Landings Unrealistic
- Thread starter wig
- Start date
opjose
Well-known member
Maxkop:
This is different than the original poster's comment.
He was talking about landing realism versus your comment on ground handling.
(this is for those paying attention....)
---
You should try out the new beta.
Ground handling is vastly improved, although the default friction co-efficient for the airports need to be increased to realize the improvements. Edit the airports to do so.
I've compared a video of a biplane (I have the same model) to the same biplane modeled in G3.
Both stop, bounce, roll and behave identically on the ground now, when the adjustment is made. There is a huge difference going from one surface to another as well.
You have to be careful when transitioning from the tarmak to say grass or cobblestone, lest your plane nose over into the grass.
Cool!
The downside is the "plane dance", where the plane bounces around on the ground too much, when it is idling.... but this is a far lesser problem.
This is different than the original poster's comment.
He was talking about landing realism versus your comment on ground handling.
(this is for those paying attention....)
---
You should try out the new beta.
Ground handling is vastly improved, although the default friction co-efficient for the airports need to be increased to realize the improvements. Edit the airports to do so.
I've compared a video of a biplane (I have the same model) to the same biplane modeled in G3.
Both stop, bounce, roll and behave identically on the ground now, when the adjustment is made. There is a huge difference going from one surface to another as well.
You have to be careful when transitioning from the tarmak to say grass or cobblestone, lest your plane nose over into the grass.
Cool!
The downside is the "plane dance", where the plane bounces around on the ground too much, when it is idling.... but this is a far lesser problem.
Wig,
I agree and have been saying this since upgrading to G3 ... I guess others don't see it that way.
The planes in G3 almost "stick" to the runway when you land. Many models in G2 would bounce or have other realistic effects if you came in too fast. Not so in G3. You can come in hot at a steep angle and the plane sticks and rolls out.
Makes landings easier in G3 than G2.
The one excpetion in G3 is larger planes. If you do this with a larger plane the landing gear will tear off.
Carl
I agree and have been saying this since upgrading to G3 ... I guess others don't see it that way.
The planes in G3 almost "stick" to the runway when you land. Many models in G2 would bounce or have other realistic effects if you came in too fast. Not so in G3. You can come in hot at a steep angle and the plane sticks and rolls out.
Makes landings easier in G3 than G2.
The one excpetion in G3 is larger planes. If you do this with a larger plane the landing gear will tear off.
Carl
maxkop
Well-known member
Ground Handling is one part of landing realism opjose, because with this flat ground the plane doesn't really interfer in landings with the ground profile, especially if there is gras surface. Like cfossa said, the planes really "stick" to the ground. Sometimes I get the impression that it makes no difference how the plane comes down as long as it does
opjose
Well-known member
Those planes that "stick" tend to be the ones with the collision mesh problems.
This "stickyness" works both ways, it also affects takeoffs.
It's really more of a problem with the model itself.
The new upgrade improves BOTH ground handling realism and how the planes behave at and after touchdown.
I've seen landings that rival videos of actual plane in roll out, bounce, noseover, etc.
The problem is that the airports and planes may need some tweaking to achieve this.
I've modeled one of my own biplanes and there is NO discernable difference between the real thing and G3 at landing... but that is after tweaking the airport and the model.
This would stand to reason as the ground handling, etc. was not addressed until the later releases.
This "stickyness" works both ways, it also affects takeoffs.
It's really more of a problem with the model itself.
The new upgrade improves BOTH ground handling realism and how the planes behave at and after touchdown.
I've seen landings that rival videos of actual plane in roll out, bounce, noseover, etc.
The problem is that the airports and planes may need some tweaking to achieve this.
I've modeled one of my own biplanes and there is NO discernable difference between the real thing and G3 at landing... but that is after tweaking the airport and the model.
This would stand to reason as the ground handling, etc. was not addressed until the later releases.
Guys,
Maybe I was to vague in my original post, I'm having a hard time
distinguishing the runway during landing. It seems to me the the
model is gliding versus rolling over the surfaces. The planes will
pratically land themself on the G3 but will crash on the G2. I just
upgraded to the G3 3 weeks ago.
Thanks,
Wig
Maybe I was to vague in my original post, I'm having a hard time
distinguishing the runway during landing. It seems to me the the
model is gliding versus rolling over the surfaces. The planes will
pratically land themself on the G3 but will crash on the G2. I just
upgraded to the G3 3 weeks ago.
Thanks,
Wig
opjose
Well-known member
Wig:
The friction co-efficient and rolling resistance on many models are set far too low.
The same is true of the default airports.
Set everything to 1.0 or 100% accordingly and you'll see a vast difference in the way the planes behave once they touch the ground.
e.g. with things set properly... if you go from the runway onto the grass w/o holding up elevator on a tail dragger, the planes will tend to nose over.
The planes will nose over or "stick" onto the cobblestone paths, etc.
In other words every different surface type behaves differently with this new version just out.
---
If you are talking about "visually" distinguishing a difference, then you may have ansiotropic filtering problems or incorrect settings for your video card.
You should have no problems telling the two areas apart.
Note:
All of the above applies to the 3D airfields, not the photofields.
Photofields (especially user created ones) often do not have runways defined, etc.
This is an oversight or lack of additional "work" on the part of the airport creator, as this can be modeled in G3.
The friction co-efficient and rolling resistance on many models are set far too low.
The same is true of the default airports.
Set everything to 1.0 or 100% accordingly and you'll see a vast difference in the way the planes behave once they touch the ground.
e.g. with things set properly... if you go from the runway onto the grass w/o holding up elevator on a tail dragger, the planes will tend to nose over.
The planes will nose over or "stick" onto the cobblestone paths, etc.
In other words every different surface type behaves differently with this new version just out.
---
If you are talking about "visually" distinguishing a difference, then you may have ansiotropic filtering problems or incorrect settings for your video card.
You should have no problems telling the two areas apart.
Note:
All of the above applies to the 3D airfields, not the photofields.
Photofields (especially user created ones) often do not have runways defined, etc.
This is an oversight or lack of additional "work" on the part of the airport creator, as this can be modeled in G3.
opjose
Well-known member
Well!
I didn't expect it to work in photofields as well, but I can't complain!
Is there a difference between handling on the runway versus the grass?
In the 3D fields the transition is very obvious.
---
Other improvements.
Adjust the wing variablity to about 40%, and most of the other related parameters, such as micro turbulence to under 10%.
Then you can increase the wind speed for any given airport (PGUP = Increase speed, PGDN = Decrease speed) ang get fairly realistic plane movement.
Set the maximum level of the turbulence to say 30 feet to make it more dramatic during landing.
The only parameter I find to be too much, is the thermal downdraft effect.
For airfield flying set it to zero or a very low number... otherwise the plane will tend to bounce up and down too much in flight.
I didn't expect it to work in photofields as well, but I can't complain!
Is there a difference between handling on the runway versus the grass?
In the 3D fields the transition is very obvious.
---
Other improvements.
Adjust the wing variablity to about 40%, and most of the other related parameters, such as micro turbulence to under 10%.
Then you can increase the wind speed for any given airport (PGUP = Increase speed, PGDN = Decrease speed) ang get fairly realistic plane movement.
Set the maximum level of the turbulence to say 30 feet to make it more dramatic during landing.
The only parameter I find to be too much, is the thermal downdraft effect.
For airfield flying set it to zero or a very low number... otherwise the plane will tend to bounce up and down too much in flight.