Hi All.
nycAirSpeed Service is a new airline here, & we have been having a great time establishing ourselves, participating within FSAirlines since the end of Dec. 2010.
We decided it would bee a blast, making it our goal to top the cargo stats for the month of January. As we buzzed 'round the top of the cargo stats & learning curve, we began to look at our competitors flights... On Jan. 7th we posted our 1st requests for FSA administrative 'flight reviews'. ...we are still awaiting some sort of response!!! Frustrated because 'the flight's assets are still posted'!!!
...At the moment this 'flight review' process seems quite arbitrary & has contributed to a diminishing enthusiasm to participate here at FSA within nycAirSpeed's web site & multi-player flight server community!!!
nycAirSpeed Service would like to suggest...
*Establishing & posting of FSA's standards/minimums for the settings of an individuals flight-sim as they relate to difficulty, stress, collision, fuel usage, etc.
*Establishing & posting of FSA's flight review process; why & for how long after the flight occurred may a review be requested, who can request that review, & when FSA acknowledgment/s to all involved parties are to be sent.
*Establishing & posting of FSA's administrative cadence in resolving flight review requests, to include fines & penalties for infractions.
*Establishing & posting of provisional statistics, as a method of 'banking' the assets of the reviewed flight until the conclusion of the review process.
Jon J Goldberg
http://www.nycAirSpeed.com ...why fly alone?!
nycAirSpeed Service ...catch the buzz!!!
FSA Client - Review Flight Options -
-
JJGoldberg
- Ticket Agent
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:56 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
-
CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Re: FSA Client - Review Flight Options -
Our Wikipedia explains our rules quite clearly where they're not more-or-less common sense like you have to use a realistic amount of fuel and complete the flight in a realistic time frame. Our system is also setup to detect when these things occur and report them to us, but they're not foolproof, thus why there is a mechanism for any user to initiate a review on any flight.
As for the "reviews" none are outstanding in our database, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. We don't respond to a flight review request directly unless we deny the reason for the review. Otherwise, we review the request and if it meets the requirements for needing adjustment we do so as appropriate. We have recently discovered some of our calculations for determining when a flight is completed in an unrealistically short amount of time are not reliable and we appreciate users pointing out when a flight is completed suspiciously quick, but in those cases the only "fix" we make is to change the time it took to complete the flight. Unfortunately, it actually helps the VA and pilot in these cases because their stats are improved for time in flight. All of the cases that have been brought before us though use the appropriate amount of fuel for the route flown, so there is no penalty given as they didn't use too little fuel to complete it, it's just that either they flew too fast (and thus actually burned more fuel than they needed to) or there is a problem with the way their simulator is calculating time and thus what it is reporting as the start and end times. I actually suspect that the problem is the simulator isn't keeping good time over the long flights that tend to get marked but I can't support that view because all of the flights marked to date are using the 2.0.0 client which does not report to us interim flight speeds. If those pilots would start using the 2.0.5b client (which while still a BETA is pretty bug free), we could determine for sure what's going on, but none have taken my advice to do so.
As for the "reviews" none are outstanding in our database, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. We don't respond to a flight review request directly unless we deny the reason for the review. Otherwise, we review the request and if it meets the requirements for needing adjustment we do so as appropriate. We have recently discovered some of our calculations for determining when a flight is completed in an unrealistically short amount of time are not reliable and we appreciate users pointing out when a flight is completed suspiciously quick, but in those cases the only "fix" we make is to change the time it took to complete the flight. Unfortunately, it actually helps the VA and pilot in these cases because their stats are improved for time in flight. All of the cases that have been brought before us though use the appropriate amount of fuel for the route flown, so there is no penalty given as they didn't use too little fuel to complete it, it's just that either they flew too fast (and thus actually burned more fuel than they needed to) or there is a problem with the way their simulator is calculating time and thus what it is reporting as the start and end times. I actually suspect that the problem is the simulator isn't keeping good time over the long flights that tend to get marked but I can't support that view because all of the flights marked to date are using the 2.0.0 client which does not report to us interim flight speeds. If those pilots would start using the 2.0.5b client (which while still a BETA is pretty bug free), we could determine for sure what's going on, but none have taken my advice to do so.
Re: FSA Client - Review Flight Options -
I think CapFlyer is right in saying that it should be a good thing that all pilots are using the 2.0.5b. The blackbox could help a lot in looking to flights made by others VA and either detect a suspicious flight, or underline a nice way to complete a flight in order to minimize fuel use, and so on.
Meanwhile, even saying that, I will not loose time in "spying" other VA. I'm only interested by the flights done by my VA pilots, just for all of us to play fairly and with the goal to stick the more we can to real life.
Meanwhile, even saying that, I will not loose time in "spying" other VA. I'm only interested by the flights done by my VA pilots, just for all of us to play fairly and with the goal to stick the more we can to real life.
-
JJGoldberg
- Ticket Agent
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:56 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
Re: FSA Client - Review Flight Options -
Thanks for the prompt response... However I am very displeased!!!
***FSA does not provide a WIKI link within the 'Review Flight Request' context page or area; therefore FSA is being very condescending saying - 'how could you not know about it, stumble across it, as or 'Our WIKI explains... WIKI is as good a place as any to store FSAirline rules structure & explanations, however at minimum, provide a WIKI link within context please.
***Is FSAirlines seems comfortable & continues being condescending...'As for the "reviews" none are outstanding in our database, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.' FSA seems to be asking me to be specific & accusal in a public forum, is this a set-up? ...how is this appropriate?
***FSA says > 'We don't respond to a flight review request directly unless we deny the reason for the review.' - OK well I posted I had asked for a review of a number of flights, I posted that the flights were still listed without change... To me I await FSA respone outlining why my review was denied... right!!!!
***FSA says > 'We have recently discovered some of our calculations for determining when a flight is completed in an unrealistically short amount of time are not reliable... Because the review process is not 'public' the 'timing' & 'context' of answers as these are far from beneficial... I feel as if I am watching Bowinkel tell Rocky of pulling a rabbit from his hat, again!!! Now the duration recorded of long flights by FSA's Client is not reliable???!!!
***FSA says > 'I'm only interested by the flights done by my VA pilots, just for all of us to play fairly and with the goal to stick the more we can to real life. Hugh?!!! FSA posts & awards all kinds of stats, weather or how we use them or not has no bearing on weather the numbers are accuratly represent what they are supposed to... If they are not representative then how is it that anyone participating at FSA can be reasonably assured of play fairly and with the goal to stick the more we can to real life.
Jon J Goldberg
***FSA does not provide a WIKI link within the 'Review Flight Request' context page or area; therefore FSA is being very condescending saying - 'how could you not know about it, stumble across it, as or 'Our WIKI explains... WIKI is as good a place as any to store FSAirline rules structure & explanations, however at minimum, provide a WIKI link within context please.
***Is FSAirlines seems comfortable & continues being condescending...'As for the "reviews" none are outstanding in our database, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.' FSA seems to be asking me to be specific & accusal in a public forum, is this a set-up? ...how is this appropriate?
***FSA says > 'We don't respond to a flight review request directly unless we deny the reason for the review.' - OK well I posted I had asked for a review of a number of flights, I posted that the flights were still listed without change... To me I await FSA respone outlining why my review was denied... right!!!!
***FSA says > 'We have recently discovered some of our calculations for determining when a flight is completed in an unrealistically short amount of time are not reliable... Because the review process is not 'public' the 'timing' & 'context' of answers as these are far from beneficial... I feel as if I am watching Bowinkel tell Rocky of pulling a rabbit from his hat, again!!! Now the duration recorded of long flights by FSA's Client is not reliable???!!!
***FSA says > 'I'm only interested by the flights done by my VA pilots, just for all of us to play fairly and with the goal to stick the more we can to real life. Hugh?!!! FSA posts & awards all kinds of stats, weather or how we use them or not has no bearing on weather the numbers are accuratly represent what they are supposed to... If they are not representative then how is it that anyone participating at FSA can be reasonably assured of play fairly and with the goal to stick the more we can to real life.
Jon J Goldberg
-
CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Re: FSA Client - Review Flight Options -
I'm sorry, but nothing I said was condescending. However, I cannot say the same of your response. Calling me "FSA" instead of using my name, which is clearly on my signature, is quite rude.
First, our rules are not linked to the "review flight" button or script nor did I say that. Our rules are in the main part of the Wiki and are explained under the tutorials on how to start a VA and how to fly flights. If this wasn't clear, then I'm sorry, but I didn't think I needed to be specific when I said that our rules are contained within the Wiki. Additionally, there is a forum thread in our "Tips & Tricks" section appropriately named Why has my flight been marked 'Cheat' or 'Review'? that details why a flight might be automatically marked for review by the admins and the actions we can take as a result. Finally, there is a thread on the "Important Announcements" thread named NEW! Mark Flight For Review that further explains this feature.
Second, just because a flight is still in the database doesn't mean it wasn't reviewed or adjusted. All it means is that it wasn't deleted. If you're dissatisfied with that, you have the option of securely and privately submitting a support ticket instead of posting here in public like you have chosen to do to ask for clarification. You may not be able to see the changes because you don't have access to see what was changed. We will not be changing that.
Third, the problem is not with FSAirlines or the client, it's with the user's Flight Simulator, specifically, it seems to be with XPlane in most cases. Because the client relies on the simulator to provide it with the current "time" as a pilot may not fly at real time depending on his VA's rules and the flight's setup and may or may not fly at the current time (i.e. he wants to fly a flight scheduled for 8am but it's currently 9pm so he changes the sim's time to 8am) so using the computer's clock or the server's clock would not be an honest recording of the time it took to fly the flight, especially if the user paused the flight for some reason.
Finally, please do not confuse a user (Mr. Frederic) with me or any of the other FSAirlines Staff. Your last point is on his opinion and is not a policy of FSAirlines.
I am going to leave this topic open for now, but be careful with your words from here on out Mr. Goldberg. You are treading on very thin ice with the rules of this forum and with general civility. If you continue to be confrontational in your approach to this subject, this topic will be closed as we do not tolerate that kind of behavior here.
First, our rules are not linked to the "review flight" button or script nor did I say that. Our rules are in the main part of the Wiki and are explained under the tutorials on how to start a VA and how to fly flights. If this wasn't clear, then I'm sorry, but I didn't think I needed to be specific when I said that our rules are contained within the Wiki. Additionally, there is a forum thread in our "Tips & Tricks" section appropriately named Why has my flight been marked 'Cheat' or 'Review'? that details why a flight might be automatically marked for review by the admins and the actions we can take as a result. Finally, there is a thread on the "Important Announcements" thread named NEW! Mark Flight For Review that further explains this feature.
Second, just because a flight is still in the database doesn't mean it wasn't reviewed or adjusted. All it means is that it wasn't deleted. If you're dissatisfied with that, you have the option of securely and privately submitting a support ticket instead of posting here in public like you have chosen to do to ask for clarification. You may not be able to see the changes because you don't have access to see what was changed. We will not be changing that.
Third, the problem is not with FSAirlines or the client, it's with the user's Flight Simulator, specifically, it seems to be with XPlane in most cases. Because the client relies on the simulator to provide it with the current "time" as a pilot may not fly at real time depending on his VA's rules and the flight's setup and may or may not fly at the current time (i.e. he wants to fly a flight scheduled for 8am but it's currently 9pm so he changes the sim's time to 8am) so using the computer's clock or the server's clock would not be an honest recording of the time it took to fly the flight, especially if the user paused the flight for some reason.
Finally, please do not confuse a user (Mr. Frederic) with me or any of the other FSAirlines Staff. Your last point is on his opinion and is not a policy of FSAirlines.
I am going to leave this topic open for now, but be careful with your words from here on out Mr. Goldberg. You are treading on very thin ice with the rules of this forum and with general civility. If you continue to be confrontational in your approach to this subject, this topic will be closed as we do not tolerate that kind of behavior here.
-
CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Re: FSA Client - Review Flight Options -
I have to go back to this for a minute because it exemplifies the problem I have with your post. No where did I say that the client recorded the flight wrong.JJGoldberg wrote:***FSA says > 'We have recently discovered some of our calculations for determining when a flight is completed in an unrealistically short amount of time are not reliable... Because the review process is not 'public' the 'timing' & 'context' of answers as these are far from beneficial... I feel as if I am watching Bowinkel tell Rocky of pulling a rabbit from his hat, again!!! Now the duration recorded of long flights by FSA's Client is not reliable???!!!
I said:
(Emphasis added)We have recently discovered some of our calculations for determining when a flight is completed in an unrealistically short amount of time are not reliable...
This is part of our cheat detection on the server, not the client and has nothing to do with how the client works or how reliable it is. It has everything to do with whether a flight done at an average speed of 650 knots ground speed is possible for a given aircraft or not for the purpose of being flagged as for review. We are currently working on that to see why it is that these flights are getting through the system and more importantly why it is that flights are being completed in that timeframe but burning the right amount of fuel so we can determine where the problem is - whether it's the airplane being used, the sim itself, or if they're really doing something to cheat.
-
JJGoldberg
- Ticket Agent
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:56 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
Re: FSA Client - Review Flight Options -
CAPFlyer, my intent is to clear up some issues, & to keep the discussion about 'Review Flight' options impersonal... I replied to FSA & not 'you' in effort to do so; my apologies for any misunderstanding in 'formality'.
What I ask & make suggestions about above within my topic starter remains centered exclusively on the 'review flight options' process. Although I did not write that FSA had linked the rules to the review flight button script, as you state, I suggest that FSA do just that... I was glad to see you additionally mention the link to the 'Mark Flight For Review' posting, however having read that posting prior to creating this topic I restate... I wonder why FSA can not or will not create an easy one directory point access, linking the reviewed FSA client flights with FSA flight rules & its currently known bugs, as example, I believe mention to the 'Mark Flight For Review' posting is not on WIKI...
I feel at the moment this 'flight review' process seems quite arbitrary & has contributed to a diminishing enthusiasm to participate here at FSA, especially within nycAirSpeed's web site & multi-player flight server community!!! I feel that the review process should be public & should not be closed as it is now; closed workings lead to confusion & mistrust, as example, long flight duration miss-reading issues would be known & not sprung forth at the moment of friction... If for no other reason than properly filled out flight review requests will no longer simply seem to vanish, & we all would know to fill out a support ticket & privately send it to...?! I was sorry to read that no changes will be made regarding this point.
My apologies to all readers & FSA, MOW stated that he was only interested by the flights done by his VA pilots, & all of us should play fairly with the goal to stick to real life as much as we can; not FSA as I had tagged it.
Currently I own & run two free to join Flight Simulation server/sites > http://www.thecfs2flightdeck.com & http://www.nycAirSpeed.com; the rules for each site are posted & refereed within each sites home page & are... Respect others, & have fun!!! Any issue unresolved on these sites, users have all the rights in world to post their issue/s in the forums, at these servers flight simulation is about fun - it is not about making history, sim-history or otherwise. This may have elevated my expectations from FSA...
As I write this reply, wondering if it will merit censure for my 'attitude'... CAPFlyer is writing that upon his review, he did not write what I copied from his text, that as I pasted his words they exemplify his issue with my postings attitude - he then again copied & pasted what I copied & pasted, both copies & original examples matching exactly, stating that he wrote that instead... Help please!!!
As for the rest of CAPFlyer's recent post >>> whether a flight done at an average speed of 650 knots ground speed is possible for a given aircraft or not for the purpose of being flagged as for review. We are currently working on that to see why it is that these flights are getting through the system and more importantly why it is that flights are being completed in that time-frame but burning the right amount of fuel so we can determine where the problem is...
I offer the following 'theory' >>> Pilots are flying with damages & collision off & are able to over-speed at altitude & land at ridiculous speeds without consequence.
Jon J Goldberg
What I ask & make suggestions about above within my topic starter remains centered exclusively on the 'review flight options' process. Although I did not write that FSA had linked the rules to the review flight button script, as you state, I suggest that FSA do just that... I was glad to see you additionally mention the link to the 'Mark Flight For Review' posting, however having read that posting prior to creating this topic I restate... I wonder why FSA can not or will not create an easy one directory point access, linking the reviewed FSA client flights with FSA flight rules & its currently known bugs, as example, I believe mention to the 'Mark Flight For Review' posting is not on WIKI...
I feel at the moment this 'flight review' process seems quite arbitrary & has contributed to a diminishing enthusiasm to participate here at FSA, especially within nycAirSpeed's web site & multi-player flight server community!!! I feel that the review process should be public & should not be closed as it is now; closed workings lead to confusion & mistrust, as example, long flight duration miss-reading issues would be known & not sprung forth at the moment of friction... If for no other reason than properly filled out flight review requests will no longer simply seem to vanish, & we all would know to fill out a support ticket & privately send it to...?! I was sorry to read that no changes will be made regarding this point.
My apologies to all readers & FSA, MOW stated that he was only interested by the flights done by his VA pilots, & all of us should play fairly with the goal to stick to real life as much as we can; not FSA as I had tagged it.
Currently I own & run two free to join Flight Simulation server/sites > http://www.thecfs2flightdeck.com & http://www.nycAirSpeed.com; the rules for each site are posted & refereed within each sites home page & are... Respect others, & have fun!!! Any issue unresolved on these sites, users have all the rights in world to post their issue/s in the forums, at these servers flight simulation is about fun - it is not about making history, sim-history or otherwise. This may have elevated my expectations from FSA...
As I write this reply, wondering if it will merit censure for my 'attitude'... CAPFlyer is writing that upon his review, he did not write what I copied from his text, that as I pasted his words they exemplify his issue with my postings attitude - he then again copied & pasted what I copied & pasted, both copies & original examples matching exactly, stating that he wrote that instead... Help please!!!
As for the rest of CAPFlyer's recent post >>> whether a flight done at an average speed of 650 knots ground speed is possible for a given aircraft or not for the purpose of being flagged as for review. We are currently working on that to see why it is that these flights are getting through the system and more importantly why it is that flights are being completed in that time-frame but burning the right amount of fuel so we can determine where the problem is...
I offer the following 'theory' >>> Pilots are flying with damages & collision off & are able to over-speed at altitude & land at ridiculous speeds without consequence.
Jon J Goldberg
-
CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Re: FSA Client - Review Flight Options -
Mr. Goldberg,
However, let me make this clear - we will not be changing the review process to the extremes that you suggest. To humiliate a user in public when the problem may or may not be their own is counter productive and is the driving reason why we no longer mark flights as "possibly cheated" as we did in the past and instead mark them as "for review". Just because the client and the server finds something wrong, one cannot assume that it was done intentionally or with malice. In fact, because of our system, we've found several aircraft, including 2 payware aircraft that were unsuitable for FSAirlines operation because their fuel usage was unrealistically low. Additionally, we've identified others which we've been able to adjust to burn the right amount of fuel (An-124 & An-225 are the biggest examples of this), but this was found because users were confident that they wouldn't be brought before the world as having possibly cheated when in fact they'd done nothing of the sort.
You may believe that our system is arbitrary, but we have rules by which we review the flights, I have shown you where they are published, and you are the only one who has a problem with it, plain and simple. This network has been around for 5 years now and not once has anyone complained that our review process is "too private". In fact, the biggest complaint we've had was for it to be more private, removing the "red tag" altogether on flights currently under review, however we've chosen not to do that because there is still use for there to be a way for the public to see when flights have been flagged so that the same flight isn't flagged multiple times.
If you are unhappy with this, then I am sorry, but you will have to find somewhere else to go. You have been on this network for less than a month. We have several VA's, including the one I am a part of, which have been here since nearly or at the beginning of this network as "FlyNET", and none of them have had an issue with the review process to the extent that you apparently do. They trust that we, the staff of FSAirlines are going to be fair becuase we've proven that we will be. I know this because we've asked them here in this forum and they've responded as much. It is the same at VATSIM, IVAO, Flightsim.com, AVSIM.com, Simviation.com, and any number of large flight simulation websites and forums. The users of those sites trust that the staff will do their jobs correctly. If they don't, they trust that action will be taken to resolve that issue.
I'm going to close this topic with the following for you directly Mr. Goldberg - I am trying to remain civil over this matter, but your statements and accusations very much come across as someone who has nothing better to do than stick their nose into everyone's business but their own. Your statements on the review requests support that and your statements here support it as well. You would do well to take time to consider your attitude and how you approach these things. I know from experience. It is not your place, especially as a new user, to come into a network and try to place yourself as the "policeman of the network". It comes off as arrogant and it really pisses people off. If you want people to join your VA, this is not the way to do it.
Yet you still fail to use my name. I am not "FSA" I am Chris Trott, Database Administrator for FSAirlines. I speak for myself as a representative of FSAirlines and the guy who deals with flight reviews most days of the week. As such, my statements should be credited as my own, not as the group. The only time that a statement is "FSAirlines" is if it's released as such and those statements would be posted as announcements most likely from either Joe, Konrad or Claudio, the developers of this network.CAPFlyer, my intent is to clear up some issues, & to keep the discussion about 'Review Flight' options impersonal... I replied to FSA & not 'you' in effort to do so; my apologies for any misunderstanding in 'formality'.
However, let me make this clear - we will not be changing the review process to the extremes that you suggest. To humiliate a user in public when the problem may or may not be their own is counter productive and is the driving reason why we no longer mark flights as "possibly cheated" as we did in the past and instead mark them as "for review". Just because the client and the server finds something wrong, one cannot assume that it was done intentionally or with malice. In fact, because of our system, we've found several aircraft, including 2 payware aircraft that were unsuitable for FSAirlines operation because their fuel usage was unrealistically low. Additionally, we've identified others which we've been able to adjust to burn the right amount of fuel (An-124 & An-225 are the biggest examples of this), but this was found because users were confident that they wouldn't be brought before the world as having possibly cheated when in fact they'd done nothing of the sort.
You may believe that our system is arbitrary, but we have rules by which we review the flights, I have shown you where they are published, and you are the only one who has a problem with it, plain and simple. This network has been around for 5 years now and not once has anyone complained that our review process is "too private". In fact, the biggest complaint we've had was for it to be more private, removing the "red tag" altogether on flights currently under review, however we've chosen not to do that because there is still use for there to be a way for the public to see when flights have been flagged so that the same flight isn't flagged multiple times.
If you are unhappy with this, then I am sorry, but you will have to find somewhere else to go. You have been on this network for less than a month. We have several VA's, including the one I am a part of, which have been here since nearly or at the beginning of this network as "FlyNET", and none of them have had an issue with the review process to the extent that you apparently do. They trust that we, the staff of FSAirlines are going to be fair becuase we've proven that we will be. I know this because we've asked them here in this forum and they've responded as much. It is the same at VATSIM, IVAO, Flightsim.com, AVSIM.com, Simviation.com, and any number of large flight simulation websites and forums. The users of those sites trust that the staff will do their jobs correctly. If they don't, they trust that action will be taken to resolve that issue.
I'm going to close this topic with the following for you directly Mr. Goldberg - I am trying to remain civil over this matter, but your statements and accusations very much come across as someone who has nothing better to do than stick their nose into everyone's business but their own. Your statements on the review requests support that and your statements here support it as well. You would do well to take time to consider your attitude and how you approach these things. I know from experience. It is not your place, especially as a new user, to come into a network and try to place yourself as the "policeman of the network". It comes off as arrogant and it really pisses people off. If you want people to join your VA, this is not the way to do it.