EDIT:(A NOT SO) Huge Problem!(sorry, but it sounds better:)

[pete999]

Hi all

Well here you go!

1. My aircraft after one flight is now on nearly 80%! to fix this it will cost me $42 million!

2. The aircraft is now on 0 value again!

[cmdrnmartin]

Did you :

a) Crash it

b) Zero Value should be fixed after one flight with the aircraft.

[pete999]

No

and no can some please fix my aircraft!

[tallmike]

No

and no can some please fix my aircraft!

Maintain the aircraft resets the value.

Mike.

[pete999]

No because I'm not paying 42 million when I did do a thing!

[ivanT3]

Hey, wait a second here!! You just said you "did do a thing" Sounds strange man, I mean,, we all have a "thing" but, this is the flynet board and, we should NOT talk about our thing [sorry, I kid sometimes }

Really though Pete. It's been our experience that if you go fly the plane again, this time, using the new client '6.3'?, It will fix you're problem. Or, you could just park it in Arizona for the bird's to nest in and buy a new one. Or, you could give it to me, and I'll fly it....

OK, I'm done being a smart ass now, Back to the program

Ivan.........................

[Quantum]

Pete,

I appreciate your dilemma but you really need to get some data to provide Konny and DaKurt with in order that they can fix the problem.

As with all flights, you should do a thorough pre-flight check and check the aircraft tech log and see that it is fit for service : Check it's % maintenance state.

Upon landing you should make sure that the aircraft has been left in a serviceable condition for the next pilot; Check it's % maintenance state.

Now comes the tricky part : If there is a problem with the maintenance state of your aircraft post flight you should provide as much info as possible in order that the aircraft can be fixed. You need to send your log/report files in to FlyNET as well as any other such data that you can provide so that any bugs can be ironed out. Your post above doesn't really give that much information for someone to fix.

A nice email to Konny info@flynet.en-studios.de with your log and report files plus the link to your flight report and a link to the fleet page and a link to the aircraft page will speed things up. Give as much information as you can.

If you re-read your initial post and think about it I'm sure you will agree that you've not given much detail for them to go on.

Rgds

John

[DaKurt]

ok...so let me tell you what I exactly changed in 6.3 ... in 6.2 (where konny programmed the damage part) the value of an aircraft was only computed by the amout of vertical speed while touchdown at the end of a flight.

I thought this wasn't very accurate. First of all the damage of engines, hull and gear depended on this touchdown speed, which isn't really realistic (what does a engine damage have to do with touchdown speed??? ) and second if you touched the runway more than once while landing only the last touchdown was used to calculate the value.

Now, I split the damage up. The engines get damaged very slowly depending of the flight time! (just some normal abrasion!) The gears get damaged seperately depending on the touchdownspeed (just like it used to be) only with the difference that multiple touchdowns are now used, too.


Lets have a look at the problems now
Ok, so with the new calculation method I had to invent 2 constant values which define the impact of a damage. I don't have any feedback if these values are too big or too little!

Second problem is...when you for example land on grass...you might do many little jumps which means more damage. So in 6.2 this didn't matter at all, but now this hurts the gear a bit more! (which is of course logical, isn't it?) But I admit that the value for the gear damage might be too high and that could explain the 80% of your aircraft...

did you have a rough landing? did you land on grass? made many jumps?
I don't have another explanation.

I would appreciate to hear from you what you think about the damage done to your planes. Is it too much, or not enough?
Konny will shortly change the maintenance page, so that you can see the damage more detailed (engine- and gear damage seperately)


greetings DaKurt
hope you understood something

[Quantum]

Hi DK,

Thanks for the explanation of the intended 'damage' effect. There must still be a problem somewhere as I've been flying an Islander around the Scottish Islands (Orkney and Shetlands) and have seen no affect on value or maint state. A lot of these flights have been very short duration so probably is the reason why no value/aircraft% change has been noticed but I would have thought I'd have at least seen a dollar deducted from the value. We've also had a VC15 which has done a couple of flights also with no apparent drop in value/aircraft %. Some flights in Viking aircraft have seen no affect, one flight has seen a small affect. Not sure what happened with Pete's aircraft (above) but there does not appear to be consistancy between reporting.

We've had lots of conversations on the forums regarding maintenance with many different suggestions. A maintenance system that you are trying to devise does not suit all aircraft. Vertical speeds at touchdown between different aircraft have different effects in real life and does not suit all aircraft in FS/FlyNET either. CBFS have several types on fleet that are designed for 'tough' landings : Islander/Skyvan/BAe146/HS748/HS780 and with these aircraft they are designed from the outset by the manufacturers to operate into unprepared landing strips which would hurt other aircraft. I agree that we have to have some sort of maintenance factor for the aircraft but they must be suitable for all types. I've said it before and will say it again, hours flown seem to be the best way to go about things. This will take into affect engine and airframe life between overhauls. If you want to factor heavy landings then have a 'slider' depending on V/S at touchdown 0-400fpm nil affect, 400-500 "x" affect, etc etc. Fancy calculations aren't working for whatever reasons, keep it simple. It will also be easier for pilots to see what affect their flying is having and also some prediction.

If you are going to make a change to the client why not say to us "Right, this is what we intend to change next and we want to get it right, so what are we going to do about xyz?" You recently asked for suggestions about what to do next and you got many many different suggestions but didn't let us know what you intended to work on next.. You need to pick one to concentrate on and work it (ask the pilots) until you get it right. When it's right, move onto the next agenda item. Let us know what you are working on and ask for input. From the input, narrow down the course of action that is agreeable and has some sense and let us know what your intentions are.

So, with the recent client updates, it's pretty obvious that you are working on 'maintenance' so why not throw JUST this topic open onto the forum for SPECIFIC input and get some sort of action plan as to what you and we would like to see implemented for maintenance. Once an agreed plan has been drawn up THEN implement it.

I like FlyNET and appreciate what you guys are doing but we need to be working together in the same direction to avoid the headaches that we have been getting with the recent client updates

Rgds

John

[DaKurt]

well I don't understand that. The damage calculation, has always been based on touchdown vs and everyone was happy...and as soon that you explain how it works everyone says it's not good The thing I'm improving here is more an "abrasion" than a "damage". if you land hard (no matter which aircraft) the so called "damage" goes up. It doesn't mean that anything is damaged, but that you should go to mantainence if do it really often...I think that a airplane that is built to do hard landings is maybe more often in mantainence in order to check everything.

So we have to find a way to do thigns that satisfies everybody. I think that most people here fly with big machines (VA = virtual AIRLINE! = airliners), so that's why I look for a solution that's ok for all machines. The damage done to the airplane is already much lower than in reality! So I can't change the damage for every airplane type.

I'm sorry.

What I want to say is, that I didn't change anything fundamental. I just added some logical things...f.e. why should the damage done only depend on the last touchdown? and so on...

greetings

[Quantum]

Hi DK,

OK just looking at your pdf and I can't work out how your calcs will actually work. Could you please give a couple of examples to help me understand?

example 1. VC15 at 100% status, value v$45,000,00 a five hour flight with 300fpm v/s at landing

example 2. BN2p at 100% status, value v$90,000 a 1 hour flight with 150fpm v/s at landing

example 3. B752 at 100% status, value v$73,000,000 a 7 hour flight with 200fpm v/s at landing.

Please give expected value and acft % after flight.

Rgds

John

[DaKurt]

ok short explanation. you currently have 3 different "damage" types. Gear, Hull and Engines.

The Gear loses condition due to touchdowns. The percentage lost hereby is calculated by: Vertical Speed * 0,1%
lets say you land with -100 feet / minute and your gear-state was at 90% .... then your gear state will be

90% - 100 * 0.001 = 89.9% ...

The Engines decrease their condition due to the flight time (same way to calculate it) ... and the Hull gets damaged by both (the flighttime and the touchdown speed!) ...

in the end you have calculated three values...example:
gear = 89.9%
engines = 98%
hull = 96%

with those three values you can calculate the new aircraft value. Here the engine damage weights 60% of the whole value, the gear and hull only 20%.

so if your airplane originally costs 100.000v$

your new airplane-value is=


100.000 * 0.6 * 0.98 (engines) +
100.000 * 0.2 * 0.899 (gear) +
100.000 * 0.2 * 0.96 (hull) = 95.980 v$

do you understand it now?