Losing Perks on a Ditch ...

[aknimitz]

Perhaps you should only lose 1/2 of your perks on a ditched perk plane?  Lets say you are landing a 262 deadstick...but otherwise undamaged.  You *just* scoot off the end of the runway.  There went 200 perks.  

Any chance we could get 1/2 the loss on successfully ditched planes?

Nim

[Animal]

I think all planes ditched within a certain radious of the tower should not lose perks...

the ground crews should be able to just walk to them and recover the plane and fix it.

[Vector]

IMO landing within a certain radius of the tower should not count as a ditch at all. We all have landed on the runway with our engine dead and slipped our wheels off the runway; "you have ditched" , even if you stopped right next to tower. Another case, you're on the runway with lancaster and notice that you end up in the wrong runway and hit back to tower; "you have ditched" even without starting your engines (I'm not sure if this is still the case or is it fixed). Due the short runway you start behind it and by that you ditch.  
This has been discussed many times before and I hope HTC's going to change this.

[Creamo]

I remember HiTechs answer was something about because it is a challenge to actually make the runway and land it, which seemed like a good responce at the time. I still agree. In a game where everyone want's all this realism, why make a concession there. You go off runways, bad things happen.

If your deadsticking, line up and use your pilot skills to setup the proper approach and manage your airspeed, VSI and AOA.

If you fly off the runway, you showed as much skill as getting your engines knocked out, or your fuel managment. Right?

If you stop next to the tower, I did hate getting a ditch for that, but how hard is it to just land it on the runway. Not very.

[Tjay]

Originally posted by Creamo
I remember HiTechs answer was something about because it is a challenge to actually make the runway and land it, which seemed like a good responce at the time. I still agree. In a game where everyone want's all this realism, why make a concession there. You go off runways, bad things happen.

Err, not in real life. IMHO, all WWII fighters could operate from grass and other non-tarmac surfaces. Correct me if I'm wrong please. I often land on the grass 'cos as an ex-RL pilot I just can't bring myself to land on top of someone else or land when someone is taking off in the opposite direction. Most times I remember to taxy to a bit of tarmac before shutting down. Most times.

So I would suggest that any successful deadstick landing that ends up with the aircraft stopped withing the airfield boundary counts as a 'successful' one, as it would be in real life.

Btw, agreeing with Hitec that making the runway is 'a challenge', then saying it isn't 'that difficult' is slightly contradictory. Insert smiley wearing large hat saying Smartass.

[Creamo]

I see your point. Let me spell out mine.

I don't think I could get in a real FW190 and start it, let alone fly it upside down through a hangar drunk. I can in AH. So "challenge" is defined diffrent in the game,. I believe the "make the runway or it's a ditch" is like everything else, a gameplay issue. Don't just come in wreckless with no consequences, TRY and land the thing on the spot or you lose something. (Ads immersion, and some challenge I guess)

And to be futile in arguing real life, I've never been to a airport that you could go off the end of the runway without being crushed by steel structures, or in say rural Wisconsin, end up upside down in a fence or chisel-plowed field. I guess land/space in WWII was not a problem, dunno. Regardless, that's not the point.

I WAS against getting a ditch if your on the airfield, but IF you give it a go, hitting the runway is really no harder than inverted hangar barnstorming. Call it what ya will.

[Tjay]

Roger, Creamo. What a civilized exchange of views. Good job we aren't on page 1.