Aircraft Status.

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

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

pingvin992
Ticket Agent
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:07 pm

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by pingvin992 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:58 pm

Otherwise, what was to introduce training flights...

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:42 pm

AdySmith wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:32 am
It is very difficult to achieve a touchdown rate below 500 FpM in a Concorde, which typically has a final approach (threshold) speed of at least 160 KIAS which equates to 800 FpM down a typical 3 degree glideslope and there was very little flare involved for landing, but it did have rather strong undercarriage :D
Hey Ady, the median landing speed for pilots on our system is 297 fpm using the concord over the last two years on our system and 75% of all concord flights over that time are less than 500fpm so it can be done, but when we increase the hard landing speed to 600 that percent goes to 84%.

Question, when we do increase the 'Hard Landings' limit to 600 should we add a 'Firm Landing' warning with no ratings deduction for 400-599 fpm?
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:44 pm

MrJTSZ wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:48 pm
Is a good idea, but I thing it will be more accurated if the landing are 3000 or 5000fpm. At this point i'm sure the plane would be no able to fly :lol:
Interesting idea, I had considered making some updates to the 'crash' system so that if an AC bumps into something at the airport at a slow speed that its not recorded as a crash, as a converse to that, if a landing rates in the 2000+ fpm range but the pilot has turned off crash detection should we record that as a crash?
Image

pingvin992
Ticket Agent
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:07 pm

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by pingvin992 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:57 pm

Interesting idea, I had considered making some updates to the 'crash' system so that if an AC bumps into something at the airport at a slow speed that its not recorded as a crash, as a converse to that, if a landing rates in the 2000+ fpm range but the pilot has turned off crash detection should we record that as a crash?
Yes, I think if landing above 2000 feet per minute the flight needs to be recognized as emergency, even if the pilot has turned off the damage in the simulator. Moreover, the aircraft is automatically deducted from the company's balance sheet. Such measures should be introduced if landing -700 f / m (hard)


-700 f/m --- Plane CRASHED, the company loses money, the plane is written off to the scrap, also company have a 0 rating for the flight.

It would be much more interesting and would give meaning to training flights and training of pilots.

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:35 pm

I am reworking the formulas for status of the various system statuses. The goal is that for a normal 4 hour flight done correctly each system will lose 0.1% if flown with a 100x multiplier.

Note the square root of the multiplier in the formula already, so for those same flights at 1x will lose 0.01, 25x will lose 0.05 and 1000x will lose 0.3%.

I am doing some research on adjusting engine damage based on engine RPM and that may be an interesting feature to add to 2.3, but will not go into 2.2.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:18 pm

joefremont wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:42 pm
Question, when we do increase the 'Hard Landings' limit to 600 should we add a 'Firm Landing' warning with no ratings deduction for 400-599 fpm?
So I assume nobody likes the 'Firm Landing' idea?
Image

User avatar
Cat
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:45 pm

I think your damage curve should be relatively linear to 400 with small increments, change to exponential at 400 to 600 with ever increasing curve and then after 600 the curve should really steepen all the way to crash detection at -1600 (FSX standard). If you are posting a landing in excess of -1600fpm, that should be considered an extensive repair to the point of write off decision by the owner.

Image

Regardless of "crash detection on/off", FSA should have a set fpm for crash detection .... -1600 is more than generous. So in addition to extensive repairs, the flight is billed as a crash and loss of income.
Image

User avatar
Cat
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:58 pm

With Crash Detection "on" - bumping into a jetway or ground vehicle triggering "crash" in the simulator, that may get complicated, although if the damage were slight, passengers would still be misplaced and cargo shipments disrupted and a financial penalty on the airline would be in order. But to slap the airline with a 20 point "crash hit" on their reputation seems pretty unfair as well. Perhaps a 4 point hit on low velocity (ground speed) "crashes" where damage is minor but service disruption still happens as the flight has to be rebooked and flown again. Much like a wrong airport landing maybe? Then comes the debate about why are people who fly with crash detection on being punished vs. those who have it off to avoid such minor incidents? And pilots can always EXIT the Flight Tracker Client anytime and start a flight over without penalty, so a lot of this is moot if pilots know the exit procedure.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:43 am

I have been working on the formula and I think I came up with something that is workable. As before its based on the kinetic energy when the AC hits the runway so the damage does go up geometrically, but not quite as brutal as you were suggesting Scott. It is essentially flat through 300 fps, 400 fps is essentially equivalent to 2 landings and goes up from there. How much damage is dependent on the multiplier used but if your using 100 or greater and hit the runway at 1600 fps your going to need at least a B check.

We could do more but I don't want to discourage pilots too much. I do want to add code so that slow speed impacts are not considered crashes and high speed are even if crash detection is off but that will need to wait till later. I am waiting to see if any other bugs show up before I release 2.2.5 with the adjustments to the damage formulas, so far things are pretty quiet, which is good.
Image

User avatar
Cat
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:13 am

Oh yes, if you give us -399 and under as normal, I don't care what you do above it! :D
Image

User avatar
Cat
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:40 pm

Question: did you already implement the status hit for aircraft parked more than 30 days or are we seeing a simple "adjustment" to the new formula? Seeing guys make really good landings and get hit with .3% reductions in status.

Just curious, thanks again for all your hard work!

Regards,

Sam
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:45 pm

Cat wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:40 pm
Question: did you already implement the status hit for aircraft parked more than 30 days or are we seeing a simple "adjustment" to the new formula? Seeing guys make really good landings and get hit with .3% reductions in status.

Just curious, thanks again for all your hard work!

Regards,

Sam
I did not make that adjustment yet, but I did change the status formula based on number of engines. Before to calculate the status we added up each engine plus the hull and gear, so for a 4 engine AC the engines made up 2/3 of the status, on a single engine only 1/3, but I changed it so the engines make up the same percent of the value, weather its 1 or 4 engines.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:04 pm

I spent some more time on the formula, first some data. The median average of all landings on FSA since the start of 2016 is 170 fps and 77% of all landings are less than 300 fps, so I think expecting pilots to shoot for 300 or less an achievable goal. Based on that I thought the formula should be flat till 300 and then to up in a v squared curve so that with 25x at 1600 fps you would need a B-Check. Here is how the numbers would work out.

VS % Reduction
0 0.050
100 0.050
200 0.050
300 0.050
400 0.079
500 0.167
600 0.314
700 0.519
800 0.782
900 1.104
1000 1.485
1100 1.925
1200 2.422
1300 2.979
1400 3.594
1500 4.268
1600 5.000
Image

User avatar
Cat
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:25 pm

Would flight time come into "wear and tear" play as well? ATM if a pilot takes really good care of their airplane, they can get 4+ flights out of it without any status drop. I do like the fact -399 to 0 would now be treated the same: "normal landing window" and it would get pilots off the fixation of having to 'grease' large aircraft by using extended flare maneuvers which is totally against all large aircraft operating manuals.

In fact you can damage the gear of a large aircraft by landing too smoothly which causes "wheel wobble" and puts side stress on the bushings and gear strut components before the weight of the aircraft comes down fully........but to penalize a sim pilot for too smooth of a landing goes way too far in my book ..... at some point KIS (Keep it simple) needs to come into play. The above formula does just that. 8)
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:36 pm

I agree the theme of KSI, that 'landing too smoothly' is not something we really want to deal with.

Currently for the gear it's all about the landing. For the hull for a successful four hour flight its half landing and half hours. The landing also factors into engines but less than on the hull (you don't want to overstress the mounts). But was thinking about this on the train to work this morning, we probably should look into other things the pilot could do to damage there craft. I thought about turbulence but would not want to discourage pilots from using real world weather, but having the flaps and gear down when your flying to fast could be added. Engine hours could be adjusted based on the percent of max RPM your using.
Image

Post Reply