Engine Out Landings

[Selino631]

yea i've had that exact same scenario happen to me before. it sucks. first time i ever flew a Me 262, i was pissed

[Rob52240]

Concrete saved this person yesterday.  In any real life scenario they would have certainly been killed to death by me, but because they were on concrete they were safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqS2MfDbjw&feature=youtu.be

[Wiley]

What I don't like about it is, the more relaxed the landing requirements are, the lazier people get.  It's not really a major thing, but it doesn't look right to have people just bellylanding to get down.

Maybe a possibility would be to have some kind of point value assigned to the stuff that's missing from your vehicle, and based on that have either tighter or more relaxed requirements for landing.

So for example, say it was a system something like this:

Ailerons 4 points each.
Engine 8 points, or 4 points each for dual engines, 2 each for quad engines.
Rudder 4 points.
Elevator/hstab 6 points per side.
PW 6 points.
Gear 6 points.

If you've got less than 6 points of damage, gear down and on concrete would be required for a safe landing.  6 to 12 points, anywhere on concrete gear up or down is fine.  If you've got accumulated damage over 12, anywhere within the perimeter is fine.

This is just a barely formed, off the top of my head thought, but I think it'd be a better compromise than what they have.

The line they've drawn isn't too terrible, although the babying it home and losing it because you're a foot off the runway does hurt.

Wiley.

[Rob52240]

planes are a lot easier to replace than pilots (al-Qaeda excluded).

[colmbo]

What I don't like about it is, the more relaxed the landing requirements are, the lazier people get.  It's not really a major thing, but it doesn't look right to have people just bellylanding to get down.

Wiley, you can't police the lame brains.  There are a lot of guys that land gear up on the runway as it is.  I'm not worried about policing someone that is a gamer -- I just don't want undue punishment when I've put out the effort to return the flying junk pile to the field.

[Wiley]

True enough.  I could live quite happily with 'within the perimeter'.  I was just thinking of a reasonable set of rules that doesn't give a guy full style points for smashing an undamaged plane into the tarmac.

Wiley.

[icepac]

That was a close one, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Yes............but not in the proper place.

[wil3ur]

-1... this would severely impact vulching.   

On the other hand, I can see a loss of perks being dolled out based on damage to the plane.  Your 262 didn't make it back to base in 100% working order... I'm sorry, blue book on it is only 87 perks.  I'll give you 80 on the trade-in, and throw in AC & a Moon roof at no cost on your next one.  Do we have a deal?

[MK-84]

True enough.  I could live quite happily with 'within the perimeter'.  I was just thinking of a reasonable set of rules that doesn't give a guy full style points for smashing an undamaged plane into the tarmac.

Wiley.

Within the perimeter exists, its the concrete.  You can see the concrete, making a landing or ditch...well "concrete to the viewer"

If you add what would essentially be an invisible perimeter, Imagine the complaints from people who "think" or have decided that their plane should have counted as a land, and not a ditch.

[Rob52240]

What if we modeled that german half motorcycle half track contraption for towing planes back?  Sorta like jeeping supplies out to a gv.

[icepac]

-1... this would severely impact vulching.    

On the other hand, I can see a loss of perks being dolled out based on damage to the plane.  Your 262 didn't make it back to base in 100% working order... I'm sorry, blue book on it is only 87 perks.  I'll give you 80 on the trade-in, and throw in AC & a Moon roof at no cost on your next one.  Do we have a deal?

0% of the guys who belly in make it back to base in 100% working order.

[Wiley]

Within the perimeter exists, its the concrete.  You can see the concrete, making a landing or ditch...well "concrete to the viewer"

If you add what would essentially be an invisible perimeter, Imagine the complaints from people who "think" or have decided that their plane should have counted as a land, and not a ditch.

I mean inside the taxiways.  Anywhere inside the taxiways that bound the airfield.  Outside of that, no joy.  It's equally definable.

Wiley.

[USAF2010]

I mean inside the taxiways.  Anywhere inside the taxiways that bound the airfield.  Outside of that, no joy.  It's equally definable.

Wiley.

Exactly, plus if you consider how many of these aircraft took off from, or were capable of at least, from grass fields, inside the taxiways works.

[guncrasher]

0% of the guys who belly in make it back to base in 100% working order.

what exactly is the big deal about landing wheels up with your aircraft that it bothers you so much?  I hardly land wheels down as it is faster for me to land and take off again specially over a capped field.

and for the record, you guys have a 0% chance of ah implementing this wish.  as it is really a non-issue.

semp

[USAF2010]

Eh, it may not be of major necessity, but still doesn't hurt to get it out there. 

I mean, c'mon, look how many other things in the past that have been wished for that have no relevance to the game period.

This at least is an everyday occurrence with in AH.