What if, instead of a multiplier...
Moderator: FSAirlines Staff
- Dave Athay
- Ticket Agent
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 8:21 pm
What if, instead of a multiplier...
... the system just flew all the flights in your schedule for you?
Here's how it could work: You write a schedule. Currently, everyone does this, but the times mean nothing. But this way, let's say the FlyNET system will execute your schedule for you, provided the following conditions are met:
1) You have the right aircraft at the right airport at the right time. If you want a 738 to depart Albany at 0800, you'd better write your schedule so a 738 arrives at Albany prior to 0800.
2) You've flown that leg before. This would be important so the system knows what to use for time enroute and fuel burned. The system would just use an average of all your block times/fuels for the times you've manually flown the route.
I realize the multiplier effectively does exactly this. But I still think it would be fun to have something like this, so VAs' schedules actually mean something. Also, this will keep aircraft moving around (could depreciate them 0.1% for each flight, or something) and add a lot more complexity and interest to the FlyNET gameplay.
Of course, I think there should be some incentive to fly the flights yourself. Maybe the crew salary for an automated flight could cost your VA twice as much as if you did it yourself? Or something like that. Also, if you book a flight, you'd still have 24 hours to fly it. Once you fly it, FlyNET would replace the "scheduled" flight numbers with the actual numbers from your flight, and add those numbers into the average for future flights along that route. To add a flight to your route structure, you'll have 24 hours to fly it yourself, or it expires and you have to add it again.
Just something I've been thinking about and thought I'd throw out for discussion.
Here's how it could work: You write a schedule. Currently, everyone does this, but the times mean nothing. But this way, let's say the FlyNET system will execute your schedule for you, provided the following conditions are met:
1) You have the right aircraft at the right airport at the right time. If you want a 738 to depart Albany at 0800, you'd better write your schedule so a 738 arrives at Albany prior to 0800.
2) You've flown that leg before. This would be important so the system knows what to use for time enroute and fuel burned. The system would just use an average of all your block times/fuels for the times you've manually flown the route.
I realize the multiplier effectively does exactly this. But I still think it would be fun to have something like this, so VAs' schedules actually mean something. Also, this will keep aircraft moving around (could depreciate them 0.1% for each flight, or something) and add a lot more complexity and interest to the FlyNET gameplay.
Of course, I think there should be some incentive to fly the flights yourself. Maybe the crew salary for an automated flight could cost your VA twice as much as if you did it yourself? Or something like that. Also, if you book a flight, you'd still have 24 hours to fly it. Once you fly it, FlyNET would replace the "scheduled" flight numbers with the actual numbers from your flight, and add those numbers into the average for future flights along that route. To add a flight to your route structure, you'll have 24 hours to fly it yourself, or it expires and you have to add it again.
Just something I've been thinking about and thought I'd throw out for discussion.
- flightsimer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:35 am
Unfortunately, I object this motion. Why? It's too much like Airlines 6, Airline Empires, and/or Airline Mogul. FlyNET is not supposed to be like those management game, where all you have to do is buy aircrafts and put them on schedules and see those money come in. I say that FlyNET is more like a airline management software instead of management game.
GoUS Executive Chairman
World Alliance Board of Directors
World Alliance Board of Directors
Hi,
FlyNET is here to 'serve' the pilots. With what you propose, you would not even have to own a copy of Flight Simulator, just let FlyNET do all the 'flying'. At the end of the day I thought we were all keen 'simmers' here who enjoy flying?
Thumbs down from me.
Rgds
John
FlyNET is here to 'serve' the pilots. With what you propose, you would not even have to own a copy of Flight Simulator, just let FlyNET do all the 'flying'. At the end of the day I thought we were all keen 'simmers' here who enjoy flying?
Thumbs down from me.
Rgds
John
CEO - Classic British Flight Services
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
Finding the balance between realism and fun is always going to be tough.
Between this idea and the one posted here I think FlyNET could use a little more reality. Personally I think it should be tough for "one-man" VAs to have huge fleets with routes all over the world. Anything to encourage more "teamplay" is good IMO.
It would be interesting to see how many AC have only flown one or two routes (or none for that matter). Or how many existing routes see little to no traffic.
Between this idea and the one posted here I think FlyNET could use a little more reality. Personally I think it should be tough for "one-man" VAs to have huge fleets with routes all over the world. Anything to encourage more "teamplay" is good IMO.
It would be interesting to see how many AC have only flown one or two routes (or none for that matter). Or how many existing routes see little to no traffic.
-
- 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:
Im in agreement with Joe,Boater, John et al, - its called Flynet not ManageNet - I have noticed since the system has returned there seems to have been a rise in the number of questions and statements by fairly new folks that make it seem that, as been stated before this is a "game" similar to Airline Mogul, Railroad Tycoon or the like, Most of us who have been here for a while use Flynet as an adjunct to flying Fs9/Fsx etc etc. It gives a purpose to flying we all enjoy.
I have seen some of the most inane and pointless requests and even demands for changes to a system that serves its purpose for the folks who fly
with VHA very well, and who have neither need nor desire to have megaleasing companies, "banks" or the like. I would heartily suggest to those who wish
those sort features they go play the above mentioned games and leave those of us who take pleasure flying aircraft to our own devices. By the way for the
new folks - VHA is worth about 6.5 bill in revenue and assetts, we own a large fleet for one reason - so the members of VHA have a choice in what they
fly and where they fly. We have very few long thin routes so most of the legs we have are under an hour, requiring a certain amount of navigational and
piloting skill. So in my humble opinion requests and demands such as this one are totally out of place. I would suggest our newer members read back through
the threads here and make an attempt to understand what exactly Flynet is about
Leif
I have seen some of the most inane and pointless requests and even demands for changes to a system that serves its purpose for the folks who fly
with VHA very well, and who have neither need nor desire to have megaleasing companies, "banks" or the like. I would heartily suggest to those who wish
those sort features they go play the above mentioned games and leave those of us who take pleasure flying aircraft to our own devices. By the way for the
new folks - VHA is worth about 6.5 bill in revenue and assetts, we own a large fleet for one reason - so the members of VHA have a choice in what they
fly and where they fly. We have very few long thin routes so most of the legs we have are under an hour, requiring a certain amount of navigational and
piloting skill. So in my humble opinion requests and demands such as this one are totally out of place. I would suggest our newer members read back through
the threads here and make an attempt to understand what exactly Flynet is about
Leif
Ho'olu komo la kaua
Leif Harding
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Venture Hawaii PLC
Leif Harding
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Venture Hawaii PLC
-
- 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:
Tomesk
I dont think that was what was suggested - but a little more reading of threads and thinking before making suggestions might be an idea . Dont you think????
and the "good ole boys" just like flying - not playing arcade games
Leif
I dont think that was what was suggested - but a little more reading of threads and thinking before making suggestions might be an idea . Dont you think????
and the "good ole boys" just like flying - not playing arcade games
Leif
Ho'olu komo la kaua
Leif Harding
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Venture Hawaii PLC
Leif Harding
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Venture Hawaii PLC
I was just kidding Leif.
Seriously though, I think it's easy to get used to the way things are and be resistant to any change.
I think Dave's idea has merit - maybe not a full implementation of it. He's obviously not suggesting giving up the actual flying aspect of it and states the routes would have to be flown in person. And FlyNET obviously thought of scheduling at some point as the system allows for arrival/departure times, days of the weeks, etc... they just serve no purpose currently other than aesthetic.
And if it is really just about flying and not "playing arcade games" why have any monetary aspect or route structure at all? Just logon, pick an AC and fly - FlyNET would keep track of hours flown in your signature for ya - it would seem all this buying and selling of aircraft and creating/managing routes is kind of "gamey". Don't you think??
Tom
Seriously though, I think it's easy to get used to the way things are and be resistant to any change.
I think Dave's idea has merit - maybe not a full implementation of it. He's obviously not suggesting giving up the actual flying aspect of it and states the routes would have to be flown in person. And FlyNET obviously thought of scheduling at some point as the system allows for arrival/departure times, days of the weeks, etc... they just serve no purpose currently other than aesthetic.
And if it is really just about flying and not "playing arcade games" why have any monetary aspect or route structure at all? Just logon, pick an AC and fly - FlyNET would keep track of hours flown in your signature for ya - it would seem all this buying and selling of aircraft and creating/managing routes is kind of "gamey". Don't you think??
Tom
I agree with many of the points raised in this post. In the end, Flynet is striking a balance between 'realism' and 'reality'. Therefore, to make it enjoyable for us all, some cut-backs from ultimate realism are needed.
With regards to 'one man VAs', give us some credit...we try out best to get pilots but this can be a very hard task...
With regards to 'one man VAs', give us some credit...we try out best to get pilots but this can be a very hard task...
- flightsimer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:35 am
why, its not are fault that people dont join our VA... they normally just want to fly with the largest or the ones that pay the most...Tomesk wrote: Personally I think it should be tough for "one-man" VAs to have huge fleets with routes all over the world. Anything to encourage more "teamplay" is good IMO.
im confuesd by this statement, seeing how you and i are the "newest" ones posting in this topic...Tomesk wrote:I think the "New features & ideas" forum should be off-limits to new members. Apparently it's painful for the Good Ole Boys to have navigate all the "inane" posts.
Owner/CEO
North Eastern Airways
North Eastern Airways
I think it should be off-limits to people who cannot express their disapproval in a mature and respectful way if you ask me.I think the "New features & ideas" forum should be off-limits to new members.
Clearly you did not read his original post carefully enough; he said that the automated system would only fly it if you have flown the route before....you would not even have to own a copy of Flight Simulator,...
I have been reading through this topic and the comments left by some users in response to what the guy thinks, perhaps rightly and perhaps not, is a good idea have been absolutely deplorable. Have some respect for other peoples feelings and appreciate the thought and time that went into writing the idea in the first place. I moderate on another forum and even if this were to happen there, which it wouldn't, it just wouldn't be stood for. Obviously I am not referring to all the comments left here but I hope you can see for yourself the ones that have got me worked up a little.
What's the point in having this forum section at all if you are going to shoot down anyone putting forward what they clearly thing is a good and helpful idea when all you need to say is something to the effect of "I disagree" without the cheap puns or attacks. At least read the post fully as well. Give the guy a break.
----------
For the record: I think it is a good idea but I can fully understand why some airlines don't like it. If it were to be added I think that it should only be available to small airlines (less than 3 members), be optional (option of the multiplier OR the automated flights) and the number of flights completed by the system per day should be limited (perhaps to 2 or 3). Good idea though.
----------
Cheers,
Dave
Regards,
Dave
Dave