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

FsNovice

Post by FsNovice » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:35 am

Ionathan wrote:I have also voted for the "resume flight" but I have some additional suggestions in mind:

- 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 (...)

- Insurances. A CEO should have the option to insure an aircraft and if he chooses to do so, an amount, depended on the aircraft's size will be subtracted from each flight's profit.
I second those quoted above.

pete999

Post by pete999 » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:55 am

I think they all sounds great

BUT....

With the insurance i think you should have to pay monthly not on a flight you do!

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2452
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Post by joefremont » Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:35 pm

What I would like in the client is more information on the screen when you select fly booked flight, maybe something like this.

Code: Select all

Flight       : PS8110
From         : KSFO
To           : PHNL
Distance     : 2085nm
AC Type      : Lockheed L-1011-1
Aircraft     : N10112

Passengers   : [___251] 0-251  (zero to what flynet calculated)
Cargo        : [__5431] 0-5431 (zero to what flynet calculated)
Fuel         : [_35000] 5431-76512 (what was left over from the last flight to aircraft max).
Do not change fuel [_] (if checked fuel is calculated based on what is already on aircraft).

Estimated Revenue
Ticket Income: 251 x 239v$               =  59989v$
Fuel cost    : 1.25v$ x 1.234 x 29569kg  = -45610v$
Crew catering:                           =  -1255v$
Cargo income : 0.11/100 * 2085nm * 5431kg=  12456v$
Pilot Salary : 10%                       =  -2558v$
---------------------------------------------------
Total                                    =  23022v$
Image

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

Post by CAPFlyer » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:35 pm

I don't think that's all useful information. Firstly, why would we want the pilots worrying about how much the flight is going to make? If they see that no matter what they're going to loose money, what's to keep them from canceling the flight instead of flying it? The other parts would be okay, but then again, most of that information is on the Briefing document that is generated when you book the flight and can re-generate if you book it and then fly it a while later. Maybe we should add in the Fuel on board in the Briefing Document instead?

Also, the "do not change fuel" is kinda redundant. You still have got go to the fuel page and it already automatically puts in whatever number exists on the aircraft into that box so all you have to do is click "okay" to get that fuel in the plane for no charge, so why have to okay it twice when you need to go to the second page anyway under the new fueling scheme that Konny is working on?
Image

pedropolo

pedropolo

Post by pedropolo » Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:16 am

I have also voted for the "resume flights after system crash" and have had to cancel and re-book flights.

Other The booked aren't 24 Hours should be reduced to take off within 3 hours


____________________________________
Pedro Agudelo CEO
ISLEÑA DE AVIACION COLOMBIA

Image Image[quote][/quote]

Ionathan
Captain
Posts: 494
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Ionathan » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:06 pm

pete999 wrote:I think they all sounds great

BUT....

With the insurance i think you should have to pay monthly not on a flight you do!
In real life yes and it would be no problem for a real airline which flies day by day, or at least on a constant basis. If this was implemented on a monthly basis in FlyNET it would force people to keep flying in order not to loose money and we want FlyNET to be a mean for relaxation and fun instead of an additional obligation in our lives. Isn't it so?
CEO
Ionathan Airlines

Image

DaveB
Flight Attendant
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:18 pm

Post by DaveB » Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:43 am

I think that's a fair comment Nikos. We're not trying to be the 'cut and thrust.. dagger in the back' real world airline world.. more a representation of it :wink:

I think the latest 'co pilot' response to lights up (or down) too early/late is a bit of a waste of time too.. ok for the hard of hearing I suppose but for the rest, the end result is the same.

Regards

DaveB
Image

PlutonianEmpire

Post by PlutonianEmpire » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:00 am

DaveB wrote:I think that's a fair comment Nikos. We're not trying to be the 'cut and thrust.. dagger in the back' real world airline world.. more a representation of it :wink:

I think the latest 'co pilot' response to lights up (or down) too early/late is a bit of a waste of time too.. ok for the hard of hearing I suppose but for the rest, the end result is the same.

Regards

DaveB
What about the hard of hearing? (i'm hard of hearing too, so that's why i ask)

tpnavas

Post by tpnavas » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:37 am

Hi
Althought I voted for refuel stops, I think that it would be interesting to take into account the alternative airports, if for some reason I can´t land in my destination and I have to go to an alternative, what happens?
thanks for this fantastic program!

Image

FsNovice

Post by FsNovice » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:47 am

i think the ability to make an emergency landing, if failures kick in would be a great feature, but i remember it has already been metioned somewhere here on the forums

DaveB
Flight Attendant
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:18 pm

Post by DaveB » Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:01 pm

Eugene wrote:
What about the hard of hearing? (i'm hard of hearing too, so that's why i ask)
Me too on one side so I guess the visual warning stops the 'did I just hear a bong' problem :wink:

Regards

DaveB
Image

AK Cargo Pilot

Post by AK Cargo Pilot » Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:36 am

For the PMDG 744/744F to work with FlyNet, would really be nice, because untill then I cant really fly on here because all I own is a 744F.

tallmike

Post by tallmike » Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:37 am

The PMDG problem is I think a priority. I am at present sitting on enough cash to buy two 747's but wont part with my money unless I can use the PMDG.
I cant imagine this being to difficult to implement. Please, Please.......LOL.

If you are going to implement a strobes rating....remember that on most paywares the strobes are automatic and turn on when the gear isnt compressed ie - airbourne. When you touch down they turn off as the suspension compresses.

This is a great program and I like the idea of the voting on changes that will possibly be implemented. I hope to be here for some time to come, and look forward to seeing the changes when they happen.

Mike
CEO (IFC)

PlutonianEmpire

Post by PlutonianEmpire » Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:40 am

Can't you guys use POSKY's 747? :?
Last edited by PlutonianEmpire on Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

tallmike

Post by tallmike » Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:53 am

PlutonianEmpire wrote:Can't you guys yous POSKY's 747? :?
After paying $55 for the PMDG........NO......lol.

Theres no comparison.

Mike.

Post Reply