Trees at the end of the runway

[Arlo]

I don't expect it to be fixed instantly and people in the meantime need to plan around it (if they are aware of it, hopefully), but if people get s*** on for pointing out such a ridiculous thing, then why even provide feedback at all? If the issue can't even be acknowledged then yes, why continue playing this game when this is just one frustration out of many? And if player feedback isn't welcome, then perhaps start a sticky to warn everyone to not even bother.

1. Support E-mail: support@hitechcreations.com is how one actually contacts the game developer to address a perceived problem. Starting a thread on the forum then demanding the community see things your way .... isn't.

2. 'S*** on?' Seriously?

[Copprhed]

This doesn't need to be fixed HotStuff. You are trying to force an issue that just isn't an issue. Please stop. Get a life, go for a walk outside. Do something meaningful with your time, instead of defending an undefendable position.

[LCADolby]

Hotstuff would pass out coming out or landing at Sibson AF.
One end of the runway is a woods full of 35foot trees that induce horrific thermals and at the other end, huge Electrical pylons and wires in hundreds of feet.

http://www.abct.org.uk/airfields/airfield-finder/sibson-ii-peterborough-sport/

[Hotstuff]

Hotstuff would pass out coming out or landing at Sibson AF.
One end of the runway is a woods full of 35foot trees that induce horrific thermals and at the other end, huge Electrical pylons and wires in hundreds of feet.

http://www.abct.org.uk/airfields/airfield-finder/sibson-ii-peterborough-sport/

Definitely looks like an unpaved runway that one would think would be good to take off in heavy bombers.

[LCADolby]

If loonies jumping out of cessna caravans count as bombers?

[Arlo]

RAF Cosford



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Cosford

To all who are outraged by the trees at the end of runway 28 RAF Cosford's making things worse, this letter will be of particular interest. Unlike the pleas of tree lovers, what I'm about to write is supported in scientific scholarship by overwhelming evidence. For instance, what really irks me is that trees at the end of runway 28 RAF Cosford have presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let them devalue us as pilots or they will impugn the patriotism of their foes (pilots). Now that I've said what I had to say, I should remark that this letter may not endear me to some trees. Indeed, it may even cost me a close tree or two. However, the Ministry of Shrubbery does not let pilots chop down trees willy-nilly (like trees at the end of runway 28 RAF Cosford). But the truth is the truth and we pay a steep price whenever we ignore it. Why does the Royal Family hate us so? Amen.

[Shuffler]

Well that is an interesting question.  Let's allow for the most basic level of ability during take off.  That would be auto pilot.

How far do you think the trees should be cleared for autopilot to be able to effect a successful take off?

No idea.... never used auto pilot.

[FESS67]

RAF Cosford

(Image removed from quote.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Cosford

To all who are outraged by the trees at the end of runway 28 RAF Cosford's making things worse, this letter will be of particular interest. Unlike the pleas of tree lovers, what I'm about to write is supported in scientific scholarship by overwhelming evidence. For instance, what really irks me is that trees at the end of runway 28 RAF Cosford have presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let them devalue us as pilots or they will impugn the patriotism of their foes (pilots). Now that I've said what I had to say, I should remark that this letter may not endear me to some trees. Indeed, it may even cost me a close tree or two. However, the Ministry of Shrubbery does not let pilots chop down trees willy-nilly (like trees at the end of runway 28 RAF Cosford). But the truth is the truth and we pay a steep price whenever we ignore it. Why does the Royal Family hate us so? Amen.

That is runway 24 as captioned on the web site referenced.  You are on the wrong runway, some would say that is an indication you need additional training.

Notwithstanding that, there are 2 things of note about that photo.

• Photographs tend to foreshorten landscapes.  There is no way to know ho far from the end of the runway those trees are
• The trees appear to be in a depression in the ground.  It is hard to tell from the shown angle however it is possible that the tops of those trees are actually below the surface level of the runway and therefore pose no threat.

[Arlo]

Well that is an interesting question.  Let's allow for the most basic level of ability during take off.  That would be auto pilot.

How far do you think the trees should be cleared for autopilot to be able to effect a successful take off?

With or without auto-takeoff it would differ from plane to plane ... but to keep this thread simple and on track the OP was focused on the B-29 perk ride.

1. Should the B-29 be a practical choice of rides from every airfield on every runway in every direction on every map?

2. On every field but small ones?

3. On all large fields no matter where they are placed without regard?

4. Should crashing them on takeoff (trees or not) be immune from costing us perks?

[Shuffler]

On that note..... who makes the coffee in the tower?

[Arlo]

That is runway 24 as captioned on the web site referenced.  You are on the wrong runway, some would say that is an indication you need additional training.

Notwithstanding that, there are 2 things of note about that photo.

• Photographs tend to foreshorten landscapes.  There is no way to know ho far from the end of the runway those trees are
• The trees appear to be in a depression in the ground.  It is hard to tell from the shown angle however it is possible that the tops of those trees are actually below the surface level of the runway and therefore pose no threat.

Damn my typo. This makes you a right amazing/always right chap. I might let you back in the MA. 

[FESS67]

With or without auto-takeoff it would differ from plane to plane ... but to keep this thread simple and on track the OP was focused on the B-29 perk ride.

1. Should the B-29 be a practical choice of rides from every airfield on every runway in every direction on every map?

2. On every field but small ones?

3. On all large fields no matter where they are placed without regard?

4. Should crashing them on takeoff (trees or not) be immune from costing us perks?

• Probably not
• I believe that would be appropriate
• In terms of taking off  i.e. in powered flight for more than say 30 seconds, yes.
• No

[Arlo]

• Probably not
• I believe that would be appropriate

Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer. MA privileges revoked.

• In terms of taking off  i.e. in powered flight for more than say 30 seconds, yes.
• No

[Arlo]

You know I was kidding, right Fess? I find this whole 'tree at the end of the runway' forum protest/serious debate rather funny. C'mon back to the fold and fly in the MA. Perhaps your pristine presence will inspire. Shooting me down might make you feel better. 

[FESS67]

You know I was kidding, right Fess? I find this whole 'tree at the end of the runway' forum protest/serious debate rather funny. C'mon back to the fold and fly in the MA. Perhaps your pristine presence will inspire. Shooting me down might make you feel better. 

Yeah I am not invested in it either. I believe that they should not be there and on occasion I have been killed hitting them as I take off on auto.  For me where is the point in an auto take off option if it will actually crash you into trees?

I do like seeing who can actually back up their argument and who bows out with a glib comment though.     You are at least posting up some content, unlike others who just shuffle around the argument.  Obviously I cannot name names on the boards but we know who I mean