Another way to fuel cheat

[joefremont]

The other day I saw three flights flagged as needs review that looked fine, the pilots even lost money on them.

But the reason the person flagged them was that the airline in question lowered there multiplier down to x50, did some flights where they filled up the tanks on there aircraft, then increased the multiplier back up to x500 and effectively gets there fuel for 10% the normal cost.

After thinking about this for a while I figure the proper solution is that when an airline increases there multiplier, the fuel in the tanks of recently flown aircraft would be reduced based on the ratio of the new multiplier to the old multiplier, to keep its value constant.

Example an aircraft was just flown with x50 multiplier and has 5000kg left in its tanks. They then increase the multiplier to x500 and the system will reduce the amount of the fuel in the tanks to 500kg, keeping the value of the fuel in the tanks the same.

I don't think a change in the opposite direction should do the same for two reasons, first if they are decreasing there multiplier they are trying to increase there degree of difficulty and second it may increase the fuel amount to more than what the aircraft can carry, causing client bugs.

So as to not give anybody any ideas I have already implemented this but still want to get feedback from the group and will be happy to modify or remove this feature if that's what the consensus is.

By the way, the logic that selects which aircraft to update the fuel amount on is a bit more sophisticated than I described above but again, I don't want to give anybody any ideas.

[alasizon]

Joe,

The fuel is not affected by the multiplier, only the net income. The fuel is still keeping the same formula and price. If they switched down to 50x then that is their choice and to bump it back up to 500x was there choice. Either way I don't view it as a fuel cheat due to the fact that the fuel price is still the same.

[flightsimer]

ya, i dont see it as a fuel cheat either... there are still paying for it... its just they arent paying as much... if anything it just makes them get to the multiplyer change over quicker... this will also cause problems with lagit companies... currently before aquiring BAVC, i was trying to downsize my fleet to get back up to 400, but i didnt know that it was the entire company value that set it, not the fleet value, but i still can decrease my value by selling and then giving away money by either tips, or leasing aircraft... but if i get it up to 400 then why should i be pentalized by having all the fuel in my aircraft go down because i was able to get a higher multipler...

[Brian Peace]

What he's saying here is, some people must be doing this

Set multiplier to 50
Fuel plane RIGHT up.
Fly first flight (losing money on it)
Lose money, but only x50

Set Multiplier to 500
Use fuel already loaded in plane now.
Fly two or three flights without having to fuel plane again
recieve income on these flights x500

And start over again when your plane is low fuel....

and... good for catching this

I think all multiplyers, all sim rates, and anything giving one VA a chance for more than another, should go out the window. how can you award the rewards at the end of the month to a guy who's flown the a388 75 times, on 16x.... when there are those who fly more actual hours, and get nothing... but I guess that's a topic for another post

[flightsimer]

What he's saying here is, some people must be doing this

Set multiplier to 50
Fuel plane RIGHT up.
Fly first flight (losing money on it)
Lose money, but only x50

Set Multiplier to 500
Use fuel already loaded in plane now.
Fly two or three flights without having to fuel plane again
recieve income on these flights x500

yes i understand, but it shouldnt affect the fuel, if anything it should affect income. IF i buy 5000kgs for 1.00 a liter, on a flight with x50, and then i buy 5000kgs for same price with x500, im still buying 5000kgs, and still paying the 5000$ for the fuel, its just how much more will i pay because of the mulitplyer. it shouldnt affect the amount of fuel that is put in the plane, because i still paid the 5000$ before the mulitplyer... understand what im trying to say?

[joefremont]

Maybe cheat is too strong a word, but I think it still gaming the system. Its not about the price you paid for the fuel, its about the value of the fuel and the effective value of the fuel in the tanks your aircraft is worth the price paid at the airport times the multiplier. Brian pretty much had the scenario, let me see if I can explain it again.

Lets say you have a hypothetical route, lets say you have a route that regularly has 200 pax that pay 100v$ each and the flight uses 12000kg of fuel each way so a normal round trip with a x500 multiplier would be

(200pax * 100v$ - 12000kg * 1.4v$) * 500 = 1,600,000v$
(200pax * 100v$ - 12000kg * 1.4v$) * 500 = 1,600,000v$
Total = 3,200,000v$

So instead they try this trick and buy all the fuel on the first flight at 50x

(200pax * 100v$ - 24000kg * 1.4v$) * 50 = -680,000v$
(200pax * 100v$ - 0kg * 1.4v$) * 500 = 10,000,000v$
Total = 9,300,000v$

Now if you fill up the aircraft at x50 and then change your multiplier to x500 the VALUE of the fuel in the aircraft will stay the same, as least in terms of the revenue generated in the aircraft's next flight.

[hezza]

It seems to me that the only reason for tinkering with your airlines multiplier is to gain this kind of advantage.
If there was only an opportunity for a multiplier adjustment once every week (or month) then this problem would disappear.

EDIT: A secondary thought.

My airline has made 119 flights using more than 20 different aircraft types ranging from C421 to A345.
With careful fuel management and ticket pricing, every one of those flights has made a profit.
The point is that it is relatively easy to make a profit on FlyNET, so is not not reasonable that if an airline makes a loss then they also take a hit in reputation?

Regards,

Graham.

[alasizon]

Joe,

As your diagrams prove, they earn less when they change to 50 then back to 500. I can see your angle on it. However, if you were to implement the system you described, it would in the longrun cost VAs more because then they would have to pay more for the same amount of fuel because of the downgrading scale. Another way to do it is to remove the multiplier option overall so that it is just determined on VA value or make it that once they switch it to 50, they can't set it back to 500,300 etc. Also, some VAs buy fuel to cover A-B-A, if their multiplier was to change due to their worth increasing, through your sysytem they would gain more fuel which would be an unfair advantage.

Regarding Graham's post,
However, some airlines set their multiplier to 50 to make it more realistic, what if they wanted to expand their fleet quickly through a couple of x500 flights. Through that system they would have to wait.

[Brian Peace]

(200pax * 100v$ - 12000kg * 1.4v$) * 500 = 1,600,000v$
(200pax * 100v$ - 12000kg * 1.4v$) * 500 = 1,600,000v$
Total = 3,200,000v$

So instead they try this trick and buy all the fuel on the first flight at 50x

(200pax * 100v$ - 24000kg * 1.4v$) * 50 = -680,000v$
(200pax * 100v$ - 0kg * 1.4v$) * 500 = 10,000,000v$
Total = 9,300,000v$

someone said that the guy doesnt make any more by going from 50 to 500. Read this carefully, and see that the guy made 6.1 million more... in just two flights.

[alasizon]

That would be true....

3.2 mill is a lot less than 9.3mill, my bad.

[Stan]

I think the multiplyer should be set by the system,this would remove the ability to alter it to gain financial advantage.I realize the multiplier is there to help new starters get a foothold and this wouldn,t change as they start on x1000.I also realize that not everybody wants a large multiplier,so perhaps if somebody reduces the multiplier it could be made so that they cant change it back upwards later on.So it would be a case of accept the multiplier given by the system or reduce it and you are stuck with it.

[CAPFlyer]

The system "as is" has a limit on how high you can set your multiplier based on your company's value, so there isn't as much of a problem with "big" VAs setting high multipliers and getting an unfair advantage. There is a problem with people doing what Joe said and taking advantage of the system allowing you to REDUCE your multiplier, but that was put in place to allow VAs who wanted to operate more realistically to do so.

As for the multiplier with sim rate - one thing to remember, when you fly above 8x (i.e. 16x) you get no pre-multiplier bonus on the flight, so that guy who flies 5 flights in 1 day with an A388 by using 16x will make approx. 20% less than the guy who flies the same 5 flights in 2.5 days with the A388 at 1x. As well, his time stats only increase at the 1x rate and his mileage, passenger, and cargo statistics are affected by the repeated use of sim acelleration.

[hezza]

As for the multiplier with sim rate - one thing to remember, when you fly above 8x (i.e. 16x) you get no pre-multiplier bonus on the flight, so that guy who flies 5 flights in 1 day with an A388 by using 16x will make approx. 20% less than the guy who flies the same 5 flights in 2.5 days with the A388 at 1x. As well, his time stats only increase at the 1x rate and his mileage, passenger, and cargo statistics are affected by the repeated use of sim acelleration.

Yes, but only in terms of money per flight and not in terms of money per day which is more relevant.

Even with your figures above (where the 16x pilot makes only 2.5x more flights per day) he still makes 2x money.
In fact pilots using 16x sim are usually able to make far more than 2.5x more flights per day, maybe more than 10x, and so they actually make money considerably faster. We all know that this is inside the rules, and accept that, but some of us think that it is stretching the spirit somewhat when airlines file multiple 16x sim flights in short time intervals, and repeated assertions that time compression is not at all advantageous is more than a little insulting.

Regards,

Graham

[Brian Peace]

agreed. The whole "stats" section of the website is affected by it. Ranking guys #1 in passengers / miles / pax and cargo miles, etc, is completely unfair. If you don't have time for a 16 hour A380 flight, then why should you be doing them period? and gaining an advantage in the stats and awards, etc

I say the whole thing should be set in stone. One multiplier (lets say 200x for arguements sake), and 1x sim rate. Put everyone on a level feild....

Or, don't keep stats that rank airlines over eachother, and hand out rewards. I'm fine with that too...

I'm also fine with stats for each separate category

1x
2x
4x
8x
16x

The category you go in would be the max sim rate anyone in your airline used during the period.

[Quantum]

Hi,

Whatever sytems are in place, someone will always try and find a way of increasing revenue in a none too honest and gentlemanly manner. Maybe it's the lure of seeing their VA's name at the top of the stats each month. perhaps if a VA is found to be using some sort of cheat they could be excluded from the stats for that month and have a fine imposed of 10x the revenue generated by the cheated flights. If any VA persists then they can easily be excluded from FlyNET.

Regards

John