A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

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

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

Post Reply
DavidK
Ticket Agent
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:36 pm

A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by DavidK » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:32 am

Hi.

First, I've been enjoying flying with a VA based here for the past couple of months or so (Classic British Flying Services), so thanks to FSA for making this possible.

I'm wondering, though, whether the assessment used to produce flight ratings might be made more comprehensive. Right now, I seem to be able to gain 100% for a flight so long as I have my landing lights on/off around FL100, don't exceed a couple of speeds (250 kts below FL100, 25 kts on the ground) and don't engage my aircraft's parking brake while still moving on the ground. That doesn't seem much to ask for a 100% rating. (http://wiki.fsairlines.net/index.php/Flight_Rating includes a few other things, but they are major and unusual one-off events such as crashing.) Trying to improve a rating below 90 to 100% seems much more fulfilling to me than repeating a routine that all but guarantees a 100% result.

I imagine that most if not all the aspects I have in mind have been mentioned or requested before. Is the next version of the client program due to include a more comprehensive flight assessment system? I'd be more than happy to serve as a "beta tester" and report on how far and how well such a system behaves.

DavidK

Konny
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:40 am
Location: Munich, Germany
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by Konny » Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:42 pm

Well, we always wanted to add more criteria to the flight-rating system, but I wouldn't expect them in the next release. I don't know if you have already tried the v2.0.2b, but the backend was completely overhauled and still needs some bugfixing before we can move on to this point. Apart from that there are some other nice features already "hidden" in the current beta release which need to be "activated" first.

Btw, thanks for your wiki-edits :)... and you've got an interesting user-page
Konrad - FSAirlines Developer
Image

User avatar
MMattyK
Captain
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:05 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by MMattyK » Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:01 am

That sounds interesting, adding more flight criteria... is there anywhere we can see the items that are being considered?
Image

Konny
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:40 am
Location: Munich, Germany
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by Konny » Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:02 am

There isn't a list yet but ideas in other posts here were: Touchdown V/S (if the detection was improved), max bank-angle, max g-force, max V/S, thrust setting during flight... and we're open for other ideas :)
Konrad - FSAirlines Developer
Image

DavidK
Ticket Agent
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:36 pm

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by DavidK » Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:35 pm

Thanks for the positive comments -- I'm glad a more thorough assessment is being considered. Here are some of the criteria that've occurred to me (to keep this post a manageable length, I've omitted suggestions as to how subtractions or additions to the flight rating percentage might work):
  • • Flights start and end from gates or parking spots.

    • Set the departure and arrival times to refer to scheduled departures and arrivals (thanks, CAPFlyer), i.e. to the moment your aircraft moves away from a gate or parking spot and the moment you power down the aircraft having set the parking brake at a gate or parking spot. (The penalty for setting it while still moving would still apply.) From the point of view of transporting passengers, this seems more realistic to me. Penalties for leaving the gate/parking early or late and arriving at the gate/parking late would apply, but perhaps not for arriving early. (Incidentally, the time FSX enters in the logbook appears to be as above, i.e. when the aircraft starts moving.) PS I imagine this is already well-known, but at present the client program seems to calculate flight durations incorrectly.

    • At airports/airfields that have them, a penalty (per second?) when straying off paved areas (i.e. wheels onto grass) and too far away from taxi lines.

    With the exception of movements caused by turbulence:
    • Climbing too steeply after takeoff and during flight for a passenger airliner.
    • Similarly, descending too sharply.
    • Banking at too great an angle for a passenger airliner.
    • Making any of these movements too abruptly.

    • If instructions from (artificial) ATCs can be monitored, then responses to IFR instructions, traffic patterns, landing on the correct runway, etc, etc, could be evaluated. Perhaps aspects such as angle of approach to runway could, hopefully, be evaluated anyway.

    • Penalty for flying below a minimum altitude before starting final descent onto runway, especially when airport is near a city or town.

    • Graded penalty or bonus for vertical speed on touchdown, e.g. >200 fpm or <100 fpm.

    • Penalty for failing to activate deicing system within say one minute of the outside air temperature falling to 0°C or below.

    • Penalties for stalls, overspeeds, etc, i.e. transitory events that would compromise an aircraft's ability to fly safely.

    • Vary the number of passengers per flight, maybe according to season/destination plus a little randomness.

    • Penalty if landing lights switched on before reaching runway or left on after exiting runway during daytime-- if that's the rules for real flights..? Similarly, penalty for port/starboard wingtip lights not switched on before moving away from gate/parking and/or not switched off before powering down..?

    • (Increasing) bonus when more realism activated in the flightsim program, e.g. higher realism settings, real weather (with updates), etc.

    • Real-time application of penalties/bonuses rather than when flight has been ended in client program.

    • (Small) bonus if route flown in real-time (1x) only?
Hopefully most if not all these criteria could be monitored. They also read as only penalties, but, for each one not penalised, a small (fraction of a) percentage could be added to the flight rating so that, over time, an average flight rating that's less than 100% could be improved.

Perhaps this more comprehensive kind of assessment might be available to folk who sign up for the Premium Account?

David K

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by CAPFlyer » Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:15 am

My responses follow -
DavidK wrote:• Flights start and end from gates or parking spots.
Okay, but what do you do about heliports that don't have either?
• At airports/airfields that have them, a penalty (per second?) when straying off paved areas (i.e. wheels onto grass) and too far away from taxi lines.
2 things here. First, FS doesn't report automatically whether on a taxiway or runway, only if on paved or unpaved surface. As such, it's hard to make that work. Additionally, it would be a major undertaking to define runway types for all the airports in the database.
  • With the exception of movements caused by turbulence:
    • Climbing too steeply after takeoff and during flight for a passenger airliner.
    • Similarly, descending too sharply.
    • Banking at too great an angle for a passenger airliner.
    • Making any of these movements too abruptly.
FSPassengers does a good job of this. I think this is going a bit beyond our "relaxed reality" idea here.
• If instructions from (artificial) ATCs can be monitored, then responses to IFR instructions, traffic patterns, landing on the correct runway, etc, etc, could be evaluated. Perhaps aspects such as angle of approach to runway could, hopefully, be evaluated anyway.
Not really feasible as many don't use ATC since it's so bad, and what about online ATC? Again, remember that we want "relaxed reality".
• Penalty for flying below a minimum altitude before starting final descent onto runway, especially when airport is near a city or town.
How do you determine what is "too low" for a given airport automatically?
• Graded penalty or bonus for vertical speed on touchdown, e.g. >200 fpm or <100 fpm.
We are going to implement damage for landings which will do more damage to the plane as they get harder and at some point will cause a "hard landing" which would entail a penalty, so that will take care of that. Beyond that, landing rates are hard to grade because so many factors are involved in it, many of which are nearly impossible for the pilot to control or compensate for.
• Penalty for failing to activate deicing system within say one minute of the outside air temperature falling to 0°C or below.
Flat out no on this one. Icing is much more complex than that. If icing occurs, there are already penalties for that, especially for many of the airplanes that people fly here, to include engine failures and wing ice accumulation.
• Penalties for stalls, overspeeds, etc, i.e. transitory events that would compromise an aircraft's ability to fly safely.
Yes and no. Too many models have poorly designed models, and even more than that, the default weather can change so quickly as to cause an overspeed, even when flying at normal cruise speeds during the transition.
• Vary the number of passengers per flight, maybe according to season/destination plus a little randomness.
Already on the list.
• Penalty if landing lights switched on before reaching runway or left on after exiting runway during daytime-- if that's the rules for real flights..? Similarly, penalty for port/starboard wingtip lights not switched on before moving away from gate/parking and/or not switched off before powering down..?
First, technically impossible (see the runway/taxiway comment). Second, no, that's not a requirement/rule, nor are the nav lights, depending on the type of flight.
• (Increasing) bonus when more realism activated in the flightsim program, e.g. higher realism settings, real weather (with updates), etc.
Don't really see the point in this. Again, we're here for relaxed realism. If people don't want to fly with weather, then I don't think we should be giving an incentive to those who do as it creates a perception that you must fly a certain way.
• Real-time application of penalties/bonuses rather than when flight has been ended in client program.
Already done. You just don't see them until the end on the report, but they're displayed and recorded in realtime. We don't display them because we don't want people restarting the flight just because they get a small penalty.
• (Small) bonus if route flown in real-time (1x) only?
Already done. You receive a bonus for flying only a 1x and that bonus gets smaller until there is no bonus for sim rates 8x and above.
Image

Vjacheslav
Flight Attendant
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:32 am
Location: EVRA
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by Vjacheslav » Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:24 am

• Vary the number of passengers per flight, maybe according to season/destination plus a little randomness.
Already on the list
This is great!

In this case, I would like to propose the idea of the possibility of replacing the aircraft AFTER the flight booking. In such cases, when the system produces a low number of passengers and profitable use for this flight, more economical aircraft.

For example, buying a ticket company airBaltic from Helsinki (EFHK) to Riga (EVRA), you can fly an Fokker-50 or the Boeing 757-200, at a time when this flight is usually performs Boeing 733/735. And depending on the number of passengers the company change the type of aircraft.

DavidK
Ticket Agent
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:36 pm

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by DavidK » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:24 pm

Thanks for the feedback, CAPFlyer. Here's my feedback on it:
DavidK wrote:• Flights start and end from gates or parking spots.
CAPFlyer wrote:Okay, but what do you do about heliports that don't have either?
• Flights start and end from gates or parking spots, or, with heliports, from helipads.
DavidK wrote:• At airports/airfields that have them, a penalty (per second?) when straying off paved areas (i.e. wheels onto grass) and too far away from taxi lines.
CAPFlyer wrote:2 things here. First, FS doesn't report automatically whether on a taxiway or runway, only if on paved or unpaved surface. As such, it's hard to make that work. Additionally, it would be a major undertaking to define runway types for all the airports in the database.
Okay, move this down the to-do list, but, if a runway-type database is what's required, then, if other uses could be made of it -- which I'd hope they could, e.g. to facilitate some of the other ideas -- then compiling it may be worthwhile. If so, I'd volunteer to help.
PS Just spotted by chance a link to a program called "MakeRunways" which, on first sight, might help here...
DavidK wrote:
  • With the exception of movements caused by turbulence:
    • Climbing too steeply after takeoff and during flight for a passenger airliner.
    • Similarly, descending too sharply.
    • Banking at too great an angle for a passenger airliner.
    • Making any of these movements too abruptly.
CAPFlyer wrote:FSPassengers does a good job of this. I think this is going a bit beyond our "relaxed reality" idea here.
Understood. Seems I should look into this FSPassengers program.
DavidK wrote:• If instructions from (artificial) ATCs can be monitored, then responses to IFR instructions, traffic patterns, landing on the correct runway, etc, etc, could be evaluated. Perhaps aspects such as angle of approach to runway could, hopefully, be evaluated anyway.
CAPFlyer wrote:Not really feasible as many don't use ATC since it's so bad, and what about online ATC? Again, remember that we want "relaxed reality".
I agree the ATC isn't great (at least, not as provided with FSX) but it does at least provide some boundaries, i.e. this traffic pattern rather than that one, this runway rather than that one, etc, so something to evaluate (if desired).
DavidK wrote:• Penalty for flying below a minimum altitude before starting final descent onto runway, especially when airport is near a city or town.
CAPFlyer wrote:How do you determine what is "too low" for a given airport automatically?
I left this suggestion vague intentionally. Knowing no better, I imagine there are international / continental / national minimum heights and then variations specific to airports, so, if not as far as the latter (perhaps added as part of the runway database) then the former -- or something agreed on by FSA users?
DavidK wrote:• Graded penalty or bonus for vertical speed on touchdown, e.g. >200 fpm or <100 fpm.
CAPFlyer wrote:We are going to implement damage for landings which will do more damage to the plane as they get harder and at some point will cause a "hard landing" which would entail a penalty, so that will take care of that. Beyond that, landing rates are hard to grade because so many factors are involved in it, many of which are nearly impossible for the pilot to control or compensate for.
I'm only thinking of converting the current touchdown v/s reading into a small penalty for say >200 fpm (alongside any damage/wear-and-tear) or small bonus for say <100 fpm (yes, "small" would need to be defined: say 0.1%? ). I know only too well that a well-prepared touchdown can be marred by crosswinds etc, but that's life; keep striving to minimise that touchdown v/s and I believe the bonuses would (more than) compensate.
DavidK wrote:• Penalty for failing to activate deicing system within say one minute of the outside air temperature falling to 0°C or below.
CAPFlyer wrote:Flat out no on this one. Icing is much more complex than that. If icing occurs, there are already penalties for that, especially for many of the airplanes that people fly here, to include engine failures and wing ice accumulation.
Flat-out understood. I added this one as a not-well-thought-out afterthought.
DavidK wrote:• Penalties for stalls, overspeeds, etc, i.e. transitory events that would compromise an aircraft's ability to fly safely.
CAPFlyer wrote:Yes and no. Too many models have poorly designed models, and even more than that, the default weather can change so quickly as to cause an overspeed, even when flying at normal cruise speeds during the transition.
Again, that's life; it happened to me only a few flights back, though with hindsight I realised I could've -- should've -- set the plane to make such a moment far more unlikely. The penalty need only be small, since the event is (usually) transitory; say 0.05% for every second?
DavidK wrote:• Vary the number of passengers per flight, maybe according to season/destination plus a little randomness.
CAPFlyer wrote:Already on the list.
Great. Is this list available for perusal? Sorry if I've missed it.
DavidK wrote:• Penalty if landing lights switched on before reaching runway or left on after exiting runway during daytime-- if that's the rules for real flights..? Similarly, penalty for port/starboard wingtip lights not switched on before moving away from gate/parking and/or not switched off before powering down..?
CAPFlyer wrote:First, technically impossible (see the runway/taxiway comment). Second, no, that's not a requirement/rule, nor are the nav lights, depending on the type of flight.
Understood as regards the lights -- assuming that's how it is for real (if so, I'm surprised) -- but, when you say it's technically impossible, do you mean because it would need the runway/airport database or because it simply couldn't be monitored (or something else)..?
DavidK wrote:• (Increasing) bonus when more realism activated in the flightsim program, e.g. higher realism settings, real weather (with updates), etc.
CAPFlyer wrote:Don't really see the point in this. Again, we're here for relaxed realism. If people don't want to fly with weather, then I don't think we should be giving an incentive to those who do as it creates a perception that you must fly a certain way.
Okay, but if flying a certain way = flying with more realism, how about having the option to factor it in for those who'd want it?
DavidK wrote:• Real-time application of penalties/bonuses rather than when flight has been ended in client program.
CAPFlyer wrote:Already done. You just don't see them until the end on the report, but they're displayed and recorded in realtime. We don't display them because we don't want people restarting the flight just because they get a small penalty.
DavidK wrote:• (Small) bonus if route flown in real-time (1x) only?
CAPFlyer wrote:Already done. You receive a bonus for flying only a 1x and that bonus gets smaller until there is no bonus for sim rates 8x and above.
Understood. Two fewer items, then, on this list.

Thanks again for your feedback. I hope any feedback on this feedback to your feedback is straightforward. "Relaxed reality" meaning "You don't have to fly with all these extra monitoring options enabled, but they're there if you want (as a tool to help you improve your flying)" would, I think, be great.

David K

PS As regards departure/arrival times, does the listing of the various fuel levels in an FSA post-flight report ("Fuel (Departure)", "Fuel (Takeoff)", "Fuel (Touchdown)" and "Fuel (Arrival)" in fact mean that the client calculates the duration of a flight from the moment it issues the "Flight state -- Taxi" message to the moment it issues the "Flight state -- On block" one? If so, I'll correct when I start the flight in the client, with apologies for my misunderstanding. I suppose, though, this won't mean much until what appears to be the client's miscalculation of the expected duration of a flight is fixed..?

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by CAPFlyer » Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:11 pm

When I say "Technically impossible" I mean exactly that. As I said in the item about taxing off runway surfaces - FS doesn't report "taxiway" or "runway" in a fashion that we can read externally (even though it can do it internally). This is why your suggestions relating to taxiing don't work - we can't tell nor can FS.

As for the lighting - navigation lights are only required when flying passengers, when flying on an instrument flightplan (regardless of weather as instrument flightplans can be filed on a nice day but must be filed for bad weather), and/or at night. Thus, a cargo flight (not carrying passengers) during the day, in visual conditions doesn't necessarily have to have its navigation lights on. In fact, it doesn't have to have its rotating beacons on either, nor does it even (technically) have to use its landing lights. We require the landing lights because all commercial operators we've been able to find (cargo or passenger) require them anyway.
Image

DavidK
Ticket Agent
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:36 pm

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by DavidK » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:40 pm

Understood. As regards runways and taxiways, I mistakenly got the impression that identifying and checking them might be possible although difficult.

I've downloaded and installed FSPassengersX and will give it a try sometime soon. It looks very extensive and potentially more sophisticated or complicated than what I have in mind, but, at the same time, I imagine its degree of realism can be configured. If it looks as if it can deliver what I think it might, I hope it can run alongside the FSA client without one causing problems for the other.

Are you able to give the PS at the end of my previous post any clarification, please? The explanation you provided about departure and arrival times (linked in the original post) was clear and helpful, so I'm hoping you can.

Thanks,
David K

User avatar
flightsimer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:35 am

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by flightsimer » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:08 am

CAPFlyer wrote:When I say "Technically impossible" I mean exactly that. As I said in the item about taxing off runway surfaces - FS doesn't report "taxiway" or "runway" in a fashion that we can read externally (even though it can do it internally). This is why your suggestions relating to taxiing don't work - we can't tell nor can FS.

As for the lighting - navigation lights are only required when flying passengers, when flying on an instrument flightplan (regardless of weather as instrument flightplans can be filed on a nice day but must be filed for bad weather), and/or at night. Thus, a cargo flight (not carrying passengers) during the day, in visual conditions doesn't necessarily have to have its navigation lights on. In fact, it doesn't have to have its rotating beacons on either, nor does it even (technically) have to use its landing lights. We require the landing lights because all commercial operators we've been able to find (cargo or passenger) require them anyway.
that supprises me as well. i thought it was mandatory that the rotating beacons be on at all times...

Also David, about landing lights. IN RW they get shut off pretty quickly because they will melt if they arent in some planes. I know for fact that the KC-135 has 4-5min after landing to turn them off before they melt as they are air cooled and the slow speed of taxiing isnt enough.
Owner/CEO
North Eastern Airways

Image
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive flight-rating assessment..?

Post by CAPFlyer » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:46 am

Sorry, I said Beacon and I meant Strobe. A red or white beacon is required on all aircraft certified under FAR Part 25, which basically covers all transport category (i.e. Commercial) aircraft in the United States. This regulation is generally copied by other aviation certification entities.
Image

Post Reply