Question (Konny)

[Wolfar100]

How hard or easy would it be to penalize pilots for failing to turn on the de-icers? When outside temp goes below 0c then they get a penalty, when outside temp say goes above 8c then they get a penalty for not turning it off.

The same question to too steep of a bank, dive, and climb angle causing passenger frustration and fear.

Hard landings say over 500FPM should also have an effect on the pilots rating and the airlines rating.

How about the fasten seat belt? Could implement another penalty here for not turning it on and off. Hard call here though because if you hit turbulent weather then you got to turn it back on.

What about turning on navigation lights and such?

[Safari Air]

got some good ideas, but the seat belt one would be hard because not all panels have a seat belt sign. But if FS had this in every panel that would be a good idea.

I hope to see some of these

[Wolfar100]

Thought of some more. I think that the more penalties the better pilot everyone will be. Most virtual pilots would be forced to make a checklist and not depend on their memories.

Landing gear deployed over _____ knots. This would be a penalty and cause gear damage.
Flaps deployed more than 20% over _____ knots. This would be a penalty and cause hull damage.

[Safari Air]

the landing gear and flaps idea sounds great.

[CAPFlyer]

We need to be careful how many and how hard we hit on penalties. A lot of the users on here are here because it's a happy medium between stock MS and something much more heavy like FSPassengers (although some run both FlyNET and FSPassengers at the same time).

The landing gear and flaps issue is something that is dealt with in the sim. It is very difficult to setup the program to do penalties based off of landing gear damage and flap damage since there may be 5 or 6 versions of the same plane out there and not all of them will have the same speeds set for that damage to occur. As well, if we setup the damage to occur based on the client readouts, we'll have problems because of those same variances in models.

De-Icers - Why penalize them? If they fail to do it, everything ices up and they either fix it or they crash. If they crash, they get penalized, so why hit them twice? Real pilots forget to turn on the pitot heaters and ice protection systems on occasion and there usually isn't any penalty, so why penalize them here? Also, just because the ambient temp may be above 8*C doesn't mean that the ice protection systems should be turned off. You can get pitot icing at 24*C if there's visible moisture. You can get carburetor icing at up to 30*C in the right conditions as well. Some aircraft specify that their engine anti-icing equipment has to be active at any temp below +10*C due to air supercooling due to compression as it enters the inlet (RR Dart and Tyne engines are the main two engines where this is especially prevalent).

Hard landings - I agree that maybe there should be a pilot penalty for it, but not an airline. They already get penalized - extra repair costs.

Lights - No. In fact, the general consensus is that lights should be removed from penalties all together becuase of the differing operational constraints used. Some of the VAs are replicating 1950-1960 era operations where the rules were quite different from today. For example, landing lights weren't used during the day until the 1970s, nor were navigation lights. It's only jetliners became the normal mode of air transportation that a lot of the rules came into play and it would be unfair to those VAs wishing to operate in earlier times to have to conform to all of the modern rules.

[Wolfar100]

Would it then be possible to make a FlyNET (LITE) and one for more serious sim jockies?

All your doing in the database is creating triggers. I have a small bit of programing experience myself.

But if it is to much work then forget it.

[UKD192]

I feel we are trying to turn FlyNET into an on-line FS Passengers.

As CAPFlyer has said, different aircraft have different operating parameters, and what would rip the flaps off one, would be normal operating procedures for another. We need to look at things that are common to all aircraft, (like the nav lights you mentioned, heavy landings etc). There are still plenty of penalty points to be had.

I fly as many of our FlyNET flights on VATSIM as I can (added tension! ), and some times you need to take avoiding action if a controller has his hands full with a wayward Pilot ! So I would not be too pleased if I was docked a couple of points for pulling up too steep, or turning too steep if there was a TCAS alert and I had to take avoiding action.

My own personal slant on this, is that more programming should be done to sort out the fuel issue. I still see many 'Heavies' crossing the Atlantic using only 16,800 lbs (8,000 Kg [ish]) of fuel. This makes the stats look a bit silly, as I like to see how and where the competition is coming along, and some of the competition seem to be able to fly on fumes
Let us see what Konny and DaKurt have in store for us this year.

Cheers now
Rob

[Wolfar100]

My question still stands, Is it passable to have a FlyNET light and a FlyNET harder for those that want it?

[DanKH]

Would it then be possible to make a FlyNET (LITE) and one for more serious sim jockies?

Hmm. I wouldn't consider the participants of CBFS lesser serious flight simmers, more the contrary, but many of your suggestions seems to be pointed at newer aircraft users.

I see FlyNET as an all-round platform that has to give room for more or less everybody regardless of their preferred aircraft types.

Fasten seatbelts penalty? What about freighters?

Landing gear deployment? Tell me how to retract the landing gear on eg. a Cessna?

So I'm backing Chris' up on this one. Too many constrains would devaluate the meaning of FlyNET.

I do not say that you are not entitled to throw any restrictions upon yourself you may like. But wheter you like it or not, they do not comply with the whole community as a general.

Heck we might see a VA that only uses Bleriots.....what would they do? .... They would even have problems with FlyNET as it is now (no lights....)

[Wolfar100]

Ok I concede the idea.