Here's a controversial idea regards simrate/stats

[Telide]

They have more pilots flying so they make more money not that much unlike real world

[AdmiralRolfe]

1/16 of profit seems like a huge slash, expecially considering the entire flight wasn't in 16x. Honestly a 1/4 of the profit is enough to balance it out between 1x and 16x.

Another thing is annoying me. The way hours are counted does not take TC into consideration. Considering hours does not affect anything but status (more hours, more flights, more skilled), it should be real time and not compressed time. A 16 hour flight done in 1 hour should not count for 16 hours, it should count as 1.

[Brian Peace]

Nope I tested this in Dec and Jan. I can fly 14 flights at 16x in the time it takes me to do one real time. 16 hour flight.. or 16 one hour flights. (with 2 hours for landing and takeoff, and rebookings, it can be done)

[flightsimer]

They have more pilots flying so they make more money not that much unlike real world

so why cant i fly at 16x to be able to compete with them?

[Quantum]

Hi Guys,

I think some of you are missing the point. There are many pilots on FSA who are chasing numbers/money/miles etc and are using 16x all the time even for short hops. There are also large VA's using 16x. Small VA's will never be able to 'compete' with larger VA's. My suggestion was to enable those that wanted to operate closer to 'reality' (I know it's not real) by using a more realistic/acceptable multiplier would get 'full access' to the revenues available. Those that wanted to 'fly' unrealistic operations doing multiple flights at 16x consecutively just to chase the numbers so that they can say 'We are best' would be dissuaded as they wouldn't get anything for it. Maybe I am in a minority here at FSA but I am here more for the flying than the economy side of things, although the economy side gives a bit more meaning to what we do. I think the rewards should be greater for those that want to operate in a more realistic manner.

Please bear i mind that this is a suggestion and there is no guarantee or even a hint that the developers will take the idea on board. At the end of the day the developers will decide what they want to do with their programme/website. Regardless of what we suggest/think, they are not oblged to ask for a vote whether something should be included/implemented or not....................unless they wanted to.

Anyone else have any suggestions for new ideas feel free to stir up more hornets nests

Regards

John

[Stan]

The way i see it the multiplier compensates for not having a lot of pilots,ie. you do a long haul flight and in my case i get the money for doing 25 long haul flights.If i do the flight with TC i dont think i should get the same amount as somebody doing the flight at "normal time".As i said above in another post, reduce the revenue by 10% for 2x,20% for 4x,40% for 8x and 80% for 16x.Get rid of the bonus because you are already getting more revenue per flight if you use normal time.
I use TC sometimes, especially on long haul flights but i would not object to the revenue being cut as above when i do use it.

[Vjacheslav]

Maybe I am in a minority here at FSA but I am here more for the flying than the economy side of things, although the economy side gives a bit more meaning to what we do. I think the rewards should be greater for those that want to operate in a more realistic manner.

No, no! You not minority here in FSA
All my flights without acceleration of time and without profit multiplication (even when it was not possible in FSA ) and I receive a lot of pleasure from good flights and correct calculations for these flights!!!
Personally I do not like that using acceleration of time the company can take of higher position in Top 10 Airline By Profit having spent thus less time than those companies which fly without acceleration

I am am surprised with desire of many companies at once to buy planes, instead of to take them in leasing for long term and on good conditions that does not demand the big expenses
At that time when cost A388 in system is equal 279.000.000v $ certainly these are the big money which it is necessary to earn long flights, I see offers of leasing of this plane for 300.000 - 400.000v $ in a week for the term of a half-year. How it seems to me to take much more correctly in leasing on such conditions, than to carry out a considerable quantity of mad flights with on 16x what to become quickly and at once the happy owner of this plane?
And as far as I know from a real life, in a case when the company takes in leasing the plane for long term - the plane recolour in colours of the company and can assign onboard number as well as at other planes of this company. I think of it it is possible to agree, if for you it is important

[flightsimer]

well john, you deffinately picked the right topic title...

[jch5pilot]

Hello,

To stop people using x16 on short hops and also to keep things simple, why not have a system in place based on direct distance between the departure point and destination? For example:

0-499nm is restricted to x1.
500+ x2
1000+ x4
2000+ x8

and so on..

This would prevent people from doing short flights with rediculously high sim rates, while also allowing high sim rates for long haul.

[Quantum]

Hi,

I wouldn't want to actually see any restriction on what multiplier a pilot wishes to use. The pilot makes the choice to use any multiplier they want to but with the lower/nil revenue from the higher multipliers. FSA are very generous with the multipliers that are given so there is no need for pilots/VA's to fly lots of flights at 16x. An alternative suggestion is to factor the revenues by the multiplier so that if you operate at 16x then you get 1/16 revenue, 2x multiplier gets you 1/2 revenue etc. Adopting that would put everyone on a level playing field, factored by the number of pilots employed. You can fly one flight at 1x or 16 flights at 16x and get the same revenue so there would be no financial incentive/greed to operate at 16x to cram as many flights/revenue into any given time period a pilot may have. One quality flight at 1x sim rate beats a 16x flight any day from a satisfaction/achievement point of view. Whatever transpires from this thread, if anything, I believe that no/low sim rates should see a much greater reward/revenue than flights using high multipliers.

Regards

John

[Brian Peace]

Whatever transpires from this thread, if anything, I believe that no/low sim rates should see a much greater reward/revenue than flights using high multipliers.

Regards

John

I second that.

[flightsimer]

Hello,

To stop people using x16 on short hops and also to keep things simple, why not have a system in place based on direct distance between the departure point and destination? For example:

0-499nm is restricted to x1.
500+ x2
1000+ x4
2000+ x8

and so on..

This would prevent people from doing short flights with rediculously high sim rates, while also allowing high sim rates for long haul.

your forgetting that people dont just fly jets here... 500nm trip in a c172 is going to take 4 hours. are you telling me you are going to fly a c172 for 4 hours on a computer to make hardly anything?

[Brian Peace]

your forgetting that people dont just fly jets here... 500nm trip in a c172 is going to take 4 hours. are you telling me you are going to fly a c172 for 4 hours on a computer to make hardly anything?

why not? if your simulating for the right reasons, then yes, you are, becuase you ENJOY it. If your playing "microsoft time accelerator" to make a few bucks, then no, you've pretty much lost the meaning of "simulator"... as many folks that are here, and over at similar sites like fs economy etc.

right now Im on vatsim flying an AN124 from CYVR - ZBAA. walking the walk not just talking the talk.

[CAPFlyer]

Brian,

Any restrictions in time acceleration must be based on time, not distance. The point is valid that setting by distance would be unfair to those who fly slower aircraft.

[Brian Peace]

Brian,

Any restrictions in time acceleration must be based on time, not distance. The point is valid that setting by distance would be unfair to those who fly slower aircraft.

I agree... I think it should be a simple formula as has been brought up and stated....
1x = 1/1 profit (x multiplier)
2x = 1/2 profit (x multiplier)
4x = 1/4 profit "
8x = 1/8 profit "
16x = 1/16th profit "

simple formula that would work wether you flown a cessna or a concorde... long or short flight.