Bad result for arriving to early at destination

[SkyAirWorld]

Yes, but within a reasonable early time, like say 10 mins early? 15 tops...

[SkyAirWorld]

and also these days with fuel if you:


go faster= more fuel used

so

company = unhappy

Which =you unhappy

[Florian Wassmann]

Hello again,

I would like to summarize my suggestion in some answers on may asked questions.

How to "trim" the difference in estimation of time on shorter and longer flights?
Due to the approach path, a flight from KOAK to KTVL with a B 737 can take 34 minutes or 50 minutes, as well. This is a large span for a short trip.
To improve it, I would use time-surcharges for start and approach. May 10 minutes* each should be okay.

How to make it relativly to the choosen aircraft?
FSP should reed out the most important speed data from Aircraft.cfg before flight starts. In this way, there will be no more disadvantage of using a
vintage aircraft, as long as your fly well.

What data are important for the calculation?
For calculation, the total length of all parts of the flight should be addet to the total distance of your flight (like FS 2004 NavLog does). At this
moment, this data should be enough for FSP.

And what is about the panalty for coming early or late?
The estimated FSP-arrival time should be the base of evaluation. In the case of beating it with less than 80%* something might be wrong, so your
arrival airport is angry and you will suffer from a (cash)-penalty. In the other way arround, in case of coming late (for example 120% of estimated
time) passengers may become angry. Nevertheless you may can earn a bonus for arrive on time.

* = better values have to be balanced out a little bit later

What Do you think about it??? = )
I am really very interested in your point of view.

Thx and best regards

[relichd]

Sounds nice. I would put the airport's penalty in place on arriving too early and too late, while the customer penalty would only apply when extremely
late...

The question is, however, is this enhancement worth the time Dan would spend by programming it?

[Florian Wassmann]

The question is, however, is this enhancement worth the time Dan would spend by programming it?

That is a legitimate question. I think yes, but this is my subjective point of view. I hope that there is a simple way to solve, but apart from some
VB programming knowledge, I can not say much about programming efford. But about FSP until today ... let me say ... Dan you did a good job!!!

regards

[JanniCash]

Florian Wassmann wrote:

The question is, however, is this enhancement worth the time Dan would spend by programming it?

That is a legitimate question. I think yes, but this is my subjective point of view. I hope that there is a simple way to solve, but apart from some
VB programming knowledge, I can not say much about programming efford. But about FSP until today ... let me say ... Dan you did a good job!!!

The real question is if FS Passengers ever should have imposed all those detail "policy rules" by hard coding them into the very C code, or if all
what Florian is asking about should have been kept in some sort of scripting language embedded in FSP and accessible to scenario modders.

Don't take this wrong. I totally understand Dan's legitimate need to make sure not being ripped off. It is the balance between what needs to be closed
to achieve that and what can be open to customization that I criticize "How" FSP exactly does load your aircraft, simulates an engine failure or
detects that you didn't declare an emergency is the secrets to keep. What the resulting penalty is should be up to the scenario developer. How to
actually cause the effects of that penalty (loss of flaps) is up to FSP again. As long as the scenario developer cannot do it without FSP ... why not
let him do it? For me it is all about the freedom of making the rules and how to implement them.

Then again, all this is easily said by someone like me, who actually doesn't have to make a living by coding. I played with embedding scripting
engines into relational database engines just for the fun of doing it over 10 years ago. I never thought this sort of playing with open source code
could pay my bills today. Dan may have never learned how to embed a free scripting engine into any program. It is not easy. So again, I do understand
Dan and his decisions. Not that I like each and every one of them ... but I do understand.


Jan

[skwaL]

You see friends, there is a catch to it like Dan have said , for example I only do long haul fights......and fly with traffic. With all the right
planning I add approximate time shown in my plane's FMC and add another 20min. With all ATC and Traffic.....descent, I am always able to fly into any
10h+ destination about either 15 min late or early not more.............
Its the planning that you do, that really counts, if u do everything in the head........if course. I fly only payware aircraft, and in Wing sections
of FMC, i look at weather charts (weather maps on inet) and input them.....computer calculates xtra or less time...........

with simple aircraft its much harder........

[JeffMcBride]

It's probably been discussed before but I would personally like to see a multi-leg flight option so that I could fly from point A to point B to
point C if so desired or from point A to point B back to point A. Then factor in the pax that are waiting on the flight to arrive so that they can
board. So not only are you concerned with the pax on board your jet but the ones waiting to board your aircraft at arrival.

I have arrived early at an airport before (in real life), only to have to sit on the tarmac waiting for a gate to open up. I don't think I will ever
have this problem in FSX.

[skwaL]

aahahah good point

[SkyAirWorld]

I'm glad I dont do major long haul or in a large plane,

I have never had to wait around for a gate

_

ATC: ***** where are you parking?
****: I don't know, just to tie up. anywhere
ATC: ***** taxi to anywhere

on starting again
"Tower ***** is at anywhere request taxi to active

[b1ackcr0w]

I've been thinking about why Pax might be angry to land too early. Possible reasons *might* be...

1. Having to wait for ages in unserviced arrivals lounges. The baggage handlers won't be ready so they have to hang around the carusels
for ages.

2. Their onward travel arrangements wouldn't be ready. Again they'd have to hand around unserviced arrivals facilities for ages. I'd
presume the VIP class Pax would be the first to get shirty about this type of thing.

3. Pax might in the real world might have to sit in the plane at the gate until ground staff arrive to attach the skygate or steps.

And finally, and probably the most convincing reason...

4. People are just picky and a pain in the posterior in general?!