Just now, Bobsk8 said:

I flew default planes in three sims that could do things like landing at down  3000 FPM, bounce up a  hundred feet off the runway, land again, fly through  trees next to the runway, and pull back into a climb and fly away, without a scratch on them. . 

Then let me rephrase it, I thought it was pretty clear what I meant. I mean that it is missing feature that the default planes have. Normally you would expect payware planes to be better in practically any way. It is still a great plane that does most thing WAY better then any default planes. I mean there is a reason I bought it. The main reason id so is because of the realism and complexity. For me thats simply immersive and thats what I care about. I mean I hate the crash screen but if it only occurs if the plane gets destroyed I can live with that.... but that should only happen then and not when the plane is perfectly fine. 

5 minutes ago, kakihara123 said:

Then let me rephrase it, I thought it was pretty clear what I meant. I mean that it is missing feature that the default planes have. Normally you would expect payware planes to be better in practically any way. It is still a great plane that does most thing WAY better then any default planes. I mean there is a reason I bought it. The main reason id so is because of the realism and complexity. For me thats simply immersive and thats what I care about. I mean I hate the crash screen but if it only occurs if the plane gets destroyed I can live with that.... but that should only happen then and not when the plane is perfectly fine. 

If you do a gear up landing, the plane is not perfectly fine, in fact before it flew again it would have to be inspected for damage and repaired. Even a hard landing or a tail strike  in a large plane can cause unseen damage making it not airworthy. 

Edited June 24, 20214 yr by Bobsk8

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

If you do a gear up landing, the plane is not perfectly fine, in fact before it flew again it would have to be inspected for damage and repaired. Even a hard landing or a tail strike  in a large plane can cause unseen damage making it not airworthy. 

If you argue with that any engine damage, which is modelled pretty extensively and one of the main selling points, should instantly cause a crash screen and the end of the flight because "before it flew again it would have to be inspected for damage and repaired".  

1 minute ago, kakihara123 said:

If you argue with that any engine damage, which is modelled pretty extensively and one of the main selling points, should instantly cause a crash screen and the end of the flight because "before it flew again it would have to be inspected for damage and repaired".  

It can fly on two engines, it can't fly with a broken wing spar or ruptured fuel tank. 

36 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

It can fly on two engines, it can't fly with a broken wing spar or ruptured fuel tank. 

It can even fly with 0 engines. Dunno how good of a glider it is but It could not take off in that state.... still no crash screen. 

8 minutes ago, kakihara123 said:

It can even fly with 0 engines. Dunno how good of a glider it is but It could not take off in that state.... still no crash screen. 

All airplanes can glide! The only question is how good! 🙂

1 minute ago, sd_flyer said:

All airplanes can glide! The only question is how good! 🙂

That is what I mean. Most would agree that is a cool challenge and pretty immersive to have an engine failure and still be ably to get the aircraft safely on the ground. At least for me a gear failure is more or less the same.

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

It can fly on two engines, it can't fly with a broken wing spar or ruptured fuel tank. 

There is still a difference between "I screwed up and lithobraked the plane" and "the landing gear wouldn't deploy and I brought it in for a smooth belly landing which did some damage but did not destroy the plane or kill passengers."

 

2 minutes ago, eslader said:

There is still a difference between "I screwed up and lithobraked the plane" and "the landing gear wouldn't deploy and I brought it in for a smooth belly landing which did some damage but did not destroy the plane or kill passengers."

 

That is not the discussion. The topic is, if  you do a belly landing in an Aircraft like the DC6, would that be looked at as a Crash by the NTSB, or FAA or any other aviation authority, and it would. The plane could not fly again, because it is not airworthy anymore. So if MSFS or PMDG  decides it is a crash, they are correct. 

Edited June 24, 20214 yr by Bobsk8

5 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

That is not the discussion. The topic is, if  you do a belly landing in an Aircraft like the DC6, would that be looked at as a Crash by the NTSB, or FAA or any other aviation authority, and it would. The plane could not fly again, because it is not airworthy anymore. So if MSFS or PMDG  decides it is a crash, they are correct. 

And what about a TBM or CJ4? They can do it and they don't register as crashed. Also PMDG themselve statet that they would have included the option for a belly landing if it wasn't for licensing issues. Its not like I really blame them because I can understand the reasoning. If I would blame anyone its Boeing because that is just stupid imho. 

I just want to be ably to do this basically: 

 

20 minutes ago, kakihara123 said:

And what about a TBM or CJ4? They can do it and they don't register as crashed. Also PMDG themselve statet that they would have included the option for a belly landing if it wasn't for licensing issues. Its not like I really blame them because I can understand the reasoning. If I would blame anyone its Boeing because that is just stupid imho. 

I just want to be ably to do this basically: 

 

I'm sure the pilot of that aircraft got a couple of jacks, jacked it up, lowered the gear, and took off again....LOL What a ridiculous discussion.

52 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

The topic is, if  you do a belly landing in an Aircraft like the DC6, would that be looked at as a Crash by the NTSB, or FAA

Well, that's the topic that you and others have tried to turn it into, but the original topic was that someone wants to be able to belly land the plane without MSFS detecting a crash immediately upon contact and stopping the simulation. 

 

6 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I'm sure the pilot of that aircraft got a couple of jacks, jacked it up, lowered the gear, and took off again....LOL What a ridiculous discussion.

As I said. I'm not a fan of the crash screen by Microsoft either. There is a big difference between an emergency landing with some damage to the plane but otherwise no injuries and a plane that can be repaired. and a huge explosion where everyone dies. What would be so wrong about making a difference there? I mean for all I care have an option in the menu to toggle it. Anyone who wants a black screen when brushing against something can have it. 

Combine this with proper ATC emergency procedures (and not having to annoy controllers on Vatsim) and emergency services on the ground including stuff like foaming up the runway to reduce chance of fire and this would be pretty immersive. Not that I think stuff like this would happen anytime soon but I don't see any downside if it would be possible. 

 

8 minutes ago, eslader said:

Well, that's the topic that you and others have tried to turn it into, but the original topic was that someone wants to be able to belly land the plane without MSFS detecting a crash immediately upon contact and stopping the simulation. 

 

This constant harpooning of topics is really getting old. It is like some members cannot stay on topic to save their life. Starting to feel like an ADHD support group. 

5 minutes ago, RobJC said:

This constant harpooning of topics is really getting old. It is like some members cannot stay on topic to save their life. Starting to feel like an ADHD support group. 

The original topic was  rumors say that Pmdg DC 6 is out.

Edited June 24, 20214 yr by Bobsk8