Author Topic: Crash landing on Airfield (Read 1158 times)

toadkill · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2007, 01:22:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
the line has to be drawn somwhere, as soon as they change it some guy will come on and complain about being just a little outside the field and ditching, and could the landing areas be a little bigger?

Told ya. most people here dont care if it makes sense, they just play. and alot of people come here to try and make themselves feel better by shooting down the people who applaud reason.

and lusche

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! I WANT MY NAME IN LIGHTS!!!!!!!1

I just support this because i seem to "crash" my broken perkie planes and lose my points. other day i broke a gear off a 262, the wing caught the tarmac, and ripped me off of the runway... so i ended up about 2 feet off the runway at a deserted airbase. So why is making this a ditch a Rational thing? If you laser-guided wishlist ack people can come up with a good answer to that. tell me.

Edit: that 262 was already missiong the wingtip, why i broke the gear off.

Lusche · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2007, 02:02:10 PM »

OK, HT extends the safe landing zone. Then the next one lands 2ft away from it. "Man, I could push that plane that far, come on, just 2 feet".. and so on. Then the safe landing zone encompasses the whole field. At that moment we could get rid of the runways anyway. Then the next one will land just 2 ft away from the airfield... I think you get what I mean.

If you wanna have a safe landing & name in lights, go work for it. Don't get shot don't get damaged. And if you miss a wingtip and still make it make to the runway, WTG! It's a test of you skill. And if you take a perk plane into the air, you know the risk.

Dude902 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 12, 2007, 06:11:38 PM »

What if it cost perk points or something?

Just a random idea that popped into my head. Ignore it. >_>

toadkill · « **Reply #18 on:** May 12, 2007, 08:38:03 PM »

I will ignore it, because the point of landing from a bit further away is mostly to AVOID losing perks.

Xasthur · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2007, 02:44:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lusche
OK, HT extends the safe landing zone. Then the next one lands 2ft away from it. "Man, I could push that plane that far, come on, just 2 feet".. and so on. Then the safe landing zone encompasses the whole field. At that moment we could get rid of the runways anyway. Then the next one will land just 2 ft away from the airfield... I think you get what I mean.

I see that arguement and it makes sense but the airfield does seem like a more logical line to draw.

-The line has be drawn somewhere

-You must land at friendly base

-Friendly bases have a defined perimeter (the base 'tile')

- (in my opinion) landing on the base tile should be a landing. (Coming from the perspective that not all countries even HAD runways to land on, especially at front-line bases)

It's not a big issue, it would just seem more logical to me.

It would also be ****ing hilarious watching noobs being lazy and crashing into troop bunkers or radar towers when they were landing 'where ever they felt like' on a field and losing their kills!

stephen · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2007, 05:56:46 AM »

Ive got it, add a recovery vehicle and allow buddys to come out and tow your mangled plane back to the runway....

LOL:rofl

Spikes · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2007, 11:16:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lusche
You don't lose any kills ever. Land, ditch, crash, bail: You still "get them".

yeah, you still get them they just don't show up in chat buffer.

Spikes · « **Reply #22 on:** May 13, 2007, 11:17:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
Ive got it, add a recovery vehicle and allow buddys to come out and tow your mangled plane back to the runway....

LOL:rofl

what else was the jeep used for?

Spikes · « **Reply #23 on:** May 13, 2007, 11:20:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lusche
OK, HT extends the safe landing zone. Then the next one lands 2ft away from it. "Man, I could push that plane that far, come on, just 2 feet".. and so on. Then the safe landing zone encompasses the whole field. At that moment we could get rid of the runways anyway. Then the next one will land just 2 ft away from the airfield... I think you get what I mean.

I know they added this..but in WWII didn't they have something at the end of runways, like a dirt or gravel?

Xasthur · « **Reply #24 on:** May 13, 2007, 11:33:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
Ive got it, add a recovery vehicle and allow buddys to come out and tow your mangled plane back to the runway....

LOL:rofl

haha

You could get your squadies to come out in a jeep and drop you Aircraft supplies if you blew your landing.

devild0g · « **Reply #25 on:** May 13, 2007, 08:01:08 PM »

at least allow the "brown part" on the side of the runway to count, Because when you land with all gears shot out and half a wing with your oil leaking and 7 kills in a 262.... and you end up with the 262 more on the runway than off and you get ditch, I would be po'd too. I think the brown should count as runway but nothing further.