Belly landings, contrary to the RL guys...

[BlitzPig_EL]

Explain survivability in the P51 then with it's radiator scoop.  I can land the Mustang wheels up and not be killed, yet one would think that the radiator intake would catch any bit of adverse terrain and kill the pilot every time.

[Gingerwelsh]

No problem so far. It looks flat, but it was wavy bumps.

 

..

[Gingerwelsh]

@oc2209

 

My roughest survived  PE-2 PFL yet. (6 mini take offs) 5.2 G Max.

 

The PE 2 pilot is very delicate. This is the roughest forced landing I've had with a PE-2 and survived. Engines off, wheels up, no wind, 20 flap, 75% fuel, aiming for touch down at 108 mph. Rheinland.

 

 

 

 

 

..

Edited April 2, 2022 by Gingerwelsh

[[CPT]Crunch]

Something not being factored is each surface has differing collision characteristics defined, and it affects your landings directly.  Try landing on a bridge, or a long factory roof top, on a hanger, even a dock pier or rail yard, each object has unique contact characteristics assigned.  That would be a good clue indicating land within an airfield and outside the defined airfield also have differing assigned collision values. 

 

Landing on the big concrete type bridge at Koln is like landing in glue rat trap, your plane will sit about a foot above the actual concrete, it's that glue like sudden deceleration that will kill or severely wound your pilot, it's like catching an arresting cable, even if your plane is perfectly intact on its gear still running on the concrete surface without contacting a side.  The bridges should be an ideal landing zone, concrete, long, and plenty width to land, but in game a total death trap by contact alone. 

 

I think they just didn't have time or an original intent to give it a whole lot of fidelity in this specific arena.  From the beginning who would have ever thought we'd be doing crazy things like landing on roofs, tracks, and bridges. 

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Explain survivability in the P51 then with it's radiator scoop.  I can land the Mustang wheels up and not be killed, yet one would think that the radiator intake would catch any bit of adverse terrain and kill the pilot every time.

 

Please try landing the P-51 at 250 KPH (~155 MPH), and then tell me the results. Again, do it on perfectly flat terrain beside an airfield. I use Lapino myself.

 

I pushed the Sturmovik to such a ridiculously high touchdown speed because I suspected it would work. If you look at the underside of a Sturm, it has 5 solid points that contact the ground: the flat oil cooler/radiator/whatever, the two forward parts of the landing gear fairings, and the actual landing gear wheels themselves (retracted).

 

Despite all of this being dragged along the ground at excessively high speeds, the pilot doesn't die. Because, I suspect, the positioning of said features prevents the plane from bucking or making sudden (imperceptible) pitch changes. To clarify, there are two points where pitch might come into play: the initial ground contact (the bucking motion is visible as the plane transitions from its touchdown flare to being flat); and the imperceptible pitch changes that I theorize are occurring during the slide along the ground.

 

In one of my recordings here, the pilot of a Pe-2 outright dies several seconds after landing, simply from scraping along over a perfectly flat stretch ground, at less than 200 KPH. Despite the fact that the underside of the Pe-2 beneath the pilot isn't making direct contact with the ground. So that means the pilot's being killed from forces being transferred up through the engine nacelles and/or tail. Yet these same forces mysteriously don't kill/injure the guy sitting right behind/beside the pilot.

 

The million dollar question here, is this: what's being simulated? The pilot's spine breaking from jostling and bumping? That's the most obvious answer. In that case, a Sturmovik should be vulnerable to the same bumps and spine breaks as any other plane. The armor tub doesn't (or shouldn't) matter in this scenario, in my opinion. The speed with which the plane's plowing through the ground should amplify any bumps to a fatal degree, or at least enough to injure; if indeed that's the cause of pilot trauma.

 

*Addendum:

 

To recap: if terrain bumps aren't killing/injuring pilots from straight up/down jostles (with injuries more like spinal compression), then I suspect it's forward/backward pitch changes that are doing the damage. I don't know if the sim actually recreates this effect in detail, but I'm talking about violent whiplash.

Edited April 1, 2022 by oc2209

[oc2209]

Sorry guys, I'm moving the landing criteria up a little. I've now hit 175 MPH in the Sturmovik and lived to tell about it. But it's not assured without injury, and watching sink rate is an absolute must at those speeds.

 

Failed attempt:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Instrument panel a moment before impact:

 

Spoiler

 

Here's a Sturmovik injury:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And finally, here's a clean success:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Here's a P-47 attempting to belly in at 167 MPH, with fatal results:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Instrument panel before impact:

 

Spoiler

 

So... some commentary. The Sturmovik death was apparently from sink rate + speed. There was no pitch forward on ground contact. Pilot death was instant.

 

By contrast, the P-47 pilot lived briefly after ground contact. Maybe the pitch forward killed him, maybe not.

 

In any event, sink rate can explain instances where contact with the ground and death are simultaneous. The delayed deaths and injuries are still the mystery. Anyone is, of course, free to speculate. I'm not saying any of my theories are perfect by any means.

 

All I've ascertained so far: deaths and injuries are seemingly not random. Pilot physiology is not excessively weak.

 

Where my theorizing completely breaks down into pure speculation, is in explaining the Pe-2's behavior, and multi-crew casualties in general.

 

Everything in my testing so far feels quite logical and explainable in single-seaters.

[Lusekofte]

We fly Ju 88 in coop using patric Wilson.

I find the fragility of the pilot  embarrassing. I crashlanded wingtip first and got 4 days in hospital.

Later on I had a controlled wheels up landing, smoother than a normal landing. It resulted in over 50 days recovery. And the endless death in-between.

I put this right up there among P 47 glass engine. It is one of many major flaws not about to easily get changed.

Netcode? So what? It should too be taken into the algorithm. Because major limitations are present due to server activity. 

These endless excuses and guesses why things is what they are.

The result of a emergency landing is at best random. But honestly the outcome seldom make any sense

 

[oc2209]

11 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

We fly Ju 88 in coop using patric Wilson.

I find the fragility of the pilot  embarrassing. I crashlanded wingtip first and got 4 days in hospital.

The result of a emergency landing is at best random. But honestly the outcome seldom make any sense

 

 

For multi-crew planes, yes. I have not yet been able to make sense of their behavior. But I feel I'm gaining a solid understanding of how single-seaters work.

 

I'm gradually increasing my landing speeds, while carefully watching sink rate. I've now reached 300 KPH in a Sturmovik, and almost the same in a P-47. However, the latter is harder to control on the ground.

 

What I've begun to do is apply maximum elevator a moment after touching the ground. This keeps the tail down, and prevents the nose from digging into the ground. Whether the nose dipping kills pilots from lurching forward, or from simply digging into more terrain bumps, I don't know. I can't prove anything decisively. But I do know that applying elevator is making a difference in survivability at exceptionally high speeds. Later on tonight, I will try to apply what I've learned to twin engine bombers.

 

In the meantime, here's some more recordings. I know it's beyond ridiculous how many of these I post, but I've learned a great deal just today alone.

 

Here's a fatal P-47 landing near 200 MPH:

 

Exterior:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Interior:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Here's a successful Sturmovik landing at 300 KPH:

 

Exterior:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Interior:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Before today's testing, I assumed 160 MPH was the maximum survival belly landing speed with the current sim version. With modification of my technique, I've increased it to nearly 200 MPH. This implies some kind of logic is being used for these pilot injuries.

 

If I cannot apply said logic to larger multi-crew planes, then there is perhaps a flaw in those planes and how they factor in crew damage.

[Strewth]

Funnily enough.
I though that IL-2 was a flight simulator? and not a crash simulator?? 

In all fairness, I understand where everyone is coming from. But for me personally, even though the crash landing can be frustrating and I hope the team can fine tune it better over time; My biggest priority is the actual flight dynamics along with visuals and FPS.

Still a very interesting subject though.

Cheers.

[oc2209]

13 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Landing on the big concrete type bridge at Koln is like landing in glue rat trap, your plane will sit about a foot above the actual concrete, it's that glue like sudden deceleration that will kill or severely wound your pilot, it's like catching an arresting cable, even if your plane is perfectly intact on its gear still running on the concrete surface without contacting a side.  The bridges should be an ideal landing zone, concrete, long, and plenty width to land, but in game a total death trap by contact alone.

 

You just needed to use a small, graceful plane to be successful:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Full disclosure:

 

I failed in the Spitfire IX, Fw-190A-8, and Yak-9 prior to this attempt.

 

But, I did it in one go with the Sturm. It's also really helpful when your wing hits the bridge frame (not the cables, which seem to lack collision modelling), and your plane is like, 'yeah, whatever.'

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, Strewth said:

Funnily enough.
I though that IL-2 was a flight simulator? and not a crash simulator?? 

In all fairness, I understand where everyone is coming from. But for me personally, even though the crash landing can be frustrating and I hope the team can fine tune it better over time; My biggest priority is the actual flight dynamics along with visuals and FPS.

Still a very interesting subject though.

Cheers.

In dogfight servers I care less about surviving. Ìn coop going for month. It means no progressing.

You stay at lowest rank and it will after month to end take much of the fun away.

It means , parachute at a safe altitude in enemy territory and loose your pilot by being captured. Or die in a perfect off grid landing on friendly soil.

One can brush it off and say it is a game. For me not being able to fly much due to travel and work. I can not fully enjoy the few times I can fly coop with mates.

 

 

“Badass Lt. Q. Aanenson returning his P-47 to base (August 26, 1944). Aanenson, part of US 9th Air Force, was flying tank-busting mission over Normandy when his aircraft was hit by Nazi flak - the robustness of the Thunderbolt saved him.”

[Canvas25]

12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

What I've begun to do is apply maximum elevator a moment after touching the ground. This keeps the tail down, and prevents the nose from digging into the ground. Whether the nose dipping kills pilots from lurching forward, or from simply digging into more terrain bumps, I don't know. I can't prove anything decisively. But I do know that applying elevator is making a difference in survivability at exceptionally high speeds.

 

“If you’re faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash as possible.”
— Bob Hoover

[[CPT]Crunch]

Formed up twenty yards behind a Spitfire already shot to pieces and he pops the canopy, in slow motion it goes up over the spits tail and drops back into my 109's prop, upon contact my screen goes black, air speeds are matched.  That's just plain old silly, how does a canopy with very low relative velocity penetrate an armored windscreen, or having such small relative mass cause such a severe impact killing the pilot with barely any impact speed?  Only visible damage was the bent back prop matching the last thing I saw, a direct propeller strike with instant death upon the impact.

[firdimigdi]

14 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

For multi-crew planes, yes. I have not yet been able to make sense of their behavior. But I feel I'm gaining a solid understanding of how single-seaters work.

 

I'm gradually increasing my landing speeds, while carefully watching sink rate. I've now reached 300 KPH in a Sturmovik, and almost the same in a P-47. However, the latter is harder to control on the ground.

 

What I've begun to do is apply maximum elevator a moment after touching the ground. This keeps the tail down, and prevents the nose from digging into the ground. Whether the nose dipping kills pilots from lurching forward, or from simply digging into more terrain bumps, I don't know. I can't prove anything decisively. But I do know that applying elevator is making a difference in survivability at exceptionally high speeds. Later on tonight, I will try to apply what I've learned to twin engine bombers.

 

In the meantime, here's some more recordings. I know it's beyond ridiculous how many of these I post, but I've learned a great deal just today alone.

 

Here's a fatal P-47 landing near 200 MPH:

 

Exterior:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Interior:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Here's a successful Sturmovik landing at 300 KPH:

 

Exterior:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Interior:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Before today's testing, I assumed 160 MPH was the maximum survival belly landing speed with the current sim version. With modification of my technique, I've increased it to nearly 200 MPH. This implies some kind of logic is being used for these pilot injuries.

 

If I cannot apply said logic to larger multi-crew planes, then there is perhaps a flaw in those planes and how they factor in crew damage.

 

 

Would be interesting to also include the g meter overlay next time you conduct scientific experiments.

[PatrickAWlson]

On 4/1/2022 at 7:27 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

Explain survivability in the P51 then with it's radiator scoop.  I can land the Mustang wheels up and not be killed, yet one would think that the radiator intake would catch any bit of adverse terrain and kill the pilot every time.

 

My guess is that you are not landing scoop down.  Your landing profile is still going to be nose up.  The scoop should be what you are sliding on and doesn't really become a factor until you slow down enough to tip forward.  By that time your propeller and nose are also planting so I doubt the scoop makes things much worse.

[firdimigdi]

34 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

My guess is that you are not landing scoop down.  Your landing profile is still going to be nose up.  The scoop should be what you are sliding on and doesn't really become a factor until you slow down enough to tip forward.  By that time your propeller and nose are also planting so I doubt the scoop makes things much worse.

 

[dureyo]

3 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Formed up twenty yards behind a Spitfire already shot to pieces and he pops the canopy, in slow motion it goes up over the spits tail and drops back into my 109's prop, upon contact my screen goes black, air speeds are matched.  That's just plain old silly, how does a canopy with very low relative velocity penetrate an armored windscreen, or having such small relative mass cause such a severe impact killing the pilot with barely any impact speed?  Only visible damage was the bent back prop matching the last thing I saw, a direct propeller strike with instant death upon the impact.

This so much. People don't understand it's not only about ditching. The smallest mid air collisions will also kill you which in real life wouldn't even harm the pilot. This issue as it currently is goes far beyond ditch mechanics, in general pilot health was screwed up so bad few patches ago. 

Tank crewmen are literally dying from a bumpy road. DYING. 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by dureyo

[Guest]

I hope they fix it soon, it's really taking the shine off of DiD co-op play.

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Formed up twenty yards behind a Spitfire already shot to pieces and he pops the canopy, in slow motion it goes up over the spits tail and drops back into my 109's prop, upon contact my screen goes black, air speeds are matched.  That's just plain old silly, how does a canopy with very low relative velocity penetrate an armored windscreen, or having such small relative mass cause such a severe impact killing the pilot with barely any impact speed?  Only visible damage was the bent back prop matching the last thing I saw, a direct propeller strike with instant death upon the impact.

 

Never had this happen exactly, but have had mid-air prop strikes with no other plane damage cause pilot death. 

 

It's one of the reasons I've adamantly clung to the belief there's a physics bug.

 

10 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

In dogfight servers I care less about surviving. Ìn coop going for month. It means no progressing.

You stay at lowest rank and it will after month to end take much of the fun away.

It means , parachute at a safe altitude in enemy territory and loose your pilot by being captured. Or die in a perfect off grid landing on friendly soil.

 

Unfortunately, I can't make belly landing in bombers safe. I'm giving up. All I can suggest, is never, and I do mean never, bother to belly in a bomber. Always put the gear down, no matter what. This is not true in a fighter, because a fighter is A) less touchy about belly landing, and B) more prone to flip with gear down over uneven terrain, which then has a good chance of killing the pilot.

 

With gear down in a bomber, you can, offline at least, get away with murder:

 

Spoiler

 

 

No injuries. If something can pass my mountain landing test, I consider it reasonably safe in normal circumstances.

 

4 hours ago, Firdimigdi said:

Would be interesting to also include the g meter overlay next time you conduct scientific experiments.

 

I've turned on both 'simplified physiology' and 'simplified physics' during testing, and neither makes a significant survivability difference. So I don't believe Gs are a factor here.

 

It's some kind of impact force transfer issue. Like, a plane endures X amount of force during an impact, and that is somehow, in certain circumstances, either magnified or not logically spread out as it should be. It all goes directly into the pilot/crew member.

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

I hope they fix it soon, it's really taking the shine off of DiD co-op play.

This game is at its very best, flying coop. A real shame it is. We fly underdogs most of times, getting away are our challange. This blows it all 

 

[oc2209]

This is my official resignation as test pilot for this problem.

 

In a final attempt at figuring something logical out regarding bomber belly landing casualties, I landed a Pe-2 with 10% fuel load and no ammo or bombs. My theory was that bomber weight, either gross weight or weight distribution within the airframe, was somehow causing issues. That theory went nowhere.

 

Recording of landing with 10% fuel with empty ammo/bomb stores:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Ground contact speed was approximately 205 KPH. Sink rate was very near zero.

 

By contrast, here's a P-47 with a half fuel load and full (regular, not extra) ammunition, landing at approximately 318 KPH:

 

Spoiler

 

 

No injury. And no, it's not a fluke. I can recreate it.

 

So, to reiterate things I've already said, but concisely:

 

I was able to systematically increase my belly landing speed in single-seat planes, and reliably not die or suffer injuries at extreme speeds. I was unable to do anything to make belly landings in multi-seat bombers more survivable at any speeds. Bombers are literally "unsafe at any speed" when bellying in.

 

I tried using elevators to keep the tail down; that ended up killing crew that hadn't died when I didn't touch the elevator at all. I tried pushing the nose down; I tried rudder; I tried all sorts of different touchdown speeds. I tried using flaps and not using flaps. None of it mattered. There was no way to make a reliably safe belly landing. I might succeed twice in a row, then fail 3 times in a row. Using the exact same landing technique, on the exact same stretch of terrain on the same map. There shouldn't be so much variability landing on flat terrain. 

 

It is my opinion that only a bug can explain this kind of behavior.

Edited April 3, 2022 by oc2209

[=420=Syphen]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

So, to reiterate things I've already said, but concisely:

 

I was able to systematically increase my belly landing speed in single-seat planes, and reliably not die or suffer injuries at extreme speeds. I was unable to do anything to make belly landings in multi-seat bombers more survivable at any speeds. Bombers are literally "unsafe at any speed" when bellying in.

 

I tried using elevators to keep the tail down; that ended up killing crew that hadn't died when I didn't touch the elevator at all. I tried pushing the nose down; I tried rudder; I tried all sorts of different touchdown speeds. I tried using flaps and not using flaps. None of it mattered. There was no way to make a reliably safe belly landing. I might succeed twice in a row, then fail 3 times in a row. Using the exact same landing technique, on the exact same stretch of terrain on the same map. There shouldn't be so much variability landing on flat terrain. 

 

It is my opinion that only a bug can explain this kind of behavior.

 

Thanks for the efforts. It's inline with what I've found. Very mixed results that acts like a dice roll depending on terrain.  I know the nay-sayers just think people are crashing and don't know how to ditch / land. I'm going to a full stall 3 pointer as I would do in real life. There is nothing else I could do to make the landings any better.  I'll continue to bail out over friendly territory if any damage has been received. It's the only way to ensure your pilot will live.  I still think it has something to do with any amount of yaw rotation once you have landed or changing surface grades while sliding / landing. 

Hopefully once BoN drops the devs can take some time to figure out what is acting up with the pilot physiology model here.  I'm sure it's a minor tweak. 

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, =420=Syphen said:

 I still think it has something to do with any amount of yaw rotation once you have landed or changing surface grades while sliding / landing.

 

I'm absolutely convinced the same forces that can kill a pilot from a mid-air prop strike are also wreaking havoc on the ground. I'm more inclined to think it's a damage model issue. As in, how physics forces are translated through the damage model of the airframe itself and into crew. If you hit the ground hard enough, for instance, your fuel tank will start on fire. Hit the ground even harder, there's an explosion. The sim criteria that determine the progression of a force being strong enough to 'break landing gear/plane structure < ignite fuel tank < explode', are also, I imagine, used to determine when/why pilot/crew injury and death occurs. And there's some variable flaw involved that seriously afflicts bombers more than fighters; but the prop strike deaths are a sign that fighters aren't immune.

 

I'm sure that surface grades do matter, but I don't think it's the full explanation. Perhaps a contributing factor.

 

On 4/1/2022 at 9:47 AM, [CPT]Crunch said:

Landing on the big concrete type bridge at Koln is like landing in glue rat trap, your plane will sit about a foot above the actual concrete, it's that glue like sudden deceleration that will kill or severely wound your pilot, it's like catching an arresting cable, even if your plane is perfectly intact on its gear still running on the concrete surface without contacting a side.  The bridges should be an ideal landing zone, concrete, long, and plenty width to land, but in game a total death trap by contact alone.

 

Tried this out one more time. Well, more times than that, but successfully I mean. I failed with a 109F-4, P-47, and a Stuka, besides the ones I already mentioned. Then it dawned on me how good the P-39 would be for this scenario. Sure enough, it was:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The dragging effect is noticeable, but the landing gear survived until I laid on the brakes.

 

*Edit: you'll notice how my engine stopped. That's wasn't my choice; it was damaged when the gear collapsed and seized almost immediately. Yet there was no prop strike. Not enough to bend it, anyway.

Edited April 3, 2022 by oc2209

[Gingerwelsh]

@oc2209

 

Stop beating yourself up over testing.

Try practice, engine off, landings. It's great fun.

 

Trouble finding a spot to land, in hilly wooded country, resulted in a hard touch down, but I survived.

M/O. Start at 1800'. 75% fuel. Stop engine. Convert speed to height. Pull back throttle and pitch. Feather prop if possible. Pick a spot to land in. Leave gear up. Confirm target  and drop flaps or leave up to extend. Touch down, just above the stall speed and less than 500 fpm. This time was a hard landing, but the Yak is tough..

 

 

My first flight in the 88, after cooking the engines following Take off.

 

 

 

 

 

..

Edited April 3, 2022 by Gingerwelsh

[oc2209]

12 hours ago, Gingerwelsh said:

@oc2209

 

Stop beating yourself up over testing.

Try practice, engine off, landings. It's great fun.

 

Well, I consider testing and practice to be one in the same. Testing forces me to do a lot of the latter, in planes I wouldn't normally fly often.

 

At this point, I feel like I'm pretty much a pro at landing any fighter-sized plane without issue.

 

The bridge landing thing was fun just as a challenge, not necessarily for testing purposes. I recommend everyone try landing on a bridge at some point.

 

The really tricky part (to that Köln bridge specifically) is keeping sink rate low, and not flipping over on contact. Contrary to what @[CPT]Crunch mentioned with his bridge landings, I didn't suffer injuries on touchdown, but was instead done in by flipping or sideswiping the bridge railing. The Sturmovik overcame the propensity to flip because of its center of gravity, general heaviness, and stubby gear geometry. The P-39 accomplished the same by simply having a tricycle.

 

I thought the Stuka would be a natural fit for the challenge, but alas.

[Guest]

I recommend the book "Ram Commando Elbe" (called that or similar) in which the reader will find the majority of LW pilots who deliberately rammed B17s and B24s in their 109s and 190s at many hundreds of kilometers per hour survived.

By contrast I recently hit the outer wing of a Pe2 in my 109 which resulted in one (or both) of the planes blowing up. My brother had a similar collision that bent his prop and he insta-died.

These outcomes are simply arcade and do the rest of this sim no justice at all. Please fix it.

[firdimigdi]

On 4/2/2022 at 11:04 PM, oc2209 said:

I've turned on both 'simplified physiology' and 'simplified physics' during testing, and neither makes a significant survivability difference. So I don't believe Gs are a factor here.

 

It's some kind of impact force transfer issue. Like, a plane endures X amount of force during an impact, and that is somehow, in certain circumstances, either magnified or not logically spread out as it should be. It all goes directly into the pilot/crew member.

 

Actually the reason I mention having the G force meter active is to see if there's indeed an unjustified spike during the belly landing since that meter is somewhere up the pilot's butt and reports on the forces he sustains. Simplified physiology might just mean a higher threshold for endurance during maneuvers but given a high enough spike it goes over in to damage territory, and I am not sure simplified physics refers to collision physics, I imagine it's more to do with aerodynamics.

 

17 minutes ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

By contrast I recently hit the outer wing of a Pe2 in my 109 which resulted in one (or both) of the planes blowing up. My brother had a similar collision that bent his prop and he insta-died.

 

Yes, you can set AIs to go around in a fixed path in the editor and tap their wings with yours, at some point when failure occurs you very often get instant death despite nothing having hit the cockpit.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Firdimigdi
Bumpin' AIs

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

I tried to do it in SP and always landing on the belly was safe. Conversely, all MP landings were fatal. I tried on "Berloga" and there were big bumps. But on CB there were absolutely flat areas of the Bodenplatte map, all this is really strange

 

Maybe some server settings make the death of pilots inevitable during belly landing?

Edited April 4, 2022 by -332FG-Red_Pilot

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

I recommend the book "Ram Commando Elbe" (called that or similar) in which the reader will find the majority of LW pilots who deliberately rammed B17s and B24s in their 109s and 190s at many hundreds of kilometers per hour survived.

By contrast I recently hit the outer wing of a Pe2 in my 109 which resulted in one (or both) of the planes blowing up. My brother had a similar collision that bent his prop and he insta-died.

These outcomes are simply arcade and do the rest of this sim no justice at all. Please fix it.

 

I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the importance of ramming--regarding being able to survive afterwards--was that the speeds of the planes about to collide shouldn't be wildly different. At least, that's how I understand it. To, dare I say, 'gently' ram a target, typically not with a haphazard collision but more by using the prop to destroy the tail--that was the most successful method if the rammer wanted any chance at survival. I'm not saying that was the only method, of course. But smacking any part of a bomber at hugely different relative speeds would be dangerous for both parties, to say the least.

 

All that aside, I've had both the ridiculous prop strike-only (and at similar speeds) pilot deaths, and wing-to-wing collisions cause instant pilot death. I can maybe understand the violence of a wing impact hurting a pilot if it were near the root, but not near the tip. Just off the top of my head, I recall a P-38 that destroyed a 109 with its wingtip. The collision shredded the tip, but the P-38 pilot lived (uninjured, actually) and returned home. I should specify, the P-38's wingtip went through the 109's canopy, but surely dug into the fuselage a little besides.

9 hours ago, Firdimigdi said:

 

Actually the reason I mention having the G force meter active is to see if there's indeed an unjustified spike during the belly landing since that meter is somewhere up the pilot's butt and reports on the forces he sustains. Simplified physiology might just mean a higher threshold for endurance during maneuvers but given a high enough spike it goes over in to damage territory, and I am not sure simplified physics refers to collision physics, I imagine it's more to do with aerodynamics.

 

 

True on both counts (the meaning of simplified physiology and physics), I expect.

 

Still, I just don't think it's the problem because I can get away with the 200 MPH Thunderbolt belly-ins.

 

The only connection between the illogical pilot deaths as described above (from prop strikes and wing collisions) and landing deaths, is that the sim is evidently registering a plane as being 'stopped' for a microsecond when it collides with an object (including with only a prop, or running over a terrain bump), and that sudden stoppage is delivering the fatal blow.

 

Even though, in the case of belly landing, we don't actually see the plane stop or suddenly get much slower as it slides along the ground. And when our prop strikes something, we don't see our plane lurch or appear to lose forward momentum. But the sim is still calculating a stoppage.

 

This would also explain the high probability of internet lag/netcode whatever causing the issue to proliferate on multiplayer. The 'stoppage' is occurring for a fraction of a second longer than it would in offline.

 

9 hours ago, -332FG-Red_Pilot said:

I tried to do it in SP and always landing on the belly was safe. Conversely, all MP landings were fatal. I tried on "Berloga" and there were big bumps. But on CB there were absolutely flat areas of the Bodenplatte map, all this is really strange

 

Maybe some server settings make the death of pilots inevitable during belly landing?

 

See my statement immediately above your quote. I don't believe this is a rules-based server issue. It's a tech issue that's greatly exacerbating a bug in the game.

[Gingerwelsh]

Here are 2 out of about a dozen or more, dead stick, landings on rough ground, with the JU 88 6C.

 

Every landing with props feathered, resulted in a dead pilot.

Every landing with props un feathered resulted in a live pilot, as shown here.

 

1st, flapless. 2nd, part flap. Wheels up. No feather. Start at 1600', power off and search for a landing spot, 75% fuel..

 

 

Testing on smooth ground would be required, to see if that is the case.

 

..

Edited April 5, 2022 by Gingerwelsh

[=420=Syphen]

On 4/4/2022 at 6:09 AM, -332FG-Red_Pilot said:

I tried to do it in SP and always landing on the belly was safe. Conversely, all MP landings were fatal. I tried on "Berloga" and there were big bumps. But on CB there were absolutely flat areas of the Bodenplatte map, all this is really strange

 

Maybe some server settings make the death of pilots inevitable during belly landing?

 

I've found the same. Typically no problem ditching in SP but usually die when ditching online.  The pilot's physiology and netcode are at odds with each other. ?

[IckyATLAS]

On 4/2/2022 at 4:20 PM, [CPT]Crunch said:

Formed up twenty yards behind a Spitfire already shot to pieces and he pops the canopy, in slow motion it goes up over the spits tail and drops back into my 109's prop, upon contact my screen goes black, air speeds are matched.  That's just plain old silly, how does a canopy with very low relative velocity penetrate an armored windscreen, or having such small relative mass cause such a severe impact killing the pilot with barely any impact speed?  Only visible damage was the bent back prop matching the last thing I saw, a direct propeller strike with instant death upon the impact.

I do not know what were the speeds of the two planes but the ejected canopy is a large surface relative to its say thickness and weight and so it will brake immensely in the still wind, which means that most probably there is a pretty high velocity difference between your plane and the canopy that hit you. 

When you try to put your hand flat out of the window in a car at 100km/hr you have a tremendous force exerted against still air and I can assure you that you cannot keep your hand and arm still in the wind with the hand flat with fingers joined. Imagine now this at 300 km/hr And as you know resistance/drag increases with the square of the speed. So from 100 to 300 the increase of the drag resisting force will be 9 times. Now that you have an idea translate this to a cross section 1m2 surface (to make it simple) of the canopy that is about 56 times the surface of your hand, so the total drag is about 500 times that force on your hand. This to help you have an idea.  This means that the canopy once separated will slow down immensely and you will hit at your full speed. It is not unrealistic that you get damaged. If the metallic corner of the canopy hits your armored glass maybe it will shatter it due to the kinetic energy that is related to the full mass of the canopy concentrated on that corner and the speed differential that is probably much higher than you think of. So it does not seem absurd. 

 

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Except my own eyes saw it, and it fully appeared absurd.  It hit the prop, no where near the cockpit, at altitude above 10,000 feet in a shallow climb, atmosphere halves at 5.  I wasn't shooting, just riding it's butt observing the damages, it wasn't fight capable any longer and probably had damaged controls, spaced about ten meters max behind matched speeds, too close to shoot safely and there was no need.

 

Than by your own reasoning every pilot who ever bailed out should have failed or immensely been damaged, if their canopy hasn't torn off the tail first.  A bomb is a rather large and immense surface with weight too, when's the last time you seen one go ripping back in the wind when released? 

[Lusekofte]

Why not just admit there are some error in this game?

I still see survive ability where death was more reasonable. But I see more often the opposite. I do not expect this to be realistic, but it would be nice if it made sense. We are up to 7 mates flying twice a week coop, that make a lot of stuff make no sense at all.

Mostly coop is just awesome. I won't  let this ruin it, what's ticks me off is the denial of what we think make no sense, deemed nonsense 

by people not being there, I would not react on this at all if we just had a border not to cross, like a limitation.

But there is not, it do not make sense. Leading me to think there is other stuff than a coded limit playing in

Edited April 10, 2022 by LuseKofte

[IckyATLAS]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Than by your own reasoning every pilot who ever bailed out should have failed or immensely been damaged, if their canopy hasn't torn off the tail first.  A bomb is a rather large and immense surface with weight too, when's the last time you seen one go ripping back in the wind when released? 

Many pilots have been indeed killed by hitting the rudder or the elevator.

The bomb has a weight to surface ratio that is completely different and very high compared to the canopy. The bomb has a closed compact aerodynamic shape, air cannot enter it. As a result due to its weight the bomb has also much higher kinetic energy and and so it will penetrate in the air and be slowed down much less by the still air. The geometry of the canopy is like a sheet open surface that will act in the wind like a sail. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Its all speculation by observation, my opinion and observations are no worse than your speculations, its all without any proofs so far.  If you want to make unilateral assumptions than go for it.  I just told a story of experience and in my opinion what occurred seemed bogus, in the context of this threads discussion, pilot deaths by impacts.  Free to think unilaterally whatever you want, don't care. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

What I know is that very, very strange things happen when online as opposed to flying in the QMB for example.  Often when I am online/hosting my aircraft will say, indicate 260mph IAS and one of my squad mates will blow by me like I'm standing still while indicating under 200mph IAS.

 

Transmitting the game code over the net opens up the chances for incalculable numbers of ways that things can go sideways while playing. I don't think that either "side" in this argument are wrong.  The offline players absolutely have a more stable arena to fly in than those of us that primarily fly online, hence the very divergent outcomes we are seeing in these threads.  Then add in differing levels of proficiency in skill sets, and it's a very combustible mixture.  Still  One area where the real pilots in our community are absolutely correct is that by and large most virtual pilots land too fast.  One of the real pilots in the BlitzPigs made this observation back when we were still flying Forgotten Battles/Pacific Fighters.  Still better flying skills cannot overcome the inherent obstacles we face because of playing over the net. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[CUJO_1970]

SURVIVED

 

 

SURVIVED

 

 

SURVIVED

 

 

SURVIVED

 

 

SURVIVED

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

SURVIVED

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by CUJO_1970

[IckyATLAS]

On 4/10/2022 at 6:54 PM, LuseKofte said:

Why not just admit there are some error in this game?

I still see survive ability where death was more reasonable. But I see more often the opposite. I do not expect this to be realistic, but it would be nice if it made sense.

 

After all the various elements that came out during this thread and the other one on belly landing, you are right, I admit too that there are inconsistencies and it is difficult to make sense that you can survive a 240 MPH crash, and when all the conditions seem perfect and it should be without any issue surprise! you die and/or everybody on board is killed.

 

I also find strange that you survive a water landing with no injury when your plane cartwheels in water, both wings get ripped off and so on. On the other hand I had some water landings that went perfect smooth and I got the nice message that I died probably drowned ? in this case and not due to the belly landing in water.

 

Either we consider this non acceptable and something has to be changed (but only to make things more coherent and not easier) or we accept that like in real life certain things do not make sense at all at least when looking at the global picture. The are people that die from a ridiculous accident like slipping on the wet floor or an icy slippery surface and others get out from a wrecked car completely destroyed that had to be ripped apart to take them out with even not a bruise.

 

Sheer luck or nonsense? That is the big question.

Edited April 12, 2022 by IckyATLAS

[firdimigdi]

6 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

Either we consider this non acceptable and something has to be changed (but only to make things more coherent and not easier) or we accept that like in real life certain things do not make sense at all at least when looking at the global picture.

 

I think it should be reviewed for consistency and let pilot skill define the rest. Also the connection to other collision oddities that cause pilot deaths should not be ignored, it's not just belly landings (although these are the "easiest" to reproduce consistently) - something is slightly off (there are a few videos here and on reddit showing this, probably the most characteristic one in this thread is the one with the ground-looping duck: https://streamable.com/8fnr90 ).