Archive > ProPilot Main Forum

Propilot v2 - What would you like to see on it?

<< < (7/8) > >>

EHM-2310 Mark:
I was at another VA that had quite a complex financial system.

Pilots got paid for flights and as staff members. You could spend your money on all sorts of stuff like cars and houses and the like. And there was a sophisticated investment program where you could buy stocks in the VA and the aircraft. Stock values would go up and down depending on how many flights the VA was doing and all sorts of factors.

It was good and added some realism... but ultimately it was all a bit pointless. Pilots had millions in their bank accounts and  just spend it for the sake of spending it. It meant nothing really. However, if you could use the cash to buy custom aircraft, or custom paintjobs. Or to buy your way into elite clubs that offer things like member-only flights and tours, for example. Unlocking or buying something special that you can actually use would be something to aim for instead of just random virtual junk.

Of course, the big danger with this kind of system is those flights that don't pay as well will not be flown as often. You'll get people grinding the money flights. It'll be like WoW with wings lol

Dunno, just thought I'd share that with you all.

Mark

EHM-2387 Eric-Jan:
In my short EHM "career", my biggest PP frustration was the landing lights penalty. Especially when you fly short hops with class 1 planes at relatively low altitudes it is unreallistic to switch them off for those 5 minutes you reside above FL100. Then, of cause there was a setting that switched LL of together with landing gear retraction (it does not do that anymore; don't know what I've changed...). That would make a rather rediculous looking flight, with landing gear down up to and down from FL100!

As a more sophisticated rule, I would suggest LL need to be "on" from take-off 'till at least alt=2000; then the limit could stay at 2000 untill 8000 is passed (or another number), at which point the limit to turn them back on on descend is set to that value. I don't know if there are real life values. The above are just my examples.
A simpler rule could be LL "on" when airborne AND below 2000; LL "off" when above 10000.

Note: high altitude airports should be compensated for, so altitude is Above Departure Airport Level altitude. Maybe there's the difficulty withthe current system?


Another suggestion:
Make the penalty rules easier to find; when I did not find them soon enough I just switched off my LL 15 min in flight at alt=8000; "Landing Lights not turned on at take off"; arghhh. I wouldn't call that take off anymore. Not that those 100 points amounts to much with all the rough landing penalties I got so far ;)

Instead of deducting points for bad airmanship, could we not hand out pints to quickly forget the mistakes we made? ;)

EHM-2387 Eric-Jan:
Just thought of another one:

When I flew the SU-80 to EHAM, and landed on RWY18R, the taxi to GA took me about 1/2 hr. When filing the pirep, it gave an error: "more than 25 minutes between touchdown and engines off. PIREP cannot be submitted". Argh!
I re-did the (short) flight, and took out the GPS to monitor my GS. Kept it at around 20 kts all the time, except for sharp turns. Still I needed 18 minutes to taxi. If this were an online flight, I would probably not have been alowed to race across EHAMs taxiways. Or at least not all the time.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that it is pretty tight at EHAM (and I imagine EGLL and other large airports will have the same thing) to taxi fast enough from one end to the other, without exceeding 25 kts of cause. Perhaps this time requirement should be loosened a bit. Wouldn't like it if this happened after a long haul...

EHM-1001 Robert:
I do not know if it was mentioned before, so excuse me please.

I would like to see a "respawn" feature. We are loosing too many aircraft from the fleet. I would put them back "alive" to the departure point if it was proven from ACARS that a system crash had happened during the flight. Penalty points would remain, but the plane could be available again.

Another thing is the balancing of award/penalty points. Currently you can ~10 times easier penalized than awarded. This will lead to GIANT negative points. I would divide penalty points by 10 to have a better balance among the scores and to give more smile to pilots ;D

EHM-1749 Hector:
Due to the length of this issue I would like to wrap up my suggestions:
1.- Put more weigth on both the on-line flights and PP events in the FAC algorithm. No doubt that both activities need much more attention to the pilot.
2.- Make compulsory for the pilot to fly the return trip allowing for a reasonable time for doing it. This will avoid the high number of planes left on the airports all over the world, If the plane is not flown back and not an explanation is sent to the hub's manager, a penalty should be applied.
3.- Fuel management should also be part of the FAC
4.- Allow ProPilot for stop overs in long range fligths no longer than 24 hrs.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page