Flight profit adjustment

[CAPFlyer]

Lester,

As you'll note from my previous posts, the time acceleration penalty wasn't an issue either way for me because it doesn't affect me and thus I never made a comment than to agree with Konny's suggestion that we reward realtime, and only penalize those who use large acceleration rates (8x and 16x) but not as heavily as before. The issue I had was with the continued complaints about needing to be able to purchase a new aircraft every couple of weeks and how if you can't buy a new aircraft every couple of weeks the simulation is now stagnant because things don't happen quick enough but disregards that we're not playing a game or simulation that is over in 3 or 4 months of play, we're talking about this working for years and needing to have a balance between the timespan of operation (years) and allowing for a reasonable rate of expansion for the new VAs that are started on this system.

I'd appreciate it if people don't mis-characterise what I write on these pages because I'm very careful to not comment on points which I do not have a problem or opinion on. If it's not specifically refered to in the post, then don't assume I'm commenting on it.

[BigQ]

You know how airlines put a maximum on hours flown by any pilot (Aircanada is 85, all are relatively more or less the same), well, why not put a limit of flight time that a pilot can fly, and a penalty for all the hours flown on top at time compression.
I.E Maximum of 20-25 virtual hours per week, at any time compression
all other hours over that 25 hours get the current time compression penalty...
Restricts profit, does not restrict hours as much, everybody's happy!
Airline can grow a bit, but not as much as before, makes them get more pilots than have what they have, and still is more fun than it is now..

I'm not complaining that much about the new system because all i've been flying are KiwarooRoots flights of 1000 nm or less, but it'll hurt later, I'm sure.
The airlines still can make their profit, but not as much...

[Ionathan]

I thinks 25 hours a week is too little.

[CAPFlyer]

I agree, if we're going to limit time, let's do limiting it by 24 "virtual" hours (i.e. takes into account time compression) for each airplane per day (thus you can't double book the airplane to make a 2 day trip in one day) and each pilot to 100 "virtual" hours per month (thus if someone wants to fly a lot of long haul flights, they have to be careful not to use them all up too early in the month).

The aircraft limit should be a "hard" limit. I think you can do that since most airlines will have more than one airplane per pilot, so them flying the plane more than 24 hours a day shouldn't be too much of a problem. The pilot limit could be a "soft" limit where anything over the 100 hours per month receive some sort of penalty.

[Ionathan]

I am perfectly agreed with the 24 virtual hours hours per day for aircraft but why should a pilot been restricted from flying more than 100 hours per month? It is a useless restriction. People want to fly why should not be allowed to?

[cmdrnmartin]

I am perfectly agreed with the 24 virtual hours hours per day for aircraft but why should a pilot been restricted from flying more than 100 hours per month? It is a useless restriction. People want to fly why should not be allowed to?

Seconded. I think it would make more sense to simply limit every pilot to 24 hours of flight a day. Simple as that.

[BigQ]

But nobody flies 24 hours of virtual time a day!

[CAPFlyer]

But nobody flies 24 hours of virtual time a day!

Are you sure of that?

At 16x, 2 - 12 hour flights can be completed in just over 4 hours (considering running at 1x for taxi-out, departure, and landing).

Also, I think the limit of 100 hours without penalty a month gives a level of realism to the operation (again, real world agencies worldwide have this regulation that limits the duty day of a pilot to 8 hours in the air per day, 40 hours per week, and 100 hours per month, with very little exception). While helping to even things out somewhat.

You guys are the ones that continue to complain that not everyone has time to fly at 1x but then on the other hand complain that people always using time acceleration are gaining an unfair advantage over other airlines because they can fly many more flights in the same amount of time as an airline that limits itself to lower amounts of time acceleration or none at all allowing the big airlines to grow much faster than the small ones. If you put in place the deductions at the high-end of time acceleration and then put in a per-pilot limit (again a "soft" limit where there is a penalty if they go over, no hard limit that if they hit 100 hours they can't fly until the end of the month like is the case in the real world) to ensure that everyone is playing on a semi-level field and thus you don't have a guy with a lot of time on his hands (like a lot of kids will when school lets out for summer) who can go balls-to-the-wall and fly 100 hours in a few days 2 or 3 times a week.

[BigQ]

But nobody flies 24 hours of virtual time a day!

Are you sure of that?

At 16x, 2 - 12 hour flights can be completed in just over 4 hours (considering running at 1x for taxi-out, departure, and landing).

Also, I think the limit of 100 hours without penalty a month gives a level of realism to the operation (again, real world agencies worldwide have this regulation that limits the duty day of a pilot to 8 hours in the air per day, 40 hours per week, and 100 hours per month, with very little exception). While helping to even things out somewhat.

You guys are the ones that continue to complain that not everyone has time to fly at 1x but then on the other hand complain that people always using time acceleration are gaining an unfair advantage over other airlines because they can fly many more flights in the same amount of time as an airline that limits itself to lower amounts of time acceleration or none at all allowing the big airlines to grow much faster than the small ones. If you put in place the deductions at the high-end of time acceleration and then put in a per-pilot limit (again a "soft" limit where there is a penalty if they go over, no hard limit that if they hit 100 hours they can't fly until the end of the month like is the case in the real world) to ensure that everyone is playing on a semi-level field and thus you don't have a guy with a lot of time on his hands (like a lot of kids will when school lets out for summer) who can go balls-to-the-wall and fly 100 hours in a few days 2 or 3 times a week.

Point Taken.

Thinking about it, only a combination of reduction for multiplier according to value, of time compression max and of limited hours per period of time can make this entertaining and real at the same time

[Ionathan]

Got the point as well. I am confident that many airlines and pilots will quit FlyNet and from discussions I have had there will be enough. If this is the requirement... FlyNet is in a good way.

Some people here probably believe that if the one or two people airlines get the hit and decide to stop, their pilots will move to the remaining ones having a more realistic situation of 10 and 20 pilots per airline. I have several times made a question/comment on that but I will repeat it once more:

What reasons could make a pilot keep flying in FlyNet when most remaining airlines will enforce the 1x in order to avoid the penalty instead of joining a big VA elsewhere (like BA, AF) and fly in VATSIM or IVAO, at 1x but in a much more realistic and interesting environment? The economic system was the powerful feature for CEOs and Managers but the time compression was the top for most pilots. Believe this. I am here for more than three months, being very active, not only flying but in the forums as well and in discussions outside these forums and I know the trend.

Restriction of the daily hours gfown could give the required level of realism even if we had to reduce it to a lower value than 24 hours. 100 hours a month, derived from 40 hours per weel and 8 hours per day is not suitable for FlyNet where a single pilot will fly the 16 hours needed for the longest flight a B744 can take (no I don't have a co-pilot next to me to take the aircraft after the 8 hours have passed in a long range flight). So, it could be 16 hours per day and then not be allowed to book a flight for the same day because in any case having to add your monthly hours before you make a flight is another tedious work making FlyNet more complex than most people would like to be.
If this was applied to FlyNet and combined with an acceptable penalty for say 16x anf 8x leaving 4x without penalty a good level of realism could be achieved.

There have been many suggestions in this thread as alternatives to the unacceptable (according to my opinion) new finance system. I can't believe none of them is good enough especially since the huge majority of FlyNet members support the same or similar directions.

If I wanted 100% realism I might try to be a real life pilot and got paid for that.

I have personally never complained about time acceleration being unfair especially if it was applied as described above or in a similar way. Believe me my life and time is much important to spend it sitting in front of a screen watching the autopilot flying the aircraft for 8 hours. I see Flying as a hobby and not as a life purpose.

I believe it is time to decide whether FlyNet will be a place of entairtainment or a place for fully dedicated virtual pilots and also let us all know what is going to be next as we like flying but we are definitely not fully dedicated in this.

In the beggining, when I joined, FlyNet used the 100x factor and it was decided to increase it to 1000x as the game was too slow and static with the danger to be not interesting enough to the pilots. A bit later there was a discussion of which should be the maximum allowed time acceleration and was decided that the airlines would specify that limit up to 16x. Everyone seemed to agree with both changes. Of course this does not mean no further changes can be made to the direction of improving what we have (had) here but returning to the previous situation it is like steping back and forth, or even better "forth and back".

[CAPFlyer]

What reasons could make a pilot keep flying in FlyNet when most remaining airlines will enforce the 1x in order to avoid the penalty instead of joining a big VA elsewhere (like BA, AF) and fly in VATSIM or IVAO, at 1x but in a much more realistic and interesting environment? The economic system was the powerful feature for CEOs and Managers but the time compression was the top for most pilots. Believe this. I am here for more than three months, being very active, not only flying but in the forums as well and in discussions outside these forums and I know the trend.

Nikos,

I think you are still missing the point from this statement.

First, you imply that FlyNET and VATSIM/IVAO are somehow mutually exclusive propositions. They are not. But here's the problem - VATSIM has a network restriction of 4x sim rate while signed on. Someone who chooses to fly on VATSIM chooses to be limited to 4x simulation rate (which makes a 16 hour flight go by in 4, so it's not a huge imposition as long as you have good time management skills or do like I do - walk away for 20 or 30 minutes when over the middle of nowhere with no ATC or a long period between position reports). It's a bit unfair for a person to fly in a more realistic environment be hindered from making the same amount of money as a guy who doesn't fly online, so there needs to be some way to level the field a little bit to prevent from discouraging people to use things like VATSIM and IVAO when flying with FlyNET. That's the problem that high sim rates creates.

The other thing we need to remember is that the FlyNET community keeps growning and changing. As such, we need to constantly re-evaluate where we are and where we want to go. That's the benefit of being in on this early, we can try different things and search for what works best by trying it out for a while.

There were enough people complaining that 1000x was too much, so we cut back to 100x. It's agreed that most people don't want it that low, so now we're discussing possibilities for an "in-between" area to try next. Konny is reading each of these posts and taking it in and making his decisions on how to impliment what everyone wants. This means that we'll probably see some of what's been done changed again in a few days or weeks.

What we're trying to do here (through this discussion in particular) is see where the best median is between realism and entertainment to make it the most wide-based as possible.

[Ionathan]

First, you imply that FlyNET and VATSIM/IVAO are somehow mutually exclusive propositions.

I never said that but many people joined FlyNet because it offered time acceleration with no penalties. It is true and it has been said in this thread. If they wanted the maximum of realism they could have easily join one of those huge external VAs flying in VATSIM/IVAO instead of the restricted options FlyNet can offer. Apart from 3-4 FlyNet VAs noone else could offer the fleet or the schedule of a virtual BA or virtual AF. This is what I said.

It's a bit unfair for a person to fly in a more realistic environment be hindered from making the same amount of money as a guy who doesn't fly online.

I don't agree on this. It is someone's own choice whether to fly online or not. You may want to fly all your flights at 1x because you have time, obviously you have, but this should not prevent me or someone else with tons of daily responsibilities and a very mutli-dimensional life not to practise our hobby. So, it is not a matter of time managing as simply as you mention. You may say that flying at 16x I can make in 1 hour as much money as you would do in 14 hours flying at 1x. Indeed but it is the only option if we don't want to exclude some people from FlyNet simply because they are busy in their lives. In addition restricting the daily acceptable flight hours per pilot would help. However if the limit is 8 hours as you suggested, immediately someone who can spare only 1 hour of flying per day is limited from specific type of flights. My approach is that everyone should have space in FlyNet. Sorry but limiting the long range flights to people with much spare time looks like racism although not intentional of course.

The other thing we need to remember is that the FlyNET community keeps growning and changing. As such, we need to constantly re-evaluate where we are and where we want to go. That's the benefit of being in on this early, we can try different things and search for what works best by trying it out for a while.

I agree on that. 1000x was a bit too much but setting it back to 100x as it was three months ago I believe it is a step back.

Anyway, I am not the owner of FlyNet and I am just explaining my position which happens to be the position of most people in here and it also explains why I have suspended my VA's operations as many others have done.

It is not a matter of getting the point of the thread which I perfectly do but obviously a matter of priorities. You are out for realism and I am looking for entetainment. I hope a compromise will be found. We'll see...

[cmdrnmartin]

It's a bit unfair for a person to fly in a more realistic environment be hindered from making the same amount of money as a guy who doesn't fly online,

I don't think it's unfair, it's his choice to use VATSIM and therefor he understands the limitations this imposes. Why should his choice impact upon the earnings of someone else just using FLYnet?

walk away for 20 or 30 minutes when over the middle of nowhere with no ATC or a long period between position reports

How is this different from 16x time compression? While we're monitoring aircraft systems, this person is ignoring their aircraft, which complete defeats the purpose of the "realistic" 1x. Same with people who do 1x flights and go to bed, its time spent not flying. Now I have a lot of respect to the people who sit and fly for 2~3 hours (I did with a TU-144, because the AP on it was junk.) but if your just going to leave the computer running in the background (something I can not do,because of A) my internet issues and b) I own this computer to do work, AND play, but not at the same time.) its just not fair for the people who actually fly their flights in entirety, even if it 16 times faster than normal.

The other thing we need to remember is that the FlyNET community keeps growning and changing. As such, we need to constantly re-evaluate where we are and where we want to go. That's the benefit of being in on this early, we can try different things and search for what works best by trying it out for a while

Exactly, i agree with you 100%. But remember, FLYnet was working much better before this change. Obviously it needs to be changed again, since a lot of memebers are quite unhappy, as well as it is very discouraging for a new comer to do anything here.

There were enough people complaining that 1000x was too much, so we cut back to 100x. It's agreed that most people don't want it that low, so now we're discussing possibilities for an "in-between" area to try next. Konny is reading each of these posts and taking it in and making his decisions on how to impliment what everyone wants. This means that we'll probably see some of what's been done changed again in a few days or weeks.

Actually, the 1000x was argued by at most, two people, for being too large. I can refer you to the thread where you complained about it because of your low pax loads and the resultant loss in capital: http://flynet.en-studios.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=481

What we're trying to do here (through this discussion in particular) is see where the best median is between realism and entertainment to make it the most wide-based as possible.

No argument. However, the most wide-based as possible really means sacrificing "true" time-economics-reality to allow for fun. In my day to day life, I go to University, Destroy my Chemistry lab, fly a DHC-6 in my spare time, and at night, administer these forums and pretend to be an airline mogul. The fantasy and chief draw of FLYnet was, and should be, run your airline, gain pilots and planes, enjoy flying with purpose. The moment we bring down restrictions and limitations, it loses that chief appeal. Now in the purpose of game balance, not reality, I suggested my ideas, and the 1 day of flying per pilot restriction sounds good to me to, although extending on that to only allow for 55 hours of flight a month is going too far in my opinion. Why should a game tell me I cant fly more if I want to?

In anycase, continued discussion on the topic is encouraged.

[MickeyMouse]

As stated above, my problem with this is the 16x issue. All my flights are flown at this speed once at cruise altitude, I just don't have time for a full flight. This will really hurt me in the long run and if I crash, it will take forever to make up the cost.

I was hoping I could just continue with the current client, but I see now it's required to move to the new version.

Kind of sad, this was a really cool idea.

[cmdrnmartin]

As stated above, my problem with this is the 16x issue. All my flights are flown at this speed once at cruise altitude, I just don't have time for a full flight. This will really hurt me in the long run and if I crash, it will take forever to make up the cost.

I was hoping I could just continue with the current client, but I see now it's required to move to the new version.

Kind of sad, this was a really cool idea.

Please Don't forget to voice your opinion in the followup poll in the NEWS section of the thread, your input helps make FLYnet better!