stuck on grass

just like a normal farming field is at harvesting season

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:

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:

I think this is the game you're looking for.

Oh, and stop driving off the taxiway in your aircraft. Wheels on the pavement, amigo.

(Fri13) +1 At least someone reasonable here.

Rest that repeat "Stay on damn taxiway!" either:

-can't read and visualize the problem here ,

-can't play posted videos (picture says thousand words, motion picture multiplied by frame rate),

-ignorant fools that don't get the physics of soil-wheel contact in essence,

-being payed trolls,

-sadistic fools that like to represent them as majority without any proof while being trolls for free,

-all of this combined.

History proved that human stupidity is repeatedly and surprisingly resistant to common sense and usually autlouds the mass - which is undenied fact. Maybe this sounds harsh but it is rigid truth as proved here as in many cases in history. Geniuses allays come in small numbers.

From my perspective, If DCS is called "Simulator" (get this as constructive critics) then this Simulator should "simulate" real life conditions as much as possible in all phases of flight starting from (inspection) taxing to landing (shutdown) and even dirt operations. Far away from the fact that DCS isn't eyecandy and has great graphics and great modules extremely well simulated which is effort achieved not only by ED&FC but with aid from many other coders and designers in various groups, but still needs corrections in some portions of core code at which I pointed by making this thread.

From other perspective it we are talking about DCS as "Game" then we can have as many rules that even defy physics and common sense and thus making "players" obey that rules to stay in the game. I came to DCS to be "pilot" not "player". :pilotfly:

I found the perfect plane for you jackmckay! Ask ED to build one for you!:D

No more problems with getting stuck in the mud

.

There's no need to necessarily stay on taxiways. I'm sure there are some holes here and there but you can tool around Vaziani (at least) off piste without much of a problem. Started from hanger 23 (?) with its tight right turn on a narrow taxiway and, well, the video (There and Back Again) is on its way once it's done uploading.

(Fri13) +1 At least someone reasonable here.

 

Rest that repeat "Stay on damn taxiway!" either:

 

-can't read and visualize the problem here ,

-can't play posted videos (picture says thousand words, motion picture multiplied by frame rate),

-ignorant fools that don't get the physics of soil-wheel contact in essence,

-being payed trolls,

-sadistic fools that like to represent them as majority without any proof while being trolls for free,

-all of this combined.

 

History proved that human stupidity is repeatedly and surprisingly resistant to common sense and usually autlouds the mass - which is undenied fact. Maybe this sounds harsh but it is rigid truth as proved here as in many cases in history. Geniuses allays come in small numbers.

 

From my perspective, If DCS is called "Simulator" (get this as constructive critics) then this Simulator should "simulate" real life conditions as much as possible in all phases of flight starting from (inspection) taxing to landing (shutdown) and even dirt operations. Far away from the fact that DCS isn't eyecandy and has great graphics and great modules extremely well simulated which is effort achieved not only by ED&FC but with aid from many other coders and designers in various groups, but still needs corrections in some portions of core code at which I pointed by making this thread.

 

From other perspective it we are talking about DCS as "Game" then we can have as many rules that even defy physics and common sense and thus making "players" obey that rules to stay in the game. I came to DCS to be "pilot" not "player". :pilotfly:

i think jackmckay, the Mud, sand, rocks and other effects over ground can been correct if someone on the future will coming a "vehicle" hardcore module aka a tank, totally necessary to get a plausible land environment, but that taking a large road, similarly to get a "plausible" sea environment.

Actually DCS maps has not that "level" of land hardcore simulation to a aircraft (only a light approximation), but actually, has only another item on the extend "wishlist" of DCS.

(Fri13) +1 At least someone reasonable here.

 

Rest that repeat "Stay on damn taxiway!" either:

 

-can't read and visualize the problem here ,

-can't play posted videos (picture says thousand words, motion picture multiplied by frame rate),

-ignorant fools that don't get the physics of soil-wheel contact in essence,

-being payed trolls,

-sadistic fools that like to represent them as majority without any proof while being trolls for free,

-all of this combined.

 

History proved that human stupidity is repeatedly and surprisingly resistant to common sense and usually autlouds the mass - which is undenied fact. Maybe this sounds harsh but it is rigid truth as proved here as in many cases in history. Geniuses allays come in small numbers.

 

From my perspective, If DCS is called "Simulator" (get this as constructive critics) then this Simulator should "simulate" real life conditions as much as possible in all phases of flight starting from (inspection) taxing to landing (shutdown) and even dirt operations. Far away from the fact that DCS isn't eyecandy and has great graphics and great modules extremely well simulated which is effort achieved not only by ED&FC but with aid from many other coders and designers in various groups, but still needs corrections in some portions of core code at which I pointed by making this thread.

 

From other perspective it we are talking about DCS as "Game" then we can have as many rules that even defy physics and common sense and thus making "players" obey that rules to stay in the game. I came to DCS to be "pilot" not "player". :pilotfly:

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?

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.

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...

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. ;)

i think jackmckay, the Mud, sand, rocks and other effects over ground can been correct if someone on the future will coming a "vehicle" hardcore module aka a tank, totally necessary to get a plausible land environment, but that taking a large road, similarly to get a "plausible" sea environment.

 

Actually DCS maps has not that "level" of land hardcore simulation to a aircraft (only a light approximation), but actually, has only another item on the extend "wishlist" of DCS.

When you drive across Nevada you have stony, sandy, dusty, etc. parts. Some give you a dustplume, others don't.

Even in the Caucasus the different "strips" of land/soil are part of the environment engine, at least between a runway, a paved Road, and unpaved roads or stone/mountainous and soft meadows or agricultural farmland.

They have a factor of "support" so some aircraft, like the WWII prop planes can land/roll/taxi on grass... Of course a 20 ton monster can't that easy. At least if you stopped and are no longer rolling.

I managed multiple times to recover from a slide of the runway by keeping momentum and rolling onto the asphalt again, but if you stopped and sink in your, well, stuck.

Video!

What point are you trying to make by reposting it again?

It is the run off zone, this isn't unexpected.

You do realise that the end of a runway falls into the "runway safety area" (link), meaning that it's likely to have had some engineering done at the ends?

It doesn't support your assertion that the ground adjacent to taxi ways is also mechanically stabilised on all airfields and fine for any plane to go on.

While I too find the differences between airfields annoying (there are a couple in DCS you can go offroad with no effect) and the fact it's a death sentance to go offroad on most, it's such a minor gripe at the moment considering the other issues in DCS and the fact it only happens when the user does something wrong.

The way I see it, ED could model everything better right, there is a limit and balance here and always will be to move forward, like ED is and stay in business too.

ED could bring our PC to a crawl just with the FM's if they wanted to.

Where I would say ED's AFM takes it a step further is in applying the same principles to primary aircraft systems modeling, like the engine, fuel, hydraulics, and most recently electrics. Obviously you can increase the level of depth in real-time modeling endlessly and the limit only depends on time available and computing power, but generally I would say that our AFM models probably feature the deepest and widest real time (what we call "honest") calculated factors of such aircraft systems you would see on the PC

The post

Then throw in real time ballistics and ballistics penetration (Getting tested now). This is why it's hard to split threads and cores jackmckay, you brought this up before in another thread, ED is working on it tho, using the vulkan api and perhaps splitting the threads.

Last big way ED could crush out PC's and finish us off, is to go to far with the weather and turbulence, we all want the realistic simulations, there is a balance here to, as it needs to also work well in MP and sync up nicely over the net.

Then there's also better missile logic etc etc.

New maps, aircraft modules, and what I posted above should be the priority now and they are, so ED can move forward. The full land and sea simulation will came in.....? When we have 20 GHz PC's and running a 8080ti.

If ED was to do anything (easy) here to help jackmckay out, they could just let you drive anywhere, like the other sim do at any weight, this is not realistic either tho is it.

.

The way I see this thread is:

(

:lol:

Jackmckay says: why do heavy load CFDs when 99.99% of calculations would be repetitive? Ballistics as CFD can be tabular as already is and way super faster than using expensive HPC farm to invent hot water. Off thread anyway, we are talking about wheel-soil physics. What vehicles in DCS don't have wheels? Maybe many think I had this in mind (

There and Back Again

I understand that there are places where you can get bogged along this or that taxiway but instead of an "the sky is falling" approach, documenting locations is a better approach.

Anyway, I know that I've been on grass from time to time and it hasn't been an issue, though on occasion it is. Out of curiosity, I took a drive and a quick flight. Started at Vaziani's Hangar 23 (?) with its sharp right turn onto a narrow taxiway and ended back there again. (I used Vaziani because that was the first mission I saw.) And this is what I usually experience. It's about 12 minutes long, if anyone is interested:

:lol::thumbup:

Jackmckay says: why do heavy load CFDs when 99.99% of calculations would be repetitive? Ballistics as CFD can be tabular as already is and way super faster than using expensive HPC farm to invent hot water. Off thread anyway, we are talking about wheel-soil physics. What vehicles in DCS don't have wheels? Maybe many think I had this in mind (

) ? :D

There not real time CFD's, some things are just base off the CFD tests, or research already done for ballistics (where experimental results are available) etc.

It's up to ED to balance how all this tech goes together in the sim and how far to go, I'm sure you know how to do it better of course jackmckay, and keep everyone happy, you should tell ED exactly how it all should be setup calculated and coded for the sim.

.

CFD is off the topic actually.

http://sendvid.com/vmal8xep

It's stuck on grass. Mig15 with 50% fuel on board. Guduata shelter nr. 25.

Guduata shelter nr. 25.

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

Now I don't know if you've got a Don Quixote complex or what, but what if you just use the BLOODY TAXIWAYS from now on? Still, here's a bunch of flowers for you since such obstinacy has got to be rewarded :flowers:

So Gudauta, 1/4 mile from the shoreline, at less than 70 feet above MSL, should have rock hard soil? Cool.

CFD is off the topic actually.

 

http://sendvid.com/vmal8xep

 

It's stuck on grass. Mig15 with 50% fuel on board. Guduata shelter nr. 25.

I'm confused. How did we get from all the examples using Varizani (spelling?) to Guduata? At which base did the incident occur?

Fefifo/salama

I really respect your stands as soil physics and hydrology experts.

should have rock hard soil? Cool.

Sure. It's so durable they actually use it for surfboards I've heard.

I'm confused. How did we get from all the examples using Varizani (spelling?) to Guduata? At which base did the incident occur?

The one at my recent video posted few pages before but it also can be repeated at many, many other similar places.

Anyway there's lot of material here to discuss this topic as many have exposed their satisfaction with current ground modelling in DCS and very very few elaborated soil physics aspect and disagree that current situation is real.

I'm sure this thread has reached ED and that they will decide what and when to make certain changes or not. :thumbup:

Well Jack, judging by the evidence you've produced so far (i.e. almost nothing since misunderstood data and incorrect conclusions aren't counted) I too am certain ED will now decide what to do (i.e. nothing).

/thread

Just stay on the road, like in real life, how hard is that ?

Yeah, DCS is maybe a bit picky on this, but we have brains that can adopt and thus move forward in life and general.

I do get your point, also share it in some respect, but the fix is obvious, taxi ON the road and pay attention to your legs.

The whole point of "finding" Spots, where you will sink in with anything over 10 tons is moot.

It only proves there are soft areas modeled, like you will find in real life. So unless you go to that spot in real life and prove it isn't soft enough to let something 5-10 times the weight of a car (supported by four large tires), sink in we can safely assume that there is a soft spot.

As DCS is already calculating the overall weight (with fuel and loadout), the friction, speed/momentum and density of the ground and dynamically decides if you sink in or not, what do you want?

Look at Ironhands little tour... Pretty realistic I would say.

Learn to handle your aircraft and stop whining, chaps. ;)