Some ideas for FSA

[zorro747]

Well, I've read through some topics and I may write some ideas which have been discussed alrady, but anyway I will try.

The first my concern is company's income. For 1 hour flight company gets 500.000$ of income. I think that it doesn't seem real. would be much better if the client would calculate income as in real life.
For example, a while ago I tried myself in FSA. I created my own company and after a few flights I was able to buy several aircrafts. I think that it's not fair. According to my opinion the system should be like this:
The new created company has certain amount of money which can allow to buy second hand aircraft. To obtain some more aircrafts the company can lease them or to get bank credit, which the company will have to pay in a certain period of time. This will motivate pilots to fly much often in order to pay debts. As far as the income like in real life, the company will have to make some good efforts to succeed.

Concerning aircraft maintenance: I don't like that after each maintenance aircrafts get 100% of its status. Each aircraft should have its own resourse. I would offer that due to a certain course of time the aircraft status should be less than 100%. If there was a major problem, after maintenance the status should be , for instance, 80%. That would make aircraft cost less in case of selling. From other side low cost would be usefull for small budget companies. Of course, would be cool if the client could generate failures. If aircraft has status 80% the chance of a failure increases. That would make CEOs to pay attention to aircrafts state and precise employement work.
Somebody has offered an idea, that aircrafts could be repaired only in a certain airports. Companies can build own hangar but just for lite repairs. In order to make full maintenance the CEOs should direct airplanes to a certain airport.
Everything which is described above would make CEOs manage their companies and fleets and not just flying and doing nothing.

Also, woulb be cool to think about pilot's salary. I would offer to make a rating board where pilots with the highest amount of earned salary would be.

[stuga100]

I should point out that most airlines are loseing money by the plane load everyday right now. So more realism on the money side would in all honesty would involve your typical VA steadly sliding into bankrupcy and then going to your local government for a hand out. (This means you Air Canada ) Personaly this is not my idea of fun.

I don't now about any were else but airlines in Canada have been dropping like flies.

As for maintence, I think once an A/C maintence gets to certain state the VA with said A/C should get visit from a virtual NTSB telling the VA to fix the plane or else.

Cheers,
Stuart Andrews

[flightsimer]

1) its easy to make alot of money in the begining. you start with a multiplier of 1000. So thats your expenses(fuel/pilot pay/crew) subtracted from your revenue (tickets/cargo) and then times by 1000. as your value goes up, the multiplier goes down so it gets harder and you really need that extra money when you get high valued...

2) the status of the plane goes down after each flight. you put it in maintenance to get it back up to 100% then it starts going down again until you put it back into maintenance... there already is a failure system. if you let the plane get further down in status, the more likely you will have a failure

3) you can (sort of) if you look at the airlines overview page.... you can see what rank gets paid then just look at the person and u can see...

[AdmiralRolfe]

If you want to fly 1000's of hours in real time to buy a small jet, it's your choice Personally, I'd rather not spend days and days sitting in front of a computer. After all, I'm not REALLY getting paid to do this lol

The aircraft maintainence idea is interesting. Maybe only larger airports are able to maintain the larger jets, and only airports that can land a certain aircraft can repair it. The client does simulate failures, but not currently. Some bugs are being worked out is my guess.

Salary awards would be challenged pretty quickly. There are pilots who fly 10 intercontinental flights a day on 16x, and earn up to $100000 per flight. Is that fair for the pilots that fly a maximum of three hours a day all in 1x?

[hezza]

At the end of the day FSAirlines does not aim to be a realistic simulation, but more a framework that gives an added aspect to a pilot's sim-flying experience.
The culture is such that there is no chance of banning time compression and the profit multiplier, or of enforcing realistic routes/weather/pilot hours etc.
It is child's play to accumulate vast sums of virtual dollars, but you can actually choose to make things as difficult as you want.
Set your multiplier low, use only real time and take a high proportion in salary and you will find that buying airframes takes a long time.

I think the idea that older aircraft could not be maintained to 100%, and that the max value would slowly depreciate is a good one.
But like other enhanced-realism options that have been discussed before, it is unlikely to be implemented for fear of upsetting (and ultimately losing) the must-rush-to-as-much-profit-as-possible-as-quickly-as-possible crowd, who are amply represented.

The best thing about FSA is that there is room for all styles of enjoyment

G

[zorro747]

Well, again concerning the aircraft status. There should be some kind of resourse. In real life aircrafts don't fly for ages in 100% state. It's like cars. You buy a brand new car and the chances of breakage, failures are minimum. In five years the failure chance increases. Even though you fixed the car but as far as it is old enough, it's getting broken again soon and the time comes to get rid of the car and buy a new one. Some people who cannot afford a brand new car would buy your car for cheap. Something like that. Of course, it's not necessary to fly for 5 years in FSA to make the aircraft unflyable, but for example after 500 flights or so, the aircraft goes for eternal rest. Sorry, it's difficult expressing myself for English is not my native language, but I hope that you understand what I'm trying to say.

Concerning the mainenance, my idea: As many of us offered the idea that the full maintenance could be done only in certain places, I think it's a good idea. Ok, let's describe the idea. The airplane is of 100% state. After a certain amount of flights the status goes low. For instance 90%. The chance of failures increases. The flaps didn't retract. the aircraft landed safely. In that case it's possible to fix the flaps at the airport where the aircraft landed, but the status will reamain the same 90%. In order to increase the status up to 100% you should go to a certain airport where the full maintenance could be done. How about that?

One more idea: Sometimes pilots need to buy tickets and go to another airport. I offer an idea to choose between VA which do flights by that route. For example, I need to go from Russia to Brasil. There are no direct flights from Russia to Brasil. I need to go to Moscow. Several VAs do flights from the place where I am to Moscow. I choose between the VAs, comparing their prices and choosing the best rate. Then occured in Moscow I choose between Russian airlines and American. Fly to L.A. or NYC, then to Brasil. And those companies I flew with get some kind of points. And in the rating board we can see which companies transfered most real pilots. One more example to make my idea clear: I need to get transfered from NYC to LA. There are for instance four companies flying that route: American airlines, Continental and so on. I buy ticket and fly with american airlines, so American Airlines gets points. Ithink that it would be nice.

[Miikoyan]

For the last idea... I think you could clear things up:

Would you travel at the speed the airline flies the route, or like the current system right now: we zip across from point A to point B?

If its the first case, than I would have to disagree with the idea, since we might have to wait indifinitely for the airline in question to fly the route.

[zorro747]

For the last idea... I think you could clear things up:

Would you travel at the speed the airline flies the route, or like the current system right now: we zip across from point A to point B?

If its the first case, than I would have to disagree with the idea, since we might have to wait indifinitely for the airline in question to fly the route.

I think that everything must remain as it is now. Only you have to choose between the VAs doing the flights and transfer maybe done immediately, but the airline you flew with gets points.

[zorro747]

That's what I mean

[CAPFlyer]

Did you do a search of this forum before posting? Did you answer the survey that Konny is conducting that is noted elsewhere in this forum?

These ideas have already been covered multiple times and one of them (maintenance) is a highlight of the new poll being conducted to determine where our priorities should be for programming.

Guys, can we please stop beating this horse? We recognize that there are changes that we need to make and we know what they are. We don't need each and every person who wants these changes to make a new thread to say the same thing over-and-over. It doesn't move this network forward to keep re-treading and re-discussing things we've already agreed upon.

This is why we STRONGLY suggest that you do a search of the forum prior to posting on a topic to see if it's been covered in the past.

[Brian Peace]

Cap,

look at the date of the original thread. someone merely replied to an old thread and brought it back to life... though I agree with your points... go vote people!

[AdmiralRolfe]

I think the guy did do a forum search, and he brought up his old thread.

[CAPFlyer]

Brian & John - I did see the dates. Doesn't change the point. Konny, John, and I have all asked that we not continue bringing these issues up. By bringing an old thread on the subject back up for no apparent reason other than to simply bring it back to the forefront does not show that he has looked at activity since this thread.

Threads "die" for a reason. Unless there is new information to be added, that's where they need to stay.

[j4cko56]

A little bit off-topic, but you make it sound like all the CEOs around never get off there asses and fly, I work incredably hard for Legacair, infact as soon as i get back from school, i go and check on the airlines, flights, aircraft and stuff like that. And i'm pretty sure that most CEOs are the same if not similar...

Well, I've read through some topics and I may write some ideas which have been discussed alrady, but anyway I will try.

The first my concern is company's income. For 1 hour flight company gets 500.000$ of income. I think that it doesn't seem real. would be much better if the client would calculate income as in real life.
For example, a while ago I tried myself in FSA. I created my own company and after a few flights I was able to buy several aircrafts. I think that it's not fair. According to my opinion the system should be like this:
The new created company has certain amount of money which can allow to buy second hand aircraft. To obtain some more aircrafts the company can lease them or to get bank credit, which the company will have to pay in a certain period of time. This will motivate pilots to fly much often in order to pay debts. As far as the income like in real life, the company will have to make some good efforts to succeed.

Concerning aircraft maintenance: I don't like that after each maintenance aircrafts get 100% of its status. Each aircraft should have its own resourse. I would offer that due to a certain course of time the aircraft status should be less than 100%. If there was a major problem, after maintenance the status should be , for instance, 80%. That would make aircraft cost less in case of selling. From other side low cost would be usefull for small budget companies. Of course, would be cool if the client could generate failures. If aircraft has status 80% the chance of a failure increases. That would make CEOs to pay attention to aircrafts state and precise employement work.
Somebody has offered an idea, that aircrafts could be repaired only in a certain airports. Companies can build own hangar but just for lite repairs. In order to make full maintenance the CEOs should direct airplanes to a certain airport.
Everything which is described above would make CEOs manage their companies and fleets and not just flying and doing nothing.

Also, woulb be cool to think about pilot's salary. I would offer to make a rating board where pilots with the highest amount of earned salary would be.

[Telide]

A little bit off-topic, but you make it sound like all the CEOs around never get off there asses and fly, I work incredably hard for Legacair, infact as soon as i get back from school, i go and check on the airlines, flights, aircraft and stuff like that. And i'm pretty sure that most CEOs are the same if not similar...

LOL

I do fly I just find it hard to get the time as I hold 2 jobs have 3 children and a wife yet i do try and find as much time as possable for FSA and flight sim in general

but Yes I do agree most CEO's round here work very hard trying todo the best for there airline

Will