The multiplier question again

[AL328]

Having read the previous comments, I have had an idea that could reduce the number of one man airlines. I thought that non-management staff could be given rewards for joining an airline, as opposed to creating a new airline.
These advantages could be budget based, or perhaps given a small private aircraft (e.g a Cessna 208B). I am unsure as to whether or not these advantages should be given to members who are already pilots, as if not, it could cause career movement of existing pilots, soley for these advantages.
These are my thoughts on the subject as someone who isn't a CEO.

[Ionathan]

Imagination is one thing and reality is another.

BTW, speaking of "politeness" starting a post with that line isn't very polite either. If you're so worried about how blunt I am about your position, why don't you ammend yours?

Imagination = Hypothetical = Gold (at least as planned).
Reality = Beta = Current.

About a month ago you called "stupid" another member because he had a different opinion than yours. Now you call "bullshit" my opinion for the same reason and you talk about politeness?

[CAPFlyer]

Nikos, find where I called the person stupid. Be careful of context. I don't call people stupid. I call their ideas stupid and only if it warrants it. I called your position BS because you're mixing up two separate purposes. You're trying to say that the BETA isn't supposed to be for its stated purpose. How will Konny fix the problems that might appear or will appear when the software goes Gold if he has everyone who's currently on the system griping about how he needs to not fix it because it'll hurt those who are on now for the short term even if it won't be a big deal in the long term since (as Konny said some time ago) everything will be reset when the system goes Gold?

The problem with your argument is that you want to fix the now without regard to what impact it has in the future. You want "stability" now when "stability" doesn't make a bit of difference in the future when everything gets reset anyway.

[cmdrnmartin]

The problem with your argument is that you want to fix the now without regard to what impact it has in the future. You want "stability" now when "stability" doesn't make a bit of difference in the future when everything gets reset anyway.

There will be no reset, at least from what I remember on the subject, but other than that I agree with your post.

As an admin, to evryone: Keep it CIVIL or i will close the topic and have warnings issued. CAPflyer, I realize some ideas can be stupid, but couch the way you say it. Nikos, I know its not your first language, but for a lot of the members here it is, and you (and I for that matter) have to be careful because there are inflections that a native speaker will see in the way we write, that we will not.

I would ask that you apologize to each other, but I know your both adult enough to have already done that.

[Ionathan]

It was about time. I expected Justin's intereference sooner or later.

[quote="cmdrnmartinThere will be no reset, at least from what I remember on the subject, but other than that I agree with your post.[/quote]

This is a point many people do not know. Konny has indeed confirmed that in the past which makes the current beta version not a 100% beta. A beta is supposed to be used to test and fix bugs and my problem in this thread was not to dispute against ideas. I was irritated because of specific words and not because of ideas. So I have no intention to enter into a phrasal fight, never had. What I tried to figure out is that some specific expressions may be used by some people and not considered offended but for some other are. I never use sich words and it is better noone does.

Now, to more constructive posting. A beta usually is related to a short term period of testing and trying. The beta period for FlyNet has esceeded what we usually call short period and considering there will be no reset it is not astonishing that irritation exists. On the other hand everyone agrees we are not ready to go gold. So, an official statement about a rough estimation on when we can go gold would help.

As it concerns the financial system I have to say FlyNet has to be attractive, not difficult. People want to earn money after a flight but they also like features. Some of this features can introduce some expences like airport fees when not in their base. A base can be one or two or three if we want to give more space for the future. In any case the number of bases have to be fixed.

Insurance is another feature which would help people feel more secure when leasing aircrafts. It is obvious by now that the reduced profit has diminished leasing. We may trust our pilots but not the other airlines unknown ones.

A tax could be introduced based on the flights completed and not on a time-defined basis independent of how much each VA flies. Noone wants to feel imprisoned in a leisure time hobby.

The 100x multiplier has been tested and rejected as well as the penalty for using time compression so there is no added value in trying them again. A balance should be defined between evolution and difficulty. People want to see the game running and I am one of those. If it becomes too static needing like 30 flights before you can buy a 737 people will just go away. If you need 10 flights before you can maintain an aircraft people will also go away. These messages have been passed to the knowledge of everyone.

1 man airlines can be reduced by introducing a minimum requirement of flights completed as a pilot before one can start a VA. This is a good start but not enough as it implies that people will join FlyNet. This is not guaranteed.

It is CEOs responsibility to make their VAs atttractive but it is not their responsibility to make FlyNet attractive. Motivations should be provided to virtual pilots for joining FlyNet as a pilot instead of external huge airlines. The existence of big airlines is one motivation so let's not try to punish big airlines simply because they are big. They have spent a lot of hours to reach their status. By saying "big", I am not implying only those airlines with a value more than 10 billions but to any airline with an adequate fleet (a combination of props, middle range and long range jets) and an interesting and "rich" schedule.
Another considerartion should be the private flights which should be completed with individual pilots as privateers to the trade market instead of the manufacturers alone and why not even to lease an aircraft. With this addition, VAs could even sell small aircrafts to pilots at discount prices, providing one more motivation for someone to join as a pilot. Private pilots should gain some level of expertise when they fly on their own in terms of flights which count on their "experience log" probably with a reduced importance in comparison to those flown for a VA.
Salaries could vary within the same VA based on the position. One more motivation for someone to try to be a good pilot as promotions are subject to how good one is. Of course salaries and promotions should remain in CEOs opinion for their VA.

People would be attracted in FlyNet if online events were organized in popular virtual FS spaces like IVAO and VATSIM and why not a dedicated 24/7 FlyNet server. Online flying should remain optional though as many do not like multiplayer environments.

I will repeat again what I said in one of my previous messages that the current members opinioin should be the first priority as noone knows what FlyNet will look after 1 year from now plus the current members are from different countries, ages, interestes offering a good statistical sample to act on.

Last but not least, effort should be taken in keeping the important members in FlyNet as they are here for long time, some even since the very beggining of FlyNet, they have offered a lot of help and they have a deep knowledge of this project which can be used in many areas in the future.

[Konny]

Ok, so the x100 multiplier will stay optional for now.
It's only that I know some people how took a look into the database saw the airlines and said: "I don't like it, you can't loose, that's boring." Which actually is my opinion, too. But the major part here seems to think different so I'll try it a third time later. Though, I think it is a different situation than the last time I wanted to go down with the multiplier. With the cargo and simrate-bonus you can make about twice the income than before. So why not halve the multiplier.
But there are completely different attitudes here. Some want it more realistic and want to earn their aircrafts and others want to have a large fleet as quick as possible.

Anyway, let's concentrate on new features. Numbers can be changed very quickly if necessary

[HS1]

The problem facing many airlines appears to be that many wish to be "top of the pile" and thus want a high multiplier in order to be able to catch them. A lower multiplier, like 100x or 200x, is probably better, but it then increases the defecit between airlines and makes it harder for them to catch opponents. If we had a reset, a new multiplier may not meet with such resistance.

EDIT: Rephrased as on proof-reading it may seem that I myself holds the wish to be "top of the pile". The post is meant to reflect an opinion that seems to be held by a few airlines.

[Ionathan]

I think the approach of catching opponents is not right as there are airlines building up their wealth for five or six months and others with a presence of only one or two months. There is no way for the second to catch the first if they are both equally active no matter the multiplier. Even if we have a reset, a low multiplier and go gold not all airlines will be the same after a couple of months and even huge differences will occur again. Sooner or later there will be as huge differences as now. Maybe the current members will all be closer to each other in the ranking but still new comers will join to see giant airlines while they are at the beggining as a result of flying frequency and membership aging just like now.
I am in favor of higher multipliers as it adds more interest to the game since we can see our airlines expanding faster which in turn gives more space for new aircrafts and new destinations. Of course if we are talking about giant airlines like Wardair, ScotJet or Ionathan there is no much more space to expand. I understand those who would prefer to straggle with Cessnas and Twin Otters before they can buy their first 737 but I believe most want to own an airline with an adequate jets fleet to serve middle and long range destinations.

As it concerns a reset for the gold version I am confident that it has to be done with some respect of what each airline has achieved up to then and for sure make the first 737 aquisition easier (maybe with an initial budget for the new comer of around 35-40 millions instead of 25). Only a few people prefer props.
In any case, I believe a definite decision should be taken and announced about whether a reset is going to take place and when because apart from what we do in FlyNet we are exposed on our web sites to our potential pilots. Personally, I have suspended the quest for external pilots because I don't want to show them a big Jet based airline and all of a sudden have them to fly with one or two turbo props. Also, think about what will happen to those lucky airlines who already have five or six relatively active pilots if they remain with just a couple of aircrafts after a reset. Simply their pilots will probably quit.

The reason why I press for the gold version, the soonest possible yet not against quality, is because I want something stabilized so we can all know where we stand, what we have in posession and how we can operate before we can make further steps.

[CAPFlyer]

Nikos,

Firstly, I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you personally. I was not, only the statements.

Secondly, there are many BETAs that go on for more than a year. I remember that the FS2002 BETA was almost 18 months long due to several major re-writes of the code that extended the BETA period. I was involved, personally, with a nearly 30 month BETA because (like FlyNET) it was a new program and the end wasn't well defined when the program was placed into BETA. It was BETA because the program was functional so couldn't quite be called an ALPHA, but because we were adding features to the program, its period extended greatly as the wider group brought in to test the BETA brought up new ideas that no one on the development team had thought of but thought good ideas. Not only that, but changes in programming during the period required changes that delayed the program, and then we had another change of direction when a competing product (itself having gone through an extended BETA) came out and required changes to stay competitive.

I think that with additional features and modules needing to be implimented, the Gold is still a bit off. I agree with Konny that we need to focus on getting the new features and modules implimented and make sure they work and understand that we're only testing and that screw-ups can be fixed for the most part.

I think that we do need to consider some sort of a reset when the program goes Gold, but that should be discussed once Konny decides that he's going to freeze the code and set a release date.

[Konny]

Chris is right. There is still very much to do and I'll be very busy with school the next 6 weeks. So I would say the earliest possible release date would be in about 3 months, but I cannot promise anything, we'll see.

My statement was that I won't reset airlines who don't want to and I'll stick to that.

[HS1]

All this seems to indicate we have reached a compromise that, I'm sure, will suit most airlines. Not having a reset does sound like logic, so long as all airlines have the same multiplier so as not to handicap the larger airlines. I don't consider FlyNET ultimately a competion, more a simulator, so I feel it is more in the spirit of things if airlines such as Ionathan, Wardair and Gateway do not have to suffer from injecting more time and developing more efficient fleets than smaller airlines.

[cmdrnmartin]

The problem facing many airlines appears to be that we all wish to be "top of the pile" and thus want a high multiplier in order to be able to catch them. A lower multiplier, like 100x or 200x, is probably better, but it then increases the defecit between airlines and makes it harder for them to catch opponents. If we had a reset, a new multiplier may not meet with such resistance.

We have a built in system to help people catch up, the multiplier is scalable, the less your airline is worth, the larger the multiplier is. EDIT: I guess now we can pick our multiplier... But regardless, the scalable multiplier was there because we know people waqnt to be big on top. me, Im satisfied running the VA I have now. It's a comfortable size for me, I've even downgraded because I know I dont need 747's. I can accomodate new pilots with ease, and have room for plenty of route expansion and revision. In all respects, I would now rather have fun things to blow my money on then to continue increasing my Fleet size. Advertising is a good first step. I was also thinking about aircraft upgrade. We all talk about how our planes are configured, why not put money where our mouths are. SDay, refitting an aircraft with 3 grades of service. Grade 1: Telvisions, Grade 2 Leather Seats and Telvisions, Grade 3, Leather Seats and PTV's, Grade 4 (yes I know I said only 3) Leather Seats, PTV's and Sattelite Telivison/Internet.

Grade 1 Costs 1 million per plane, adds +1% pax to flights on that plane
Grade 2 Costs 3 million per plane, adds +2.5% pax to flights on that plane
Grade 3 Costs 5 million per plane, adds +4% pax to flight on that plane
Grade 4 Costs 10 million per plane, adds +5% pax to flights on that plane. <--Note this would be very expensive for an airline to implement, For Wardair it would cost 100 million for Ten planes. To do our entire fleet, well, we're looking at about a billion in expenditures right there.

Service Grades:

Every month, based on how many planes you have, you can choose to buy a service grade. Not having a grade (Grade 0) has a negative influence on your pax loads. I mean, you have to pay your flight attendants and train them. The more you pay them, the better they work for you, and the more people think of your airline.
(Prices listed would be for 70~100 aircraft fleet, 30~70 Aircraft Prices/2 10~30 aircraft /4 1~10 Aircraft /8)
Grade 1: Air Canada Grouches @20 million (Neutral, no change in pax)
Grade 2: Westjet (Pretty and sweet, but not First Class style) @50 million (+1% global increase to pax)
Grade 3: KLM (Drop Dead Gorgeous and full of chram, wit, and european style) @150 million (+2% Global increase to pax load)
Grade 4: Singapore Airlines (Sweet, demure, complete with massages and a happy ending in the lavatory @300 Million (+3% to global pax load)

Advertising:

Newspaper ad's (30 million dollars per week)
(Choose a Country to run the ads in, all flights from that country receive +1% pax loads for the duration of the campaign.

Radio (100 million)
Same as Print ads, but +2% to loads

TV Campaign (200 million)
Same as Radio ads but +3% to loads

Marketing Blitz (All three methods)
350 million +4% to loads.

I think these ideas are good because they give a manager something to do, and a way for airlines to use their income productively.

[Quantum]

Hi Guys,

This is only my second post on this forum and I have only been at FlyNet for a few days. I think the current system from what I can see is pretty good. I like the idea that my 'VA' (myself, one pilot) can grow quickly. I am not here to run any 'competitor' into the ground, I am here so that my enjoyment of Flight Simulation has an 'extra' factor. How many of you before you found FlyNet or any similar programme wandered aimlessly around the skies? I was one. My personal aim is to have many aircraft dotted all over the world so I can create flightplans from wherever to wherever I want. I have in the past flown on Virtual ATC networks and am indeed looking to return to that 'world'. If I can combine that with FlyNet then so much the better. Hence my wish to be able to base aircraft worldwide without penalty. The fact that I can make v$ at the same time is great. Does it matter that I fly the same route as someone else? If that is a problem then perhaps the ticket price should be fixed and not possible to be altered by individuals, then it's down to the individual VA's reputation as to how many pax are carried and ultimately how much revenue is earned. I have no worries or concerns that VA 'X' has so many more planes than VA 'Y'. If I want to take a break for a few weeks holiday in RL then I would like my VA to remain in the same state it was before I left it.

Whilst I am here, I would also like to ask about the maintenance aspect of things and the 'random' failures. I am currently leasing a Fokker 100 (thankyou Wardair) and with @98% showing I had an engine failure! Whilst attempting to relight said engine, the other one flamed out and I was 'deadstick'. Having already reduced my altitude due to the initial failure, I was unable to reach my destination and made a successful landing at the nearest airport capable of taking the F100. I was left with a bill for over $5 million and put the aircraft in for repair and lost it for a day. Really HARSH!

Not sure about this % thingy, perhaps it could be done on hours flown and if a heavy landing is detected (or whatever other factor is used to determine the %) extra hours are added to reduce times between maintenance. If your aircraft is maintained well, you should not get failures. Also you could factor in larger aircraft maintainance so that your check A, B, C and D's are all carried out at the correct times. That way every so often an aircraft would have to be out of action for longer than a day or so.

Rgds

Q

[Ionathan]

If you have been trough the past threads on the forums (not just this thread) you will see I share your ideas about not making FlyNet too difficult. It is not about competition nor about being first or second. It is all about being able to have a flleet big enough to allow scheduling routes to many places in the world whilst maintening some realism by assigning routes to aircrafts instead of switching the same 4-5 aircrafts to different destinations all the time and the only way to achieve this is a big fleet.

Anyway, about the failures feature. I once experienced an engine off during a flight and I had to land my B744 with 3 engines. My airplane was at 99% maintenance stauts. I think, if failures may occur in such well maintained aircrafts the failure system is a bit too "strict".

Before the new repair system introduction we could repair the aircraft after each flight and avoid a failure's danger. Now, with the new feaures most people repair their aircrafts at about 96%-97% which leaves much probability for an enroute failiure.

[cmdrnmartin]

Konny, does your failure system drain the fuel to simulate engine outs? Maybe an explanation of how it works or something. And as for the other posts, I think above 95% there should be no failures. Or at least get an oopsie message on the ground, with the option of fixing the problem before you take off.