Belly landings, contrary to the RL guys...

[Panzerlang]

Who knew one could be KNOCKED THE FK OUT in a belly-landing? The screen went completely black, not even ringing in the ears. So I went to external view because it wasn't a hard landing and I wanted to see if the plane was wrecked. It wasn't but the pilot (me) was slumped in the cockpit. I was just about to start cussing out the game when, lo, my pilot sat back up. I hit F1 and, sure enough, vision had returned, albeit very dark and murky.
Skull fracture (I assume), a month needed for recovery.

Of the now numerous books I've read of real pilots, the vast majority of them preferred to belly-land rather than take to the chute. In-game I'd have to say the chute is now the safer option. My landing was pretty smooth, full flaps, no bang, crash and wallop. The pilots who did them, many comments on how they pulled their straps up real tight before impact to avoid eating the Revi etc. I suppose the back of the head could whack the plate behind, or a big lump in the ground could injure the spine but what does everyone think...pilots now too fragile?

 

Another anecdote, two crashes my brother had. The first, one undercarriage leg collapsed, pilot died. The second, the plane was properly broken (one leg collapsed, one wing snapped off and the plane proper tumbled over the ground), mild concussion (no hospital time needed).

I kind of like that it's no longer just 'blow up and die or anything less survive with full health' but I feel it's been a bit overdone?

Edited March 28, 2022 by Hetzer-JG51

[Winkysmith]

I don’t like to complain, and this is very much not a complaint, but the injury upon forced landings seems to be a tad high if I do say so myself. The other day, I was flying in the QMB, a simple battle between SE.5as of the RFC and a random German type. Anyway, after I shot them all down, I decided to land in an open field. I came in very nicely if I do say so myself, and touched the ground with virtually no sink rate (perfect flare, that is). Anyway, the ground was bumpy, and I expected the plane to flip, but it stayed upright. The strange thing, though, was that I hit a particularly large bump, and for some reason my pilot became seriously wounded. It puzzles me because there was no evidence of an impact capable of doing that. The undercarriage would collapse well before someone could become wounded like that, but in my case it stood fast. As I said, this most certainly isn’t a complaint, just an observation made by me on my favourite computer program (IL-2, that is).

[Oyster_KAI]

The landing gear is indestructible in the game, it should be a little weaker, and the human body should be a little stronger.

[Jaegermeister]

The only belly landing I have made recently, everything was fine. When the dust settled, I slid the canopy open and exited the mission.

[Panzerlang]

14 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

The only belly landing I have made recently, everything was fine. When the dust settled, I slid the canopy open and exited the mission.

One I made on a beach, I slid into a pretty big hump which one might have imagined would cause an injury but I was fine.

So it's a bit arbitrary too, if one assumes the pilot is always optimally bracing himself.

[percydanvers]

They changed it in a patch lately and I have not survived a belly landing since then

[BlitzPig_EL]

I belly landed a P51D yesterday afternoon. One of the guys noticed my left gear door had be shot off by flak, and came in for a closer look and saw that the wheel/tire assembly was totally gone as well. Other than a superficial fuel leak the aircraft was still in good shape so I flew it home.  Made a nice wheels up landing, touching down about 90mph IAS and came to a smooth stop and was credited with a good landing.   I really think the issue is that by and large most virtual pilots simply land at too high a speed as a matter of standard practice.

[Mollotin]

Had to test this, and well its situational. On smooth surfaces like road I was able to make clean belly landing going 400kph.  on rough surfaces full of hills and stuff i was able to survive rough bellylanding going below 200kph. Having never belly landed a real aircraft this feels realistic. One thing i found out is that if u spin while going faster than 150 kph or roll over u likely die. And of course if u hit a bumb going something like 300 kph if u don't instantly die u will be sent  upwards and u'll propably die when u make contact with the earth again.

 

Try being more gentle and pay attention where u belly land, good luck!

 

Edit: after further testing speed seems to be most important factor, 200kph(120mph) a slight uphill or a bumb and ur dead, 150kph(90mph) no issues.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Mollotin

[Asgar]

25 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I belly landed a P51D yesterday afternoon. One of the guys noticed my left gear door had be shot off by flak, and came in for a closer look and saw that the wheel/tire assembly was totally gone as well. Other than a superficial fuel leak the aircraft was still in good shape so I flew it home.  Made a nice wheels up landing, touching down about 90mph IAS and came to a smooth stop and was credited with a good landing.   I really think the issue is that by and large most virtual pilots simply land at too high a speed as a matter of standard practice.

I tend to agree. I've been doing belly landing (many) on the last live patch, in the current live patch and the testing versions for it. No issues. I go in slow and keep it just above ground for as long as i can, bleeding speed and setting it down just before stalling. No issues with unexpected deaths

[Koziolek]

5 hours ago, Oyster_KAI said:

The landing gear is indestructible in the game, it should be a little weaker, and the human body should be a little stronger.

 

That explains why I often die after heavier landing ( not crash ) with my undercarriage completely intact

 

On the other hand I managed to survive several belly landings but I agree it should be tweeked a bit

[=420=Syphen]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I belly landed a P51D yesterday afternoon. One of the guys noticed my left gear door had be shot off by flak, and came in for a closer look and saw that the wheel/tire assembly was totally gone as well. Other than a superficial fuel leak the aircraft was still in good shape so I flew it home.  Made a nice wheels up landing, touching down about 90mph IAS and came to a smooth stop and was credited with a good landing.   I really think the issue is that by and large most virtual pilots simply land at too high a speed as a matter of standard practice.

 

I've made some nice, bounce free landings, full stall 3 pointers and still died.  I only fly online. I've just given up on landing all together and fly over my field and bail if I know I'm damaged. Not worth landing ever now. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by =420=Syphen

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Yeah I died a few time lately in belly landings, including once when it was almost perfectly done and minimal damage was inflicted to the plane. So right now bailing out seems like the safer way, which doesnt make much sense.

[SCG_motoadve]

Online and offline, 100% chance of survival if done right, which is more that real life.

 

[Cpt_Siddy]

5 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Online and offline, 100% chance of survival if done right, which is more that real life.

 

Not true, there is very voodoo element of randomness that makes it doing right a very risky idea. Rather bail than belly land is the rule now (in TAW)

 

And the "right" way usually means you have to hit with wing first to bleed the initial energy, there is videos showing this done in other threads so i wont labor the point too much....

[Requiem]

Did some testing of this myself with various airplanes. Using normal landing technique in terms of airspeed control and flaring resulted in successful belly up landings. You can even ditch in water without dying and that's a more rapid deceleration than going belly up on land. I only had one weird landing in a Spad XIII where the pilot died after touchdown but couldn't replicate it on several other attempts. I think it may have been uncoordinated at the moment of touchdown.

 

If you're landing off field the airplane manuals' recommendations was always to leave the gear up and extend the flaps out fully if you can so you can minimise your speed (engine shutdown and cutting off mixture doesn't matter in the sim). There are specific techniques for some airplanes but as a general rule the above holds just fine.

 

If you touch down too fast then that's what is getting you killed.

[Asgar]

I spend the last hour flying and ending each flight with a belly landing, i brought down a 109 G-6, Ju-88 C-6 and a Hurricane on concrete, probably the hardest underground you can land on... not a single death, not even an injury. 
and i landed the P-51 B on ground (snow to be precise) ripped of the flaps and killed the engine, touched down at 110mph, cause i wanted to see what would happen at higher speed... no death, no injury.

So i can't relate to this issues at all. Not saying it doesn't exist. I'm simply not able to reproduce with how i belly land

[=420=Syphen]

I'm still positive it's online only where it's occurring.   I don't have issues when I've messed about with it offline.

 

And it's not EVERY SINGLE ditching. It's just much too random. A few good vids of rather nice and slow landings on roads have been posted in the complaints subforum about this that show perfectly fine landings with instant pilot death. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by =420=Syphen

[Enceladus828]

I've stated this before, I was flying a Yak-1 and my rudder got shot off and upon landing the plane veered to the left (I have no steering control). At 100 km/h the right

landing gear ran over sandbags and that instantly killed the pilot. And yes the canopy was closed.

 

Another occasion I was flying an A-20 and the right wing graze the top of a tree which caused the right aileron to break off, but apart from that nothing else was damaged, not even the engines and the plane continued to fly normally. But the grazing of the top of a tree, you know the part of the tree which is like pillows and causes very little, if any, damage to an aircraft, in an instant killed the Bombardier, Top Gunner, Ventral Gunner, and seriously injured the pilot.

 

??

[IckyATLAS]

5 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

I've stated this before, I was flying a Yak-1 and my rudder got shot off and upon landing the plane veered to the left (I have no steering control). At 100 km/h the right

landing gear ran over sandbags and that instantly killed the pilot. And yes the canopy was closed.

 

Another occasion I was flying an A-20 and the right wing graze the top of a tree which caused the right aileron to break off, but apart from that nothing else was damaged, not even the engines and the plane continued to fly normally. But the grazing of the top of a tree, you know the part of the tree which is like pillows and causes very little, if any, damage to an aircraft, in an instant killed the Bombardier, Top Gunner, Ventral Gunner, and seriously injured the pilot.

 

??

Lesson learned you must not graze the top of a tree, or face dire consequences. The tree you hit was a telecom metallic structure camouflaged as a tree. ? 

The impact energy of a small branch against something travelling at 200 km/hr or more is never a simple thing and can brake a lot of things. Aircraft skin is very thin.

[Nolly]

the randomness of outcome of a crash is extremely realistic.

[Enceladus828]

2 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

The impact energy of a small branch against something travelling at 200 km/hr or more is never a simple thing and can brake a lot of things. Aircraft skin is very thin.

Okay, so how does that explain 3 people being instantly killed and the pilot seriously injured just by grazing the top of a tree?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

9 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Okay, so how does that explain 3 people being instantly killed and the pilot seriously injured just by grazing the top of a tree?

It's a flight simulator, not a tree simulator. The Devs have chosen to have a slightly less detailed tree damage model in exchange for more FPS. I guess it depends on personal preference whether that choice was just. My personal opinion is that it was.

 

Bottom line is, as a pilot you should not ever fly into a tree. Not. Ever. If you're low enough to hit a tree, it's a pilot error, not a game error.

Edited March 28, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Enceladus828]

36 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's a flight simulator, not a tree simulator. The Devs have chosen to have a slightly less detailed tree damage model in exchange for more FPS. I guess it depends on personal preference whether that choice was just. My personal opinion is that it was.

 

Bottom line is, as a pilot you should not ever fly into a tree. Not. Ever. If you're low enough to hit a tree, it's a pilot error, not a game error.

No. One year ago (late July 2021 at the latest for me) I would fly the A-20 into trees for DM experimentation reasons and I would suffer more serious damage than simply the right aileron breaking off -- the right wing to the right engine breaking off in some cases -- and that would not be instantly fatal to anyone on the A-20 (at the most it caused only relatively minor injuries to some). The wing hit more of the trunk than simply the branches on the top of the tree.

 

Ditching into a field after an engine failure if it's a single engine aircraft, running over sandbags at 100km/h on landing and simply grazing the top of a tree is far too sensitive and the greatest thing it's doing is making players stop playing this game altogether (or just doing Tank scenarios) and moving onto other games like WoFF, CloD, etc, etc.

 

The devs really need to fix this 

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's a flight simulator, not a tree simulator. The Devs have chosen to have a slightly less detailed tree damage model in exchange for more FPS. I guess it depends on personal preference whether that choice was just. My personal opinion is that it was.

 

Bottom line is, as a pilot you should not ever fly into a tree. Not. Ever. If you're low enough to hit a tree, it's a pilot error, not a game error.

Planes landed at homebase with bits of ship mast in the wings, Stones from rooftops, and a lot of wood.

Kind of a new normal from mid to late war.

And it is a tree simulator, for my 10 + years here this sim has evolved also in this. This is the only sim you can land on the forrest and the trees will bend and it feel like you land on a pillow.

Fact is also, for several years they have tuned the fragility of crewmembers, and right now I too think they overdose it. And the example is one of the proofs

You might not been here long enough to noticed all this. But yes it is a trees simulator, best ever

[AEthelraedUnraed]

47 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

No. One year ago (late July 2021 at the latest for me) I would fly the A-20 into trees for DM experimentation reasons and I would suffer more serious damage than simply the right aileron breaking off -- the right wing to the right engine breaking off in some cases -- and that would not be instantly fatal to anyone on the A-20 (at the most it caused only relatively minor injuries to some). The wing hit more of the trunk than simply the branches on the top of the tree.

 

Ditching into a field after an engine failure if it's a single engine aircraft, running over sandbags at 100km/h on landing and simply grazing the top of a tree is far too sensitive and the greatest thing it's doing is making players stop playing this game altogether (or just doing Tank scenarios) and moving onto other games like WoFF, CloD, etc, etc.

 

The devs really need to fix this 

I know there must be something going on with pilot damage; besides this particular thread there's umpteen others in the complaints section. I'll grant you guys that: this amount of complaints cannot simply be dismissed as one Karen complaining about dying too often.

 

However, personally I still don't really know what it's all about. Since people started complaining, I've crash-landed easily more than 20 to 30 times - on runways, fields, hills, wing first, trees in the way, whatever - and never died when I didn't think it was justified (maybe 2 to 4 times? There's 2 I can remember). What's interesting is not that some people die often when ditching, but WHY some people die often when ditching while others don't. Instead of complaining, we could all try to collect some stats so that the Devs at least have something to go on. As for me, I play almost exclusively offline (so no netcode stuff) and tend to land quite slow (around stall speed).

 

5 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Planes landed at homebase with bits of ship mast in the wings, Stones from rooftops, and a lot of wood.

Kind of a new normal from mid to late war.

And it is a tree simulator, for my 10 + years here this sim has evolved also in this. This is the only sim you can land on the forrest and the trees will bend and it feel like you land on a pillow.

Fact is also, for several years they have tuned the fragility of crewmembers, and right now I too think they overdose it. And the example is one of the proofs

You might not been here long enough to noticed all this. But yes it is a trees simulator, best ever

This is not real life. This is a simulator. And no, it's not a tree simulator. Trees here don't behave like a real tree, and they shouldn't because it would cost too much processing power. Hence collisions with trees don't behave like they would in the real world.

 

And c'mon, no need to get personal about me only starting with the current iteration of the IL2 series in 2018 or so.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Be glad you don't have the Pacific and carriers yet, those arresting cables are murder.

[oc2209]

43 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

However, personally I still don't really know what it's all about. Since people started complaining, I've crash-landed easily more than 20 to 30 times - on runways, fields, hills, wing first, trees in the way, whatever - and never died when I didn't think it was justified (maybe 2 to 4 times? There's 2 I can remember). What's interesting is not that some people die often when ditching, but WHY some people die often when ditching while others don't. Instead of complaining, we could all try to collect some stats so that the Devs at least have something to go on. As for me, I play almost exclusively offline (so no netcode stuff) and tend to land quite slow (around stall speed).

 

Ditto. Especially the part about people gathering data.

 

I know for a fact there's something off about collisions. The lightest touches of mid-air collisions (I'm talking bending a prop on another plane's wingtip) can kill pilots, if the planes aren't going almost identical, low speeds.

 

I also know for a fact that I rarely, very rarely, die in emergency landings. 99% of my landing deaths are from (stupidly) putting the gear down and flipping over onto the cockpit. It's arguably too much of a death sentence to flip over; there should be a little survival leeway, maybe like 75% of the time you die, 25% live. But that's the worst offender by far, and I consider it tolerable.

 

I posted tons of clips of myself landing (and surviving) in various ways (on mountain ridges in Kuban, on undulating hills in Kuban, etc) and in various planes, when the complaints first started.

 

Lately I've tried to be more realistic by getting shot first, to simulate real playing conditions, rather than belly landing perfectly untouched planes.

 

Just did this a few minutes ago:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Contact with the ground occurred right near 140 MPH. So, not exactly ideal.

 

As I see it, speed by itself doesn't kill. Speed + bumping anything (terrain, another plane, a sandbag, etc) triggers some kind of physics model overreaction for pilot physiology.

 

Just making pilots tougher/more resistant to damage, would not be the proper fix in my opinion. There must be a way to fine-tune the physics input.

[CUJO_1970]

There's already a thread about this in complaints section.

 

Here's the bottom line for me - there are so many real life examples (many in that very thread, with photos included) where pilots did not "coordinate" because they couldn't - damaged/shot up aircraft, etc - where they flew through telephone wires and poles - where they hit concrete walls, entire buildings and parked aircraft, where their planes ended up in three pieces...and they walked away - some injured but survived to fly again.

 

And yes, some died.

 

Because you can follow some procedure in the sim to survive does not make it realistic.

 

 

[oc2209]

2 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Here's the bottom line for me - there are so many real life examples (many in that very thread, with photos included) where pilots did not "coordinate" because they couldn't - damaged/shot up aircraft, etc - where they flew through telephone wires and poles - where they hit concrete walls, entire buildings and parked aircraft, where their planes ended up in three pieces...and they walked away - some injured but survived to fly again.

 

And yes, some died.

 

Because you can follow some procedure in the sim to survive does not make it realistic.

 

I'd say more like 'the majority' died in severe accidents, not 'some.'

 

Obviously photographers aren't going to take pictures of fatal crashes where nothing's left of the pilot but a smear on the interior windscreen. That's not a story; it's expected, and mundane.

 

Asking the sim to have a plane damage model and pilot physiology model complex and subtle enough to accommodate the 1/100 chance of survival crashes that you're talking about--that's asking too much.

 

It's better to keep expectations limited to what the sim can currently handle, not what we want it to handle.

 

What we shouldn't have, is: parachuting into a tree = assured death; and bumping/grazing an object at moderate speeds, other than perfectly flat terrain = instant death.

 

We need to find a balancing point where we can't crash into a forest at 150 MPH+ like we used to (one time I ripped off both wings in an uncontrolled forest crash, and lived), but also aren't subject to seemingly arbitrary deaths like many people have complained of.

[oc2209]

I just conducted a series of tests that I've never done before:

 

High speed taxi impacts. It's rather interesting. Well, to me at least.

 

I set the throttle at 3 different settings for a given test; 20%, 30%, and 40%.

 

20% would reach speeds of 38 MPH by the time of impact. 30% would reach 58 MPH. 40% would reach 74 MPH (all consistently). The maximum speed I reached was in the low 90s, when I missed my intended collision target, and went far beyond the airfield. I eventually tore the plane apart trying (failing) to hit a tree, but I was uninjured. Again, this was at approximately 90 MPH. All speeds are according to HUD overlay.

 

When I impacted some crates at 74 MPH, I exploded immediately. I therefore didn't bother to test it again. When I hit the crates at 58 MPH (a recording of which I included here), the pilot died on impact. The speed I tested the most (6 times), was 38 MPH into some crates. I tried to hit them squarely each time. 5/6 times, no injury resulted. Once, when I hit the crates a little off center (my left gear was outside the crates, while my right gear collided with the crates), I was seriously injured.

 

Recordings:

 

20% throttle, 38 MPH:

 

Spoiler

 

 

30% throttle, 58 MPH:

 

Spoiler

 

 

40% throttle, 74 MPH:

 

Spoiler

 

 

It is worth noting that the impact in the 38 MPH tests sometimes cracked the canopy and gauges.

 

All things considered, everything seemed to be in order. Crashing up to 40 MPH is quite safe in the sim (though, if you've ever been in a car accident at 'low' speed, it feels a lot faster/more violent than you assume it would). Crashing around 60 MPH is fatal (should be), and crashing head-on at +70 MPH is fatal (again, as it should be). But crashing above 70 MPH with just wings ripped off is doable. As in, not hitting an object head-on, but more of a sideswipe.

[IckyATLAS]

5 hours ago, Enceladus said:

Okay, so how does that explain 3 people being instantly killed and the pilot seriously injured just by grazing the top of a tree?

I suppose the problem is related to the way collisions are calculated in the sim. To reduce complexity in collision calculations the objects have a simpler envelope than the exact detailed object that is represented. The simplest way is that each object is represented by a sphere that encapsulate the object. If the distance is inferior of the sum of the two radius you have collision. You can also put in the two speeds and estimate the relative speed to have a kind of impact energy estimated to decide how bad the collision is. But this is very coarse and either collision either not. Here in this sim the plane is probably very detailed due to the detailed damage model. But this is surely not for the trees. This means that the sim does not make a big difference between the leaves of the tree or the trunk or a branch. Not knowing how a tree is collision modeled it is difficult to say but I bet that there is not a difference between the base of the trunk that is thicker, the top of the trunk that is thinner, the lower branches that are thicker near the trunk and thinner as you go away from the trunk, the top branches that are thinner and much thinner away from the top part of the tree and the leaves. 

Then you can also consider the speed of the plane against a static object to estimate the damage.

When I graze the top of trees either nothing happens or it is pretty catastrophic. There is little in between.

Edited March 29, 2022 by IckyATLAS

[oc2209]

37 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

Then you can also consider the speed of the plane against a static object to estimate the damage.

When I graze the top of trees either nothing happens or it is pretty catastrophic. There is little in between.

 

Yeah, this is true.

 

I have, at various times, hit trees (mostly in Ju-88s or Stukas) and lost flaps or ailerons, with no crew injuries. Probably because I'm at near-stall speeds at the moment of impact.

 

I think a lot of the reason people feel there's a disconnect between 'light' impacts and instant pilot death, is that our planes simply can't show subtle damage, nor can they be destroyed in a more 'granular' way as reality would. Our planes appear to be totally intact, with us left thinking a collision was survivable.

 

As you can see in my 58 MPH collision, the gear struts weren't shorn off. But that doesn't change the fact that my plane collided with crates at speeds which, if we were dealing with cars, are typically catastrophic; and, as far as the sim is concerned, said crates may as well be stacks of adamantium cubes with neutronium cores. Just as the trees are immovable, unbendable, unbreakable objects.

Edited March 29, 2022 by oc2209

[firdimigdi]

34 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

said crates may as well be stacks of adamantium cubes with neutronium cores. Just as the trees are immovable, unbendable, unbreakable objects

 

That's mostly the problem. Rigid body physics in both the plane collision and the ground object collision, so if you're unlucky enough that the cockpit hitbox receives any part of the sum it is all transferred to the pilot/crew. This is even more apparent with tanks in the game. After that update even a dip in the road can kill crew members and heavens forbid you touch some static object like a bench, a bicycle or a haystack at speed.

[oc2209]

12 minutes ago, Firdimigdi said:

 

That's mostly the problem. Rigid body physics in both the plane collision and the ground object collision, so if you're unlucky enough that the cockpit hitbox receives any part of the sum it is all transferred to the pilot/crew. This is even more apparent with tanks in the game. After that update even a dip in the road can kill crew members and heavens forbid you touch some static object like a bench, a bicycle or a haystack at speed.

 

Fair point, but the question is, if they can't (at this moment) make more complex physics collisions, what's the solution? To increase pilot/crew injury tolerance would put us back to where we were before. Decreasing the amount of force registered by crew during impacts would have the same result.

 

My most recent series of tests involves crashing an He-111 (half fuel, no bombs, full ammo/weapons) into a forest with full flaps and cut throttle. Impact speeds are approximately 75 MPH.

 

Initial tree contact is never fatal at those speeds. It's the contact with the ground that does the entire crew in:

 

Spoiler

 

 

My technique looks bad, but it was actually one of my best landings tonight. Typically the plane caught fire when I went in flat and straight. I was attempting to dip the wing between some trees to get closer to the ground, to reduce the impact of falling from tree height to the ground.

 

Anyway, here's the single success of multiple (5ish) tests:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I think we two in the cockpit were the only survivors.

 

In another crash, I deliberately put my wing into a single tree (not a forest) as I landed, and only the nose gunner died after hard ground contact. No other injuries/deaths.

[Panzerlang]

I forgot to mention that one of our guys in co-op (think it was Mewt) died when he landed by chute in a forest (I was watching in spectator mode). I think that illustrates perfectly how 'out of whack' the crew DM has become. I've read not one account, in war or out, of a parachutist dying as a result of landing in trees.

I hope they re-tune it, it spoils a lot of the fun when realism is compromised to such a degree.

[firdimigdi]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Fair point, but the question is, if they can't (at this moment) make more complex physics collisions, what's the solution? To increase pilot/crew injury tolerance would put us back to where we were before. Decreasing the amount of force registered by crew during impacts would have the same result.

 

Well for tanks it's a no-brainer, crew there needs to be tougher to account for the lack of more complicated collision physics as they're more prone to encountering such zaniness (even invisible objects or objects with mismatching collision boxes as have been reported). For planes I'm mostly fine the way it is, maybe perhaps change the values a tad for the absorption of collisions of successful gear down landings which seem to be the most unfair to people currently, ditching in a field should be a scary sphincter exercising endeavor.

 

I wonder if there's any difference in the results of your highly scientific experiments if you use the destructible trees in Prokhorovka.

 

1 hour ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

I've read not one account, in war or out, of a parachutist dying as a result of landing in trees.

 

A few years ago there was a relatively famous skydiver/base-jumper who died exactly like that. Usually people just try to avoid trees, they don't mix well with anything moving at speed.

EDIT:
Ah, here you go:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etTB0LR5bZw

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Firdimigdi

[56RAF_Roblex]

1 hour ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

I forgot to mention that one of our guys in co-op (think it was Mewt) died when he landed by chute in a forest (I was watching in spectator mode). I think that illustrates perfectly how 'out of whack' the crew DM has become. I've read not one account, in war or out, of a parachutist dying as a result of landing in trees.

I hope they re-tune it, it spoils a lot of the fun when realism is compromised to such a degree.

 

Happened to me a few days ago.   I was uninjured when I jumped and the chute had been fully open for about 30 seconds before I hit the ground and then I died.  It was in a forest but now I know that forests are dangerous then I can bear that in mind.  I could easily have delayed my jump that time in order to be over clear ground.

BTW,   there were many aircraft in WW2 that were almost guaranteed to kill you if you tried to belly land them even on a smooth grass airfield, eg the Tempest.   There were also many pilots found dead in the cockpit with a broken neck after what looked like a good belly landing in a 'safe' aircraft.    In that respect the game is making it too easy as you can belly land anything on the airfield with almost guaranteed survival.

[Panzerlang]

19 minutes ago, Firdimigdi said:

 

Well for tanks it's a no-brainer, crew there needs to be tougher to account for the lack of more complicated collision physics as they're more prone to encountering such zaniness (even invisible objects or objects with mismatching collision boxes as have been reported). For planes I'm mostly fine the way it is, maybe perhaps change the values a tad for the absorption of collisions of successful gear down landings which seem to be the most unfair to people currently, ditching in a field should be a scary sphincter exercising endeavor.

 

I wonder if there's any difference in the results of your highly scientific experiments if you use the destructible trees in Prokhorovka.

 

 

A few years ago there was a relatively famous skydiver/base-jumper who died exactly like that. Usually people just try to avoid trees, they don't mix well with anything moving at speed.

EDIT:
Ah, here you go:

  Hide contents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etTB0LR5bZw

 

Sure, and as they called it in the title, it was a "freak accident". In IL2 this stuff is now in the category of "freak survival". Lol.

Unfortunately now, in our co-op campaign, anything water, belly-landing or chute death = resurrection. Not a very satisfactory workaround but it's the only way to keep the game playable right now.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Hetzer-JG51

[firdimigdi]

24 minutes ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

Sure, and as they called it in the title, it was a "freak accident".

 

I find it funny to label anything that involves falling out of a plane at 30000 feet and ending up dead as a "freak accident", but that's a different thing. I bet they generally avoid areas with trees to land in seeing as they have a choice which then tilts statistics in favor of parachute malfunction/entaglement as being the premier cause of skydiver deaths. However there are several other cases of people colliding with large trees and getting messed up pretty bad or ending up dead.

 

But it's true though that in IL2 it seems that parachute + tree is 100% death with no chance of "just" injury (which I do recall being a thing in the past).

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Firdimigdi
typos

[Ribbon]

12 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

Lesson learned you must not graze the top of a tree, or face dire consequences. The tree you hit was a telecom metallic structure camouflaged as a tree. ? 

The impact energy of a small branch against something travelling at 200 km/hr or more is never a simple thing and can brake a lot of things. Aircraft skin is very thin.

I work on a fire fighting airplanes so i witnessed a lot of bird and tree branch strikes and lucky none of them caused plane to crash...mostly minor lump and nothing fitters can't fix in two days.

One time guys hit the power line and bring back power line cable figgled around propeler.

One pilot stalled and landed in the forrest getring out with minor bruises.

 

Look at these french cl415 pilots (speed is ~200kph, wing had some damage but nothing irreparable:

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by =VARP=Ribbon