Random 'invisible' failures

[Quantum]

Hi Konny,

How soon can we get rid of the 'invisible' failure? It's bugging us like crazy at the moment. Also regarding undercarriage failures, how does the client know that your aircraft has got retractable undercarriage? The Rapide, Islander and Trislander that we operate all have fixed gear.

Rgds

John

[cmdrnmartin]

What do you mean by 'invisible failure'? Is it a failure that couldn't be possible with the aircraft? Ie you're question about the landing gear? or is it that scenery/invisible building issue you mentioned in a previous post?

(Also, regarding Undercarriage failures, Im not sure if thats modeled, but if it is, even a fixed gear aircraft can have an undercarriage failure, say, a wheel fell off, or a strut broke )

[Quantum]

Hi Justin,

The current failures in the client are engine, gear, flaps and instrument. The instrument one does not make itself apparent to the pilot, ie all instruments remain functioning. With the instrument failure, the only way you know you have had a failure is post flight when the rep gets hit by 5 points for no apparent reason. This is what I refer to as the 'invisible' failure. The gear failure stops you being able to extend the undercarriage so you need a foam runway. Again, difficult to determine the failure reason with a fixed a/c aircraft. In my opinion, the whole failure scenario should be an option that can either be switched off manually or through good maintenance. If someone wants a failure there is already a perfectly good failure 'engine' in FS as well as pilot induced failures due to poor aircraft operation. The failures are supposed to reflect the way you maintain your fleet but does not appear to be the case at the moment as we have had many failures with a fleet that is kept at 95%+.


Rgds

John

[Konny]

Well, the problem with the invisible failure will be fixed with the next release. Actually it's already fixed, but DaKurt is currently working something else and I can't release a half-working client.

Regarding the whole failure-system, I think we had this discussion before and I still won't change anything in my plans. I'll first make it the way I want it ( a larger number of different failures, a system to check if the pilot handled the failure well, failure which are connected to the way the pilot flies ) and then we can talk again. It's just that I personally REALLY want to have this in, it's one the things which attracted me the most at FSPassengers and therefore one of the main reasons I created FlyNET

[cmdrnmartin]

Well, the problem with the invisible failure will be fixed with the next release. Actually it's already fixed, but DaKurt is currently working something else and I can't release a half-working client.

Regarding the whole failure-system, I think we had this discussion before and I still won't change anything in my plans. I'll first make it the way I want it ( a larger number of different failures, a system to check if the pilot handled the failure well, failure which are connected to the way the pilot flies ) and then we can talk again. It's just that I personally REALLY want to have this in, it's one the things which attracted me the most at FSPassengers and therefore one of the main reasons I created FlyNET

See, I think failures should happen, I'm with you on that end. Real Airliners have real failures. However, that being said, failures should be extremely rare, ridiculously rare. Even with a fleet at 96%, those failures I feel should be maybe a one or two a year thing. Most of today's current failures are detected on the ground (where I suppose they're called faults) and result more in delays and passenger pissyness than actual in flight emergencies.

I think we all want a ridiculously good failure engine, which rewards for good handling/actions, but at the same time Konny, I feel that a lot of our members don't want to have planes failing so much that their airline begins to look like Air Nigeria. I think Quantum will admit that he's not against failures, just the relative occurence of said failures appears to currently be too high.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[joefremont]

Personally I dont have a problem with the failure system but then I have not had a gear failure yet. But I do think there should be better reporting of them in the flight reports.

Question about gear failures, can you still press CTRL-G to manually lower the gear? If not you should be able to.

[Quantum]

Hi Justin,

You're probably right there, it is the frequency with which they happen that's frustrating. 'Random failures' seems to be renamed 'Regular failures'. I've no idea how the failure 'engine' works in the client but there should be some link to aircraft % status where failures are less frequent the better maintained they are. With regards to undercarriage failures, CTRL + G should be allowed to still function so you can pump the gear down. Also maybe we need a new field in the database so the client is 'informed' if an aircraft has retractable gear or not. All aircraft can have the field added with 'YES' for retractable gear and then operators like ourselves can edit 'NO' for the aircraft that have fixed gear. The client already gets the number of engines info from the database so I think we need the retractable undercarriage YES/NO in the database also otherwise it will become another 'invisible' failure on our Rapide, Islander and Trislander fleet. Oops, nearly forgot the Transit, er I mean, Skyvan which also has fixed gear.

Rgds

John