Ditching in the field is now too sensitive.

[No.23_Gaylion]

 

[Talisman]

Tried out quick mission builder landing a P51D dead stick on open ground this afternoon and landed first and second time in a row with no damage and wheels down.  Same for Sopwith Camel afterwards, but started engine after landing and safely took off again.

 

Belly landings not a big problem either, but harder than before patch for sure.

 

I often land wheels down on open ground in the MP Berloga dogfight server after a kill or belly land on open ground if damaged just for practise and it works well, except when enemy fighters follow me down and shoot me up on landings, lol.

 

From my perspective I feel the dev's have it right, but perhaps things are different for others for some reason I cannot explain or understand.

 

Looking at the pictures folks have posted of real aircraft crashes reminds me of the crashes I have seen in motor sport when folks walk away and it seems unbelievable and other times drivers are killed in what seems like it should have been a very survivable crash.

 

Sorry for folks having a lot of bother with emergency landings, but I just don't experience the same thing by the look of it.  Yes, I suffer too (and swear about it at the time), especially in WWI kites, but nothing that I see as a big problem.  Flipping over seems to be the biggest risk to life in-game, but appears reasonable as I have survived some of the more gentle flips.  My attitude is that I fully accept that it is a very risky thing to do and sometimes you win and sometimes you don't.  Seems like real life to me, lol.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited February 6, 2022 by ACG_Talisman

[No.23_Gaylion]

I did about 20 landings today gathering clips of this. It's about 40/60 chances for a meme death to happen. All in the SPAD XIII. All on our training server that has "real" setting except for icons. 

 

It's weird, I can post a clip of the exact same landing attmept as the first one I posted except I live/no injury instead of wounded and die. 

[=420=Syphen]

15 minutes ago, US103_Talbot said:

 It's about 40/60 chances for a meme death to happen.

 

And that is exactly the problem.  A perfectly executed ditching is killing you darn near half the time at random. I don't think people are arguing that ditching should be easy and safe @ACG_Talisman.  However, it shouldn't be a RNG dice roll when executing a proper ditching in a smooth and open field or road - which is the way it is behaving. I'm sure you will just assume I don't know how to fly and it's obviously MY problem - but lots of people are experiencing the same. I'm sure glad you haven't.  But as is ALWAYS the case here on the IL2 forums, some people are compelled to vehemently defend the status quo. It does not matter the topic.  

[CountZero]

seams like another "aim better" bug ?

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

@ACG_Talisman

 

Bruh did you watch that second video I posted in its entirety? How can anyone say "looks good to me. Not my problem." Not saying that's what you said.

[Angry_Kitten]

Haart was nice and took some comments from my in a message and did some playing around.. 

 

Now the thing is, the nose down landing in american, german, british and russian planes is constantly killing me.. even when i manage to get teh airspeed reading on the HUD to show 45km.  with or without flaps rectracted. 

      I used to be able to survive nose down hits with speeds over 400km in an e7, and every other single engine i can think of. 

 

The tail hits first landing has resulted in pilot death for american, british, and german planes if the plane slips or rolls.  Russian planes still die with the tail down landing. 

 

Im at the point of thinking that the latest updates have somehow merged the pilot hit box with the engine compartment hit box.

[Guest deleted@50488]

My sideslip theory also failled as I tried to replicate it again today through a serie of ditch landings on a P51d...

 

Used to survive, but today I was killed like 50% of the time...

Edited February 7, 2022 by jcomm-il2

[No.23_Gaylion]

 

[-250H-Ursus_]

This would be easier if the damage received to the pilot depends on your descending rate rather than an RNG.

In this post there is a lot of evidences of real ditchings, even rough accidents with survivals.
 

RNG or Bug, should be changed to something more permissive, because now this inconsistencies are frustrating.

Why bother in try to do things right if you gonna die randomnly. There is no thing as luck in real life, you have control of lots of variables which can be the difference between life and death, i wonder which could be the variables which one doesn't have any control of them which can justify an RNG.

And if this is a bug, i think there is proof that is something wrong now.

Edited February 7, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[Talisman]

14 hours ago, US103_Talbot said:

@ACG_Talisman

 

Bruh did you watch that second video I posted in its entirety? How can anyone say "looks good to me. Not my problem." Not saying that's what you said.

 

I hear what you and others are saying Talbot, but I have been moved to post because I genuinely am not experiencing and feeling the same as some others.  It looks like there is divided opinion between us PC pilots on this topic, but I don't think folks should fall out over it. 

 

I am giving honest feed back and have no axe to grind.  Also, I don't feel like we get enough information to judge things definitively from watching a video.  Surely there is more that we are not seeing or aware of.  There is more physical and sensual feedback when we are actually in the game cockpit, but it is difficult for us to share or quantify that on a forum.  Talking of feedback, perhaps some things are related to our different hardware.  For example, perhaps landing since the patch is even harder now with no rudder pedals and a twist stick, or easier with a force feedback joystick, or easier with a JetPad (SimShaker Wings) or ButtKicker, or easier in VR, etc. 

 

Anyway, I liked your video re the good, bad and ugly, especially the tree dodging take off and the take off racing the vehicle.  

You seemed to be having more success towards the end of the vid.    Good luck.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

16 hours ago, =420=Syphen said:

 

And that is exactly the problem.  A perfectly executed ditching is killing you darn near half the time at random. I don't think people are arguing that ditching should be easy and safe @ACG_Talisman.  However, it shouldn't be a RNG dice roll when executing a proper ditching in a smooth and open field or road - which is the way it is behaving. I'm sure you will just assume I don't know how to fly and it's obviously MY problem - but lots of people are experiencing the same. I'm sure glad you haven't.  But as is ALWAYS the case here on the IL2 forums, some people are compelled to vehemently defend the status quo. It does not matter the topic.  

 

Hello =420=Syphen,

 

Please see my above post to Talbot.

 

I don't think I fall into the category of folk depicted in your sentence above and am sorry that you feel that way.  

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited February 7, 2022 by ACG_Talisman

[BraveSirRobin]

I just tried about 20 wheels up landings in a P-51 and Yak-1.  It didn’t seem to matter how well I landed.  I died about 50% of the time.  It appears to be completely random.

[No.23_Gaylion]

55 minutes ago, ACG_Talisman said:

You seemed to be having more success towards the end of the vid.    Good luck.

 

I got better as I went! 

 

Lol

[Letka_13/Kami-]

Pre 4.604 versions of BOX

Violent impact at 300 mph at a 30° angle with half of the wing missing. Devs: “Your pilot will be perfectly fine.“

 

Version 4.604 BOX

Solid belly landing at 100Mph, pilot killed instantly. Dev: “Well, you touched down 1 mph faster at an angle 1° greater than what the pilot can survive...“

 

Jokes aside, Krupnski’s video on page 2 of this thread clearly shows a problem/bug/inconsistency which should be addressed. I dont mind devs making “improvements“ of the pilot physiological model but if they make them 8 years into the existence of the sim than they should implement them properly without introducing inconsistencies/more problems. Because of these two reasons, now it feels like going from one extreme (very forgiving) to another extreme (overly punishing).

 

Before the change I survived unthinkable impacts many times and I knew it was bogus and now

I am watching my mates die instantly on botched airfield landings where the main gear stays intact...

 

My first belly landing after the change, online with engine kaputt and enemies around (there is/was no engine sound inside the cockpit but still plays outside in recording for whatever reason). Made a bad call and had to put it down sooner than I would have because of the tree line. But hey, I should be ok, I survived worse before, right...

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Letka_13/Kami-

[blue_max]

hmmmmm my personal feeling is that my poor digital pilot dies a bit too often when ditching nowadays (as in, always). Like, sure, it's hard, but there has to be a bit of incentive to try to make it down rather than just hit the respawn button immediately.

[Talisman]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I just tried about 20 wheels up landings in a P-51 and Yak-1.  It didn’t seem to matter how well I landed.  I died about 50% of the time.  It appears to be completely random.

 

Reading your post gave me an idea.

 

Perhaps one way to try and get a handle on this would be for a number of pilots to get together on the same on-line server map and each belly land in the same field, one at a time 20 times each in a P-51 and note down the death/or not statistics.  With the proviso that half of the pilots taking part were genuinely happy about belly landings and half were not.

 

I would volunteer to take part as one of the representatives of pilots who were genuinely happy with the current modelling.

 

Thoughts?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited February 7, 2022 by ACG_Talisman

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, ACG_Talisman said:

 

Reading your post gave me an idea.

 

Perhaps one way to try and get a handle on this would be for a number of pilots to get together on the same on-line server map and each belly land in the same field, one at a time 20 times each in a P-51 and note down the death/or not statistics.  With the proviso that half of the pilots taking part were genuinely happy about belly landings and half were not.

 

I would volunteer to take part as a representative of pilots who were genuinely happy with the current modelling.

 

Thoughts?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

After I posted this I saw that someone was able to ditch 20 times in a row without dying.  So it isn’t random.  But it’s clearly very sensitive.

 

I’m not sure why you need groups of people who are happy with the current system and groups that are not.  Does being happy with it make you better at crash landing?  
 

In all the years that I’ve been playing this game I can probably count the number of controlled crash landings on one hand.  I just bail out.  So I don’t really care either way.  

[Talisman]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

After I posted this I saw that someone was able to ditch 20 times in a row without dying.  So it isn’t random.  But it’s clearly very sensitive.

 

I’m not sure why you need groups of people who are happy with the current system and groups that are not.  Does being happy with it make you better at crash landing?  
 

In all the years that I’ve been playing this game I can probably count the number of controlled crash landings on one hand.  I just bail out.  So I don’t really care either way.  

 

For the statistics to be representative I suggest that it would be logical, more accurate and fair to have representatives from both the camps of divided opinion/experience.  The stats might then be able to turn up further questions for investigation as to why one group might be experiencing something different from the other group, if indeed they do.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[SCG_motoadve]

If developers ever change the landing and take off dynamics to a more realistic model, there will be a ton of complaints, there will be people crashing everywhere seems to be there are guys who want the challenge to practice, get good and learn, and others prefer a simpler easier simulation.

This is happening with the change of ditching the plane.

There are some bugs yes, but a proper ditch procedure without hitting even a tree branch , has 100% survival rate. 

[Gingerwelsh]

If I get it right, I don't die. 

 

I repeated this over and over with a P47, Spit V and Tempest on fairly level but bumpy ground, engine off, wheels up, flaps 20, without dying, up to 125 mph touch down, as here.

 

 

I like to keep the speed up and perform a slight tail down touch at about 100 mph and 500fps decent.

If I try a slower touch down, AOT is higher with a higher sink rate and harder tail touch causing the nose to hit hard and death is the result.

 

With battle damage, it's a different matter.

Bale out!

 

P.S. I've done nothing but PFL all day today and died twice, both my fault when I lost concentration, one of which I was hanging upside down and still wriggling.

 

..

Edited February 9, 2022 by Gingerwelsh

[BraveSirRobin]

12 minutes ago, ACG_Talisman said:

 

For the statistics to be representative I suggest that it would be logical, more accurate and fair to have representatives from both the camps of divided opinion/experience.  The stats might then be able to turn up further questions for investigation as to why one group might be experiencing something different from the other group, if indeed they do.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

I think that getting a random group would be good enough.  In any case, organizing a group of 20 people on a server is nearly impossible.  It’s like herding cats in a field of catnip.

[Knarley-Bob]

And some guys want to do carrier landings??? Lord help us!

[jdoe33]

4 hours ago, Gingerwelsh said:

If I get it right, I don't die. 

 

I repeated this over and over with a P47, Spit V and Tempest on fairly level but bumpy ground, engine off, wheels up, flaps 20, without dieing, up to 125 mph touch down, as here.

 

 

I like to keep the speed up and perform a slight tail down touch at about 100 mph and 500fps decent.

If I try a slower touch down, AOT is higher with a higher sink rate and harder tail touch causing the nose to hit hard and death is the result.

 

With battle damage, it's a different matter.

Bale out!

 

P.S. I've done nothing but PFL all day today and died twice, both my fault when I lost concentration, one of which I was hanging upside down and still wriggling.

 

..

Why is there still people trying to defend that something is obviously broken? Everyone knows that it's possible to survive ditches. By showing us that you can survive it you proof exactly nothing. People are reporting that the exact same ditch or PERFECT soft ditches sometimes cause absolutely ridiculous deaths, same with hard gear down landings where the gear doesen't break and you die (show me a world where this will happen, physics hello?).

The incosistency is the concern, so yea everyone who continues to defend the current implementation by saying  it's realistic and memeing "i'M aBLe To sUrVIVe", you're objectively wrong on every level possible and don't add anything to the conversation. 

[=420=Syphen]

5 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

There are some bugs yes, but a proper ditch procedure without hitting even a tree branch , has 100% survival rate. 

 

Nope. It doesn't have a 100% survival rate. But keep your head in the sand. 

 

I wonder if netcode is leaking into this however. I'll have to try some offline ditchings. When online, following a proper ditching technique, it's a crap shoot. It could be the beautiful technique on the pilots side but the netcode causes the aircraft to shift around leading to the server believing it was a hard landing. This is speculation on my part but it's the only thing that would make sense to me. 

 

I've been watching some encounters lately from both parties in online fights & head-on's and it has become quite apparent that the netcode is leading to scenarios where both pilots are pulling away from the other in their own tracks but then both collide in the middle. 

So when you test your ditchings offline, sure, they work. Try them online in mixed conditions and I suspect you may have different results. Or not. Because you may want to argue that it's 100% fine and everyone complaining should go away and be happy. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by =420=Syphen

[Gingerwelsh]

@jdoe33

 

The part at the end shows it is broken.

 

I do a gentle nose over and I'm clearly alive, but it registers a death.

 

..

 

 

[SCG_motoadve]

47 minutes ago, =420=Syphen said:

 

Nope. It doesn't have a 100% survival rate. But keep your head in the sand. 

 

I wonder if netcode is leaking into this however. I'll have to try some offline ditchings. When online, following a proper ditching technique, it's a crap shoot. It could be the beautiful technique on the pilots side but the netcode causes the aircraft to shift around leading to the server believing it was a hard landing. This is speculation on my part but it's the only thing that would make sense to me. 

 

I've been watching some encounters lately from both parties in online fights & head-on's and it has become quite apparent that the netcode is leading to scenarios where both pilots are pulling away from the other in their own tracks but then both collide in the middle. 

So when you test your ditchings offline, sure, they work. Try them online in mixed conditions and I suspect you may have different results. Or not. Because you may want to argue that it's 100% fine and everyone complaining should go away and be happy. 

Offline and online, even a 109 with wing damage and injured pilot, online.

That has been my experience.

 (this could be a problem online maybe, for some detecting a collision)

[No.23_Gaylion]

https://youtu.be/HIovlbX2TFc 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by US103_Talbot

[=420=Syphen]

1 hour ago, US103_Talbot said:

https://youtu.be/HIovlbX2TFc 

 

I just can't not help but laugh with you at that one.. Wild !! haha man that's messed up.

[Hellequin13]

4 hours ago, US103_Talbot said:

https://youtu.be/HIovlbX2TFc 

 

Had a similar incident on the Flugpark a few days ago, where my DFW disintegrated around me. It was a gentle glide slope, nose into the wind, perfect 3 pointer, and suddenly my wings fell off, the plane started fish tailing, rolled over on its side and killed the crew. Oh, and this was at an airfield, so not even a rough terrain situation.

 

I have been fairly lucky in not having too many issues with ditches, though most of my piloting is in the lawn dart, i mean Dolphin, so not too many opportunities to ditch. However, I have had a number of mid air incidents that resulted in illogical deaths: wing tips clipping, prop strikes on debris, etc.

 

Most recent was me diving down on a 190 in an La5, was a tad too hot on the approach, pulled up at the last second but my prop caught the tip of his rudder. Insta kill, cut to external of my propless, but otherwise intact plane and the 190 tumbling out of the sky (likely killed him instantly too).

 

Hopefully a fix is on the way soon, as the constant deaths to paper wings and delicate pilots is making for a rather unenjoyable experience.

[Talisman]

19 hours ago, Gingerwelsh said:

If I get it right, I don't die. 

 

I repeated this over and over with a P47, Spit V and Tempest on fairly level but bumpy ground, engine off, wheels up, flaps 20, without dieing, up to 125 mph touch down, as here.

 

 

I like to keep the speed up and perform a slight tail down touch at about 100 mph and 500fps decent.

If I try a slower touch down, AOT is higher with a higher sink rate and harder tail touch causing the nose to hit hard and death is the result.

 

With battle damage, it's a different matter.

Bale out!

 

P.S. I've done nothing but PFL all day today and died twice, both my fault when I lost concentration, one of which I was hanging upside down and still wriggling.

 

..

 

Well done Ginger. 

 

Nice work.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[No.23_Gaylion]

 

I vote Talisman has to write the letter home to this gunner's mother!

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 2/7/2022 at 11:03 PM, jdoe33 said:

The incosistency is the concern, so yea everyone who continues to defend the current implementation by saying  it's realistic and memeing "i'M aBLe To sUrVIVe", you're objectively wrong on every level possible and don't add anything to the conversation. 

So one's experiences are only valid and worthy of adding to the conversation if they confirm that ditching is too hard? Suuuuure....

 

Actually, there's a term for that. Cherrypicking.

 

On 2/7/2022 at 11:13 PM, =420=Syphen said:

I wonder if netcode is leaking into this however. I'll have to try some offline ditchings. When online, following a proper ditching technique, it's a crap shoot. It could be the beautiful technique on the pilots side but the netcode causes the aircraft to shift around leading to the server believing it was a hard landing. This is speculation on my part but it's the only thing that would make sense to me.

I've been wondering this too, given that I'm a 99% offline player and haven't really noticed much. I've crash-landed multiple times (I'd say between 10 and 20 or so) with different aircraft and various amounts of damage and died only once, on what was in fact a *very* rough landing (semi-controlled stall into the ground, one might say). However, there's clearly many people who have noticed a big change. Perhaps we could all share whether we fly mostly online or offline to see if there's any correlation?

[Gingerwelsh]

Single player.

 

I've spent the last 3 days doing only forced landings from 500 mtr, engine off, wheels up, flaps AR, no wind and I've used almost every plane I own, from various airfields in BP.

 

Providing I have a reasonably flat landing area and no control surface damage I am confident of a 100% survival rate on all of the single engine planes.

Some of the twins needed some death practice, but they are now covered.

Any wind you have such as in Career missions, will make things much easier.

Large bumps or rises, will make things much harder, so pick your landing spot well (obvious)..

The PE-2 was in a class of its own. It has a high stalling speed and a very narrow window to survive and death can occur on very flat ground, so this one is suspect, but it can be done, as here, but I would jump out of this one.

 

Sink rate is critical. I go for 500fpm.

A P-47 was bellied at 155 mph on flat ground with this reading with no trouble.

 

There is no doubt things have got harder.  Is this by bug or design? I don't know.

 

I tend to enjoy working round "improvements", but I doubt many would agree.

 

Does this bring anything to the table? Who cares!

 

Regards.

..

 

If

 

 

..

[Diggun]

I like the ditching as it is now. Previously it was like this:

 

 

 

and this

 

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

On 2/6/2022 at 2:17 PM, US103_Talbot said:

 

 

I literally get mega wounded taking off. That's.... not ok?

[JG1_Wittmann]

Along the same lines and probably related,,,,   I hit an invisible object with a tank.   Now before,   that would   slightly wound crew members,  and repeated  invisible object collisions would slightly wound them some more,  cumulative I guess,   racking up  hitpoints.   I ran into this object doing 14kph   and my driver was seriously wounded.   definitely something off with collision injuries.

[CUJO_1970]

Do I even have to say it?

 

 

Someone should have reminded JN Varley about sink rate before so he wouldn't have gotten those few abrasions after this little stunt:

 

The accident happened at RAF Poulton. It was Mustang 1 AG385 of 41 Operational Training Unit and the date was 14 August 1943. According to the Operations Record Book for the OTU, Pilot Officer JN Varley landed heavily, bounced and, attempting to go round again, stalled with full power and flaps down. The port wing dropped and dug into the ground, causing the Mustang to cartwheel twice and come to rest against a blister hangar in three pieces. Varley had a miraculous escape and only sustained some abrasions.

 

 

 

This guy should have improved his technique, maybe he would have survived better.

 

[AndyJWest]

5 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

...come to rest against a blister hangar in three pieces...

 

 

Three? A few more than that, by the look of it.

 

What that photo probably helps illustrate though is that you can't really tell from the wreckage how badly the pilot may have been hurt. If anything, the shredding of the wings and the detachment of nose and tail may have helped dissipate energy, like the crumple zones in a car. And there was probably a bit of give in the hangar, too.

[CUJO_1970]

4 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

What that photo probably helps illustrate though is that you can't really tell from the wreckage how badly the pilot may have been hurt.

 

From the original caption: Varley had a miraculous escape and only sustained some abrasions. So it seems not anything serious.

 

I think they meant three main sections being tail plane, main fuselage, and motor...agree completely about the wings, etc coming off helping dissipate the energy just like crumple zones on a car would...so many variables in a crash like this.

 

I post these pics not to suggest these crash landing were automatically survivable...certainly they were not and many pilots unfortunately lost their lives...but so many did live to tell about it.

[AndyJWest]

29 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

From the original caption: Varley had a miraculous escape and only sustained some abrasions. So it seems not anything serious.

 

I think they meant three main sections being tail plane, main fuselage, and motor...agree completely about the wings, etc coming off helping dissipate the energy just like crumple zones on a car would...so many variables in a crash like this.

 

I post these pics not to suggest these crash landing were automatically survivable...certainly they were not and many pilots unfortunately lost their lives...but so many did live to tell about it.

 

Yeah, I could probably have written more clearly - I assumed that was the point you were getting across. 

 

I've not got a source right now, but from what I recall reading, it wasn't that rare for apparently survivable belly landings where the aircraft was largely undamaged to prove fatal simply because the pilot hadn't tightened his straps enough, resulting in head-to-gunsight impact. And there are a lot of other factors that come into play, making it something of a lottery.