stuck on grass

22 pages of this... The level of WHINE-age is epic..

<SMH>

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Nobody is perfect

Nobody is perfect

:D

And that would actually be a missing feature, that tracked vehicles can get stuck... On the other hand, thinking of the Mission designers, forget about it. ;)

Call ground crew and ask for a push.

stuck on grass

Anyone got blown up on grassfield takeoff in tf51 or any other prop just as about takeoff speed without any logical reason or visible obstacle?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The sticky grass is an old story who can prevent unappropriate behavior on the airfield..:)

Start the engine and taxing are part of the task of this great flight sim.

About the Russian aircrafts, robust landing gear don't mean you can't get stuck.

God bless DCS. Alleluia!

Give it a friggin rest FFS...

We get it you are unhappy.. Things have been explained every possible which way..

Please go away...

MODS PLEASE CLOSE THIS ASININE THREAD

Wait! This one please :laugh:

It's a Mig23 from the Cold War Air Museum. So, probably empty.

Wait! This one please

It's a Mig23 from the Cold War Air Museum. So, probably empty.

We allready talked about ground softness but theres another more important issue here. Planes get destroyed on takeoff if they step onto grass if speed is just below takeoff speed. It looks like DCS doesnt simulate gradual transition from roll to flight state but has on-off state. Being at near to takeoff speed doesnt mean that plane ground pressure is significantly smaller than on roll start as DCS doesnt calculate lift force on ground when moving. Planes exploding on touching grass is not realistic at all. Try this: take any plane and start takeoff on concrete taxiway or runway, be short on takeoff so that takeoff speed is reached on grass part. Who will not explode?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We allready talked about ground softness but theres another more important issue here. Planes get destroyed on takeoff if they step onto grass if speed is just below takeoff speed. It looks like DCS doesnt simulate gradual transition from roll to flight state but has on-off state. Being at near to takeoff speed doesnt mean that plane ground pressure is significantly smaller than on roll start as DCS doesnt calculate lift force on ground when moving. Planes exploding on touching grass is not realistic at all. Try this: take any plane and start takeoff on concrete taxiway or runway, be short on takeoff so that takeoff speed is reached on grass part. Who will not explode?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As Ironhand showed you can even start and land a Su-27 from the grass, so depending on the plane I would post in the plane thread.

The ground modeling is available, it is diverse and it seems quite realistic if the plane handles the parameters and feedback correctly.

stuck on grass

Sure i would like to reduce that issue to single module, but that would make too manny threads as it happened to me in BF few days ago in TF51, Su25T and MiG21 so I think that is really not just single airframe problem but rather general issue.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^

I posted a track of landing, taxiing and taking off from the grass in an Su-25 earlier. It is about some modules having too coarse a damage model.

Sure i would like to reduce that issue to single module, but that would make too manny threads as it happened to me in BF few days ago in TF51, Su25T and MiG21 so I think that is really not just single airframe problem but rather general issue.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol, alive and well, despite the numerous videos proving Jack wrong. Gotta love his stubborn determination, if only we could somehow harness this limitless power... We could cure cancer, establish world peace, or power a bbq grill. Something.

I think OP is stubborn and leaving the runway is a very real problem in most places for many aircraft, but I will say this can be annoying in certain situations.

If you take damage in the A-10C for example and one of your tires is destroyed, when you land you're almost guaranteed to veer off the runway. Then you'll waste time repairing your aircraft and usually won't be able to make it back onto the runway, forcing you to grab a new slot. There needs to be some sort of recovery mechanism for situations like this.

I think OP is stubborn and leaving the runway is a very real problem in most places for many aircraft, but I will say this can be annoying in certain situations.

 

 

If you take damage in the A-10C for example and one of your tires is destroyed, when you land you're almost guaranteed to veer off the runway. Then you'll waste time repairing your aircraft and usually won't be able to make it back onto the runway, forcing you to grab a new slot. There needs to be some sort of recovery mechanism for situations like this.

That is why you are allowed to repair the friggin bird in under ten minutes!

IRL if you take damage in the A-10C you need to A) do a complete check for non obvious damage and B) do a debriefing after the flight! Effectively putting you out of the fight for a couple of hours, if you can't just switch planes...

Some 10 minutes repair and Start-Up is a very good compromise to allow a more Battlefield X like gameplay...

Yes, Deezle, if you wreck the aircraft you are out of the fight, as it should be, at least for a while. It happens. Don't get shot, and don't scrub your landings.

Far too many people around here focus on the shooty bits, while leaving their actual piloting skills in the crapper. You get what you invest in, an if you don't invest in BASIC airmanship, then you will be a shitty pilot scrubbing your landings and takeoffs, and complaining about the grass being too soft.

Even if Jack is 100% right, it's an issue I have effectively NEVER HAD, because I stay on the pavement. The handful of times I got stuck my response was to hang my head in shame for taxing down a deadend path, taxing too fast and missing a turn, or other stupid 100% avoidable situations.

If you took battle damage and crashed as a result, next time duck!

That is why you are allowed to repair the friggin bird in under ten minutes!

 

IRL if you take damage in the A-10C you need to A) do a complete check for non obvious damage and B) do a debriefing after the flight! Effectively putting you out of the fight for a couple of hours, if you can't just switch planes...

 

Some 10 minutes repair and Start-Up is a very good compromise to allow a more Battlefield X like gameplay...

I realize there is no perfect solution, and we shouldn't reward dumbasses who drive on the grass because they're in a hurry, I was simply pointing out that sometimes there are legitimate, unavoidable reasons where you end up off the pavement, that's all. I'm not asking for the ability to drive on the grass/dirt.

The ability to recover from off the pavement would simply be *consistent* with the ability to repair in 3 minutes. If the ground crew can replace my engine in 3 minutes, they can pull my plane out of the dirt in 3 minutes. Otherwise, remove the repair ability altogether and force players to always take a new slot, lets be consistent here. Why bother landing at all if I get any damage that I know will be unrecoverable once I land? Just take a new slot as soon as I'm damaged, no need for that silly time wasting RTB. This is what you're incentivizing.

Yes, Deezle, if you wreck the aircraft you are out of the fight, as it should be, at least for a while. It happens. Don't get shot, and don't scrub your landings.

 

Far too many people around here focus on the shooty bits, while leaving their actual piloting skills in the crapper. You get what you invest in, an if you don't invest in BASIC airmanship, then you will be a shitty pilot scrubbing your landings and takeoffs, and complaining about the grass being too soft.

If you wish to critique my airmanship, you can take it to another thread. You know nothing of my abilities. Landing an A-10 with only a bloody stump for one of the main gears is a tricky task for any pilot and I challenge anyone to try it, it's not something that can easily be practiced because there is no way to force such damage, you just have to get "lucky".

Damage can happen if you take any risk at all, Flankers sneak around, surprise MANPADS out of the ether (and the MWS does not detect them on the wingtips currently and hasn't for some time now), it's an imperfect world out there and things go wrong. Be careful up there on that high horse.

I'm not critiquing you specifically, but people in general, based on my own observations playing with several dozen other people in a DCS. A lot of them focused on the shooty bits, and sucked at the basics. With a relatively large sample size like that, I can safely surmise that a large portion of the people here have similar awful habits.

And yes, you can always crash and burn on a landing with sufficient enough battle damage, but it's not like the landing would be successful anyway if you really are down to a nub anyway. Getting stuck in the grass is kind of a given. The goal is to get down without exploding, not "land on your nub of a wheel, veer off the runway into the ditch, steer back up onto the pavement, taxi a half mile to the parking area, repair in 30 seconds, turn and repeat". If you take that kind of battle damage, your plane is down and out. You get another one.

lets be consistent here.

Well, the man has a point there. If the ground crew can replace a powerplant in minutes, then surely they've got a tractor parked somewhere too?

Yep. Either take the superman repair away completely, or expand it to include other support as well. +1

If you keep up some speed you will not get stuck in the grass/mud. I've landed long and gone off the end of a few runways, I kept the speed up a taxied back onto the pavement.

Also on one of my better sloppy landings I bent a main strut and damaged a wing tip so I called the ground crew and they fixed it in a short amount of time.

Well, the man has a point there. If the ground crew can replace a powerplant in minutes, then surely they've got a tractor parked somewhere too?

 

Yep. Either take the superman repair away completely, or expand it to include other support as well. +1

Yeah, really.

I know we're not supposed to talk about "other games", but I do want to draw an interesting parallel on that general topic of (even though it's somewhat OT of the grass business)

In WT, the ground forces have repair timers when they take damage before they become operational again, localised to specific points/components, etc etc. The usual. Obviously, any "in field repair" of anything more significant than changing a light bulb is unrealistic, but that's neither here nor there.

When it was first in beta, even the shortest repairs took several minutes (I mean like 3-5 minutes, typically). While unrealistically fast, the result in practice was that if you took damage, you were at least temporarily immobilised or combat ineffective. If you were in friendly territory, you'd probably be fine and re-enter the battle, but if you were on the front lines, there was a very real danger of somebody finding you before repairs were complete. If you were IN battle, then the repair was largely irrelevant, because you'd be dead in a lot less than 3 minutes.

More serious repairs, say major engine damage, etc, were still repairable, but on the order of 10-15 minutes. It was also possible for the repairs to be so lengthy as to effectively remove you from active play, even though you weren't dead (30 minutes+).

The effect THIS had, in practice, is that if you took a hard hit early on in a match, you could recover in time to still participate in the later stages, provided you weren't killed in the meantime. If it happened past the midway point of a match, you were effectively out of play.

Sometime along the way, people using this line of reasoning "Either take the superman repair away completely, or expand it to include other support as well" got their way, and we ended up with 10 second repairs that literally DON'T MATTER, and respawning crewmen, among other things.

My point in mentioning this, is this is a game, and it has gamey aspects, duh. Nobody is dying here, none of us have car batteries hooked to our balls to shock us when we "die", etc. That said, you can still have a "happy medium".

It's called "authenticity". It's not the same as "realism", it's in essence, giving the "impression of realism", as it were. We have fast reloads and repairs, in comparison to real life, but they are still significant enough that you are effectively removed from battle for the duration, without being completely removed from gameplay altogether.

Note, I'm not necessarily shooting down the tow tractor idea. I actually think that's workable and could easily be added in. Have em tow you to the parking area, provided you aren't completely totaled, and then you can sit through the repair process etc. End result is still the same, the mistake and/or damage removed you from battle for a time, even though it wasn't a K-Kill.

I just mean, that we can achieve a balance here. We don't have to strive for ridiculously inappropriate levels of "realism" here, but we don't have to go the other way, either. We can strive for a level of "authenticity" in how we receive "negative reinforcement" :P

Yeah, really.

 

I know we're not supposed to talk about "other games", but I do want to draw an interesting parallel on that general topic of (even though it's somewhat OT of the grass business)

 

In WT, the ground forces have repair timers when they take damage before they become operational again, localised to specific points/components, etc etc. The usual. Obviously, any "in field repair" of anything more significant than changing a light bulb is unrealistic, but that's neither here nor there.

 

When it was first in beta, even the shortest repairs took several minutes (I mean like 3-5 minutes, typically). While unrealistically fast, the result in practice was that if you took damage, you were at least temporarily immobilised or combat ineffective. If you were in friendly territory, you'd probably be fine and re-enter the battle, but if you were on the front lines, there was a very real danger of somebody finding you before repairs were complete. If you were IN battle, then the repair was largely irrelevant, because you'd be dead in a lot less than 3 minutes.

 

More serious repairs, say major engine damage, etc, were still repairable, but on the order of 10-15 minutes. It was also possible for the repairs to be so lengthy as to effectively remove you from active play, even though you weren't dead (30 minutes+).

 

The effect THIS had, in practice, is that if you took a hard hit early on in a match, you could recover in time to still participate in the later stages, provided you weren't killed in the meantime. If it happened past the midway point of a match, you were effectively out of play.

 

Sometime along the way, people using this line of reasoning "Either take the superman repair away completely, or expand it to include other support as well" got their way, and we ended up with 10 second repairs that literally DON'T MATTER, and respawning crewmen, among other things.

 

 

 

My point in mentioning this, is this is a game, and it has gamey aspects, duh. Nobody is dying here, none of us have car batteries hooked to our balls to shock us when we "die", etc. That said, you can still have a "happy medium".

 

It's called "authenticity". It's not the same as "realism", it's in essence, giving the "impression of realism", as it were. We have fast reloads and repairs, in comparison to real life, but they are still significant enough that you are effectively removed from battle for the duration, without being completely removed from gameplay altogether.

 

Note, I'm not necessarily shooting down the tow tractor idea. I actually think that's workable and could easily be added in. Have em tow you to the parking area, provided you aren't completely totaled, and then you can sit through the repair process etc. End result is still the same, the mistake and/or damage removed you from battle for a time, even though it wasn't a K-Kill.

 

I just mean, that we can achieve a balance here. We don't have to strive for ridiculously inappropriate levels of "realism" here, but we don't have to go the other way, either. We can strive for a level of "authenticity" in how we receive "negative reinforcement" :P

That said it is something for the wishlist, as we have lots more pressing issues. ;)