The Reliability Factor

Happy New Year to all!!

I imagine most pilots here are excited with this year's release of FS2020. It's about time that a new sim came out with new technology built into it, I for myself am looking forward to VFR flying, I'm a former Commercial Pilot (ATP) but back in my flying days I enjoyed VFR flying the most. I've been using FS since FS for Windows 95 (I think). The only complain I have with the later versions is that they took away the "Reliability Factor" let me explain, when your flying a plane not only your navigating and flying but also checking constantly that every system is working ok. back in Win 95 in the emergencies tab you had a Reliability Setting, of course you could program any kind of emergency or malfunction but that took the surprise away but instead you could give the plane in percentage how reliable it would perform, I always had it in 99% for most flights, I know it's high but it made me be aware of all my systems and every now and then I would get a malfunction being just a little problem or a big emergency. In FSX you have the random emergencies setup but you input the time when it should happen taking the surprise away. I believe they should bring back the Reliability Factor thus bringing back the surprise.

What do you guys think?

Oscar

Totally agree with you. I've brought this up in the past suggesting there should be an add-on that can make failures more random in current sims so there is actual purpose for the user to be monitoring something beyond take off and landing.

All the sim would need to do is log hours spent flying an aircraft (default FS aircraft already do this) and then throw in some random failures after a realistic amount of hours. Ideally, you could also fine tune failure rate so failures could occur at say 2x or 4x a realistic rate but they would still be totally random.

I fly jets mostly. I re-write every checklist and remove all the mundane tasks like checking warning lights etc because I know there is no need to sit there doing this step. The lights will ALWAYS function 100% correctly. Switch positions are also always the same, another random element that could be added. It's another step I remove from my checklists as I don't need to check switches when I already know for certain the position they will be in.

Proper random failures would give purpose to all stages of flight simming and especially at cruise. Once you set the autopilot at cruise, you can go watch tv or whatever and your plane will still be flying when you get back. With random failures, you couldn't leave without an element of risk and there would always be need and purpose for monitoring instruments.

All this can certainly can be incorporated, it just isn't. I can't believe it isn't one of the most requested features as without it, there is no purpose at all to many elements of flight simming.

I haven't seen it requested anywhere for MSFS and I have little faith MS will add it themselves in a realistic/random sense so not expecting anything to be different when MSFS is released.

Hehe, I have a home built cockpit and get random failures all the time! Switches sticking, software issues etc. I am constantly having to tweek it to keep flying.

That said, I like the idea of a failure percentage slider. I too have been flying since the wireframe days and got so used to flying without failures I didn't even realise that there was ever a slider to do this. Perhaps because I am not a real life pilot this never seemed like it was something that was missing in my flights, but now reading this I too want it. It would certainly add something to the realism.

Great post Oscar !.

Stinger

I would also like to see this.

If systems are modeled deep enough then having to troubleshoot in flight would be an interesting and educational experience as well.

A maintenance and repair module would be a good addition to this as well.

How about a option to have a shared or rental plane that will fetch the state in which another random user left that type?

AFAIK only A2A has this with their accu-sim planes.

Could it be that MS may be afraid to offend aircraftmanufacturers if they state that on plane X system Y will fail Z% of the time or is too pessimistic about how much impact the landing gear can handle?

Hmmm Jeroen,

You've got a good point there about offending aircraft manufacturers!! maybe thats the reason they eliminated the reality factor

Apart from onboard systems Gremlins can be inserted in much more aspects of flying.

For example, there could be a small chance of another aircraft not noticing you so you actually need to look out for traffic. And if you don't turn on the correct lights then that chance would increase a bit.

Or incomplete radar coverage for ATC so reporting your position can actually make a difference.

Or airlines that are in the process of transitioning from imperial to metric.

Apart from onboard systems Gremlins can be inserted in much more aspects of flying.

 

For example, there could be a small chance of another aircraft not noticing you so you actually need to look out for traffic. And if you don't turn on the correct lights then that chance would increase a bit.

Or incomplete radar coverage for ATC so reporting your position can actually make a difference.

Or airlines that are in the process of transitioning from imperial to metric.

+1!! That's much more RW than just having random equipment failures, which thankfully are really hugely low!! That process would also allow simmers to learn to THINK and REACT, rather than just "fly" by rote!

Another good "failure" is incorrect or not enough weather reporting or observations. And the occasional "freak" weather change.

But then again, I guess we're adding hugely to the work load of the project designers. So I wouldn't hold my breath for it to happen that way.

Also a good example, but it should be modeled on a realistic feedbackloop.

Not making pireps will not magically cause bad weather in real life nor will you get a fine if you don't meet some quotum.

In real life you receive pireps because there is a community and that community can only exist when members are willing to give pireps to that community.

The sim could model this by making AI pilots make as much (or as little) reports as the player does.

I wonder what AI/machinelearning could do to characterize how you behave as a simulated pilot and then have the AI pilots mirror that.

Would you like to share the sky yourself?