Idea for MA

[JoeCrip]

Landing a damaged plane is not the problem, the problem is where to land it. If a plane is missing a gear, it's not that easy to keep it straght down the runway. So, as said in my idea, how about implementing a large "dirt patch" area where damaged planes can land, and still "Land Sucessfully".

[Furious]

Landing is easy enough as it is.  If you are unable to stop it on a paved area you should be penalized.

HT, maybe the problem is with the wording.  Maybe, change the message to something like,"You have landed poorly and your mechanic is pissed.", but treat it the same score wise.


F.

[BigGun]

I think landing area is just fine now. Put the plane down on the runway or no successful landing. If no gear, better come in real slow & belly land on runway. If ran out of gas & couldn't reach runway or refuel pad, then maybe next time you will manage fuel better. Plane is damaged & can't control to hit the runway, then too bad, maybe next time don't let plane get damaged.

I have not landed on runway do to several different reasons, but have never thought the area should be bigger. Everyone knows what is required for a successful landing, so just keep it in mind when flying around.

[HFMudd]

"Put the plane down on the runway or no successful landing."  

That would be fine I suppose but that is not the way it works.  So far as I can tell a successful landing is made if you exit the plane when it is on a runway, taxiway or in a hanger.   Anything else is a ditch.

- Land your plane a mile from the field, taxi overland to a hanger and park it and you get a successful landing.

- Hit the groud hard 60' from the runway, kill the engine and then coast onto the strip, and you get a successful landing.

- Get hit in the engine, glide back to the field, deadstick just short of the runway (I did this just the other day) and you get a ditch.

- Fight a plane with a missing chunk of wing back to the field and land between a pair of hangers and you get a ditch.

I really don't have a problem with the way it works but I understand why someone might be a bit frustrated by it.  I don't know what I would ask to be changed though.  As it is, if you bring your plane back with enough fuel and in good enough condition to taxi you can get a "successful" landing.  If you are out of fuel or too shot up to taxi then you get a ditch.  Seems like a pretty good system to me.

(Edited to note that my final paragraph, upon reflection, is just what biggun was pointing out.)

[hardtail]

Yesterday I had to deadstick a damaged F6F onto the runway, I landed long and came to a complete stop with the tail of the aircraft even with the limit of the runway......a ditch.  Three feet too much for a successful landing.

I agree that the parameters of a successful landing should be perhaps just a bit more liberal in their interpretation.  While I don't think that putting an aircraft anywhere on the field should be a successful landing, I do wish that maybe there was just a bit more grace.

[WBHoncho]

Originally posted by Puck
Next thing you'll want a distinction made between a damaged/repairable aircraft and an aircraft that must be written off.

Now that you mention it, I suppose that would be much more realistic - arguably much more so than someone pulling an otherwise fine plane off to side of runway and getting a ditch.

[jpeg]

I had proposed this idea before:
Make a buffer zone around the runways that still count as landings.

It's pretty bad that I can land on a enemy field's runway and get a succesfull "landed" message yet I'm 1 foot away from my own runway and I get a ditch.

I've come home plenty of times without a working engine and land only 1 or 2 feet away from the runway and get a ditch

[popeye]

"I've come home plenty of times without a working engine and land only 1 or 2 feet away from the runway and get a ditch."

So, should the "buffer zone" be 1 foot, or 2 feet, bigger than the runway?

[BlauK]

I agree that the diference between "landed" and "ditched" should be based on both the base area and the plane condition.

-Crashland anywhere and walk away alive= ditch
-Successful landing outside airbase area= ditch
-Land plane inside airbase on its wheels= landed

The narrow runways in AH makes it ridiculous sometimes like mentioned above. Wheels on grass just meters away from runway ...ditched

This is stupid especially when considering how most fields in WW2 were... not neat, straight, narrow runways... but wide, irregular shaped "areas" where several planes could take-off or land at the same time. Even the narrow runways were usually wider.

In the pic below there is a small named "Immola" which has straight runways. It was a small base, runway only a bit over 1km long but still 100meters wide!!! In "Suulajärvi" base the straight middle part was only plowed in winter, but in summer the whole area was in use.

[JoeCrip]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
popeye

 Why not define bailing over enemy territory as a "successful landing". It would be so much easier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like this idea a lot more then mine!

[Puck]

If we're going to do the bailed thing we should have a condition that says:  if $PILOT is "puck" and plane is shredded into window and bloody gobbets of flesh strike ground then landing successful.

As a rule landings are one of those things I stick every time.  I can flare a B17 in so smooth the only way you know you're down is the wheel noise.  For that matter I landed a P38 on a CV offline, just to see if I could.

Then there was the time I had my nose gear shot up, dropped the mains anyway, just to see if I could get it down, ground looped the poor thing on the runway, came to a screaching halt upside down, and got "successful landing".  I was still on the runway.  Looked more like a ditch while I sat there hanging from the straps.

The upshot is the game logic seems to designate anything that ends on the runway as a "successful landing" and anything that's off the runway as a "ditch".

[FBM Matt]

It's probably best to keep the current system.

If we install small "buffer zones" outside a runway, we'll still have people complaining about coming to a stop "just a wheel" outside the buffer zone.

The same situation would occur if the entire air base is considered an area in which one can land successfully.  

Either way, there will be complaints about landing just outside that specific area.

~Matt

[Gwjr2]

Furious stated
 

Landing is easy enough as it is. If you are unable to stop it on a paved area you should be penalized.

ok with that said how many airfields were paved in ww2 sould be no runways (with exception of bomber fields) and should be whole perimeter of field for a good landing msg

 and a ditch msg at VHs for planes even goons ....you want all perks for a drop fly home..
just my .02

[Puck]

My reaction to this is the same as for most things; not a big deal.

I like the game.  It has it's quirks, but show me a game that doesn't, reality included.

[Glasses]

Originally posted by Gwjr2
Furious stated
 
 
ok with that said how many airfields were paved in ww2 sould be no runways (with exception of bomber fields) and should be whole perimeter of field for a good landing msg

 and a ditch msg at VHs for planes even goons ....you want all perks for a drop fly home..
just my .02

my point exactly few fields were paved for fighter aircraft in WW2 xcept for bomber fields and of course the Jet fields. Most were Aerodome like a la WW2OL (sorry had to give you an example).

it would be nice that only Heavy buffs could take off from paved runways and only medium small buffs could take from the soft field runways and also they modeled the less traction associated with landing or taking off form a paved runway as opposed to a rough dirt runway like we have in AH too little friction with the ground occurs when you land in AH in a "dirt" field.