Starting Money Choices

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:05 pm

Here's an idea -

When a VA is started, the CEO could have 3 options to choose from - Easy, Medium, and Hard.

Easy - v$20 Million and 1000x Multiplier

Medium - v$10 Million and 500x Multiplier

Hard - v$5 Million and 250x Multiplier

This lets CEOs have a little more say in how they start up.

BigQ · Post by **BigQ** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:48 am

I actually like that idea...

HS1 · Post by **HS1** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:24 pm

I can see how it would appeal in a program with a more arcade-orientated focus. However, it wouldn't get my vote on FlyNET - which, I believe, is already well-balanced between accessibility and realism. If its already successful, there's no reason to change it.

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:37 pm

Yes, but how many REAL WORLD airlines start with v$25 Million? For that fact, how many real airlines start with any substantial money? Most don't. Most get enough capital (a few million at most) to get loans to buy their aircraft and operating equipment. This way is a pretty fair compromise. Not only that, but I know some CEOs don't like the high multiplier and I don't think that we'll always have the manual multiplier edit function. This way you can set both items yourself but not overly complicate the programming.

HS1 · Post by **HS1** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:32 pm

Then I would say a loans-based system would be better. It has been discussed before, and it would allow increased realism whilst still allowing the invidivual VA to decide their own level of difficulty.

Post by **joefremont** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:42 pm

I agree that a loan based system would be better. Maybe to encourage new pilots to join other airlines before starting there own we could limit the amount they can borrow based on how many flights they have flown. (perhaps 1 million per successful flight).

Post by **DaKurt** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:41 pm

well, I think that the system is currently too easy. we try to keep everything quite comfortable in this beta testing phase. it is currently quite easy to get millions of dollars. in real life you have to fight to get your money...keep ticket prices low and so on. I think of FlyNET as a realistic economic world where it shouldn't be too easy to get much money. My opinion is, that this will change in future. the more flynet advances to a nice unbugged software the more you will have to work for your money. but don't be scared. we'll look for a nice balancing

Wolfar100 · Post by **Wolfar100** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:07 pm

DaKurt wrote:well, I think that the system is currently too easy. we try to keep everything quite comfortable in this beta testing phase. it is currently quite easy to get millions of dollars. in real life you have to fight to get your money...keep ticket prices low and so on. I think of FlyNET as a realistic economic world where it shouldn't be too easy to get much money. My opinion is, that this will change in future. the more flynet advances to a nice unbugged software the more you will have to work for your money. but don't be scared. we'll look for a nice balancing

Funny that you mention this. I have been at it for about a month now. I have a fleet of 15 aircraft and just bought a 747 plus I have 80v$ million in the bank. My airline is currently ranked number 10 in the stats page for PAX miles flown.

I have noticed that many members are reluctant to change for the harder. This has been an observation by myself after posting a few ideas that would make it harder. I feel that if things are too easy then the fun factor goes away.

One thing that I would like to see implemented is a ding for not keeping your flight time within a reasonable limit. IE I can set a flight to take 3 hours that only takes 45 minutes and I get no penalty. This would force airlines to make practice runs or be very good at guessing arrival times. REAL airlines are ranked by arrival times and the public chooses the airline with the best on time record.

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:27 pm

It's not that we're against making it harder, it's that we're against nit-picky penalties. A lot of the things you've brought up require a lot of excess programming to make it work fairly for everyone because of the differences between different FS models of the same aircraft (i.e. someone using the PMDG 737 vice the Vistaliners 737) or are items that aren't regulations but company policies and not always applicable to all airplanes. Something like what you propose with the "on-time rating" is definitely something doable. In fact, I've suggested that the flight times be automated in the past since we choose what airplane flies that route and each airplane should have its cruise speed imputted when it was added to the database, then the system should be able to calculate the "reasonable" flight time. While you (the CEO or Fleet Manager, or whatever) can set the departure time, the system will then set the arrival time automatically based off your given departure time and the selected aircraft. Of course it'll give you a built-in "fudge" factor of 10 or 15 minutes since the actual flight time from A to B isn't as simple as taking the distance and dividing by the cruise speed, but it will do so consistently and ensure that as long as your flight doesn't take more than that time, you don't get dinged for being late. At the same time, by the server doing the enroute time and arrival time it won't allow CEOs to cheat the system by putting in times well over what's really required to fly the flight to ensure that they never get late reports.

Wolfar100 · Post by **Wolfar100** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:23 pm

CAPFlyer wrote:It's not that we're against making it harder, it's that we're against nit-picky penalties. A lot of the things you've brought up require a lot of excess programming to make it work fairly for everyone because of the differences between different FS models of the same aircraft (i.e. someone using the PMDG 737 vice the Vistaliners 737) or are items that aren't regulations but company policies and not always applicable to all airplanes. Something like what you propose with the "on-time rating" is definitely something doable. In fact, I've suggested that the flight times be automated in the past since we choose what airplane flies that route and each airplane should have its cruise speed imputted when it was added to the database, then the system should be able to calculate the "reasonable" flight time. While you (the CEO or Fleet Manager, or whatever) can set the departure time, the system will then set the arrival time automatically based off your given departure time and the selected aircraft. Of course it'll give you a built-in "fudge" factor of 10 or 15 minutes since the actual flight time from A to B isn't as simple as taking the distance and dividing by the cruise speed, but it will do so consistently and ensure that as long as your flight doesn't take more than that time, you don't get dinged for being late. At the same time, by the server doing the enroute time and arrival time it won't allow CEOs to cheat the system by putting in times well over what's really required to fly the flight to ensure that they never get late reports.

I conceded that some of my idea's were half baked.

This one about time might be half baked also!

Winds aloft have BIG impact on ground speed. The cruising speed and altitude must also be taken into account. That is why I mentioned that each company would have to set the flight times and they figure out how long it would take.

Say for instance that when you buy your fuel you also set the flight time. Just how long it will take not specific times just say 1 hr and 45 minutes. Then use your fudge factor of 15 minutes plus or minus. Then the longer the duration from the fudge factor the greater the company reputation ding. I think that the company rep needs to go in tenths. Say you arrive 20 minutes late so that is five minutes over the fudge factor so your company rep takes a hit for .1%.

Remember this is just a suggestion take it add on to it, change it or leave it.