stuck on grass

[msalama]

taxi ON the road and pay attention to your legs.

 

Nah, the guy's too stubborn so what he now gets is another bunch of flowers: :flowers:

 

PS. And I'm finally done with this, though it indeed was a good laugh while it lasted but :D

[BitMaster]

Hell, you 2 boys were real quick in jumoping in after me LoL

 

Yeah, FLOWERS...cmon Jack, calm down man !

 

:flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers: :flowers: :flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers:

[Coxy_99]

Im surprised the threads not been closed yet lol

[jackmckay]

Aaah guys thank you for the FLOWERS, my hart is soft as soil around hangars now.. :lol:

[Weta43]

Every airfield, airstrip etc can totally withstand a rolling fighter to stop and start rolling at least once. That is the thing, why every argument against "there is no problem, learn to stay on taxiways" is nuked in the first place.

 

The point is that while some airfields &/or areas of ground are hard enough for this, you have people who's job it is to rescue aircraft that have sunk into the dirt or tarmac telling you that this happens in real life, and you just don't want to hear it.

 

In real world airfields areas are all prepared, compressed and designed so every part withstand the airplane positioning if so required. It ain't the protocol to roll there if you don't really need to. But in case of emergencies you need to be able to roll there. And this is denied currently. Just simple lack of coding.

No, again you're extrapolating from some cases to all cases in the face of repeated first hand statements and videos that illustrate this isn't the case in real life.

 

 

Are we able to roll around the roads at road base operations? Are we able to land on straight dirt roads or use them as taxiways to paved roads?

 

Now this is the sad bit, because your investigation of this seems to be "I got stuck".

 

Since Flaming Cliffs 1 you've been able to land, taxi and takeoff from any road on any map (How can you have complained so much about this subject and not know that?).

 

Since Flaming Cliffs 1 you've been able to drive over unprepared dirt in any aircraft with the following completely realistic realistic provisos:

 

1/ the friction goes up, so to maintain the same speed you have to increase thrust.

 

2/ If you're silly enough to actually stop you'll face a large breakout penalty that if you're heavily loaded you'll have to overcome before taxiing. (often wiggling the nosewheel at full thrust will help with this). Once you overcome this breakout penalty, you can go back to taxiing & / or takeoff.

 

What you're asking for is that a relatively accurate modelling of soft earth (traversable, increased friction, breakout forces modelled) that is applicable to 80% of situations be replaced with a modelling of ground conditions that are much rarer in the real world, so that you don't have to learn how to deal with the soft earth modelled...

Edited December 9, 2017 by Weta43
couldn't stand my typos any more.

[jackmckay]

Ladies and jets, here comes the champion of the day:

 

http://sendvid.com/fgr54jvy

 

:joystick:

[Weta43]

Nice, But I'll see you one and raise you one.

 

Here's a track of me landing an Su-27 on the grass in the middle of no-where, taxiing, stopping, getting stuck in a soft patch, slowly rolling out of the soft patch to firmer ground, taxiing , stopping, rolling out without problem and taking off.

 

Sorry about the slow descent, but watch the undercarriage - the unevenness of the ground is modelled well...

 

( I have several tracks - I might be behind a patch on that version so hopefully it plays correctly, if need be I could make a video :-)

 

edit:

Just added another track of the same thing with an Su-25A

 

Also - for anyone who missed it above, the ground is not modelled with an even hardness.

There are soft spots, where if you come to a rest you'll have real trouble getting out, and will have to wait as you slowly crawl forward to a harder part of the ground.

That also means if you're unlucky enough to have the nose wheel land in one at speed, you might either break the gear, or cartwheel and die.

 

I did about 5 landings in the Su-27 and broke the gear in one.

I did 4 in the Su-25, broke the gear twice, one of which caused me to cartwheel and die.

Dirt Landing F2.trk

Dirt Landing F2.Su-25.trk

Edited December 9, 2017 by Weta43
Added another track

[msalama]

the ground is not modelled with an even hardness.

 

A significant discovery IMO. Had no idea this is so.

[Yurgon]

Out of curiosity, I took a drive and a quick flight.

 

Now there are two very important observations here.

 

1. If you'd read the hundreds of posts prior to making your vid, you'da known that what you did was actually impossible :D

 

2. It is somewhat baffling, though not unexpected, that of the "aircraft in DCS can never taxi off any taxiway" faction, not one commented on that vid of yours. :lol:

 

In any case, thanks a lot for providing one of the few instances of an actual demonstration. :thumbup:

 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ironhand again"

[Art-J]

So? Lush vegetation, long grass. Tells us the surface is soft and moist soil. Now what do you make of that?

 

Oh c'mon, let's move the vegetation out of the equation. It doesn't tell us anything apart from his gfx options cranked up. Move the slider all the way left and vegetation is gone. Not to mention there are glitched parts of the aprons of this map where we get lush vegetation being rendered on the concrete, far from soft and moist I presume :D.

 

@Weta, different hardness is news to me as well. What do you mean? Are we talking about the "green" parts of the terrain (can't watch the tracks, as I have neither of these modules)? I know the gravel apron at Sukhumi is harder than grassy fields, but I always thought all the grassy bits on the map have a uniform hardness coded in.

[Weta43]

The general grass surface appears to have both surface irregularities &/or different levels of hardness modelled.

 

I used the flat land in Turkey off the end of the map - so "generic flat grass".

 

In the Su-27 track I posted above, if you watch the gear as I land on the grass you can see it absorbing bumps of various sizes (some quite large).

 

After I stop the first time I 'bog down' and have to apply full AB to move forward very slowly for about 1m then the ground becomes harder and I roll away.

I stopped again, and this time it only took about 1/2 to 3/4 throttle to move, then I took off...

[Fri13]

1. ? But you do know that there are 'simulators' where there's zero difference between runway surface and e.g. grass. That's not simulating anything.

 

When you do not simulate the capability to roll aircraft on grass, then it ain't simulating anything about capability to go over, as there is no difference between a natural bumpy and very soft terrain, and already constructed terrain that is just paved.

 

2. Any link or proof for this statement? A certain F-16 pilot at Oshkosh for sure doesn't agree.

 

A F-16 is not really designed for harder conditions like the soviet aircrafts were.

 

Already there are lots of videos about all kind soviet aircrafts rolling and operating on grass fields (semi-prepared ones, that is even less than the airfields grounds).

[Fri13]

You seriously CANNOT be as daft as to compare a soft-soiled farmer's plot with its uneven surface to a grass airfield. Oh wait, but you just did :doh:

 

When is the last time you have actually worked on the farmlands?

Seen when aircrafts land on outside of the airstrips without sinking in?

 

And after decades of farming, a field actually can become very leveled one, totally acceptable for landing. Just like the different militaries has designed to be used as well in case of emergency.ge

 

And that's that. I'll leave the rest of your garbage for the others to demolish, because I admittedy don't have the tenacity this morning to wade through your long and incoherent rants written in bad English. So au revoir for now and have a bunch of flowers for your stubborness :flowers:

 

 

It is just good that you with far better english are incapable to read bad english, yet you can't even give a single good argument why military aircrafts are not capable to stop, roll and move off the taxiways.... Yet there are videos, there are documents, there is everything to proof it otherwise.

 

As you are now thinking that a fields at farmlands are something like this:

[Weta43]

Are you just skipping the posts that don't fit with your worldview Fri13 ?

 

I just demonstrated that it's possible to land, stop, start, taxi and take off from the Grass in DCS, but you've completely ignored the post.

[jackmckay]

Looks like Su27 is not the issue here. Somehow that heavy plane manages to do impossible despite high load on tyre footprint. Ironically, the one designed to operate from unprepared runways obviously can't utilize design feature. :huh:

 

Man, my Mig21 blew up instantly ... speed was 250km/h, elevator roll up, reduced weight by 95% by wing lift generated and almost in the air.. aaand... hits what? Landmine on the edge of taxiway??

 

BTW: Didn't know that there are different soil softness applied. That means that IS possible to correct this terrain design issue.

 

PS: It would be cool if all flyable modules would be tested it that conditions.

Edited December 10, 2017 by jackmckay

[Fri13]

The problem is, some guys make wild assumptions about airfields and airports in Russia and Georgia.

So I beg to question were they actually checking the conditions at these airfields?

Or do they have friends that told them about the real life conditions at these airfields?

My guess is, the ED developers living in Russia, may have more experience and information about airfield conditions in their part of the world than some smart guys here?

 

Sure, and then look about all the other design reasoning behind the Soviet aircrafts? Their experience from the war conditions, what workforce they have to operate as to service them in their country.

 

This is not a discussion how someone would be driving rally with their fighters across the map. This is about being actually operate a military aicraft on the ground, around the already prepared area for a permanent use (that is rendered unusable in war time at sooner than later).

 

By rules you always need to stay on paved taxiways etc. But always some mishaps and other reasons happens that pilots slips outside, lands outside or roll too far etc. Not by their purpose (unless testing) but just accidents. They definitely get some paperwork to do about it or at least yelling from commanding officer.

 

It may be worth to mention that you usually CAN roll, taxi, start and land even from Grass (and yes, we now have grass-airfields) given your plane is light enough.

 

A loaded cargo aircraft is one thing that is required to operate. Carrying more than just enough fuel to land or take-off.

 

Same thing is with fighters. You don't design fighters to operate in war time from road bases or from forest camps without weapons and capability complete their mission.

 

There are many main challenges what are required and what can be done. Like what weight of the aircraft, how many times and in what weather can something come and operate. Some airfields can work so that after every day field is repaired. Some are that it requires repair after every landing.

 

But when you don't need to stress things to their extreme limits, you don't do that. You avoid all possible degradations for airframe lifetime and extend service times etc. But things happens.

 

 

The funny argument about "improvised" or frontline airfield is interesting, because one of the criteria to use a lawn as an "improvised" airfield is the consistency of the soil. Either the engineers do in fact harden the ground with heavy equipment, before it can withstand an airplane, or they use steel plating/steel mats or similar to prepare the "improvised" runway. That is improvising does mean you have to improvise, not that God always magically throws a perfect hardened stretch of soil into your direction...

 

That is the pre-tests that airfield construction pioneers/engineers do. They have already database of suitable areas. They go to location to check them and then make plans what kind work is required to be done to get there specific kind operational capability.

 

It doesn't mean that every single area needs to be prepared fully, as there are semi-prepared as unprepared fields that can be used. Some requires lots of time to build the strip in a week. Some requires just hours if even that.

 

But even thinking that airfields every other area than paved one is extremely soft soil that is totally unprepared, that is just... Naive. Like no one ever did anything on those areas but left them as soft and grassy as possible.... So "let the grass grow!" audience would be happy.

 

But this won't convince anyone here anyway, because they already ignored all that has been said before.

So I wish you all good luck, and a nice ranting.

Personally I doubt this will bear fruit and end in ED kicking out an emergency patch to "fix" soft lawns to withstand 20 ton plus aircraft, balancing in three wheels. ;)

 

The problem is that people think that every grass area just outside of the pavement on airfields are "soft", such way that aircraft's wheels just sinks in and get so badly stuck they can't move anymore.

 

It would be far more interesting too to get the weather system affect things like that. In a longer time in winter when the soil is frozen to around 1m depth, you can do whatever you want as long there wouldn't be snow to stop you. A fall with rain would likely cause trouble and cause you to sink so you get stuck worse. Or then have a summer with dry season when you have as well no problems.

 

It is not like we have waited for how many years to get the raindrops effects while flying? Turbulence affecting a another aircraft?

Synced clouds?

 

Some could just argue similarly against those "Just think that you have water going past" or "just fly further from another as you should" or "Just turn off the clouds as they block your view anyways!".

 

Once we have a Cray supercomputer running under our desk, we can still just wish things to be done as someone needs to program them.

 

A hot fix to just avoid aircraft to get stuck on the ground would be nice. No need to remove the rough bumpy area for that, even when unrealistic how bumpy it is.

 

 

[Fri13]

Man, my Mig21 blew up instantly ... speed was 250km/h, elevator roll up, reduced weight by 95% by wing lift generated and almost in the air.. aaand... hits what? Landmine on the edge of taxiway??

 

Typhoon exploded on the moment of landing when its tires didn't touch the paved airstrip....

https://youtu.be/oFR5t4h-d0A?t=90

[Weta43]

I think what everyone but two posters have arrived at is that the terrain modelling is a reasonable approximation of conditions for 80% to 90% of the time, and that what you and Fri13 are asking for is the general application of quite unusual circumstances.

[jackmckay]

${1}

 

Didnt blow or stuck.

 

Can't stop watching those big birds!

Edited December 10, 2017 by jackmckay

[jackmckay]

I asked for soviet build airfield taxiway surroundings to have hard enough soil so that soviet airplanes designed for rough terrain can't stuck, for a start. Unless rainy wet.

Edited December 10, 2017 by jackmckay

[Weta43]

As I' and others have demonstrated above, the Sim currently simulates ground unevenness and variable 'softness', also factors in weight, and applies damage through the undercarriage.

 

I've tried the FC3 aircraft and they can be landed, taxied, stopped, started and taken off from the grass.

 

If some of the 3rd party aircraft need their damage models tuning then perhaps you should take the issue up with their developers.

[Weta43]

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

 

Didnt blow or stuck.

 

Frankly - "So What"

 

If I look on the internet I'll find stories about people who's life changed for the better after winning PowerBall, but most people that buy a ticket might as well light cigarettes with their money.

 

If planes didn't generally need runways governments wouldn't spend billions of dollars building them.

 

Under the right circumstances people can land and take off from unprepared strips, but as a general rule, they're more likely to just crash land.

[jackmckay]

Ok man, u got your standpoint. On the other way that what you say neglects Soviet design philosophy in essence and limits field operations, logistics and many cool things that could be utilized on MP dynamic servers like BF and others.

 

As you said "they're more likely to just crash land" but only if descent rate is high enough otherwise they live. They would crash land on the supertough, superflat runway if descent rate is too high anyway.

Edited December 10, 2017 by jackmckay

[Weta43]

With zero descent rate - if you google images or videos of planes running off the end of the runway, most have their undercarriage ripped off or end up buried to their axles.

[outlawal2]

And now nearly 20 pages of this..

 

Good LORD give it a friggin REST..

FFS..