Horizons Why am i losing hull when landing on very low g planets without shelds?

[777Driver]

And WHEN they flash it is the exact same damage that the hull takes if they are missing. I'm fully aware that it is possible to land without the shields flashing at all, and without damaging the hull.

Perhaps you may need to read your own advice...

keep up mate.. You can do the exact same landing with or without shields. Tests done, landing with no shields flashing, zero damage. exact same landing without shields, the ship takes damage.

I have my vertical thrusters set to provide a fixed descent rate in landing overide (via throttle detents), it easy to reproduce the results.

 

[Admiral Stavanos]

no matter how soft i am with my landing i lose hull!

I'm going to call on this.
http://coriolis.io/outfit/type_6_tr...0303020101.Iw1-kA==.Aw1-kA==?bn=Andromeda III

As you can see, my Type-6 has no shields and I land all the time without losing a single percent in hull integrity.

I can think of 2 reasons why you're taking damage:
1. You're descending with an undesired pitch angle. This results in one of your landing gear bearing the full weight of the ship; hence the damage, because the stress would be too high. I've tested this.
2. As some others are telling you already: you're descending too fast. Let me reiterate - you're descent rate is fast enough to cause damage to the hull, translated through the landing gears.

If you don't have a HOTAS, buy it...anyone on a keyboard and mouse in this game isn't serious about gaming. You wouldn't fly the space shuttle with a keyboard now would you?

 

[Fendalton]

If you don't have a HOTAS, buy it...anyone on a keyboard and mouse in this game isn't serious about gaming. You wouldn't fly the space shuttle with a keyboard now would you?

Lol that's the biggest joke I've read all week. The best PvPers are K+M, anyone serious about gaming wouldn't waste their space with a HOTAS. What you were meant to say was 'Serious about Elite Dangerous'

EDIT: Just seen your signature, that explains your statement lmao.

 

[777Driver]

Lol that's the biggest joke I've read all week. The best PvPers are K+M, anyone serious about gaming wouldn't waste their space with a HOTAS. What you were meant to say was 'Serious about Elite Dangerous'

EDIT: Just seen your signature, that explains your statement lmao.

Admiral is talking , however you have managed to outdo him...

@Admiral I'll post a video to demonstrate.

 

[Admiral Stavanos]

With no shields to protect you on landing you will almost Always take damage, even on landing pads, has been like that since day one as far as I am aware
We are out in the black and carry the smallest class D shield we can, Also stick to low G planets for landing o7

I agree completely. However, from countless YouTube videos of Commanders going about their business - landing and departing - I can easily tell they are manually thrusting up or down...as opposed to using the HOTAS's x or y rotational axis knobs to handle the job.

This will allow you, for instance, to descend in a 1g+ world with a fine-tuned thruster, just like in the movies (Prometheus e.i.).
I've already tested this on my heavy Federal Dropship. People like that of the OP need to understand that Elite emulates physics very well...and if they take damage, somehow, they are at fault. Should have listened in physics class better.

 

[Admiral Stavanos]

Dude is landing hard, simple as that. I posted a video a while back, yes I have shields but you can see that they don't get touched on landing and takeoff. People land hard, that's all there is to it, you see in all the youtube videos.

If you configure thrusters correctly in options you can land on any planet without shields.

Preach! A voice of reason.
You see this all the time....and the comes along people like the OP with a grand sense of entitlement. It's getting ridiculous. The devs know what they are doing.

 

[777Driver]

Preach! A voice of reason.
You see this all the time....and the comes along people like the OP with a grand sense of entitlement. It's getting ridiculous. The devs know what they are doing.

Admiral, I'm afraid after testing I have found a flaw in the contact model of our ships. ED doesn't simulate excess weight on a single landing strut, the model is incredible simplified, it treats landing the same as if you bump an asteroid, purely mass and speed related.

I agree many cmdr's land too heavy, but that's not the issue. The landing strut tolerance is way too weak on the ships I have tested.

I'm uploading a video of a very smooth landing, controls configured through flight landing override - An additional throttle is controlling vertical thrust 'FA-OFF' with the gear down.

It really shouldn't be this sensitive to damage... Cmdr's need to learn so control descent rate on landing, devs also need to tweak the contact model.

 

[Fendalton]

Or, you just decent slowly. It's not hard.

If it's a High G world just turn FA OFF then back on so gravity pulls you down rather than your thrusters pushing you down, no need to set up fancy controls.

 

[Admiral Stavanos]

Learn to fly.. Really? What is it with this forum and people defending weird/broken/bugged game mechanics?

And gravity does not matter. All that matters is the velocity when touching down on surface. If I touch down at 1 m/s on planet surface and take damage, but touching down at 5 m/s on station and take no damage, then there is something broken.

Sorry I was laughing at the second paragraph. There's a big difference between land at 1m/s on a low-G world and landing at the same velocity in a high-G world. Gravity does matter because it dictates your overall mass. Sorry man, you need schooling again.

 

[777Driver]

Sorry I was laughing at the second paragraph. There's a big difference between land at 1m/s on a low-G world and landing at the same velocity in a high-G world. Gravity does matter because it dictates your overall mass. Sorry man, you need schooling again.

He is talking about ED, gravity plays no factor. You seem to be defending this like it is an accurate simulation.. It's not, trust me. Ships total gross weight plays no part in strut tolerance.

 

[frostypaw]

Sorry I was laughing at the second paragraph. There's a big difference between land at 1m/s on a low-G world and landing at the same velocity in a high-G world. Gravity does matter because it dictates your overall mass. Sorry man, you need schooling again.

Nah. You have mass no matter how much gravity is acting on that mass - the gravity then exerts a force which gives you your weight which is what you meant by 'overall mass'.

1m/s is 1m/s across the entire galaxy, relatively speaking. It's a speed. The gravity varies and therefore so does the acceleration downwards. The higher G worlds accelerate you towards the ground more quickly so the thrusters are already working hard keeping you up - any touch down and it's a real slog for them to stop it. On a low G it's comparatively a doddle but still a lot of drift compared to space.

But yes, carry on Admiral. To avoid any further accidental hilarity and need for more schooling read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight

Separately I've always blipped FA-on/off to land and rarely seen a shield reaction and not had hull damage the times I've landed without - but will experiment more now this has come up

 

[777Driver]

Nah. You have mass no matter how much gravity is acting on that mass - the gravity then exerts a force which gives you your weight which is what you meant by 'overall mass'.

1m/s is 1m/s across the entire galaxy, relatively speaking. It's a speed. The gravity varies and therefore so does the acceleration downwards. The higher G worlds accelerate you towards the ground more quickly so the thrusters are already working hard keeping you up - any touch down and it's a real slog for them to stop it. On a low G it's comparatively a doddle but still a lot of drift compared to space.

But yes, carry on Admiral. To avoid any further accidental hilarity and need for more schooling read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight

Separately I've always blipped FA-on/off to land and rarely seen a shield reaction and not had hull damage the times I've landed without - but will experiment more now this has come up

What Admiral Stavanos is likely referring to is increase weight on the struts & stress on the hull once the ship makes contact with the surface. In the real world this would be an issue. Exactly the same reason why you can have two identical touchdown rates on aircraft, if one of those touchdowns is done above max landing weight, the aircraft requires an inspection.

Anyway, here's a quick and dirty video... The damage model behaves like there is zero strut compression.

[video=youtube;R8aXX-eKuO0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8aXX-eKuO0[/video]

 

[frostypaw]

What Admiral Stavanos is likely referring to is increase weight on the struts & stress on the hull once the ship makes contact with the surface. In the real world this would be an issue. Exactly the same reason why you can have two identical touchdown rates on aircraft, if one of those touchdowns is done above max landing weight, the aircraft requires an inspection.

Yup you're right, but his 1m/s is an irrelevance. The forces on the struts would be determined by the gravity which seems to turn a blind eye to cmdrs and landing gear, your actual momentum due to your mass moving at 1m/s would be identical.

Some of the places you can land would not be very comfortable, but at least the tea stays in the cup

 

[SeregDuin]

your actual momentum due to your mass moving at 1m/s would be identical.

Yes but the force required to halt that momentum and so the forces exerted on your landing gear is proportional to gravitational acceleration. F=ma.

 

[Admiral Stavanos]

He is talking about ED, gravity plays no factor. You seem to be defending this like it is an accurate simulation.. It's not, trust me. Ships total gross weight plays no part in strut tolerance.

I'll continue to fly and garner more experience. Thanks for the insight. I'll also be waiting for that video you talked about.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Nah. You have mass no matter how much gravity is acting on that mass - the gravity then exerts a force which gives you your weight which is what you meant by 'overall mass'.

1m/s is 1m/s across the entire galaxy, relatively speaking. It's a speed. The gravity varies and therefore so does the acceleration downwards. The higher G worlds accelerate you towards the ground more quickly so the thrusters are already working hard keeping you up - any touch down and it's a real slog for them to stop it. On a low G it's comparatively a doddle but still a lot of drift compared to space.

But yes, carry on Admiral. To avoid any further accidental hilarity and need for more schooling read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight

Separately I've always blipped FA-on/off to land and rarely seen a shield reaction and not had hull damage the times I've landed without - but will experiment more now this has come up

This is more like it! Either way, I've always found it useful to have x or y rotational axis of throttle assembly linked for thrusters for a simulated FA/off feel for landing. I was sorta back in class with your explanation, thanks.

 

[frostypaw]

This is more like it! Either way, I've always found it useful to have x or y rotational axis of throttle assembly linked for thrusters for a simulated FA/off feel for landing. I was sorta back in class with your explanation, thanks.

Without analogue control they're horrible things near the ground and even then it's insanely hard to drop just 1m. Try it up in the air, even on low-g worlds i drop several so the minimum thrust seems quite high or my controls just aren't hacking it

I have FA-off set to a momentary trigger so I can do it for milliseconds and that seems to work better but yea when I can face the blackness of the rift again i'll find somewhere interesting to land. the claustrophobia has me running around and not stopping much for the moment tho

 

[Admiral Stavanos]

Yup you're right, but his 1m/s is an irrelevance. The forces on the struts would be determined by the gravity which seems to turn a blind eye to cmdrs and landing gear, your actual momentum due to your mass moving at 1m/s would be identical.

Some of the places you can land would not be very comfortable, but at least the tea stays in the cup

What a huge letdown. To think that such an important aspect of landing is dismissed by the flight model kinda disappoints. Maybe I've been porting over too many experiences from my Flight Simulator X days. I'd rather believe this is an oversight. What do you you all think?

 

[777Driver]

What a huge letdown. To think that such an important aspect of landing is dismissed by the flight model kinda disappoints. Maybe I've been porting over too many experiences from my Flight Simulator X days. I'd rather believe this is an oversight. What do you you all think?

Even Flightsimulator X and P3D are considered very basic platforms in the industry. 3rd party devs do a good job, but the platform itself doesn't model basic things like contact points realistically (No lateral loads, simply a G rating on landing) DCS does a fairly good job, apart from that you need to get into CAE sim territory.

I find it hard to get into desktop flight simulator because you instantly see a multitude of flaws if you have any real world flying experience.

Don't expect much from ED when it comes to those little extras like accurate contact points/ correct stress loading etc. At the end of the day it's supposed to be a game with sim elements brought in, not to mention it is set a 1000 years in the future, they are making things up anyway, our pilots and ships can handle crazy maneuvers in excess of 40g... That also makes it laughable that our ships take damage when performing smooth landings

All I know is those 4 massive struts on my T9 should be able to soak up a landing at a few metres per second.

Edit - Just thought i'd mention that single struts are designed to take the full weight of the machine in a landing, they wouldn't be much good otherwise, crosswind landings have a high lateral load with one strut taking the full force during the decrab.

 

[CMDR Oscar Gul]

Ho, it's already done (since the beta in december), and I know that the QA guys have reported the problem, so it's just a matter of "when" now. I will not be able to bump my old report if the problem persist in 2.1/1.6 beta (it's archived now), so I'll do as usual: open a new one with a new video and link to the archived post for reference.

I know that they have a very long list of bugs to fix and that they set the priority, it will be fixed at some point.

I've just posted in this thread because some people were denying that the bug even exist.

now this guy knows what i mean!

 

[Arry]

now this guy knows what i mean!

Most of us, know what you mean; it is just that many of us, disagree.