PDA

View Full Version : opinions please: landings in FB; too easy?



XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 01:46 PM
One of the things I really miss about IL2, the landings seemed really cool. I remember after a mission how even though I did it hundreds of times, I still could screw up a landing expecially if battle damaged, However in FB I made landings I know would have broken the undercarriage in IL2

What do you guys think?

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/insignia/italy/incocca-tende-scaglia.jpg
Saluti!
<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 01:46 PM
One of the things I really miss about IL2, the landings seemed really cool. I remember after a mission how even though I did it hundreds of times, I still could screw up a landing expecially if battle damaged, However in FB I made landings I know would have broken the undercarriage in IL2

What do you guys think?

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/insignia/italy/incocca-tende-scaglia.jpg
Saluti!
<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 02:26 PM
i guess it's just a matter of experience, the ground behaviour in FB is way more realistic than in IL-2, suspensions work and give that typical wobbling when taxing, and the planes behaviour nearer to the true.
U probably crash-landed so many times in IL-2 cuz u were a beginner with it, now that u achieved enough experience u land better and it seems easier, but it's not, trust me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SJ

http://www.il2sturmovik.it

Visita il portale italiano di IL-2 Sturmovik!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 02:40 PM
Hard does not necessarily = realistic

Easy does not necessarily = unrealistic

If hard landings are for you, try a space shuttle sim next time. The shuttle is reputed to be the hardest thing on earth to land.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 03:00 PM
gpang788 wrote:
-
- Hard does not necessarily = realistic
-
- Easy does not necessarily = unrealistic


Finally someone who gets it.

Landing is fairly easy, as it should be.

The only time a landing should ever be remotely in question is after suffering significant damage that makes the aircraft hard to control. Otherwise it should be simple, just as it is in the sim now.

EDIT:

Since you asked for opinions (and I'm not targeting you specifically, mike), here's mine. It's a bit ridiculous to constantly see people who've likely never touched a plane in real life complain about how "unrealistic" FB is, using only the original IL-2 as their basis for comparison, especially when they have no background or experience to know if either is correct.

Flying is not that difficult. If you can handle a stick shift car you can probably learn how to fly. Just about anyone can pick up the basics required to operate an aircraft in a few hours.

Flying well and precisely is what takes a long time to learn.

Message Edited on 09/19/0302:20PM by BinaryFalcon

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 03:53 PM
I agree, it's way too easy

Most of us would be unable to land a real warbird, even on a concrete surface.... but are still able to land an FB plane on any kind of surface with a finger in the nose, zhile drinking a scotch, watching TV and talking to a friend... that—s enough to say it's too easy

To be more specific, on most warbirds, you're almost obliged to achieve a 3-point landing on non-concrete surface in order to assure a safe landing... on FB you're never obliged.
On most warbird, a touch on non concrete surface with too much speed will be followed by a sure disaster... not on FB
... etc....


Ou Vais-je?
Ou Cours-Je?
Dans quel Etat j'Erre?

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:05 PM
well guys, actually landing an airplane is not that easy, expecially a 1500 HP taildragger!
there are some aerodynamical effects that can't still be reproduced, once grounded the planes wobble more, expecally if u land on grassy fields, were bumps and holes are always a bad surprise. In addition to this u should consider that at idle the ruder loses is authority so it's easy to touch a wing on the ground for a small wind burst, and even easier pivoting on a gear for the same reason.
I'd say the landing instability of powerful taildragger is maybe represented better, but is still kinda far from the truth. A game that somehow represent it very well is SODE.

SJ

http://www.il2sturmovik.it

Visita il portale italiano di IL-2 Sturmovik!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:42 PM
Try it with an FW.I have no doubt those vvs planes that fly like they weigh 2000lbs instead of 7000lbs are as easy to land as everything else they do.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:18 PM
Has anyone thought it might be easier to land because of the experience built up using IL2 and FB?

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:56 PM
Theif, that was the first response to this thread. lol

Binary Falcon got it right. The rest of you are just kvetching because you got suckered into thinking that everything is really difficult.

Consider this - on a 'crete strip, with no bumps and no cross wind, you could come in on just the mains and be ok. That's what we have in this game. Just because proper wind and weather aren't modeled doesn't mean that landing is unrealistic.

That isn't to say that things like torque and prop strikes couldn't or shouldn't be modeled a little bit better, but it's hardly "arcade" or "too easy".

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:02 PM
mike_espo wrote:
- One of the things I really miss about IL2, the
- landings seemed really cool. I remember after a
- mission how even though I did it hundreds of times,
- I still could screw up a landing expecially if
- battle damaged, However in FB I made landings I know
- would have broken the undercarriage in IL2
-
- What do you guys think?

I think you already raised this issue some time ago.

it's just your imagination.



---------------------
: + ) = /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
; + ) = /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
: + ( = /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
: + o = /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
: + P = /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
: + | = /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
: + <u>?</u> = /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<h6>- need help whining? (393k) (http://users.pandora.be/vnnet/forum/016.exe)
- Don't call me chris! (814k) (http://users.pandora.be/vnnet/forum/dontcallmechris.avi)
- Why you should eat breakfast (344k) (http://users.pandora.be/vnnet/forum/eatbreakfast.avi)</h6>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:37 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Consider this - on a 'crete strip, with no bumps and
- no cross wind, you could come in on just the mains
- and be ok. That's what we have in this game. Just
- because proper wind and weather aren't modeled
- doesn't mean that landing is unrealistic.
You can try landing in FB with cross-winds and bad weather... easy too

- That isn't to say that things like torque and prop
- strikes couldn't or shouldn't be modeled a little
- bit better, but it's hardly "arcade" or "too easy".
Have you landed a real 109 on a grass field (without cross-wind and bad weather)?

Probably not...


Ou Vais-je?
Ou Cours-Je?
Dans quel Etat j'Erre?

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:09 PM
pegase_rama wrote:
- You can try landing in FB with cross-winds and bad
- weather... easy too

Wx and wind aren't that much of a factor as modeled in the sim. There's not a whole lot of difference with or without.


- Have you landed a real 109 on a grass field (without
- cross-wind and bad weather)?

Have you?

- Probably not...

Thought so.

Here's the thing, when you learn to fly you're typically in a plane fitted with either: Conventional (or taildragger) gear, or tricycle (nose wheel) gear.

If you learn conventional gear, you get an endorsement, and that's pretty much it. You can fly taildraggers. Why? Because they're all basically the same. A TB-3 isn't going to land or ground handle significantly differently than a DC-3 or Piper Cub, just as a B-29 or Piper Seminole isn't going to land or ground handle significantly differently than a Cessna 172.

Once you learn the quirks of the type of gear, you've pretty much got all you need to know to deal with any other example of that type of gear on any other aircraft. There may be minor differences due to the airframe, just as there will be differences as far as performance numbers go, but all the same basic techniques will still apply.

There is no reason why someone who can land a C172 shouldn't be able to land a P39, just as someone who has flown a Piper Cub or Stearman should be able to land a 109, even if they've never tried landing it before. The techniques are all basically the same, it's just the application that varies slightly.

Aircraft are not, on the whole, difficult to land barring some massive structural or systems damage. IL-2 and FB do make the ground handling of taildraggers a bit easier than real life, but so does every other sim out there, from the beginning of time until now.

So the "real" answer to this question?

FB is somewhat wrong when it comes to landings.

IL-2 is somewhat wrong when it comes to landings.

Both are pretty much right.

They handle and land reasonably close to what I expect when flying real aircraft, and they certainly "feel" more right in almost all respects than any other sim I've played to date.

It may not be perfect, but so what?

I've flown actual planes that haven't handled or landed exactly as they should based on my experience with other examples of the same type. I guess the mechanics must have screwed with the FM when the plane was in for inspection. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



Message Edited on 09/19/0306:16PM by BinaryFalcon

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:43 PM
Well... Bf109 had more lossed due to accident during take-off and landing than due to air combat

According to you, combat in Bf109 should have been very easy then...

Every pilot and test records describe the Bf109 landing as touchy and asking for some good skill.
All are talkind about the tendancy of the Bf109 to drop the left wing just before touchdown, with no possibility to react with the ailerons without overeacting. A lot also tell about the Bf109 tendancy to swing just after touchdown on grass fields.

there are also such kind of records (with different aircraft reactions) for lots of warbirds

I never piloted motorized aircrafts (except motorized gliders) and so no warbirds... I'm only a glider pilot.

The feeling I have with landings in FB is closer to the feeling I have while landing a glider, than the feeling I got the few times I was side passenger in a plane.


Ou Vais-je?
Ou Cours-Je?
Dans quel Etat j'Erre?

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 08:14 PM
I agree with rama. If you make a crappy landing in FB, with your wingtip touching the ground in a 109, you have no problem at all, no wingtip damage. And the pilot never dies in crashes with loops, not even a single scratch

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

RichardI
09-19-2003, 08:18 PM
Take-offs and landings in IL-2 were overdone. Period.
They're much closer to reality in FB, IMO.

I'm going by the WWII fighter pilot's accounts I've read, and the real pilots I know today.

Rich

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 09:51 PM
All good opinions.


Also, we should mention our flight time in general.

While playing a mere simulated game will not help us in flying the real thing, if we look through the aspect of the standards of virtual reality, us gamers have frankly zillions of more flight time in our virtual world, compared to real life pilots in their real world.

Some people who've enjoyed flight sims for years, are probably flying the 109s for what, 6~7 years currently?(while there were differences in portrayal of the plane's characteristics throughout those many games) I myself have flown a most of the major simulation games throughout the last decade, and all of them in 109s.

To think about the famous test pilots such as Mark Hanna or Eric Brown, they've what, have maybe 10~20 hours in the 109s? How long have we been flying 109s in IL2 and FB alone? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

However difficult something may be, people get used to it. Last hour alone I've run five sorties and landed all of them - five take-offs and five landings. That's more than what the real life pilots upped their planes in a single, whole day!

And even with all that experience, still, with a slip of concentration or carelessness I make stupid mistakes and bend the props or break the undercarriages from time to time.

I say that's actually a pretty good representation of something known as 'being difficult' /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!