VA Audits and 'fairplay'

Post by **Quantum** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:05 pm

Hi Guys,

Re DaKurt's post here : http://flynet.en-studios.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1788

Maybe some sort of 'audit/fairplay' procedure could be put in place. All CEO's should monitor their pilot's logs and if any use of 'unlimited fuel' is detected then the pilot in question should be asked to refrain from this sort behaviour. I have noticed some very blatant misuse of the fuel system AND slew modes. I didn't know Airbus aircraft were quicker than an SR71 ! Recently one VA had four flights in succession that earned @ v$200 million per flight with very short flight times for the distances involved. No fuel was purchased for these flights and block fuels recorded were zero! This flies against the whole concept of the inbuilt economic model that Konny and DaKurt have built with the help and support of established FlyNET users. What we need is a team of Auditors who can 'inspect the accounts' of any VA at any time. Let's face it, they're available to anyone already but there is no procedure to deal with abuse.

Any flight which shows unrealistic fuel purchase vs block fuel and flight times vs distance should be investigated for 'fairplay'. If it is shown/decided that fairplay has not been upheld then the flight should be removed from the database and records adjusted as if the flight never existed.

Fleets status should be regularly monitored specifically looking for aircraft that have a record of flying but have zero fuel in the tanks. This is also a way of confirming the fairplay status of individual flights.

As to what action should be taken specifically to 'penalise' VA's for their actions is up for debate but I think it should be possible to re-possess and scrap aircraft that have been used 'illegally'. Fines should be imposed equal to or above whatever revenue have been gained illegally. VA's that persist with this activity should be under a notice of warning with possible action of liquidation and ban from FyNET.

Now, this all may sound rather harsh but to be honest I think that certain VA's need a shake-up to get their house in order. What is the point of building a VA if it's been built illegally. Flying around the world in a Boeing or Airbus logging flight times at Mach 4 or beyond using the equivalent of Cessna fuel or zero fuel burn just to put a huge amount of dollars in the bank doesn't prove anything other than immaturity. The attraction of FlyNET is the economic model but it makes it a farce when the activities of a minority brings the reputation of FlyNET down.

At the end of the day we are flight simmers who I think are here to enjoy their flying with an added edge. So let's get down to the important business of flying and stop the 'cheating'. It is the responsibilty of ALL pilots to behave as gentlemen and not let FlyNET build a reputation of being the place where you can cheat the system and no-one gives a damn. FlyNET will lose credibilty and I for one would not like to see that happen but the rot is already starting to set in.

So what can we do ? We can impose a 'Big Brother' who will watch us all or we can make the CEO's accountable for their pilot's actions. In my opinion the second option is the better as we must make FlyNET a place where we can live in trust with one another.

ACT NOW and get your house in order !

Rgds

John

IslandBum · Post by **IslandBum** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:22 pm

Thank you John
I will second that , its grieved me for a while. I will say this in defence of the folks who have decided to throw their lot in with me, Its more about challenging our own abilities as "pilots" than earning virtual dollars or "prestige" - Im not sure how Konny and Kurt can police this problem other than totally restricting the client to reject any of this sort of stupidity - the simplest way is to have the client register anything like slewing, or maniulation of fuel scalars outside realistic parameters or some of the other "cheats" as a crash - and penalising the pilot and the carrier

Like many things today seems people want the quickest easiest way , that being the case I see no reason why they would want to fly within the Flynet umbrella.

Ill take my soap box and be off now - I have a 737 to ferry from MUC-KEF.

Leif

ivanT3 · Post by **ivanT3** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:10 pm

Just a Line Pilot weighing in on this.. I must admit. I do not understand the value of cheating in this way. If someone thinks they can build an Airline empire via this method, they're wrong. What's the point?.. I thought the point was to add a new dimension to MSFS using flynet by making new challenges. I flew EDDV-to EGLL last night and planed my fuel so I had about one Half Hour fuel Holding plus enough to make one of two alternates. This was easy enough but I could have just as easily screwed it up. My fuel use was forward in my mind as I started down from cruise. This is why I'm here!! To have new things to think about while I fly.

Do those who cheat feel they will be able to proudly point to their huge pile of money and say "Look here!! Look what I have Built! I'm a Brilliant Business Mind"

.. Well, it's clear that you can be found out.. and have been found out.

I don't want new incoming folk's to wonder when they look at my stats whether or not I've earned them.I don't want them to say "well, I would have joined but, I don't know if they're legit" I want people to think that to come here and open an Airline or be a Pilot, you have to play by the rules..

Question: Isn't it more fun to learn, right down to the Kg ,if you can, what a 23 kt head wind will do to your airspeed and in turn, your flight time This of course turning into more fuel burn? Don't you want to know this stuff? I do..

Just my 2 cents, Less Tax.............

Ivan..............................

P.S. Just one more thought.. In all areas of Life. Cheaters suck

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:14 pm

The problem is LEif, that most of them are chasing the statistics.

They want to move up the VA ladder fast, have a fleet of 200 747s, and be done with it.

I think a Forum Blacklist, where people can submit VA's for review (not necessarily guilty of cheating) could be reviewed by the Admins. At this time, there is too much data to really notice abuse of the system, at least, I can't individually. If members wanted to go through the data and sort it, I see no reason to stop them.

However, what do we do after that? Quantums system seems good, but no offense to you Quantum, mistakes could be made, and then we have angry users. Heck, we'd have angry users evgen if they were cheating. Some of these Users are in the 12-13 yr old range, and some are older but act as if they were. This is not to disparage all younger ages, some are quite mature, but it only takes a few rottens to spoil it for the rest of us. Anyways, back on track, what do we do? I think CEOs can be aware of the irregularites, and even doing it themselves. Leaving it up to them is not an option for some VA's.

I think, since these are stats chasers, we start attacking the problem there. Total net worth should not be updated on the database page, except quarterly. It should be updated and freely availible to members, of the VA when they are logged in. FLights flown with no fuel in the tanks, should have a -25% effect on flight rating, and a reputation hit of 10 on the airline itself. Flights going empty in flight (poor fuel planning) should have a -15% impact of flight rating, and -5 reputation for the airline.

This way, continued abuse will be weeded out by the system, it will stop the statschasers (as they watch their flight rating plummet) and CEOS will have to take immediate action before the reputation of the airline drops to the point where they will not receive any passenger loads.

Admittedly this doesnt solve the slewing issue, but the anti-cheat feature (still under development) will nail that one pretty ahrd when it is perfected.

Cheers.

Post by **Quantum** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:44 pm

Hi Justin,

Some good ideas there. If the client could recognise and act on that sort of thing that would be great. The client does monitor the fuel state onboard the aircraft, so like you say, if a flight were to show zero fuel in the tanks and the engines are still running then it should have some affect on the pilot rep, VA rep and earnings. It's just such a bloody shame that a number of pilots/VA's actions are creating this debate in the first place. CEO's should take on the responsibility of monitoring their pilots activities and if any CEO is guilty of similar activity then sterner action should be taken. Maybe this thread will make those guys think about and reflect on what they are doing and why they are here at FlyNET...and then again maybe not

We should respect the hard work and time that Konny, DaKurt, the admins and a lot of other people behind the scenes are putting in to this programme and website and not kick them in the teeth by abuse of loopholes in the system.

Rgds

John

Post by **joefremont** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:39 pm

Detecting zero fuel in the tanks might not be enough to detect zero fuel usage as some aircraft have minimum amounts fuel per tank that it can't go below (like DM's VC10) so what the client is going to have to check for is change in fuel amount. If it noticed no change in fuel level in 5 minutes of flying time then that should be enough.

I did not know that slewing was such a problem. I think an easy fix would be for the client to detect when slewing is turned on and remember the aircraft current position, if when slewing is turned off it could eather 1) reset the aircrafts possition back to what it was before slewing was turned on or 2) reset the flight status to 'booked' and the pilot would have to redo the flight.

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:01 pm

Hey Joe, these methods are not aimed at 'realistic' procedures for all aircraft, but for eliminating abuses in the system. Those who choose to fly the VC-10 probably arn't those who are not filling up their tanks in the first place.

As to slewing, that's not the only way to do it. The anti-cheat has to take into account quite a few methods, not limited to just slewing. I won't post the other methods here, since we don't want to be giving ideas to the 'kiddies'.

I think this is a serious issue, and the staff will be talking over the best way to eliminate abuse and exploits from the system.

ALT2024 · Post by **ALT2024** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:58 pm

This is a great thread and I concur with the opinions expressed within it. I don't think I know of anyone who's been involved in any 'nasty' sort of cheating, but I believe that some pilots may have used the zero-fuel trick as a means of recouping 'bad luck' losses incurred by machines crashing etc. However, I am not condoning use of the zero-fuel trick.

I think Justin's suggestion of penalising VAs for landing on dry tanks is a very good one, in keeping with RW procedures. After all, the zero-fuel trick is just TOO tempting as a way of making big v$ quickly, I believe. And there's a fine line between exploiting what is, let's face it, a loophole in the system, and blatant cheating. It's a kind of 'boys will be boys' thing. Like I said, it needs to be stopped, but given that the loophole is there, it's difficult to be too hard on those who have used it.

I'd be fine with the idea of removing VAs' profit on zero-fuel flights already made, and I'd be even finer with Justin's proposals. To summarise, I'd say to those who've used the zero-fuel trick: OK lads, you've had your fun, now let's play fair.

Alky · Post by **Alky** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:06 am

I'm no programmer but I know slewing and map-moving can be detected by the client if programmed. Over at the other economy based add-on they plugged up this kind of abuse for all of the above reasons.

Growler · Post by **Growler** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:45 am

I'm totally in agreement with anything that stops "Get Rich Quick" abuse of the system.
What I can't understand is, why anyone who would find their way into communities like Flynet or Fse, ever be interested in cheating the "system"?
I play this game like I play golf. I've never cheated at golf in my life. (I'd only be cheating myself.)

Post by **cmdrnmartin** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:12 am

Growler, you'd be surprised. The flight Sim community has the same jealous 13-19 year old crowd made up of petulant teens, same as any other PC game in existence today. In a FPS they are called cheaters, etc. In MMORPG they are beards or Griefers. Some Virtual Airlines, and as an example I'll use the infamous MSA, can devolve because groups of these fools clamor together and attack any one who thinks differently then them.

In FS, there are less of them around, as a whole, but they still exist. I call them statchasers, people who want to be at the top, with unrealistic fleets, composed of the 900 B747s so that they can fly from KJFK to KLGA in there (mommy-bought PMDG 747) and call themselves the greatest pilots ever.

I just try to ignore them, but in this case, with an economic system, it is impossible to.

anz102 · Post by **anz102** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:16 am

Bravo chaps! With such good attitudes amongst the many, the minority will hopefully be easier to spot.
You have my word that no pilots under my wing will be operating in such a fashion. I review every flight we make, and can happily and proudly say we've never cheated down here in New Zealand, and shall be very happy if the powers that be find new ways to rat out cheaters.

Quantum summed it up best for me:
"It is the responsibilty of ALL pilots to behave as gentlemen"

Cheating is not only disrespecting the system you are here to enjoy, but also your fellow friends and pilots who work so hard to make a buck. Cheating only disrespects their efforts, and like anyone flying properly, I find that quite offensive.

Three cheers to all who do it by the book

ALT2024 · Post by **ALT2024** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:56 am

Absolutely right, gentlemen. Cheating spoils any game. But as I said before, I can understand the motivation of 'zero-fuel' dodgers, keen to clear a deficit caused by a system glitch (it happens), better than I can understand the motivation of those who cheat at golf (that's just plain nasty). Let's face it: if a struggling RW airline found a way of getting their fuel for nothing, would they back off and say, "No, we aren't interested; it wouldn't be fair to our competitors, and we'd only be cheating ourselves?"

As I said, I don't condone the zero-fuel dodge. But we need to plug the loophole, and then we won't need to spend time soul-searching re. the motivation/morals of 'offenders'.

Just my 2 penn'orth. And this is still a great thread.

ivanT3 · Post by **ivanT3** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:54 am

For what it's worth, I doubt we are talking about folks who are keen to clear a deficit caused by a system glitch.. And yes, just speaking generally, the reason I'm not in jail right now is because I'm not interested in stealing Gas because it would be unfair to my competitors. {other buyers} and it WOULD be cheating myself.

I know, It's not Real, indeed but the principal applies. What fun would it be with out that?

ALT2024 · Post by **ALT2024** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:17 am

ivanT3 wrote:For what it's worth, I doubt we are talking about folks who are keen to clear a deficit caused by a system glitch

In some cases we are, believe me!

I'm aware that there are many other cases too.

ivanT3 wrote:.. And yes, just speaking generally, the reason I'm not in jail right now is because I'm not interested in stealing Gas because it would be unfair to my competitors. {other buyers} and it WOULD be cheating myself.

I know, It's not Real, indeed but the principal applies. What fun would it be with out that?

Ah, but I wasn't talking about stealing gas. I was talking about what a RW airline might do if they discovered a supply of free gas. A similar analogy would be an airline that had planes that didn't need gas at all. I think a RW airline might be only too happy to use such miraculous machines, and wouldn't feel they were breaking a principle by doing so.

But let me repeat... dodging buying fuel on FlyNET is a bad thing. It needs to be stopped. But it would be easier to stop it if the system made it disadvantageous, not very financially attractive, to dodge buying fuel.