New Client Version

[Phlashgitt]

We are now compelled to fly using the new version of the client. Strange though, with the last client if one made a mistake with taxi speed or lights on or off at certain altitudes there was a 60 second grace period. Not so with this client version. I have had comments from fellow pilots that "you are only allowed a millisecond out of perameter", this does seem to take the enjoyment out of what really should be perceived as Microsoft put it (a game).

Also a lot of people I know who fly in VA's are concerned that the trend of those in charge here are keen to input more failures into flights, making it totally unrealistic to have an aircraft failure every second flight. In the real world this does not happen. Aircraft fly many hundreds of hours before screwing the pooch for some poor unsuspecting pilot.

I conclude by saying that if the minority with the loud voice here get their way and put more failures and difficulties into what could be a wonderful thing for many people, the chances of you sat here on your arsch with two or three so called buddies is what you will end up with.

SEB

[Quantum]

I have to say, I do not agree with the forced imposition of failures in what is otherwise a very enjoyable flight sim environment. I have heard it before, again from perhaps a minority, that failures is an important and desirable feature of FlyNET. I think that failures should be an option with FlyNET and there should be a 'No Failures' version of the client for those that wish to avoid failures. Let's face it, this is a game for enjoyment and we should not exclude allowing people to 'switch off' the failure feature. For those that want it, then let them enjoy the failures by either running and using a specific client version that throws failures at you, or, switch on failures in Flight Sim itself. For those that don't want failures but still wish to enjoy the FlyNET environment then provide them with an alternative client. I have already lost one pilot from the VA through talk of 'future failures' that some would like to see implemented and I don't particularly want to lose any more. I shall be monitoring the failure rate closely with the new client to see just how 'random' and frequent the failures are.

The client is indiscriminate when it comes to 'random' failures but should not 'kick in' unless you are operating a poorly maintained aircraft. If the client was 'tuned' to stop implementing failures if maintenance state of an aircraft is above say 95% then a second 'No Failure' version of the client would not be needed. Pilots then have the choice to accept failures by allowing their maintenance to deteriorate with the associated increased risk of failures.

Rgds

John Payne
CEO
CBFS VA

[joefremont]

As far as the existing penalties for taxi speed and lights I don't think its different. With the old version while there was a 60 second grace period for taxi speed, there was no grace period for lights or air speed > 260 when alt < 10,000ft. I for one have had the old client instantly ding me when I was at 37,000ft and hit the switch to turn on the landing lights instead of the panel lights.

If a version of the client was available that did not have penalties or faults I would think it should not give a rating of 100% for flights (maybe 90%).

[Phlashgitt]

If a version of the client was available that did not have penalties or faults I would think it should not give a rating of 100% for flights (maybe 90%).

Granted, but this version is too dang quick to penalise the miscreant pilot. We are not ALL perfect as some here think they are. (You want names I will provide names).

I obviously was mistaken in thinking FlyNET was for peoples enjoyment. Its quite apparent that its primarily here so that certain individuals can influence the creator and thus make themselves feel important in their quest for self grandisement by suposedly appearing superior to mere mortals who use flight simming as a form of enjoyment.

Why make it more difficult than it is?

Sebastian Dangerfield

[cmdrnmartin]

If a version of the client was available that did not have penalties or faults I would think it should not give a rating of 100% for flights (maybe 90%).

Granted, but this version is too dang quick to penalise the miscreant pilot. We are not ALL perfect as some here think they are. (You want names I will provide names).

And therefor what's your issue here? You admit your not perfect, you mess up, so you get dinged and your pilot rating goes down a bit. I don't understand your argument here.

I obviously was mistaken in thinking FlyNET was for peoples enjoyment. Its quite apparent that its primarily here so that certain individuals can influence the creator and thus make themselves feel important in their quest for self grandisement by suposedly appearing superior to mere mortals who use flight simming as a form of enjoyment.

If you don't like it, don't use it. No one is forcing you to use it. If you don't find it enjoyable, just fly without Flynet. If you fly with Flynet, you fly under the flynet rules. It's really quite simple. As for your continued insinuation about several members influencing the design... Yes, Yes we are. But Konny implements what he wants to have implemented, based upon suggestions from his users. No one is forbidding you from posting in the new ideas post.

Why make it more difficult than it is?

You only need to: Taxi under 25 kts, Turn your lights on (twice) and off (twice) and not exceed 250knts for maybe 10 minutes of your total flight. I fail to see how this is difficult. If it helps, put all these things on a post it note and use it as a checklist.

Again, and i remphaisze this, if you do not like FLYnet, you are under no obligation to use it.

[cmdrnmartin]

Quantum I read your whole post but for brevity I have edited your quote to two points, apologies.

I think that failures should be an option with FlyNET and there should be a 'No Failures' version of the client for those that wish to avoid failures.

Failures are not an option, they should occur, I have yet to have my planes suffer from a single failure so far, not sure why, but the failure rate cant be that great. However, I am not one of the "Planes raining from the skies" failure proponents.

If the client was 'tuned' to stop implementing failures if maintenance state of an aircraft is above say 95% then a second 'No Failure' version of the client would not be needed.

I would put it at 97% myself, but I like this idea greatly. I think a Guranteed zero failure to 97% is a fair deal, and then after that each successive flight is under the risk of a failure.

[BigQ]

Last time I checked, we were VA pilots, not recreational pilots.

[IslandBum]

I have to agree with both Phlash and JohnP

Yes Mr Martin your correct - if you dont like Flynet then dont use it - however - I think Konny could improve his computer model with a little advice from those in the real industry - there are far more realistic penalties that could be given - as to the "failures" well lets see - maybe the use of a random generator coupled to the maintenance percentage of any given aircraft giving more realistic failures - ie Generator-CSD/FMS/Hydraulics/partial avionics/electrical system failures/Pack failures requiring flight level limitations I could go on......The fuel computations need to be overhauled - I know of NO airline that would dream of landing and aircraft with less than 45 minutes of endurance in tanks MINIMUM - plus the cost indexes for fuel prices need to be overhauled AND an economic factor be given for tankering fuel to more expensive destinations, a more realistic maintenance penalty system based upon cycles as well as flight time - there are a myriad "real world" ways of improving the system as far as flying goes - Truthfully I enjoy flying the sim with a purpose - and I applaud Konny for what he is trying to produce. Im just offering the insight of thirty years in the airline industry and a lifetime in aviation is all. nowt special....and Finally

Last time I checked, we were VA pilots, not recreational pilots.

from Big Q
Sorry to let you down mate - VA pilots ARE recreational pilots - y'all care to come in play in my world for a week or two???



Mahalo

Leif

[Konny]

Well, first of all I'ld like to say that I didn't change anything in the failure or rating system in the new client. So there are still the same rules ( taxi at 25 knots, 250kts below FL100, .... ) and there is a tolerance zone. But if you're above the tolerance limit, even if it's just for a few seconds, then there is no tolerance to the tolerance . I don't think we need a discussion here, it's not really hard to stick with these rules and to my experience they really increase the fun-factor.

Regarding the failures, the ones which are currently included are just the ones I could implement very easy and there will come more which you can't experience with the standard FS. But I see that I have to change the way failures are handled. Firstly you shouldn't get penalised if you react well and secondly there should be a way to maintain your aircraft so that no failures occur. Currently the propability that something will fail during a flight is "100% - aircraft status". So if we calculate with a status of 96% for each flight you statistically should experience one failure each within 25 flights. But your aircraft usually starts with 100% so it should be even less.
In my opinion that's ok, but maybe the no-failure-limit of 97% is a good approach.

[IslandBum]

Thank you for answering so promptly Konny

Personally (as I stated above) I would be very happy seeing a greater variety of failures , and Im aware you are limited
by what can be programmed into different models - As an example - ALL of the panels provided by Fraser McKay for
Rick Pipers models, and David Maltbys models come with fairly complex and realistic systems - and on the likes of the 748 and the Argosy have emergency checklists - IF there was a way to integrate the kind of failures that COULD be induced on those panels with both penalties and rewards for correctly indentifying a problem and rectifying it (Such as following the feathering procedures on a RR Dart ) Then I think the "fun factor" as you put it could be greatly enhanced - I think one point that has been overlooked it If the client fails an engine say - and the pilot makes a good landing at the destination - (Say using a fixed ROD at touchdown of ohh 250 FPM) then in my mind , and real world airlines - they should not be penalised but rewarded - To give you an example - recently the company I work of had an aircraft that suffered a total turbine wheel failure immeadiatly after takeoff from a short runway at close to MTOW - the crew handled the situation flew around the pattern and landed (yes they declared an emergency) - OK the moral here is - did the company repromand the crew? were they penalised it anyway? No of course not - in fact they were both commended for doing an excellent job in a difficult situation and NOT becoming the evening news front page story - So would a company lose "prestige" yes of course they would but as you see the pilots would not be - And btw if your curious for your statistical programming we had 3 passengers out of 150 refuse to fly on the rescue aircraft that was sent to complete the schedule - a very small percentage isnt it?


Leif

[Quantum]

Hi Konny and all,

The other thing you have to account for is the number of pilots a VA 'employs'. For the single pilot VA a failure 'once in a blue moon' might not seem a lot, but when you factor that by the number of pilots the larger VA's employ (CBFS and VHA for example) the likelihood of failures increases with subsequent effect on rep. We at CBFS have had two recent hits to the rep - one, unexplained, that Konny knows about that was probably caused by a CTD and the other was an engine failure. The engine failure was with a pilot who was flying a well maintained aircraft but he flies a lot of short hop rotations. The 'emergency' was handled well and arrived at destination and no complaints from passengers have been recieved ( ) but the rep still gets hit. As Leif says, pilots should be congratulated for dealing with emergencies not penalised by them knowing that their flight has hit the VA rep. Of course, there is a solution if a pilot doesn't want to handle a failure and thats to duck out of the client and restart the flight. If the failure is as explained, then subsequent flights should be event free for a while. A pilot could continue doing this on each occasion, but we don't really want that to happen.

So............................ why not stop hitting the rep for the failures and lets set the client so failures won't happen above a certain maintenance status. My vote goes for 95% with 96% if pushed. You guys that still want failures to deal with then just let your maintenance drop.

Rgds

John

[BigQ]

Excellent point, Mr. Payne.
I would however tweak it a bit and say keep the failure on, since in the real-world they're quite random, unless when dealing with a poorly maintained plane. But reduce the amount of reputation that is lost when such a failure occur... maybe keep the current reputation drop to where it is with failures that would be evident to the passengers (engine failure, flap or gear failure, something EVIDENT), something that anyone could notice, but reduce the drop with a failure that does not greatly affect the flight (instruments in the cockpit, for example). Because failures happen all the time, but the reputation of a real-world airline only decreases when the people get to know about it...


I suggest even a reputation loss whenever a pilot books a flight and that booking expires...

[jigawatts]

I don't think a booking expiry should result in a loss of rep. Real World things can happen, and theres a big financial hit from what iva calculated.

As for the failures, I think a lot of the points discussed here have merits. I think that there should be a rep loss for any failure (Passengers don't understand that sometimes these things happen, theyll just think the plane is poorly maintained regardless). I do think that a plane at 97 or 98 should not suffer failures (Thats over 12 flights in the plane if you land them decent).

I don't think a pilots reputation should be affected by an emergency, but a VA's should.

Just my 2 cents.

[joaopaz]

Hi everyone,

Having landed recently at FlyNET I have yet to do my first flight - just today my first aircraft arrived at our hangar (thanks, Konny!)

But I must confess I am a bit anxious about my first flight. So here's a few...

...is there a training mode where one is allowed to get to know the client, concluding a flight without having to hit CTRL+ALT+DEL and avoid loss of reputation if anything goes wrong?

...the client does not come with a readme.txt so please let me check this with you:
You must taxi always below 25 kts
You must keep speed below 250 kts when below FL100
You must correctly operate lights... landing lights? taxi lights? nav lights? Is there an AGL altitude limit that you must cross with your landing lights on?
The rules page says something about quality of flight, not scaring your pilots... is there something more than what I wrote above?

I understand that there are tolerance limits, but if a pilot exceeds those limits the tolerance will be zero. I am assuming those limits are known only to Konny and therefore we must strive to comply, rather than exploring those limits.

How does the vertical speed on landings affects the aircraft status / VA reputation?
What's the pilot's flight rating?

Sorry for so many questions, and if I missed a link where this is all posted just direct me to there and I'll be a happy camper


About the reputation discussion above I read it all but of course, at this point in time, it would ridiculous to throw even if two cents
I'm looking forward to it all!

Joao

[Heather]

I too would like to know these things, thanks, Joaopaz for that post.

Good luck with your VA and a big welcome to FlyNet.

I would like to add one more question, can you change the name of your Airline in the future if the need be? Or do you have to close the airline and start a new one and lose the aircraft that you have?

Thanks,
Heather