This really irritates me.

[Siggi 10]

I've no doubt this is a CFS3 legacy, but one could hope for a possible fix in the future. Crash-landing, or not even crash-landing at all but force-landing with damage. The plane will roll almost to a stop, then slowly keels over to one side or the other as if the ground were water and the wing non-existant. There is no sense of the plane as an actual object at all. No sliding, crashing, splintering, stuff flying up in the air etc. I have no idea if it's different if the wheels and wheel-struts have gone and one lands directly on one's belly?

 

It seems as if the CFS3 engine handles ground-contact as one of a very limited number of states (four by my counting*), rather than treating the plane as a complex entity that can interact with the ground with a large number of realistic outcomes.

 

Is this hard-coded and beyond improvement?

 

* Good landing, ground-loop, roll onto side, explode.

[Olham 164]

Yes, I see what you mean. It may be in the basic CFS3 code already, and difficult to change.

But perhaps it's possible on a badly shot up plane, to make the gear break away at touch down.

And then it should be sliding over the ground on it's belly?

[Siggi 10]

Yes, I see what you mean. It may be in the basic CFS3 code already, and difficult to change.

But perhaps it's possible on a badly shot up plane, to make the gear break away at touch down.

And then it should be sliding over the ground on it's belly?

 

One would like to think so. I suppose the thing to do is test it and see how the planes behave in various ways. I'm going to see if I can shear-off the landing-gear on a house roof.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Siggi

[Olham 164]

Haha! But beware - the prop radius isn't much less!!

[zoomzoom 2]

Yes, this is something that if possible, should definately be modelled with more refinement in the future. Hopefully its not hard wired into the CFS3 code structure.

 

ZZ.

 

PS. As previously mentioned some of the options should be. Pancake(busted LG) belly skid...catch a wing and spin on belly....complete overturn onto top wing....and my personal fav....the prang...nose into ground and tail high as you see in somany crashed albatros pics.

Edited November 19, 2009 by zoomzoom

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I have to say..it's rarely a problem for me personally.

 

My new Nick-name should be 'Ground Nail'

[Siggi 10]

Spent the last hour trying to break the undercarriage off, no luck. Did plant the plane into the roofs of a few houses though. Bouncing the plane hard off the ground repeatedly does break something though, one can hear it. Did get into a few promising slides on the ground but the screen always goes black before things get really interesting. I look forward to the addon fixing that damned plane-destroyed blackout.

[Olham 164]

Maybe just and especially the landing gear is made to last? Due to some crazy pilots,

who might break it all the time and then complain?

[Burning Beard 14]

Hey Ground Nail,

 

I lettered a Mooney once for an guy that had stuck it in a levy, it is now called "Lawn Dart".

 

Beard

[Bullethead 12]

It seems as if the CFS3 engine handles ground-contact as one of a very limited number of states (four by my counting*), rather than treating the plane as a complex entity that can interact with the ground with a large number of realistic outcomes.

 

Is this hard-coded and beyond improvement?

 

* Good landing, ground-loop, roll onto side, explode.

 

FWIW, in my so-far very limited experience with making new planes for OFF, I've learned that plane models have things called "contact points". A contact point is, AFAIK, a spot where the airframe is likely to come in contact with the ground. Parts of the plane without contact points go through the ground as if it wasn't there. Parts of the plane with contact points interact with the ground. For instance, wheel contact points make the plane sit on the ground, so you can land and take off, and contact points on the lower wings make the wingtips break if you let them touch the ground.

 

From what I understand, you can only have about 13 contact points on a plane, in CFS3-defined places, but as I say my experience with this is quite limited. Anyway, I'm 100% sure that all OFF planes have contact points under both wheels and the tailskid, plus both lower wingtips. Otherwise, they'd be unable to take off and land, but instead would fall through the ground. Thus, if your undamaged plane ever falls over on its side, as in 1 wheel and then the lower wing tip sinking through the ground as if it wasn't there, then I submit the problem is with the ground and not the planes.

 

Note, however, that the apparently(?) limited number of contact points does cause some strange things to happen at times. For instance, it appears that you can only have 1 wing contact point on each side (a legacy of CFS3 monoplanes?), which naturally is at the tip of the lower wing, the part most likely to touch the ground in non-emergency circumstances. But suppose you manage to land with the lower left wing shot away, which is possible in some planes. As your speed decreases and your aileron authority goes away during your roll-out, your plane rolls over to the left, so is contacting only on the left wheel. But because the lower left wing is missing, there's no longer a contact point on that side. Thus, your upper left wing goes right through the ground as if it wasn't there, neither stopping your roll nor breaking itself, because it has no contact point of its own. Your plane continues to roll over on its left side, pivoting about its left wheel, until the side of the fuselage touches. This also doesn't seem to have a contact point, so it also goes through the ground. This continues until another contact point touches the ground, and it appears that the one mostly like to touch is the one on top of the cockpit. In most WW2 planes, this corresponds with the top of the pilot's head. IOW, it's like your head hits the ground moving at whatever speed you have left. This is usually pretty fatal.

 

So, it seems to me that unless you're missing a wheel and/or wingtip, you shouldn't be tipping over like this. If you are missing such parts, then you're prey to the limitations of contact points. And if you're not missing anything but still tipping over, then I think you've found a fault with the terrain rather than the plane.

[Siggi 10]

That makes a lot of sense BH. Would there be a contact-point on the top wing? I distinctly remember a dogfight with a D7 earlier this year where either his or my wheels hit the other's top wing, and might have lost the undercarriage. Does it have anything to do with the bits of the plane that appear vividly in thick cloud, while everything else gets misted out? In most cases the centre-section of the top wings are visible...is that a contact-point?

 

Anyway, it does look like CFS3 limitations are responsible for these minor irritations.

[+Winder 32]

That makes a lot of sense BH. Would there be a contact-point on the top wing? I distinctly remember a dogfight with a D7 earlier this year where either his or my wheels hit the other's top wing, and might have lost the undercarriage. Does it have anything to do with the bits of the plane that appear vividly in thick cloud, while everything else gets misted out? In most cases the centre-section of the top wings are visible...is that a contact-point?

 

Anyway, it does look like CFS3 limitations are responsible for these minor irritations.

 

 

 

It is a CFS3 limitation that we are aware of and we are always looking to improve - the issues are thus:

 

1) There is no damage model for the gear so when your gear is damaged its not visible.

 

2) Once the gear is damaged CFS3 seemingly ignores the wingtip contact points - but not always - this is possibly tied to gear % damage and speed of collision with ground......

 

 

HTH

 

 

WM

[+Polovski 425]

That makes a lot of sense BH. Would there be a contact-point on the top wing? I distinctly remember a dogfight with a D7 earlier this year where either his or my wheels hit the other's top wing, and might have lost the undercarriage. Does it have anything to do with the bits of the plane that appear vividly in thick cloud, while everything else gets misted out? In most cases the centre-section of the top wings are visible...is that a contact-point?

 

Anyway, it does look like CFS3 limitations are responsible for these minor irritations.

 

Yes the craft have contact points so you should collide but like anything in software land there's a compromise there are not infinite contact points just a few key ones.

 

The cloud thing is down to the VC having different parts to the external model. For various technical reasons sometimes you have to put parts of the wing or other objects in the Virtual cockpit these are not affected by fog.

[Siggi 10]

Thanks chaps. Knowing the how and why makes it a lot easier to tolerate.

[Olham 164]

Yep; learnt a lot in 10 minutes. Thanks all. And maybe, some day, they find a way...

[Siggi 10]

Yep; learnt a lot in 10 minutes. Thanks all. And maybe, some day, they find a way...

 

Short of re-writing a lot of the CFS3 code I don't think it'll be possible.

 

These kinds of issues are, I guess, why MS were so thoroughly slagged off over CFS3. Corner-cutting shonkiness and half-arsed attention to detail. How the hell can a plane-model consist of a small number of 'contact-points' to give it a 'physical' reality within it's virtual environment? I don't recall it being an issue in RB2, a game that came many years before CFS3. But maybe I'm wrong, and my memories of RB2 planes crash-landing properly are false.

 

It certainly explains why MS implemented the screen blackout though...hiding the evidence of their abysmal coding. Small wonder their simulation dev team got canned.

[+Winder 32]

Short of re-writing a lot of the CFS3 code I don't think it'll be possible.

 

These kinds of issues are, I guess, why MS were so thoroughly slagged off over CFS3. Corner-cutting shonkiness and half-arsed attention to detail. How the hell can a plane-model consist of a small number of 'contact-points' to give it a 'physical' reality within it's virtual environment? I don't recall it being an issue in RB2, a game that came many years before CFS3. But maybe I'm wrong, and my memories of RB2 planes crash-landing properly are false.

 

It certainly explains why MS implemented the screen blackout though...hiding the evidence of their abysmal coding. Small wonder their simulation dev team got canned.

 

 

I would not go so far as that - CFS3 is actually an amazing engine and was quite ahead of its time in many key areas - evidence is in what you can see now in OFF and the fact that its ran like a dog on the CPUs of the time when it was released.

 

Coupled to the fact that Aces had to release the sim incomplete and the picture is uh complete.

I am extremely grateful for the engine that has been bestowed upon us - CFS4 would have been very special indeed and would have allowed the Aces team to finish what is to me an amazing piece of work...

 

HTH

 

WM

[themightysrc 5]

Having seen CFS3 roundly slagged off at every turn by probably every gamer who's ever played it, I now find myself wondering if Winder's post points to there actually being quite a lot of life in CFS3, provided it could get the extra exploitation/development that it clearly needed, and probably still needs.

 

Winder - how much has TSTMNBN influenced your direction with regard to P4 of OFF and CFS3 as an engine?

[Olham 164]

What is TSTMNBN ?

[Rickitycrate 10]

thesimthatmaynotbenamed

[Olham 164]

Ahaaahhhhhh!....

[Bullethead 12]

What is TSTMNBN ?

 

"The Sorriest Thing Made Now Bar None" ?????

 

J/k, I have no idea

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Oh, OK, I get it. For a minute there I thought you were referring to that new WWI combat flight sim, "Skies of Plight". I hear it's scheduled for release this Christmas...unless it's not. And it will have a full complement of aircraft available...unless it doesn't. And it will be fully supported...unless it isn't.

 

 

I...I'm sorry...that was uncalled for. No bashing of other flight sims, imaginary or otherwise. I'll retreat to my underground bunker now and try to get online so I can fly for an hour or so before the server gets so hinky I end with stop-frame animation of some of my favorite WWI aircraft.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Well, I cannot but feel sorry for everyone, who tried to make a WW1 air combat sim and put so much hard work into it,

and then fail in the end getting it done properly. A little tragedy. Just my 2 cents.

For OFF though, it can only be good, so there is something positive in it, too.

[Rickitycrate 10]

I'm sure there are many who are very happy with what they have. Fail may be too harsh of a term. To each their own and choice is always a good thing.