Bad result for arriving to early at destination

[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