Money Sinks

[YoloWingPixie]

Due to the nature of simulating an economy but also wanting to progress reasonably to airliners, almost every VA flies with a multiplier. Generally speaking, this is good, as it allows your pilots to work towards a goal in a usually reasonable, if not quick timespan, but it seems to be that once you get to a certain point, finances start to become meaningless as even with a lower multiplier you will always be able to pump more money in than what could be taken out. Your alternative is to play without a multiplier or a really low multiplier but then your VA is going to be stuck in the GA aircraft regime for a very long time, if not indefinitely.

I think it would be great if we could have an optional feature, maybe call it "hardware finances", that allows VAs to easily use a multiplier, but also require them to continuously inject money into the company or it will start to quickly disappear.

It would add some of the following to manage:

- Landing Fees, increasing by popularity or size of airport
- Crashing a plane can total it.
- Disable instant transfer.
- Insurance costs (perhaps you could forgo insurance, but if you have it, it could somehow reduce the impact of repairing damage)
- Gate fees, at larger airports
- Fees to type rate a pilot on an aircraft (for sim costs, admin fees, etc)
- VA Office costs increase with fleet and pilot size to represent larger back of house staff
- Cleaning costs (daily per plane, only if flown)
- Taxes, paid quarterly to the country of the VA's

These changes would both help keep smaller regional aircraft relevant to finances as they go to cheaper airports, in theory cost less for tax purposes, and are cheaper to operate while still allowing larger aircraft like widebodies to flex their money-making abilities without that money being able to sit indefinitely. Obviously, such a system could be catastrophic to some established VAs here so I would again suggest this being an optional feature for those that want the ongoing challenge.

[ADAM-007]

Would love some more stuff to spend money on, something i've advocated for in the past but Joe didn't like a fair few of the bullet points you've made here last time. But as a lot of this is in my interest too, I'm going to throw in my +1

[joefremont]

I generally have tried to avoid adding new costs unless it add some new aspect, something where airlines can make a choice and act more like an airline. Some years back we added parking fees that are higher at bigger airports to discourage airlines from leaving there entire fleet parked as busy airports, better to park there idle aircraft someplace out of the way. Or the maintenance centers, invest in a center and you can save money on your aircraft maintenance and possibly make money repairing those of others, as long as you use them, if not they cost.

Landing fees are something that is often mentioned. I have resisted it mostly because its seams to be to just be a fixed cost that is added to the flight, what does it add? It keeps coming up so convince me. Cleaning and office costs also seam to be more fixed costs, something to spend money on but what does it add to the experinence.

Crashing planes I agree is a bit unrealistic that you can always repair it, but at great cost. Of course the most unrealistic part of crashing an aircraft in FSA is that the pilot survives and can fly again. Imagine you crash and your account is closed (because your pilot is dead) and you have to either create a new pilot or even a new account. How popular would we be then? But totaling planes, or at least making the repair costs more than the value of the AC is possible.

Not sure why instant transfers is on your list, it does not seem to fit with the topic. The purpose of instance transfers is so that pilots can fly rather than having to wait till the next day. Imagine you come home after a hard days work and have a few hours to do a flight, but the aircraft you want to fly is not available, sorry you can fly tonight. The limitation in instant transfers is that the aircraft would have to have been idle long enough for an actual transfer to take place. So if it takes 8 hours to do a normal transfer and the aircraft was last used 10 hours ago, you can but 6 hours ago you cant.

Insurance could be quite complicated, how to price it right. There will be those who say, we have insurance, go a head and crash it. But then your rates should go up and if you can't afford insurance your grounded.

Gate fees interest me, because it can give airlines a choice. Say you can rent/lease gates at an airport and based on how many gate you rent you get no fees, but more than that you pay the fee. Gate lease cost would be based on size and number that had been leased at the airport already. So that's a possible.

I think fees for ratings would be quite unpopular, ppl want to fly the aircraft they want and we have tried to make it flexible, ratings can be tied to rank rather than an individual pilot, do we charge airlines when they promote pilots?

Taxes? Well maybe, there was discussion continuing to lower the max multiplier below the current 25x limit but to be honest from the comments I got it was not that popular. But taxes might be a more effective way to limit VA size. You can think of an income tax and/or a property tax. Quarterly would be too infrequent though and would probably have to be done monthly.

If you think I am disagreeing too much, I am open to you convincing me. Its just that any complications need to be balanced by something it add to the experience of using the platform. If the costs go up and nothing else changes, what of value have we added?

[DesertSaker1]

So I want to preface this by saying I love this service you provide, Joe. It really is excellent work, and I understand that adding niche new features is a time-consuming process. And I want to be clear that the following is not intended to devalue what you've worked on, because it really is quite fantastic.

However I want to throw in my two cents here. There very quickly comes a point in this game where it stops being engaging.
I understand that simply adding flat costs might not seem like it adds anything to the game, however at a certain point, most airlines simply stop playing the game. It becomes cookie clicker, with flights being done simply to make the numbers go up, and small volume, short-haul flights are rendered irrelevant when in reality they are pivotal to the proper operation of a large airline. No thought goes into adding new routes, as it basically does not cost anything to fly the biggest jets from the largest airports in the world.

This is why I'd also throw my +1 in for a toggleable "Hard mode," that adds a few mechanics such as the ones Yolowing mentioned above.

Maintenance cycles, for example - in an attempt to keep our light aircraft relevant, we are beginning to track flight-time and start voluntary A-checks on large jets in an attempt to cut their profit and make us have to think about the routes they fly. We are also not only operating on a 10x multiplier, but also purchasing the jets by high-interest loans to make things harder for us. The addition of Landing Fees (based on airport popularity and MLW) for airliners would make us have to think about what routes to add - e.g. picking a less-expensive regional airport for the jet, and connecting it to a more popular airport via a regional flight. Gate fees based on airport popularity and gate size would make us have to consider with which jet we'd service the route. Basically looking for more thought involved with airline management.

I understand that every feature should provide an experience for the user, however I would argue that as things currently stand, there very quickly comes a point where the experience stops all-together. Penguinair hit this point long before we asked for the reset - we did not think at all about management, and our experience on this platform was essentially MSFS with a number that goes up per flight. Our player activity dropped from ten pilots to basically...just me.
After Penguinair's reset, and with our added limitations, our player activity actually quadrupled - what I consider evidence that player engagement increases with difficulty.

Ultimately, it is from this perspective that I add a +1 to Yolowing's proposal of adding some kind of Hard Mode toggle to airlines that wish to have more of a challenge. It may also be worth considering a feature that allows the multiplier to be adjustable per fleet rather than per airline.

[joefremont]

I have an idea on landing fees, will post in a separate thread.

[cajunjosh]

It seems like increasing the number of lower level multiplier tiers all the way down to 1x would make it more challenging for the bigger outfits as they grow. Their income starts to fall but their aircraft and property expenses remain high so it can become more of a juggling act.

Would also be interesting to see a repair system added where the system added a % of failure likely value to an aircraft based on it's overall health. Say an aircraft with 100% gear, engines and hull have a 5% chance or requiring repair after a flight. As the health of things like the landing gear or engines go down the % chance of a failure within that area goes up. This chance of failure could be reduced by restoring the health of the aircraft through the various checks already available.

Once an aircraft requires repair an airline could chose to fly it without profit to one of their maintenance facilities or repair it on site for a fee with the choice of an immediate repair at a higher cost or a realistic time frame repair at a lesser cost.

The repair costs could be based on a random % say 1-5% of the value the total aircraft value. This would provide a more dynamic expense that airlines have to react to from time to time and a cost that would more impact the larger players vs the smaller guys with smaller aircraft.

[joefremont]

It seems like increasing the number of lower level multiplier tiers all the way down to 1x would make it more challenging for the bigger outfits as they grow. Their income starts to fall but their aircraft and property expenses remain high so it can become more of a juggling act.

This idea keeps coming up and we already had a thread on this open, I will expand in that thread.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10166

Would also be interesting to see a repair system added where the system added a % of failure likely value to an aircraft based on it's overall health. Say an aircraft with 100% gear, engines and hull have a 5% chance or requiring repair after a flight. As the health of things like the landing gear or engines go down the % chance of a failure within that area goes up. This chance of failure could be reduced by restoring the health of the aircraft through the various checks already available.

We sort of do that already, the as the status of the aircraft decreases it does increase the chance of a failure and a doing maintenance does reset it back to 100% and resets the chance of failure. We have not done mid level checks, something that would say increase the status by 1%? Not quite certain how we would fit that into our schedule.

Once an aircraft requires repair an airline could chose to fly it without profit to one of their maintenance facilities or repair it on site for a fee with the choice of an immediate repair at a higher cost or a realistic time frame repair at a lesser cost.

Quicker repair for more cost? I always though it would take so many hours to get the job done, and if it takes 5 mechanics 4 weeks, it will take 20 mechanics one week, but its still the same number of hours.

The repair costs could be based on a random % say 1-5% of the value the total aircraft value. This would provide a more dynamic expense that airlines have to react to from time to time and a cost that would more impact the larger players vs the smaller guys with smaller aircraft.

don't like random, but should be based on how there pilots perform, and with that hard landing the cost gets expensive.

[Zissiz Zekapten]

These are interesting issues and a global topic when we talk about real life modelisation and MMO games. And this is especially true for commercial aviation simulation, where players have a very unique mindset.

One of the ingenious solutions I came across is the FSAirlines "multiplier," which helps bridge the gap between a newly established company and a well-established one.

However in an economic simulation, particularly concerning commercial aviation, competition is an unavoidable aspect. And the multiplier being freely customizable, it breaks this competition on the long term. The "rule" should be unique for every company, and the "multiplier" should be hardcoded and function of the company assets.

It won't resolve the difference with old companies with billions. This is another common MMO issues : how to deal with rule changes

[cajunjosh]

We sort of do that already, the as the status of the aircraft decreases it does increase the chance of a failure and a doing maintenance does reset it back to 100% and resets the chance of failure. We have not done mid level checks, something that would say increase the status by 1%? Not quite certain how we would fit that into our schedule.

Are these very rare? I've never seen an aircraft that requires repair, only their annual checks. Can aircraft have random failures even when the pilots are operating them well and the health % is still high?

Quicker repair for more cost? I always though it would take so many hours to get the job done, and if it takes 5 mechanics 4 weeks, it will take 20 mechanics one week, but its still the same number of hours.

Assigning more mechanics to the "instant" repair could be the background justification but having the choice between saving money on a longer repair period vs spending extra to instantly get back into the game seems to go along with your general philosophy of not making the FSAirlines experience discouraging or prohibitive to flying. It's basically the same idea as the instant vs delayed aircraft transfer system applied to repairs.

don't like random, but should be based on how there pilots perform, and with that hard landing the cost gets expensive.

Wouldn't random repair costs be more immersive and realistic? Whether it's a hull, engine, or gear related repair not every aircraft will have the same maintenance issues with the same cost. It seems pretty realistic to expect that a repair could be very simple or quite complex and costly. The variety would add to the immersion. You could set hard limits to repair costs as a % of the total aircraft value so that they would never be devastating to smaller operations.

Basing the range of repairs as a % of the total value seems like a straightforward way to represent the realistic principal that repairs on a Cessna 172 are on average likely to be cheaper than that of a 787.

[joefremont]

Failures are based on the repair percent of the aircraft but if your above 98% they don't happen. The cost of a repair is based on the size of the aircraft rather than its value. You would expect a 737-400 to cost more to repair than a 737-700 even though the value of the -700 is higher as they are basically the same size, the older AC should cost more. I could see adding an interval check that say would increase repair status by 1% and cost 1/4 an A-check as long as the repair status of the AC is above 95%, this would not reset the requirement for the annual check of course. Biggest thing I would not like about random amounts is that you might get different answers on how much a repair on the same would cost when you ask at different times. Right now reopening how maintenance works in general would be fairly low on my list of priorities.

[jato0072]

What about an optional line item free form expenditure:



This screenshot is just a quick example I made using FSEconomy's game engine. Could you make a "free form" expense feature so VAs can simulate spending v$ on anything they want to simulate?

Another option is for a adventurous gaggle of virtual-pilots to start a VA in "hard mode" (1x ?) where players have to work together and make good financial decisions to keep the lights on. After the initial startup, I find FSAirlines loses any financial challenge. Once millions are made, it becomes a fancy logbook and persistent airframe tacker. I have tried to operate my own VA, but that was an exercise in loneliness.

[Alan McGaughey]

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that most airlines are probably 'owned' by their shareholders, who will require a substantial return on their investment each year, these dividends could wipe out massive amounts of an airlines profits whilst allowing them enough reserve capital to continue their operations... Perhaps the shareholders might even be the pilots? I'd have to leave the working details to someone with more brains than me but food for thought...

[joefremont]

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that most airlines are probably 'owned' by their shareholders, who will require a substantial return on their investment each year, these dividends could wipe out massive amounts of an airlines profits whilst allowing them enough reserve capital to continue their operations... Perhaps the shareholders might even be the pilots? I'd have to leave the working details to someone with more brains than me but food for thought...

We had mentioned a possible 'tax' on income, and a dividend payment could possibly accomplish the same thing and would not have to be linked to profit, airline just has too many assets and the BOD decides they need to pay a dividend. Stockmarket and shareholders I have always seen problematic, stock market could become a giant slush fund for financial shenanigans, ultimately the primary power shareholders have is to pick the company president and we would not want to create a system where the founder of an airline is booted from there own VA by 'investors'

[joefremont]

What about an optional line item free form expenditure:



This screenshot is just a quick example I made using FSEconomy's game engine. Could you make a "free form" expense feature so VAs can simulate spending v$ on anything they want to simulate?

Another option is for a adventurous gaggle of virtual-pilots to start a VA in "hard mode" (1x ?) where players have to work together and make good financial decisions to keep the lights on. After the initial startup, I find FSAirlines loses any financial challenge. Once millions are made, it becomes a fancy logbook and persistent airframe tacker. I have tried to operate my own VA, but that was an exercise in loneliness.

I was going to say that I was not sure how popular this idea would be and lets see how many second the motion, but then Alan brings up the idea of 'dividend' payments and your idea of a random payment overlaps. Having a page where the VA could pay a 'divided' to the stock holders would not be difficult, the money would go into a payment transaction and leave the VA and disappear into the either, never to return.

Your example shows an insurance payment, and while I have often discounted the idea of insurance as a ticket to crash without consequences, lf you look at automobile insurance (at least in California) there are different parts to it, there is the part that repairs your vehicle and the part that pays for the damage you do to others. We could require insurance but it would be the liability insurance that pays for what you hit and could be used as a property tax, maybe required if your assets are above a given level.

You do mention 'hard mode', currently we have 'advanced finance' mode as apposed to the 'basic' mode, which allows things like leasing, loans, maintenance centers. Would we need a third mode? basic advanced and hard or just the two basic and advanced?

Not saying I am going to do this right now, my immediate priorities are the client update, a server upgrade (still using. a 2016 system) and the landing fees so we will see how motivated I am after that.

[jato0072]

You do mention 'hard mode'

FSEconomy has voluntary, self imposed ways to spend extra v$ to simulate various expenses one might encounter running a business in real life. A free form would be voluntary and leave it up to the player's imagination. Hopefully it would be easy to code.

One unpopular route would be to fix the income multiplier at a set value and apply it to all FSA players. FSEconomy does not have multiplier and everyone has to grind away to make v$.