

When you see enough pictures of a civilian airframe after a fatal crash, thanks to history channel and others, you develop the notion that all crashes end in the aicraft becoming thousands of napkin-sized pieces of alluminium. Turns out those 1940s fighter airframes were sturdier than that.

 

Still... the game allows some unreasonable results. You can ditch a plane going 600kph and walk away if you are delicate enough. That is perhaps too much....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy, just use the ground durability slider in the gameplay options menu. 😝

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to answer OP’s question. No there is no in game setting that can be changed and there is no mod for it. Whether it is modable or not I don’t know. You could ask in the ‘mod’ subforum perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those airframes are not fragile, they are made to last through high accelerations, high speed and are made to carry a lot of weight.

 

In game the pilot seems only to be killed by assumed vertical impact acceleration. In reality, when you run into something like trees, your chances of survival are dim. I can‘t imagine many worse things than a forest underneath. Also, making belly up „landings“ at 500 km/h would be a little more problematic than it is in game.

 

But it is wrong to assume that „the more the airframe comes apart, the worse the fate of the pilot“. The posted video shows a textbook belly landing that keeps the aircraft largely intact because it was just that, a good landing. This means that most of the kinetic energy of the aircraft was converted to dragging the airframe over the field.

This brings me to my point: the less the aircraft is deformed in a crash, the more kinetic energy is converted to energy that hurts the pilot. If you see a crashed aircraft that is somewhat intact after a strong impact, you know the pilot is dead. If the aircraft is distributed over a whole field (from a similar impact), then the pilot has good chances of surviving. Take another look at poor Kwaitek‘s aircraft. You will see that it is surprisingly intact after the vertical crash. He had no chance of survival. This also makes ground loops in sailplanes that hazardous. If one wing gets stuck, the other goes up and around, same with the nose and the pilot will hit the ground vertically from 7 or so meters at ~60 km/h with only 2 mm of plastic between him and the crash site. These aircraft are also mostly intact, except for cockpit an pilot.

 

The more you can destroy your aircraft on a crash (or the longer you can drag it over a field) the better for your health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

When it comes to the forces involved in a hard landing. Often at times it is not the failure of the airframe collapsing on impact that kills a pilot. It is actually the G forces coming to a sudden stop that the human body cannot handle that results in death. For example, to buffer this problem in modern helicopters they use heavily padded spring seats and other modern methods to slow the body's rapid stop on ground impact. (and yes counter rotation as well) Such improved features/understanding have saved many lives in say the blackhawk where the aircraft is in shambles and yet the crew still survives.

In iL-2 the padding pilots have to protect from G forces suddenly stopping is the welded steel seat they sit in. So sudden and violent stops should nearly always kill a pilot. @istari6 I have noticed this issue as well and many times I looked at a crash thinking wow the pilot should be dead from hitting the ground so hard or spinning so fast. Even though landing upside down could theoretically be survivable. The problem will then be that the pilot cannot exit the aircraft. I believe that actually happened several times in ww2 where the plane crashed and the pilot was trapped inside. Which might be why in training they instructed pilots to bail out of the aircraft if failure occurs.

Also I will note that 90% of the time it is better to land belly down than with landing gear out. As this helps to prevent flipping over and is a more smooth controllable stop. Plus hydraulics/structure will not be ripped out from the airframe.

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, istari6 said:

I'm a new IL-2 pilot, coming over from many hundreds of hours in DCS.  One of the biggest differences is in the "toughness" of the airframes.

 

I really like damage and collisions in IL-2.

I also came from DCS and i would say the biggest difference was HUD or techno chat in IL-2, you do not have to look into the cockpit but all the time you can observe the situation around you, like in a modern fighter with a HUD on the helmet.

 

For me damage and collision model in IL-2 was one of the biggest positive surprises and it's superion to the DCS model by far. Airframes desintegrates quite realistically. The pilot itself may by a bit too tough but who knows for sure. IRL lot depends on luck, some pilots survived really hard smashes, some died il minor accidents.

 

I'm quite impressed how IL-2 team model it in the game, if you hit the ground close to vertical you are dead, if the angle is low and the airframe disperses the energy plowing the earth you have big chance to survive. If you hit some trees with your wings it will slow down the plane, if you hit the tree directly with your cockpit you are dead.

 

There is always room for improvement but this part of the sim looks solid to me. At least better than all other sims.

Edited by zwarteeend
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geronimo553 said:

Often at times it is not the failure of the airframe collapsing on impact that kills a pilot. It is actually the G forces coming to a sudden stop that the human body cannot handle that results in death. For example, to buffer this problem in modern helicopters they use heavily padded spring seats and other modern methods to slow the body's rapid stop on ground impact.

While it its true that braking acceleration from impact will kill the pilot, there's different ways to ease that. Your example shows a very particular solution to a very particular problem, namely messed up auto rotation landings, where a bit of padding can make the difference of a broken or an intact spine. Putting a bit of padding on your steering wheel will not help you in a typical accident (you need something coarse like an airbag), but maybe it will feel a bit nicer when the padded steering column transverses your thorax.

 

Padding can do nothing against the law of conservaion conservation of energy. The main revolution in occupant safety has been achieved with adding a crumple zones to a vehicle. It is much wiser removing a lot of energy from an occupant than adding a thousandth of a second for releasing the energy to reduce force applied. (That is what you are essentially dong by adding some padding.)

 

You can see here in (c) how much deformation removes the energy budget and consequently adds survivability:

POLO1a.jpg

If you had no deformation, the whole kinetic energy would be converted into braking. Remember, energy is conserved. You can only put it somewhere else. And this "putting somewhere else" is the big fist of physics that can crumple you to pulp, even inside your padding.

 

Keep in mind that vehicle and occupant are decellerated in unison, hence share the same energy budget. Just suspending the occupant in a way that he can move inside the vehicle and thus decouple itself somewhat from the vehicle is not really a practical apprach for most cases and is not even the main purpose of an airbag.

 

In the example of a sailplane, no padding in the world will keep you from dying in a ground loop as described, as the deformation of the pilot (and a small piece of the airframe in front, known as cockpit) is used to slow down the whole aircraft including the pilot. This is why the rest of the glider is mostly intact, whereas the pilot is pulp. Little energy is applied on the airframe, most of the energy is applied on the pilot and that is the end of him.

 

Using deformation as means to reduce load on the occupants is a spectacular success, you can see it in the orange graph. You can clearly see the effect of slowing cars (when insurace policy cost killed the muscle cars in 1975) as well as adding airbags in the eighties. From then on, the use of thise safety features like crumple zone and airbag made the difference.

Spoiler

1920px-US-traffic-deaths-per-VMT-VMT-per

 

This is indeed not intuitive, as we alwas think of padding to be the solution for impact protection. But this concept that works well for home use is no good once you have a certain level of kinetic energy, padding would become such that you're nothing but a huge piece of padding.

 

In aircraft, we can't add crumple zones, as the aircraft is very light, but if you manage to crumple the whole aircraft while you keep the cockpit intact, you are very likely to walk away from that wreck, same as in a car accident. It works the same way. Same physics apply. Safe is, when the occupant zone is strong and the rest of the structure flexible for deformation. If not, you'll deform the occupants. And they won't like that.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

This is indeed not intuitive, as we alwas think of padding to be the solution for impact protection. But this concept that works well for home use is no good once you have a certain level of kinetic energy, padding would become such that you're nothing but a huge piece of padding.

 

In aircraft, we can't add crumple zones, as the aircraft is very light, but if you manage to crumple the whole aircraft while you keep the cockpit intact, you are very likely to walk away from that wreck, same as in a car accident. It works the same way. Same physics apply. Safe is, when the occupant zone is strong and the rest of the structure flexible for deformation. If not, you'll deform the occupants. And they won't like that.

 

Not saying that is wrong information in any form and in fact it is very informative in regards to physics. Though when we look at the subject matter of the first post. "IL-2 aircraft seem unrealistically robust, able to smash into the ground at surprisingly high speeds and still stay intact.  I've flown through forests at 500 kph, clipped a wing and then somersaulted into the ground, coming to a rest with my pilot alive and ready for the next mission." We can see that crumple zones that decrease acceleration in car crashes really plays no part on the subject matter. What we are looking at here, is why the pilot in iL-2 can survive what would otherwise be impossible odds during a violent plane crash. The devs cannot model crumple zones as such design does not apply to aircraft and it would be very taxing to develop such damage into 3D models for the entire game anyway. Where we can assist the devs in developing, is how violent G forces coming to a sudden stop can/will kill a pilot. These forces play a major role in real world aircraft crashes in regards to survivability. Such forces on the human body are deadly and it is possible to model them. It is another level of detail the game can benefit from improving/including.

 The game already covers plane damage well enough that I see no need to even discuss it as issue. We need to focus on the pilot survivability aspect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

We can see that crumple zones that decrease acceleration in car crashes really plays no part on the subject matter.

It makes us see that the argument "the plane goes up in little pices so the pilot must be dead" is in fact not not an argument and leads to wrong expectations on what should happen.

 

9 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

"IL-2 aircraft seem unrealistically robust, able to smash into the ground at surprisingly high speeds and still stay intact. [...]

True. We can see that pilot suvival is in essence not modelled and is,  I think, only determined by vertical acelleration. (Then again, any form of water is lethal to our dear pilot.) The OP is very much right to point out the issue.

 

13 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

Where we can assist the devs in developing, is how violent G forces coming to a sudden stop can/will kill a pilot.

You are very right in putting any sort of exact computation regarding damage into question, as in essence it would also be a bit out of scope. Question remains, would most of us be ok with most crash landings to result most often in a having dead or disabled pilot? You could also make it easy, just put in hard probabilities: You land in trees, just put survival rate at 0.0001%, if you "land" >400 km/h, same, below 250 km/h maybe 50%. Or whatever is acceptable to players. What would be acceptable?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, zwarteeend said:

There is always room for improvement but this part of the sim looks solid to me. At least better than all other sims.

 

Not to mention this is a flight sim, not a crash sim (hmmm... note to self: "crash sim!"). There are things we absolutelly need to be good. Flight physics, ballistics, engine behavior, AI, etc. And then there's things we only beed to be "ok". Its like a complaint someone made a few weeks ago, about the airfields not being 100% identical to the historical ones. We dont need that, not at least when it steals development time from other more important factors.

Edited by danielprates
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its computer game. Virtual pilot survives crashlanding, well, what a lucky bastard. He dies,well,virtual life wasted, what a loss for the world, hit refly or go for a beer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brano said:

hit refly or go for a beer.

Or??? You mean you don't do both at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont keep beer in my fridge. Incentive to go outside and meet real people 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Brano said:

I dont keep beer in my fridge. Incentive to go outside and meet real people 😁

Nor do I. That's not the place for decent beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is this as well, new prop and radiator and she was good to go.
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Herne said:

there is this as well, new prop and radiator and she was good to go.

That's the beauty of a wooden prop. Had it been Aluminium, it would have been an engine change due to shock loading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Elem said:

That's the beauty of a wooden prop. Had it been Aluminium, it would have been an engine change due to shock loading.

 

Would that still apply if they shut it down and let it glide ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Herne said:

 

Would that still apply if they shut it down and let it glide ? 

 

They may have got away with a "runout" check on the crankshaft. If no distortion, then they'd be good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is possible in game to avoid the "ground contact explosion" but still kill the pilot (like ROF where the pilot would die but the airframe would remain intact relatively speaking) 

 

It would be nice to have an in-between instead of strictly either Survived, or Crater. Leave the "Death" Gforce threshold where it is, but increase the "airplane fireball" Gforce threshold. But this should be a low priority improvement if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elem said:

They may have got away with a "runout" check on the crankshaft. If no distortion, then they'd be good to go.

 

 

In the US any prop strike by a running engine requires a teardown.  Back in the seventies a runout check was adequate.

 

As a tanker I can't say how many times I've been Kamikaze'd with the result being my tank tumbling across the ground (whether from a direct spinner strike or just a wing) and the plane careening end over end with the pilot surviving ... OR, flying away.  Collision is, maybe, still a work in progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a dig against any product or people, but this thread made me think of this as a potential "research artifact" on the subject (note the pilot survives):

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, sorry for taking so long to respond to everyone's responses.  Real-life issue pulled me away from forum for a day.  

 

Thanks to all for the discussion this post triggered.  Learned quite a bit, and completely agree that the issue is pilot survival.  How the airframe breaks up on ground impact is plausible, it's just that the pilot inside seems to have a far higher threshold for survival given the complete lack of shock absorbers (ala helicopters), airbags, or any other way of mediating the energy transferred to their body.  

 

Part of why this matters (for me personally, YMMV) is that it impacts the sense of reality and sense of danger.  I play in VR, where immersiveness is king.  One thing I've learned is the deadliness of 109 cannon fire on my little I-16 or MiG-3 - the high realism of the damage model makes a dogfight very stressful and exciting, because I know how fragile my airframe is to even a single 20mm cannon round in the right spot.  

 

Yet I feel a sense of unreality and casualness when flying over the ground or descending rapidly, knowing that most of the time, I'll survive impact.  Makes it feel more like a game and breaks some of the immersion.  Totally understand that other people fly with a different attitude (hey it's just a sim pilot, crash and restart with another life), but I like to try to stay alive in realistic missions where possible.  

 

Will post over in the mod forum and see if anyone knows of a variable that could be modded for pilot fragility/survivability.  If not, I hope the developers will ultimately improve the "pilot damage model" a bit, at least on Expert difficulty settings.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I crash I'm done...I reboot or I go do something else for a while a and reboot later.

I'm OK in any case...I don't care if my fake little guy "dies" or not.

 

If you want your little jerk to die that badly, point the nose at the ground and crash harder FFS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously though...I haven't really tested this. Is he that tough?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is it really that hard to understand that people have different preferences?  I explicitly said "Totally understand that other people fly with a different attitude (hey it's just a sim pilot, crash and restart with another life), but I like to try to stay alive in realistic missions where possible.

 

I do care if my fake little guy dies, because for me much of the fun is flying realistically with a sense of danger and surviving it as best I can.  My buddy likes to go up and shoot down as many planes as possible, not caring if he dies.  It's all good, I'm not judging his favorite way to fly.  

 

 

Edited by istari6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just ribbing you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Seriously though...I haven't really tested this. Is he that tough?

 

 

I don’t want to quote everyone who said that pilot damage/ injury/ death isn’t modeled, but I have tested it. I have been working on a percentage based survival mission success trigger and I have seen some very interesting results. 

 

There are multiple levels of damage to the airframe from a crash landing. Landed, crash landed, force landed, crashed, player killed, just off the top of my head.

 

I crashed a P47 once and I was waiting for my damage trigger to kick in and it didn’t. I started hearing heavy labored breathing in my earphones ... it was me. The breaths got shallower and then stopped. I died. It took about 2 minutes.

 

Crash landing on an airfield interferes with the Land command and sometimes results in a hung game ending. It works way better in open country.

 

Bellying in can be unpredictable. Same procedures as a field landing with wheels up and flaps down and if you hit a bump or a hill, it sometimes destroys the AC and kills you. Also recently I’ve had the AC violently explode a couple of times.

 

i have seen a wide variety of damage to aircraft frames on crash landing. Wings torn off or cracked, snapped in half, tail missing, flipped over, etc. If you flip over belly up, the pilot never survives and the “stationary and alive” trigger does not work. You’re toast.

 

i know these things because I intentionally crash about every Third time I fly a mission just to check the percentages of my “survive crash” logic.

 

Just throwing this out there, but I have frequently just sat in the cockpit after a crash landing and looked around in VR, said to myself as the dust settled: “WOW, that was insane”... , slid the canopy back, if I still had one or could, and then moved on to the next one.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I'm just ribbing you.

 

 

Gambit21: All good.  I missed that you were joking around.

 

Jagermeister: 

"I crashed a P47 once and I was waiting for my damage trigger to kick in and it didn’t. I started hearing heavy labored breathing in my earphones ... it was me. The breaths got shallower and then stopped. I died. It took about 2 minutes."

 

Wow.  That's really cool.  It's possible that I'm underestimating how fragile these pilots are, and maybe IL-2:GB is more realistic than I'd thought.  I haven't waited after a crash to see if the pilot was actually mortally wounded.  I just assumed that if you were going to die, it would happen immediately or else you survived for the future.  Thanks for the info on your crash testing, that is really interesting.  I'm definitely going to wait in the future and see what happens with my pilot after some of the more gnarly crashes.  

 

I do suspect that if you're not dead immediately, if you quit and go to next mission, you're assumed to survive.  

Edited by istari6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can live without it, it would be cool to see a more destructive crash. The nose in the ground crash is much improved over what it was when the sim first came out. But, I'd like to see the plane disintegrate when dragging a wingtip or hitting the runway at a high rate of speed. The roiling ball of flame as the high octane gas ignites might be too difficult to model in a sim though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've fallen out of the sky in rough terrain at more than 400 kph and survived. This happens all the time. No loss of consciousness, no heavy injuries, no fire, no instant death, although the plane was pretty much reduced to the cockpit section. Usually such heavy crashes would transform the plane into a ball of fire. Fuel cells and fuel lies get ruptured, and the highly flammable fuel finds plenty of hot parts, so it ignites easily.

 

When it comes to g forces, the limit would be at around 150 g, if I remember correctly. This was the result of a longer test series done in the US. However, the tests happened under controlled conditions. Many pilots who died in crashes or crash landings actually broke their neck. It's a very fragile spot.

 

One other major hazard in crashes is contact with parts of the cockpit. WWII era cockpits were packed with blunt and sharp metal parts which could kill the pilot easily. British author Roald Dahl smashed his faced against the gunsight in his gladiator while crash landing in North Africa. He barely survived and suffered from serious sequelae for the rest of his life.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like low speed crashes have had a little more attention to detail put into them than your average 300 mph lawn dart event. Usually when I plow into the earth at terminal velocity, the pilot is already dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...