Ideas for the future and a question

[SAS480]

Hi

I've noticed some of the requests here for coming versions are a bit unrealistic at times, anyway, here's a few things I imagine could be
implemented:

1. Usually the seatbelt sign are turned on BEFORE the aircraft encounters the turbulence. Giving a bonus for keeping an eye on your WX-
radar and turning signs on in time would be a nice addition.

2. Why am I not allowed to fly with broken parts? If I wanna fly with operational fuel tank because I cant afford to repair the leaking one,
why
stop me? I agree it's realistic that the local authorities wouldn't want people flying around in broken aircrafts, but maybe instead when
flying with a defect airplane there would be a risk of getting a fine from the government.

3. Someway to make diversions without getting blamed for landing at the wrong place. Ofcourse there should still be somekind of
consequence as pax ofcourse not would be happy to end up the wrong place.

All I can think of right now. Great product btw!


Oh, and the question: Many aircrafts takeoff without using any flap, is there some way to takeoff without flaps with fsp without getting
punished?



/Daniel

[Ryanamur]

Hi SAS480,

Turbulence detection would be nice but what about the poor pilot flying in a C172?

Broken parts? You can fly with some damage... important parts must not however be damaged. That's actually in the flight rules of most countries! FsP
believes that you are a great and professional pilot who of course would not recklessly endanger the lives of your passengers. In fact, it won't let
you do it!

Diversion... if I understand you correctly, you'd need a way to change the destination in-flight so that you don't get penalized for landing at the
wrong airport while keeping the pax unhappy. Is that right? If so, I would be inclined to request an alternate before you take-off as opposed to
in-flight. What do you think?

For the flaps on take-off, Dan might include that option in the next version.

Phil

[SAS480]

Hi

"Turbulence detection would be nice but what about the poor pilot flying in a C172?"
That's why I said there should be a bonus for detecting, and not a minus if you don't.


" If so, I would be inclined to request an alternate before you take-off as opposed to
in-flight. What do you think?"
Sound reasonable..


/Daniel

[SWAFO]

Daniel,
I like your idea about the turbulence detection (I made a similiar recommendation in a nother post of mine entitled "ATTENDANT
CALL SYSTEM" perhaps you can search for it, and let me know if you like that feature.).


There's only one problem with turbulence detection. There's really no guaranteed way to detect turbulence in FS9 (unless you set it, and
know where you'll encounter it). Sure, you may be using a add-on WX radar, however not everyone has these, and a WX radar is only
going to show precipitation returns. You might be able to find turbulence in heavy precipitation, and therefore be able to notify the PAX
ahead of time (by flipping on the belt sign), however what about all the CAT that's out there? Good luck detecting that from in front of a 19"
monitor... it's hard enough in reality.

I think the alternate airport is a good idea. Normally, before takeoff we'll have preselected enroute diversion airports, and at least one
destination alternate. Perhaps Dan could add a feature that would enable you to set a single destination alternate (since the presetting
of enroute alternates, and multiple destination alternates would require lots of coding, and frankly be not worth the work) before takeoff.
This would be a simplified version of real work alternate selection, and would at least allow us to deviate to an alternate airport due to WX
without getting too hefty a penalty.

What do you think?

Oh, and about the "broken parts". Why would you want to fly with broken parts in the first place? Safety is of top concern here at all US
airlines (I'm not sure what country you're from), and I'd never dream of taking off anytime I know something could be in better shape. Of
course we have MEL's, and they usually have a few items listed on them, but NEVER any safety infringements. Oh, and by the way... you
wouldn't be getting a fine from the government. It would be more like a full NTSB investigation and grounding of your fleet after your fuel
tank leak caused an engine fire and crash with 142 fatalities. Not a good idea to fly with a leaking fuel tank. lol

[jboweruk]

With the alternate, setting a dest only gets you an extra bonus. Setting an arrival time as well can get you even more points (assuming
you are bang on time) so just don't set a destination, then you can land where you like, unless or until Dan implements some way of
asking for a destination change at least.

[nem]

Ryanamur wrote:
If so, I would be inclined to request an alternate before you take-off as opposed to
in-flight. What do you think?

Oh yes, yes, yes, pleeeeeease.

[SWAFO]

If I don't set a destination, or an arrival time, then I won't get the bonus's I usually get... and with me so far behind in points, I need all I can
grab

[Ryanamur]

OK, I put the alternate airport request in the development forum. It's now up to Dan to include it or not.

Phil