what should be done next? (client)

You are missing something, or have a cool idea for us ? Tell us here !

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

I want...

a improved failure-system
15
21%
a module for direct access inside FS
11
15%
to be able to do refuel-stops
15
21%
the ability to resume flights after system-crash
17
23%
more rating criteria ( beacon, \strobe, ... )
5
7%
a chat
2
3%
something else (please make a post with a description)
8
11%
 
Total votes: 73

User avatar
cmdrnmartin
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:54 am
Location: CYWG

Post by cmdrnmartin » Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:24 am

Heck, I paid 2.5$ for Overland's 744, and it completely thrashes the POSKY.

And it works with FLynet.

But yes, PMDG support is on the to do list for flynet.
Image
Image

vaccaro
Captain
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:03 pm

Post by vaccaro » Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:00 am

Voted for "something else"
* a multiple stop option would be nice (like LTBJ - LTCG via LTBA). I don't know if that would be possible also to implement a partial cargo/pax loading and pricing such as:
Flight is via somewhere. So I load lets say 70 pax of which 50 to the final destination and 20 to the stopover point. Those who fly to the final destination pays X v$ for a ticket, while pax flying to the stopover airport or from that airport to the final destination pays Y v$.
Cheers,

tall_guy_pete

Post by tall_guy_pete » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:11 am

Options I chose:

- a module for direct access inside FS
- to be able to do refuel-stops

The inside module would be most helpful ... especirally to those who have lower system specs.

I like the idea of being able to refuel stops on long haul flights.

I like the idea of more criteria but would prefer it if the percentage was less for each option that was not forfilled at a correct time.

ALSO >>> improvements on current criteria .. i.e. say i exceeded 250 knots on my climb ... but i also did it on my descent; I think you should be penerlised for both incidents rather than just the one.

ADDED:
- Add a "grounded" flag for each pilot. When a pilot crashes he is automatically grounded until the CEO or someone from the VA's managerial staff removed the restriction from the pilot. This will protect VAs from happy crashers, either by lack of slills or by intention (...)
Wouldn't say this exactly, but would love to see sort of suspension kit on the members account.

Just thought of this one >>> Would it be at all possible to improve the way we assign aircraft ratings to the members. Rather than members to each aircraft ... I'd prefer to be able to select which all aircraft type ratings at once rather than scrolling through each one and getting lost all the time :?

Pete 8)

IslandBum
Captain
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:36 am
Location: The middle of a bloody desert - surrounded by bright lights, long legged women and Paupers
Contact:

Post by IslandBum » Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:03 am

Pete

Finally a employee "interference" policy I can agree with - maybe "Grounded pending investigation" and the ability to assign
training flights that are monitorable?


Leif

Of course the singleton operators would scream because they'd be penalizing themselves.

In truth we have had our share of crashes and subsequent lowering of airline points = but I must say the guys who fly for
are mature enough to police themselves and find and fix their flying problems....In fact Im very pleased at the perfect
record that many of VHAs pilots maintain.
Ho'olu komo la kaua
Leif Harding
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Venture Hawaii PLC

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2253
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Post by joefremont » Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:39 am

My votes for the next things to do to the client are:

- Refueling stops,
- More flight information in the PIREP (landing speed, repuation changes),
- Automatic suspending of non officer pilots who crash.
Image

User avatar
avalonceo
Flight Attendant
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: St. John's, NL
Contact:

Post by avalonceo » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:30 pm

The refuelling stops is not as important to me as is "beefing up" if you will, the economic/management model. So that places my vote on the auto-ban (not to be confused with the auto-bahn) and maybe some more economic options. Like instead of VA's automatically getting "gates" they need to apply or at least rent them (at a dynamic rate that is proportionate to demand) having VA's declare "hubs" where they would have more preference to services over other airlines (i.e your aircraft get serviced first if other airlines await repair) rental of terminal space for cargo and passengers, ability to buy stocks and "takeover" other airlines or invest in upcoming airlines so that they thrive and you make money. All of these options i beleive are in the heart of what flynet could be, and as i realise these things take time, for now auto grounding and a grounding system would be really convenient.
Image

HS1

Post by HS1 » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:43 pm

I, too, would like to see more economic options, as I see FlyNET principally as an economic simulation model. I like the idea of gate leasing fees, landing fees, and other such expenses.

SJDobby
Ticket Agent
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 12:28 pm

Ability to limit ZFW for long-hauls

Post by SJDobby » Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:50 am

It would be great if we could optionally put a limit on the ZFW for a flight.

Yesterday I flew a Calgary to Heathrow flight in a 767-300ER (perfectly reasonable within the range of the aircraft) but the ZFW I was allocated meant that my maximum fuel allowance was 55.5T. This was very close to the required fuel for the trip, and as it turned out I used a lower-than-usual cost-index and 2000ft step climbs to maximise my range. I eventually landed with 1100kg of fuel.

I'm going to in the meantime increase the ticket prices for my 767 long-hauls to try and reduce the passenger numbers (thereby reducing my ZFW) but I'm not sure this will have much effect. An option to say "set ZFW limit to [xxx]" as part of the "Fly Booked Flight" page in the client would be ideal.
FSA Director, UK Direct Airways
http://www.ukdirectva.co.uk
ImageImage

User avatar
ALT2024
Flight Attendant
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:49 pm
Location: Kuwait

Post by ALT2024 » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:19 pm

Hi

My FlyNET career is on hold at the moment and I miss it. I'd like to resume but don't want the frustration of vanishing fuel. RFP is my favourite aircraft and no client since 3b has worked with it. I'd like to see a change to the fuelling in the client, so that 'compare' mode does not interfere with the fuel in the tanks, just observes it. At the moment, every RFP flight I try crashes because all the fuel vanishes from the inboard mains during cruise.
Rob ALT2024/FRA101
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:44 pm

Rob, I know that Claudio is working on it, but I can tell you now that it's not the fueling that is the source of the problem. There is something else causing the problem, and sadly, I think it has to do with the way RFP is programmed. It is not programmed 100% in accordance with the MS SDK and as such, there are problems that crop up when you try to run 3rd party programs with it. We are going to put together a plan to test some of these payware aircraft more extensively, but right now things are in a holding pattern. We do know that there is an issue and we are working on it, but it does take time.
Image

User avatar
ALT2024
Flight Attendant
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:49 pm
Location: Kuwait

Post by ALT2024 » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:31 pm

Thanks for the explanation, Christopher. Much appreciated. Mayhap I should wean myself off that 742 with all its seductive switches and knobs (don't you just love the heavy click those switch covers make?) and roll out my PMDG 744 instead. I hear PMDG works OK in 'compare' mode now.
Rob ALT2024/FRA101
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:16 pm

As you say, the RFP 747-200 is an amazing piece of work. I would suggest maybe trying the POSKY 747-200 with a freeware panel (there are several out there) in the meantime until we can see if there is any way to get RFP and FlyNET to work harmoniously.
Image

Myrm
Flight Attendant
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: Living in a giant ants nest in Sweden

Post by Myrm » Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:25 pm

The ability to be able to delete batches of flightplans at once. I have a few I want to delete and I am having to delete them one by one; a very slow, laborious job.
Myrm

"Glöm inte vår Tobias" (In memory of Tobias Enroth 1999-2007)

Image

Post Reply