Collisions with ground objects is (still) too sensitive

[Enceladus828]

While simple belly landings in a field aren't fatal, colliding with an object on the ground at a slow speed, such as a wing hitting the side of a hangar or a tree in which the airplane remains structurally intact after, is still fatal for everyone onboard.

Thank you devs for making simply belly landings no longer fatal but please, colliding with an object on the ground is still too sensitive and needs to be addressed.

 

Travelling at no faster than 124 km/h when left wing hits tree...

 

and Boom! The plane explodes, everyone is killed.

 

Going at no faster than 115 km/h

 

Impact with the tree kills everyone onboard.

 

Still relatively intact with just the Flaps rods broken.

 

Was going at no faster than 58 mph (93 km/h) when left wing hit hangar; everyone is dead

 

Though the plane is still relatively intact with just the first engine stopped.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Enceladus

[IckyATLAS]

I agree that it seems that the crew is still too easily killed. Not knowing how this is simulated, I mean the impact energy on the people it is difficult to assess the issue.

Normally the planes are excellent energy absorbers due to their thin skin and hollow structure. If a plane say at 30 mph hits a hangar that is made of corrugated sheet metal plates and not hard brick concrete walls, then the hangar and the plane both will absorb energy through deformation and crew should be alive. Now if you hit concrete walls head on at 100 km/hr that is another story, and I am afraid you may not walk out easily. But if it is the wing that hits the wall then the engine will rip off the wing and thus absorb energy and the fuselage should be ok, except if the plane takes fire if fuel tanks get ripped open and you have sparks and heated metal everywhere.

[GasTeddy]

Same with tanks in some servers; light touch with a tree or for example wall of a building, and engine, transmission and suspension are gone or at least damaged. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

For very short period ppl can survive huge G load, the current situation is unrealistic.

[Charon]

This seems reasonable enough to me. These are collisions at highway speeds with solid objects. Shouldn't they be often fatal? The current behavior seems like a reasonable enough approximation.

 

If tanks are damaged from low speed bumps, that's maybe a real issue.

 

If you're unhappy with the level of structural damage displayed... well, Il-2 isn't a crash-test simulator, and I don't expect high-fidelity collision damage to ever be a dev priority.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 2/26/2023 at 9:58 PM, Charon said:

This seems reasonable enough to me. These are collisions at highway speeds with solid objects. Shouldn't they be often fatal? The current behavior seems like a reasonable enough approximation.

 

If tanks are damaged from low speed bumps, that's maybe a real issue.

 

If you're unhappy with the level of structural damage displayed... well, Il-2 isn't a crash-test simulator, and I don't expect high-fidelity collision damage to ever be a dev priority.

It was literally fine before they adjusted it a year ago or so. Just go back to that!

[KevPBur]

With regard to planes hitting objects:

 

Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this with my arm!

Doctor: Don't do it then.

 

As for tanks:

Iif they are being damaged and crew being injured by seemingly minor collisions, this is probably an issue. I'm not a tanker so have no experience of this

[FuriousMeow]

On 3/4/2023 at 2:41 AM, drewm3i-VR said:

It was literally fine before they adjusted it a year ago or so. Just go back to that!

 

It really wasn't. Planes were skidding across the ground at hundreds of miles per hour shedding parts like it was yard sale and the pilot would still be alive at the end of that.

[Enceladus828]

14 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

 

It really wasn't. Planes were skidding across the ground at hundreds of miles per hour shedding parts like it was yard sale and the pilot would still be alive at the end of that.

You know what man, this combat flight sim is supposed to be fun for us; that's what makes us keep coming back to play it. While yes there were instances where this would be fatal for the pilot, I'd rather have it that the pilot survivability during a collision or crash was slightly on the forgiving side. This combat flight sim is not meant to be 100% realistic but having the pilot survivability during a low energy collision or crash digress to how they were 20 years ago is inexcusable. 

[FuriousMeow]

Well sims are supposed to be more realistic than less. I prefer accuracy, that's fun. The "low energy" crash was mostly fixed a while back. 50MPH and hitting a bump in the ground in a plane's belly is going to at least result in a broken back, but most likely death.

 

Crash landings are survivable, its nothing like 20 years ago where planes just instantly crashed when contacting the ground. Hyperbole does not an argument make.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

that's what makes us keep coming back to play it.

Please speak for yourself

 

I want realism, not any "survivability bonus" for the subjective reason of "fun". If you have any indications/proof that the current values are not realistic, then by all means show it, but your reasoning that survivability should be improved because you personally find that more fun is flawed.

[Enceladus828]

11 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

If you have any indications/proof that the current values are not realistic, then by all means show it

I have shown it in the pictures I provided in this thread: hit a tree going at 124 km/h during a takeoff run and boom, the plane explodes, or you hit a tree or building at slightly over or less than 100 km/h and the plane remains mostly intact apart from some minor damage but the moment you hit the tree or building everybody is dead. For the latter, I would expect them to sustain some injuries but all of them being instantly killed shows something is wrong.

I mean, I had an instance where the right-wing tip of an A-20 hit the top of a tree, taking off only the right aileron and the plane kept flying normally but the impact instantly killed everybody except for the pilot who was seriously injured.

[FuriousMeow]

124km/h and 115km/h are not "low speed." There's been plenty of fatal car accidents at those speeds in my area.

[TG-55Panthercules]

I hesitate to jump in here, but from what I've seen of ground collisions in automobiles (and there's been a lot of them here in Florida lately) hitting stationary objects like big trees or buildings at speeds in excess of 60 or 70 mph seems most likely to leave most occupants dead pretty instantly, so the first couple of examples above don't strike me as being at all out of line with normal expectations.  Of course, there does seem to be something a little suspect about being killed just because your wingtip brushes the top of a tree and knocks off an aileron, so I'm not saying there's no problem at all here worth looking into.

[LukeFF]

28 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

I have shown it in the pictures I provided in this thread

 

And that's not going to cut it. You gotta provide track files, as you and everyone else who complains about this stuff has been told for years now.

[Enceladus828]

6 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

124km/h and 115km/h are not "low speed." There's been plenty of fatal car accidents at those speeds in my area.

Compared to hitting objects at speeds over 250 km/h, 115 and 93km/h are low speed.

 

5 minutes ago, TG-55Panthercules said:

I hesitate to jump in here, but from what I've seen of ground collisions in automobiles (and there's been a lot of them here in Florida lately) hitting stationary objects like big trees or buildings at speeds in excess of 60 or 70 mph seems most likely to leave most occupants dead pretty instantly, so the first couple of examples above don't strike me as being at all out of line with normal expectations

I understand what you're saying, but the nose of the airplane isn't smashing head-on into a building or tree (that I agree would be instantly fatal for the pilot and people in the front). It's the wing hitting a tree or the side of a building which causes the plane to spin around, the landing gear doesn't break, but everybody on the plane is instantly killed. 

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Enceladus said:

115 and 93km/h are low speed

 

Those are not low speeds at all when it comes to rapid deceleration. Seriously, do some research about what sort of inquires can be caused at those speeds. 115 km/h is plenty enough to put you through the windshield of a car which is...not pleasant.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

I don't think you would survive a landing like this in game. 

 

That is the airspeed at point of impact.

 

That is around 160 kph

 

[354thFG_Panda_]

Wasn't this already addressed when Normandy was released update 5.001? Before that update there were lots of complaint threads about it and they addressed it in that update. 

[Wardog5711]

That was my understanding. 

If it is still happening, then there is an issue.

But as Luke has said,  the Engineering team will need hard data to work with. They can't do anything to replicate the issue with a video.

 

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

I don't think you would survive a landing like this in game. 

 

 

That is the airspeed at point of impact.

 

That is around 160 kph

 

 

 

And that was a belly landing in a wide open field. I just did that in an open undulating field at 150MPH, so around 240KPH no problem. The thing is crashing into a tree which is an insta-stop at 50+MPH. People can have internal decapitations at that rapid a deceleration.

Edited March 10, 2023 by FuriousMeow

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, theRedPanda said:

Wasn't this already addressed when Normandy was released update 5.001?

 

51 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

That was my understanding. 

If it is still happening, then there is an issue.

The issue was that a simple belly landing in an open field could be fatal for the pilot.

The issue that I’m bringing up in this thread is that a collision with an object, not a head on collision with a tree or building, but the wing hitting a tree or building is almost instantly fatal for the pilot and crew.

 

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Those are not low speeds at all when it comes to rapid deceleration. Seriously, do some research about what sort of inquires can be caused at those speeds. 115 km/h is plenty enough to put you through the windshield of a car which is...not pleasant.

As I posted above, I’m not referring to slamming head on into an object at 115 km/h. Seriously if you watch the video on the 2015 Studenka train crash (where a high speed train crashed into the truck trailer that spun the truck cab almost 180*) the truck driver would be instantly killed or at the very least unable to get out if survivability during a collision in IL-2 GBs was the same in real life.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

46 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

And that was a belly landing in a wide open field. I just did that in an open undulating field at 150MPH, so around 240KPH no problem. The thing is crashing into a tree which is an insta-stop at 50+MPH. People can have internal decapitations at that rapid a deceleration.

I'm not sure if you are aware that the aircraft in the video hit a concrete post that shredded part of the wing off. His airspeed was around 160 kph hitting a concrete post is going to produce a fairly sudden deceleration. 

 

Edit- The full video is on the Air Safety Institute YouTube channel

Edited March 11, 2023 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[FuriousMeow]

4 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'm not sure if you are aware that the aircraft in the video hit a concrete post that shredded part of the wing off. His airspeed was around 160 kph hitting a concrete post is going to produce a fairly sudden deceleration. 

 

Edit- The full video is on the Air Safety Institute YouTube channel

 

Well you made a big deal about the speed, no mention of a concrete post - which I don't see in the video so it doesn't appear to be that big. So once I showed that high speed belly up landings is possible now the post comes up. It certainly isn't tall and how the wing impacted this post also makes a difference, and its just the outer wingtip. I just came in in GB right hand bank on the Prokhorovka map at 130MPH into a small hill that caused my wings to bend up and spun my plan around, just got a little booboo.

 

Could there be a problem in certain circumstances where surviving heavily wounded instead of not surviving should have happened? Maybe, but literally looking for outliers at this point.

 

I crashed into this tower a little under 50MPH:

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by FuriousMeow

[Enceladus828]

Got some goodies:

 

freeflight.2023-03-13_20-14-22_00.7zipfreeflight.2023-03-13_20-15-48_00.trk.7zip

 

 

_gen.zip _gen.zip

Edited March 14, 2023 by Enceladus
Added the mission files

[Wardog5711]

Thanks. Got those passed on.

 

[Enceladus828]

I've noticed that with the Pe-2 during a crash landing the Radio Operator is often seriously injured or killed during a simple belly landing.                                                                Tracks here:

Pe-2.zip _gen.zip

 

Another issue with the Pe-2 is that it often instantly explodes during a belly landing in a field which isn't gentle but far from hard... even with the flaps down, slow speed, and somewhat shallow rate of descent.

Tracks:

Pe-2explode.zip_gen.zip

Edited March 27, 2023 by Enceladus

[Enceladus828]

Did some tests today with the Pe-2, and there still is the issue.

 

Was going at 90km/h when the left wing hit the tower. The only damage to the aircraft was that it damaged the left engine but everyone onboard was killed instantly.

 

 

I did another test where I was going at 50km/h and the right wing tip hit the revetment, only breaking the flap rods. Everyone onboard was killed instantly.

 

 

Track files: Pe-2hittingtower.zip_gen.zip

 

 Pe-2-50kmh-collision.zip _gen.zip

[Regingrave-]

16 часов назад, Enceladus сказал:

Was going at 90km/h when the left wing hit the tower. The only damage to the aircraft was that it damaged the left engine but everyone onboard was killed instantly.

 

I did another test where I was going at 50km/h and the right wing tip hit the revetment, only breaking the flap rods. Everyone onboard was killed instantly.

Planes have very sturdy structures that could whithstand overloads up to 10G, so they're hard to break. However, collisions on such speeds with nothing between the plane and the pilot to dampen the energy of the hit should be fatal and are fatal, just like it was for these old solid cars with no crumple zones.
Hitting something on 50 km/h on a solid car would be fatal as well.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

8 hours ago, Regingrave said:

Planes have very sturdy structures that could whithstand overloads up to 10G, so they're hard to break. However, collisions on such speeds with nothing between the plane and the pilot to dampen the energy of the hit should be fatal and are fatal, just like it was for these old solid cars with no crumple zones.
Hitting something on 50 km/h on a solid car would be fatal as well.

Ture also that human body can survive very high G for very short period of time. I noticed that hitting a plane in midair where relative speed difference between two is not that big, and they travel in same direction the pilot dies instantly, plane touch ich other and you are dead.  Pilots do have safty belts, they should help reduce impact.

 

At 30km/h, which is the speed a braking car might hit a pedestrian, a crash can be fatal about 5 per cent of the time. For a pedestrian struck at 60km/h, the risk of fatality jumps to about 50 per cent.

For those in a car travelling at 60km/h, a side-on collision will be fatal around 40 per cent of the time, and at 90km/h, a head on crash will kill you four times out of five.

 

I know that hitting head first is significant more dangerous in comparison to be hit in the middle of the body but we have safety belts in planes. So during that kind colsion we should look at the G force strong enough to break the neck.

[Ghost666]

I have always looked at this as the injury may not really be death but bad enough to keep the pilot from ever flying a military plane again. So in the scoop of the game that pilot might as well be dead.☠️

[Enceladus828]

10 hours ago, Regingrave said:

However, collisions on such speeds with nothing between the plane and the pilot to dampen the energy of the hit should be fatal and are fatal, just like it was for these old solid cars with no crumple zones.
Hitting something on 50 km/h on a solid car would be fatal as well.

As I have stated many times, I am NOT talking about aircraft slamming head on into something. What I am talking about is the fact that the wing, in most cases the outer part of the wing, hits something, and the plane turns around -- does a ground loop and is minimally damaged at most. However, as soon as the wing hit the object in question, everybody on the plane is killed instantly.

 

The plane after it spun around in the first image I provided. The only damage it sustained was a damaged First Engine.

 

In the second image the plane is all intact except for the Flap rods being broken

 

As you stated, "collisions on such speeds with nothing between the plane and the pilot to dampen the energy of the hit should be fatal and are fatal". As the outer part of the wing hits an object, the rest of the wing -- the engine, wing root -- and fuselage dampen the energy of the impact. Since in the first image the speed is ~90 km/h and in the second one the speed is 50 km/h, I would expect the people on the plane to sustain perhaps minor injuries but not fatal.

 

Watch this video of an event that happened in 2015 where a High speed train crashes into the trailer of a stationary truck, instantly destroying the trailer and spinning the cab 180 degrees. The truck driver is able to get out and was completely unharmed by the collision.

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Enceladus

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@Regingrave

The same thing I did observe in  mid air collision when at last one plane touch other by the wing. Insta player kill. It's a bug ,same as hitting the ground object by the wing when driving at 50 km/h. The whole body of the plane should absorb significant amount of the kinetic energy, it's looking that way because damage is visible on the plane and it change direction of travel , but at the  same time the energy is not substracted or is  aplified to the player body causing PK. It's a bug in calculation I think.

With debug information, one can easily monitor this forces  in action and spot the anomality.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Regingrave-]

14 часов назад, Enceladus сказал:

What I am talking about is the fact that the wing, in most cases the outer part of the wing, hits something, and the plane turns around -- does a ground loop and is minimally damaged at most. However, as soon as the wing hit the object in question, everybody on the plane is killed instantly.

Plane integrity is not the criteria of crew survival, on the contrary, more energy the plane absorbs without breaking down means more energy transmitted directly to pilot.

Game physyology model consider overloads and stresses, if you're putting too much stress over too short time — crew members die.

 

14 часов назад, Enceladus сказал:

Watch this video of an event that happened in 2015 where a High speed train crashes into the trailer of a stationary truck, instantly destroying the trailer and spinning the cab 180 degrees. The truck driver is able to get out and was completely unharmed by the collision.

Do not mistake modern cars that made with safety measures and cruple zones in mind, or relatively soft trailer connected with the truck through moving link with 40s planes. The main goal of the plane structure is to remain solid in flight under huge overloads, not to save crew lives when they're ramming ground objects on high speed.

 

13 часов назад, 1PL-Husar-1Esk сказал:

It's a bug ,same as hitting the ground object by the wing when driving at 50 km/h. The whole body of the plane should absorb significant amount of the kinetic energy, it's looking that way because damage is visible on the plane and it change direction of travel , but at the  same time the energy is not substracted or is  aplified to the player body causing PK. It's a bug in calculation I think.

No, it's not a bug. Planes do not absorb energy, because they're solid. For example, there are account of modern plane hitting an airfield firetruck with the wing on minimal speed, the truck were sliced with ease while the plane sustained no damage but scratches, because extreme wing loads mean the wing is a very hard structure.

[Enceladus828]

I did another test where I hit the revetment at 30km/h. The right engine hits the revetment, instantly killing everyone onboard, then it bounces back and point to the right.

 

Do the pilots and crew members just not wear harnesses?

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Regingrave said:

Plane integrity is not the criteria of crew survival, on the contrary, more energy the plane absorbs without breaking down means more energy transmitted directly to pilot.

With crashes and collisions in real-life, those at the rear sustain less of the energy of the impact than those at the front. In this instance where the right engine hits the revetment at 30 km/h and bounces back, for the Pilot it's fatal, for the Top Gunner he would sustain slight less of the energy sustained by the Pilot, but for the Ventral Gunner he is seated much further away from the Pilot -- the front of the airplane -- and would sustain much less of the energy of the impact, so why is this impact at 30 km/h fatal for him?

 

14 hours ago, Regingrave said:

Do not mistake modern cars that made with safety measures and cruple zones in mind, or relatively soft trailer connected with the truck through moving link with 40s planes

Getting to what @1PL-Husar-1Esk was saying, in April 1945 the Sonderkommando Elbe did aerial rammings. One pilot, Heinrich Rossner was flying a Bf-109 that struck a B-24 behind the cockpit, shearing off the 109's right wing and the cockpit of the B-24, the 109's nose struck the No.3 engine, shearing it off, the 109 then slammed into another B-24 where the Top Gunner was. Rossner was able to bailout after hitting the second B-24 and survived. No records indicate he was injured by the ramming. A depiction of this event in this video here at 4:16. 

 

I understand that the DM could never be updated so if one did this in the game the results would be as depicted in this documentary but it goes to show that pilots in WW2 planes were able to survive high energy impacts and sustain minor injuries at the most.

 

Track Files: Pe-2-collision-30km.zip _gen.zip

 

Thank you

Edited September 6, 2023 by Enceladus
Added track files

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@Regingrave

30km/h crash and instant player death if that's not a bug then is not realistic. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk