Belly landings, contrary to the RL guys...

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

 

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.

Thinking about it , if all this is coded and a plan. In my instances, in my opinion. When I really thought I would die and did not , my speed was slow and impact hard.

When I did die my speed was probably higher and impact very smooth.

I do not like to say something is wrong , when I do not know how they code this, in truth, I am afraid to say they must change things, crash landing my plane is just awesome. the effects and wreck afterward is pretty damn realistic.

But the death pr impact make no sence, if slow I can say the deathrate is way to few, if the plane do not explode you can survive just about anything if slow enough in my opinion. And maybe a impact in higher speed is not noticeable even in VR, I do not question it is dangerous to emergencyland. But you have a pretty big historical file on all types from all nations. In Norway where I live, Heinkels and JU 88 did those landings many times in mountains, dead and injured occured by the shooting down. 

Planes could look pretty damaged underneath, but still the crew walked for miles. When the plane hardly is damaged, it should be possible to survive, due to historical data , I disagree strongly with real pilots of to day. Look at airshows warbirds, if they look ok, pilot survived with only scratches. 

[IckyATLAS]

There maybe a difference between the fighters in WWII and the fighters in aircraft collections. These fighters have a high wing loading and this is why they were dangerous to maneuver at low speed as the could brutally stall. The ones that fly part of historical collections are completely restored to conditions that are way better than the original one. They should have a lower wing loading as some heavy equipment is not there anymore like the complete guns and ammo system. The WWII fighters were in a much worse condition due to wear and tear, a war field maintenance that did what it could, and they were often loaded to the maximum. 

I would assume (and this is a personal opinion) that the gliding characteristics and stall speeds are a little more forgiving in todays historical fighter planes.

[PB0_Roll]

And 60 years old pilots in warbirds shows are certainly stronger in the spine, and they can survive better than youngsters, due to their immense experience.

 

In the sim a 20 y o pilot can't survive a smooth landing, because he doesn't have the experience. If he had the experience he would have fastened that harness, granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

[[CPT]Crunch]

22 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

There maybe a difference between the fighters in WWII and the fighters in aircraft collections. These fighters have a high wing loading and this is why they were dangerous to maneuver at low speed as the could brutally stall. The ones that fly part of historical collections are completely restored to conditions that are way better than the original one. They should have a lower wing loading as some heavy equipment is not there anymore like the complete guns and ammo system. The WWII fighters were in a much worse condition due to wear and tear, a war field maintenance that did what it could, and they were often loaded to the maximum. 

I would assume (and this is a personal opinion) that the gliding characteristics and stall speeds are a little more forgiving in todays historical fighter planes.

I think that would be open to some debate, certainly not in all cases.  You had an army of technicians in the field and still the very people who designed and built them with the assembly lines of the hands who actually fabricated them still operating.  That kind of knowledge base and intimate familiarity with day to day hands on is going to be hard to beat.  Combined they certainly had an expertise and experience level that's going to be awfully hard to achieve so far down the road.  I'll always put my money on the source of the product for the best technical knowledge and support of it. 

[76IAP-Black]

After flying around since i have my new pedals and falling from the sky.. something isnt right and wrong at the same time.

Taking off fro ma to short runway with a Me-262, the plane bounces and shakes alot as i cross a field, not leaving the gound ... pilot dies... the Me 262? Is intact, no damage happen to it.

Other flight, different plane, different mission, same WW2, crashed more than landed next to the runway, plane was pile of pieces and the parts flew across the airport. The pilot survived (Thats ok, but the first case was strange.)

And many more situations happen while crashing

[6./ZG26_Loke]

If this crash landing have been in IL2 GB, no one would have survived. 

[Enceladus828]

33 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

If this crash landing have been in IL2 GB, no one would have survived. 

But everybody did survive; I refer to this flight as 'Sweden's Sully'.

Great documentary about this flight from the show Mayday: Clear Ice Causes Engine Failure On Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751 | Mayday | On The Move - YouTube

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Enceladus

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@Enceladus It is yes. Have meet Stefan in RL. 

[rwo]

I was told people would be interested in this https://clips.twitch.tv/BlazingColdbloodedNoodlePeteZaroll-bMN2QDluWmLaako3 

 

 

[=420=Syphen]

14 hours ago, JV44Red_storm_ said:

I was told people would be interested in this https://clips.twitch.tv/BlazingColdbloodedNoodlePeteZaroll-bMN2QDluWmLaako3 

 

 

 

Clearly a skill issue /s

[Strewth]

On 4/16/2022 at 2:58 AM, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

If this crash landing have been in IL2 GB, no one would have survived. 

Well. I cannot say that I have had the opportunity to belly land a McDonnell Douglas MD-81 in IL-2 yet.
But if I do, I will report back on my findings. 

[JG7_X-Man]

I think this is no big deal - more things devs need to focus on - like Tactical codes and yes DROP TANKS! Sorry this is a non issue and not worth of attention.

[SCG_motoadve]

Very survivable IMHO.

This examples are online, today, no problems online or offline.

 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

16 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I think this is no big deal - more things devs need to focus on - like Tactical codes and yes DROP TANKS! Sorry this is a non issue and not worth of attention.

And we need drop tanks because??? 

[Lusekofte]

16 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

And we need drop tanks because??? 

It is cool? 

Personally I fly mostly with 25 % fuel

Fighters with 80% even the Spitfire . But that is in campaigns. I never loiter I move on and hopefully get to land

[PB0_Roll]

We don't need drop tanks.

 

Like not at all.

 

However, they did exist, and externally fighters will look more historical at take off.

 

Internally, most online dogfighters will probably have 25% fuel+drop tanks so they instantly can gain manoeuvrability when in need, but who cares ?

 

And if they get shot, they instantly disconnect, so they don't need realistic emergency landings anyway.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

The way many online missions are built doesn't really require the need for  drop tanks at all. Unfortunately, more and more online flights consist of fighter furballs or being shot down in a target drone. 

[Lusekofte]

15 minutes ago, PB0_Roll said:

We don't need drop tanks.

 

Like not at all.

 

However, they did exist, and externally fighters will look more historical at take off.

 

Internally, most online dogfighters will probably have 25% fuel+drop tanks so they instantly can gain manoeuvrability when in need, but who cares ?

 

And if they get shot, they instantly disconnect, so they don't need realistic emergency landings anyway.

True, they use droptanks for transport.

Then gain more advantage by dropping them. Making online servers even more arcade. Tremendous advantage for 109 and P 51. 

8 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The way many online missions are built doesn't really require the need for  drop tanks at all. Unfortunately, more and more online flights consist of fighter furballs or being shot down in a target drone. 

I wonder if there is less bombers online?

Does anyone know?

It is sure no fun attempting such a flight

anymore

[6./ZG26_Loke]

The majorite want furballs, the don't even give a damn about taxiways, and take off across the runways. 

And the devs seems to go with yhe main flow, which is why bombers and ground attack aircraft, have been reduced to nothing but targetdrones.

Here they have even made the option to survive a crash landing, ridiculous hard. Most crash landings, the entire crew could walk away more or less unharmed. It was only if they hit something hard, there was a risk of being killed. 

 

They should look at the option to actually being able to bomb, railway lines and crossing, being able to bomb and dismantle runways and taxiways. We should be able to bomb towns and citys which would reduce the enemys morale. 

Bombers should be added radio beacons to the different targets, and have the gunners to call out, where the fighters are coming from. And then of course shoot as a human would do. 

Recon flights should be added, and points scored for succesfull mission, same with surply missions. 

Ships should try to evaded. 

 

But no, they work on drop tanks, no one need. We don't even have a map large enough, so one is in need of drop tanks. 

[JG7_X-Man]

I am 100% wrong! Unsuccessful belly landings ruin game play. I play both online (BoX and WoL mostly) and offline career mode mostly. Both instances are where drop tanks could be more useful/realistic and online campaigns like TAW and belly landings are just as important too.

Realistic career modes are the same, for example JG 26 patrolled as far South as Kolon in 'late 44 early '45 and to fly a 109 from Plantlunne to Kolon and back you need drop tanks.

 

What I meant to say is the belly landing issue should be revisited at some point, just not divert time from other more pressing issues.

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

The majority want furballs.

That's not entirely accurate. If this was the case, "BERLOGA Duel & Dogfight" server would be have the same numbers as Finnish Virtual Pilots - Dynamic War and Tactical Air War on a weekend. Even Combat Box by Red Flight and WINGS of LIBERTY post higher numbers on any given day.

 

The majority have been flying online WWII combat sims for at least 20 yrs and enjoy realistic team play - such as TAW, FVP, WoL and Combat Box servers provide.

Edited April 18, 2022 by JG7_X-Man

[IckyATLAS]

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

The majorite want furballs.

Then why bother with IL2. In IL2 you should get the complete picture the full mission from entering the plane, flying that plane as realistically possible, fight, bomb, strafe whatever action is foreseen, and then and back to landing and parking. If this is too much, too long, too complicated, but you want just to pull the trigger and spray bullets all over the place, that is different and there are enough arcade style games around for that.

[Lusekofte]

31 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

Then why bother with IL2. In IL2 you should get the complete picture the full mission from entering the plane, flying that plane as realistically possible, fight, bomb, strafe whatever action is foreseen, and then and back to landing and parking. If this is too much, too long, too complicated, but you want just to pull the trigger and spray bullets all over the place, that is different and there are enough arcade style games around for that.

What make you think we who like bombers , not entiteled to be taken seriously?

Why should we not have a realistic gameplay? 

Why on esrth should we carry 5 people dead weight? 

You demand that developers not going to revise crash physiology.

You have lately demanded a great deal.

But you see absolutely no reason to improve ai crew to realistic standard.

I have bought this game like you have, and as such, have a equal right of an opinion

It is not like bombers getting too much love.

For my sake, I live and can continue to live without GB. But I hope some minor tweaks can be done. Once VR is implemented in Cod, it will be my main ww2 no matter what. It do got the realism I look for

[JG7_X-Man]

He is grossly mistaken and confuses what he likes with the rest of the community

[Enceladus828]

5 hours ago, PB0_Roll said:

We don't need drop tanks.

 

Like not at all.

If we didn't need Drop Tanks then the devs wouldn't be bothering to add them to the game, but since they are then I guess we do need them.

 

[56RAF_Roblex]

5 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

And we need drop tanks because??? 

 

My squadron often undertakes long range strikes against rear targets and more than once the fighter escorts have run out of fuel and ditched or had to divert to an alternative field even with low rpm and fuel mix.  To be fair, from memory, that may have been when the map forced us to use Russian fighters to reach rear targets in the Rheinland.  On Sunday we used P51s with 70% fuel and still had no problems with range.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On 4/13/2022 at 2:34 AM, PB0_Roll said:

And 60 years old pilots in warbirds shows are certainly stronger in the spine, and they can survive better than youngsters, due to their immense experience.

 

In the sim a 20 y o pilot can't survive a smooth landing, because he doesn't have the experience. If he had the experience he would have fastened that harness, granted.

 

 

The obvious solution then is to level-up!

[PB0_Roll]

The obvious solution is to fix the few existing broken parts of the game, before adding more potentially broken parts and get to the point where it's unfixable.

 

"my car's seatbelts don't work, it's unsafe to drive and I'd like it fixed"

 

"we'll add another fuel tank on the passenger seats so you can drive 600kms further"

 

"oh yes I'm so happy now who cares if it's unsafe to drive, I'll just get good at driving and be happy for ever"

[JG7_X-Man]

2 hours ago, PB0_Roll said:

The obvious solution is to fix the few existing broken parts of the game, before adding more potentially broken parts and get to the point where it's unfixable.

 

"my car's seatbelts don't work, it's unsafe to drive and I'd like it fixed"

 

"we'll add another fuel tank on the passenger seats so you can drive 600kms further"

 

"oh yes I'm so happy now who cares if it's unsafe to drive, I'll just get good at driving and be happy for ever"

@PB0_Roll Your analogy is a bit off as you are comparing a computer game that you can turn off when you want to reality.

I think what you are saying is "Why add the functionality of drop tanks to the game when the physiology of belly landings isn't 100% accurate". Then my counter argument would be, "the functionality of drop tanks is needed to capture the authenticity of aerial combat and is 0% implemented more so than fixing a non-showstopper that is working 99% accurately".

 

The key to a successful belly landing is your decent rate which governs the impact of your "controlled crash".

 

To be honest as a WWII simmer/gamer since 1999 (European Air War), I am happy IL-2 Great Battles isn't in "alpha" and the devs aren't ripping us off like some game titles that have amassed small fortunes (i.e. Constellation Resident (sp)). 

[Lusekofte]

Personally I do not care about droptanks, cool to look at but that is it.

But I care less about denying it to others who want it. 

ai gunners would still suck,

with or without droptank's.

 

 

[ST_Catchov]

2 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

ai gunners would still suck,

 

Didn't they hire a new AI guy a while back ? Tough gig. Hair loss. Reduced libido. Poor chap.

[PB0_Roll]

5 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

@PB0_Roll Your analogy is a bit off as you are comparing a computer game that you can turn off when you want to reality.

I think what you are saying is "Why add the functionality of drop tanks to the game when the physiology of belly landings isn't 100% accurate". Then my counter argument would be, "the functionality of drop tanks is needed to capture the authenticity of aerial combat and is 0% implemented more so than fixing a non-showstopper that is working 99% accurately".

 

The key to a successful belly landing is your decent rate which governs the impact of your "controlled crash".

 

To be honest as a WWII simmer/gamer since 1999 (European Air War), I am happy IL-2 Great Battles isn't in "alpha" and the devs aren't ripping us off like some game titles that have amassed small fortunes (i.e. Constellation Resident (sp)). 

 Let's assume you post in good faith and did not read all the examples that show it does NOT work "99%" for many players, and descent rate is NOT what kills you. You can survive to very high descent rate and a destroyed airplane, and die to a smooth landing. Go read the 200 pages in 3 various threads.

 

I don't mind drop tanks, and they're expected to come with fuel tanks management which is great.

 

I mind that there is no evidence of any work on the unexplained sudden deaths of our avatars, which prevents me from enjoying the game and was recently broken.

 

Still waiting for nav lights fix too.

 

Glad you enjoyed EAW, guess you may have missed their finest hour or SWOTL, but EAW was indeed better, and still better on many aspects than many current games.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, PB0_Roll said:

Still waiting for nav lights fix

Am I missing something?

Nav light was dimmed down because they lit up the entire map. Same with tracers.

I find them more realistic now, at least on the plane I flown now.

I am not arguing, preferences are different, but has the developers said they going to change it?

About the belly landing,  my experience is that they simply do not make sense.

They might, but in coop one can simply not comprehend the result as I see it

[CAFulcrum]

7 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

Didn't they hire a new AI guy a while back ? Tough gig. Hair loss. Reduced libido. Poor chap.

Actually the fighter/bomber ai has improved pretty dramatically.  It seems like they're having trouble with fixed gunner positions atm.  

 

Also fuel tanks online could be pretty easily solved by mission designers not allowing them.  They are going to be nice for mission scenarios (ie airstart bomber escort).

[PB0_Roll]

5 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Am I missing something?

Nav light was dimmed down because they lit up the entire map. Same with tracers.

I find them more realistic now, at least on the plane I flown now.

I am not arguing, preferences are different, but has the developers said they going to change it?

About the belly landing,  my experience is that they simply do not make sense.

They might, but in coop one can simply not comprehend the result as I see it

Still can see navlights in broad daylight from hundreds meters, so not fixed. There's a mod that fixes it, but then no online play. I understand it has been fixed for a few weeks, then back to arcade since.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, CAFulcrum said:

Actually the fighter/bomber ai has improved pretty dramatically

Gunner AI has taken a dramatic step backwards. The gunners were ridiculous and needed to be dialed down. However, now they are dead weight. Fighters just cruise up behind without a care in the world. If a fighter sits on your tail straight and level they should be eating lead, we are just not seeing that. Gunners will also leave their gun position during combat and "rest" and when they finally decide to man their guns they tend to fire everywhere except at the target. They also don't always warn of incoming fighters, I suppose they must be having a rest? 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm wondering how the various mission makers are setting the AI for player flyable multi crew aircraft?

 

There is a setting for it in the properties tab for player flyable aircraft.  I don't know if it makes a difference, but it's there and I always set it to ace, and my gunners do bag the odd fighter.  I also always set AI aircraft to ACE across the board.

[JG7_X-Man]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm wondering how the various mission makers are setting the AI for player flyable multi crew aircraft?

 

There is a setting for it in the properties tab for player flyable aircraft.  I don't know if it makes a difference, but it's there and I always set it to ace, and my gunners do bag the odd fighter.  I also always set AI aircraft to ACE across the board.

 

Same here. I have a bomber intercept mission with 18 B-25s level bombing and 8 Fw 190s attacking and ACE setting was a good trade off as historically accurate. Anything less and the bombers were decimated.

 

I am not sure were this argument about gunners not being effect stem from. According to Jane's "Battles with the Luftwaffe", the statistical chances for a USAAF heavy Bomber crew in Europe to be lost on a mission were 1-in-10. If gunners were so good, why would they need escorts? Read up on the 2nd Schweinfurt raid, this was the result of the Luftwaffe put everything it learned from attacking bomber formations without escort into a doctrine.

Not to mention the idea that we are asking developers to give a single AI gunner with a singe machine-gun the same lethality as a fighter aircraft is confusing to me.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

2 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I have a bomber intercept mission with 18 B-25s level bombing and 8 Fw 190s attacking and ACE setting was a good trade off as historically accurate. Anything less and the bombers were decimated.

 

I am not sure were this argument about gunners not being effect stem from

The idea of having 18 human controlled bombers flying online with escorts is a very tall order, not impossible but rarely seen in this sim. The argument stems from the fact that gunners have gone from Supermen to completely inept. The gunner decide to rest during combat, they fire in all direction but not necessarily at the target sitting on their six. 

 

In this short video you can observe the gunner deciding to have a rest during combat, being attacked from high six but firing to the left, being attacked from low six but firing up in the air. They are more or less dead weight at this point.

 

 

Unfortunately, the sim seems to has become more and more fighter centric with the bombers being reduced to toothless target drones. Maybe most folk, particularly our fighter aces are just fine with that? the unfortunate side effect of this however is I can see bomber pilots reducing in numbers.    

[69th_Panp]

maybe out of ammo ??

[6./ZG26_Custard]

8 hours ago, 69th_Panp said:

maybe out of ammo ??

No, you can see in the first part of the video that the gunner is in position, fires a couple of shots then rests. Then takes control of the gun and fires off to the left while being attacked by a fighter from high six. It's s bad enough that the gunners seem to shoot everywhere but at the target, but when they leave the gun position numerous times when in combat it gets a little more than frustrating. It would be nice to have a "man your stations" setting.