Some thoughts on Penalties.

You are missing something, or have a cool idea for us ? Tell us here !

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by joefremont » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:47 pm

Beta four is now out with these penalty updates, as listed previously on page two implemented.
Image

wings138
Ticket Agent
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by wings138 » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:20 pm

joefremont wrote:Working on the client takes the longest because it's one thing I can't do on the train in the morning, so be patent, it is coming, so far here is what I am planning.

4) Hard Landings
- New penalty 5%, would get if VS on landing was greater than 500fpm.
All are great, just I would suggest 750fpm for the hard landings, remember these are armchair pilots/gamers not professionals... just my two cents...
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by joefremont » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:22 am

wings138 wrote:All are great, just I would suggest 750fpm for the hard landings, remember these are armchair pilots/gamers not professionals... just my two cents...
Just for reference, in the last 5 years only 10% of flights had a landing speed greater than 500fpm, only 4% had a landing speed greater than 750fpm. I think our pilots are very capable of managing 500fpm. You don't want pilots just turning on approach hold in there autopilots and following that all the way down to the runway without any flare, which is what 750 would allow.

Wikipedia defines a hard landing as anything more than 2 meters per second, which translate to 390 fpm so I think 500 is a pretty fair value.
Image

Snowdog8MA
Ticket Agent
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:19 am

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by Snowdog8MA » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:24 pm

I think you should add like a 5-10 second time buffer for the overspeed below 10k, because in FSX, there isn't much of a smooth transition between surface winds and winds aloft. I can't count the number of times that I'll be climbing out at 245-250 KIAS, then a wind gust/wind sheer will make me strike 260+ for a second or two before it's corrected. And even if it's a split second, it'll hit me for reaching 260 KIAS
AtlanticX North American Hub Manager
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by joefremont » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:27 am

Snowdog8MA wrote:I think you should add like a 5-10 second time buffer for the overspeed below 10k, because in FSX, there isn't much of a smooth transition between surface winds and winds aloft. I can't count the number of times that I'll be climbing out at 245-250 KIAS, then a wind gust/wind sheer will make me strike 260+ for a second or two before it's corrected. And even if it's a split second, it'll hit me for reaching 260 KIAS
Yes that's part of the plan and is already in the beta.
Image

Skids
Ticket Agent
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:30 pm
Location: Salisbury, South Australia

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by Skids » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:38 pm

As I have read, Penalties can be a major concern for some and a minor inconvenience for others. Personally I am happy to keep things as they are. One also has to take into account the computer system and power ability of each pilots affordability and this includes the software they use. An example, I have a mid range computer system that is a few years old now and because of its age and the higher quality scenery that is available nowadays there are few airports that I fly to which cause very low frame rates. Try landing at my home Airport YPAD with frames of 6 or 7 and make a perfectly smooth landing. Its impossible. Weather that suddenly changes from a 50 Knot tail wind to a head wind, There goes the 250 below 10,000 issue. There are two such examples and I can not afford or justify laying out thousands for a you beaut top of the range all powerful system. To me, harder than I would like landings are part and parcel.

Again the landing light issue, I had questioned when penalized for landing lights on above 10,000 when flying in and out of 9,000+ altitude airports. The minute one takes off one is penalised and likewise on the decent.

IMO there should be no penalty for a diverted flight, there are too many incorrect settings in aircraft configs. I give another example that I have questioned earlier. Real world airlines flies the 738 from YBBN to YPPH and YPPH to YBBN on a regular daily basis. The same flights in FSX with the default 738 and full tanks runs out of fuel so without altering and playing around with fuel scalars and the like in cfg. files it cannot be done in the sim.

As we are not to know what the aircraft is "programmed" to use we either take a chance and "end" the flight when we run out or have to divert. Imagine a long flight and after 8 hours finding that you are not going to have enough fuel?

A feature of being able to continue a flight from where the "Blue Screen of Death" or "Flight Sim has stopped working" rears its ugly head would be very much welcomed but again whether it can be written to avoid cheating? Again not all of us can afford top of the range computer systems with the latest cpu and video cards.

Just a few thoughts

Paul S CEO FSVA

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by joefremont » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:46 pm

Skids wrote:As I have read, Penalties can be a major concern for some and a minor inconvenience for others. Personally I am happy to keep things as they are. One also has to take into account the computer system and power ability of each pilots affordability and this includes the software they use. An example, I have a mid range computer system that is a few years old now and because of its age and the higher quality scenery that is available nowadays there are few airports that I fly to which cause very low frame rates. Try landing at my home Airport YPAD with frames of 6 or 7 and make a perfectly smooth landing. Its impossible. Weather that suddenly changes from a 50 Knot tail wind to a head wind, There goes the 250 below 10,000 issue. There are two such examples and I can not afford or justify laying out thousands for a you beaut top of the range all powerful system. To me, harder than I would like landings are part and parcel.

Again the landing light issue, I had questioned when penalized for landing lights on above 10,000 when flying in and out of 9,000+ altitude airports. The minute one takes off one is penalised and likewise on the decent.

IMO there should be no penalty for a diverted flight, there are too many incorrect settings in aircraft configs. I give another example that I have questioned earlier. Real world airlines flies the 738 from YBBN to YPPH and YPPH to YBBN on a regular daily basis. The same flights in FSX with the default 738 and full tanks runs out of fuel so without altering and playing around with fuel scalars and the like in cfg. files it cannot be done in the sim.

As we are not to know what the aircraft is "programmed" to use we either take a chance and "end" the flight when we run out or have to divert. Imagine a long flight and after 8 hours finding that you are not going to have enough fuel?

A feature of being able to continue a flight from where the "Blue Screen of Death" or "Flight Sim has stopped working" rears its ugly head would be very much welcomed but again whether it can be written to avoid cheating? Again not all of us can afford top of the range computer systems with the latest cpu and video cards.

Just a few thoughts

Paul S CEO FSVA
Hi Paul, In reply to a couple of your points. (Note the changes listed apply to the beta, 2.2.0.b? and later)

For the 250kn penalty, we have added a timer to it so you have to be above the speed for a minute before the penalty applies, so the sudden gust issue should be solved.

Landing lights, we have changed it so you have 15 minutes above 10k before the penalty applies. I think the main reason for having this is to keep pilots from just leaving them on all the time.

For diverted flights, there is no penalty as long as you press the 'divert' button in the client. This is in client 2.1.0. Just be sure to push the button before you land.

The continuing a flight after a system crash is a hard one. We would have to store a lot more data to get the AC back into the state it was before the crash and would be very complicated.
Image

Skids
Ticket Agent
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:30 pm
Location: Salisbury, South Australia

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by Skids » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:40 am

Joe, once more thank you for your ongoing support,

Re my post on penalties, yes I am aware that there have been changes made to the specific penalties I mentioned but I only mentioned them as an example of the many issues that can be encountered with an over zealous penalty system. I was not criticizing.

For example, you mention that overspeed has a leeway of a minute before the penalty hits however it can take more than a minute to reduce speed depending on circumstances. Some aircraft are quick to slow down others take longer. Unless the airbrakes are fully employed causing a sudden slowing. For me I just deal with it and it bothers me not if I get a penalty.

As far as the BSOD is concerned, whether the tracker can be adapted to save settings in the background and continually overwrite itself at a specified interval is unknown to me. I know you can have FSUIPC to do automatic saves. Then be able to read all the settings and restart FS in flight at the location, heading, altitude etc? Again I have no knowledge of programming nor do I know what can and can not be done, I leave that to the educated such as yourself :)
Keep up the great work


Paul S CEo FSVA

AdySmith
Ticket Agent
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:55 am

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by AdySmith » Thu May 11, 2017 4:50 pm

2) Within 5nm of landing airport when below 5000ft ALG.
Not sure I see the logic in that one, or agree with it.

In reality many aircraft have landing lights embedded in the gear, so you cannot illuminate them until selecting GEAR DOWN on approach.
Equally many instrument approach procedures start overhead the aerodrome at well below 5,000; typically 3,000'

Any chance of reverting to the below 1,000 AGL?

Ady

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by joefremont » Fri May 12, 2017 5:02 am

Hi Andy,

I think my thought process was first to restrict the landing lights penalties to only close to the airports but then to balance things a little increase the ceiling a little closer to the regulatory requirement of 10k ft, but we could bring it down to 3k ft

For takeoff we already removed the landing light requirement if the gear is up,
Image

AdySmith
Ticket Agent
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:55 am

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by AdySmith » Mon May 15, 2017 12:39 pm

Not seen it discussed here but what about landing with the wheels retracted?

I know there are a few fixed gear models but could this be based on whether the aircraft database shows fixed gear or if gear gets selected UP after departure can the client detect this and then penalise for not selecting DOWN again?

Lots of people fly with crash detection disabled (partly because it is incredibly "buggy" so any way to implement this?

Ady

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by joefremont » Mon May 15, 2017 10:01 pm

Andy,

A landing gear up penalty is something that i never thought of before. I suppose I assumed landing gear up = crash but as you said that can be turned off. We added the 'hard landing' penalty, partly for those who had crash detection off. I have to admit I fly with crash detection of quite a bit because crashing into those invisible buildings while taxi-ing around the airport is quite annoying.

It would be possible by looking at the model in the sim to see if it had retractable gear. Complications would be Amphibians landing in the water would have there gear up might cause issues. And suppose someone has a gear failure and does a successful belly landing, should they get a penalty.
Image

User avatar
Cat
Captain
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by Cat » Tue May 16, 2017 8:03 pm

With or without crash detection on, I've never seen a gear up landing with a successful outcome...... my student in fact did a wheels up landing in a Beechcraft 1900, (July 19,2016 LAS9991) did not understand why his FSX recorded crash and the client recorded it as well. "Crash" with landing fpm of -62. So belly landings will not work as I'm sure the FSA client could care less if the pilot has FSX crash detection on or off. Once the plane contacts the ground on the "scrape points" instead of the gear contact points, it's game, set and match.... :roll:

Edited 5-17: perhaps the FSA crash recording was a link to the FSX crash, and if he had crash detection off maybe it would have given him a good landing .... hmmmmm .... who wants to test and risk knocking their airline rep off top tier? :shock:
Image

wings138
Ticket Agent
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by wings138 » Thu May 25, 2017 11:48 pm

I hate to say this, but landing lights are only required, and I repeat required on landing and take off, not for decent or climb out, but then FAA regulations allows for them to be turned off if using them would interfere with the safe operation of own aircraft or any others in the area, and so if your flying in a cloud or landing in thick fog, no one would see you and if you had them on you wouldn't see anything as the reflections would blind you.

And Strobes fall into the same optional category, they can blind you if you fly thru a cloud. I did goto the FAA web site and look this up, feel free to double check it.

Soooooooooooooo, sense you want to have people being realistic and not break regulations, we really need to ditch this penalty and move on to other ones.

I've been running the beta for a while and so far things are working great, except when I forget the landing lights ... I can usually get flights done with out penalties.

So, you keep talking about adding this or adding that, you might add so many that people wont be able to have flexibility in there flying.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Some thoughts on Penalties.

Post by joefremont » Fri May 26, 2017 7:31 pm

wings138 wrote:I hate to say this, but landing lights are only required, and I repeat required on landing and take off, not for decent or climb out, but then FAA regulations allows for them to be turned off if using them would interfere with the safe operation of own aircraft or any others in the area, and so if your flying in a cloud or landing in thick fog, no one would see you and if you had them on you wouldn't see anything as the reflections would blind you.

And Strobes fall into the same optional category, they can blind you if you fly thru a cloud. I did goto the FAA web site and look this up, feel free to double check it.

Soooooooooooooo, sense you want to have people being realistic and not break regulations, we really need to ditch this penalty and move on to other ones.

I've been running the beta for a while and so far things are working great, except when I forget the landing lights ... I can usually get flights done with out penalties.

So, you keep talking about adding this or adding that, you might add so many that people wont be able to have flexibility in there flying.
Wings, what of what you say about lights requirements is true, Landing lights are only required during takeoff and landings, the FAA suggests you have them on all the time under FL100 but its voluntary. We only require it within 5nm of the airport when below FL50 so I think we are ok there. Navigation lights? Right now we don't differentiate between the nav lights/beacon/strobe, Just one should be on. But you're right, they are allowed to be turned off in bad weather, and right now I don't have a good way to determine if they are in bad weather, but on the other hand the existing weather engines in the sims we use are not really sophisticated enough to create the 'dangerous conditions that would allow the lights to be turned off. Maybe P3D4 or FSW (or even XP-11, I have not used it enough) will have that, but to be honest I don't feel very strongly about it. Some very old aircraft don't even have those lights so if there is consensus, we can remove that.

And I am not really planning on adding anything else right now, there are lots of obscure things we could add but for now I think we have enough.
Image

Post Reply