Hi @Karim-CTO-SimFly . I see here you claim you introduced this so that pilot scores don’t affect asset owners right? But this seems to only benefit Airport owners, Airplanes seem to be heavily impacted by the users landing score, making renting our airplanes less desirable.
Check this report for example SimFly | Fly and Earn
The plane owner got almost nothing and the plane goes into cooldown.
Seems like a bug. This was not implemented for airplane owners.
Thank you!
Hi @MatheoF,
I can assure you that this logic is working correctly. We performed several tests to make sure that the deduction related to the pilot’s Total Score does not penalize other users’ aircraft or airports.
In this specific case, the result actually confirms it because, as you can see, the aircraft generated very few PAX Tokens because the Landing Rate Total Score was only 6/100. This score is very relevant for aircraft PAX Token production.
Unfortunately, the pilot landed with a landing rate of -2203 fpm. This may simply have been a pilot mistake, and it does not necessarily mean it was intentional. However, if this happens multiple times, it can become a serious issue because the aircraft also enters cooldown/ground operation and does not produce the PAX Tokens it should.
This is part of the risk of renting out your aircraft, but we also plan to release a blacklist feature so owners can block specific pilots from using their aircraft.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
@Karim-CTO-SimFly , but shouldn’t the owner of the aircraft not be penalized?
From @MatheoF screenshot it says “The aircraft owner and the airport owner are not affected”… “any deduction impacts only the pilot’s payout, without affecting the amounts due to asset owners”.
So I understand the pilot receiving almost no PAX for the plane, but shouldn’t the owner of the plane also get their PAX regardless of a good score? As the airport owners do? That’s what I understand from the text.
Exactly, the screenshot says “Aircraft owners are not affected” but they are indeed.
If we continue going down this road, no one will rent their aircraft.
If you implement a risk free payment for airports, why not for airplanes? That is not fair.
The “Total Score: PAX Token Deduction” logic applies exclusively to the flight’s Total Score and does not affect the Landing Rate Total Score.
This new logic was introduced to prevent users from flying poorly, receiving a low Total Score, and still continuing to earn PAX Tokens from the aircraft and airport split.
So aircraft and airport owners are not penalized by the Total Score deduction.
The Landing Rate Total Score, however, follows the same logic that has always been in place: if the landing score is very low, it can also affect the aircraft’s production, whether the aircraft is owned by the pilot or rented.
Don’t you think the system is unfair towards Airplanes?
Airports income is way higher than airplanes. With the cooldowns, landing rate dependencies and other factors, owning an airplane makes no sense.
I want to clarify this again: nothing has changed regarding asset rewards, neither for aircraft PAX Token redistribution nor for airport PAX Token redistribution.
The new “Total Score: PAX Token Deduction” logic applies exclusively to the flight’s Total Score, not to the Landing Rate Total Score. This means it only affects the pilot’s reward, and nothing is deducted from the asset owner because of the Total Score deduction.
However, as has always been the case since the beginning of SimFly, if the Landing Rate Total Score is very low, the aircraft will generate fewer PAX Tokens, regardless of whether the aircraft is rented or owned by the pilot.
In what sense exactly do you mean that airport earnings are much higher than aircraft earnings?
There are several factors to take into consideration, such as the flight distance, the aircraft model, the aircraft level and category, the airport level and category, the applied split, the number of aircraft available for rental, the actual cost of the asset in question, and many other elements.
So comparing aircraft earnings with airport earnings is not always straightforward, because it depends on many different variables.
Of course, everyone is free to use their own strategy. If someone believes that airports can generate more PAX Tokens, they can choose that approach. However, I want to repeat that there are many factors to consider before making a direct comparison.
My point of view ,@MatheoF, is that this is also part of SimFly, and it is exactly what we wanted from the beginning.
It is up to each user to find the strategy that best fits their goals, allowing them to enjoy the platform, have fun with what they truly love doing, flight simulation itself, and try to maximize their PAX Tokens.
There are many factors involved, such as the number of active users, upgrades, events, missions, asset availability, and many other elements.
In our opinion, this is also exactly what makes SimFly interesting. If everything were already predictable and everyone used the same strategy, it would be much less engaging.
In any case, I confirm once again that nothing has been changed regarding asset rewards. The only change applies to the pilot’s reward, because it is important for us to encourage pilots to fly properly and follow correct flight procedures. 
Hello guys.
As I understand, The flight score does not impact the earnings of the owner of the airplane, but the landing score does.
I’m wondering what is the logic of that ?
The pilot can excess every speed limit in air, and stress the plane structure over limit, but that’s fine for plane owner as long he lands quite well ?
But if he respects well the plane during the flight with just a rude landing, the plane’s owner would get nothing ?
seems UNFAIR !
In rentals, the (bad) landing should not impact earnings for the plane owner.
(and please don’t say a rude landing would wear or damage the plane or the gears… there is already the grounding time for that)
If you spend about 400PAX/$ (during sales at 50%) for investement expecting passive revenue in Simfly, you can get Cat 4 airport, or a Cat 7 airplane for (roughly same price)
But the airport (shared at 60%) can generate 30 to 50PAX/$/month (or even more, some over 100)
with the airplane, you’ll get about 10PAX/$/month, maximun about 20PAX/$
I got 2 cat 7 planes in February for renting, (cost me 720PAX/$) I earned 48.9PAX/$ since, (48.9 / 720 = 0.0679)
Meanwhile the average earning of my cat 4 airport (cost 408PAX/$) since i Got those 2 planes, is about 80PAX/$( 80 / 408 = 0.1961)
=> so for same amount invested for passive revenue from renting to other pilots, an Airport is 3x more profitable than an airplane !
My numbers may not be very accurate, but it’s higlight that airport earnings are much higher than aircraft earnings.
Exactly.
And that is if you fly the airplanes yourself. If we allow rent then the earnings are even less reliable. You Restrict airplanes with down time and with bad landings but airports are not affected by pilot performance and get multiple usage slots per week.
The difference is clearly visible.
@Karim-CTO-SimFly From the numbers perspective the airplane logic might make sense to you. But in the daily usage reality it feels very unfair and meaningless to get a plane, or even a fleet. I have 12 airplanes and to be honest I wish I would have gotten airports instead. 1 cat 3 airport can generate more than my whole fleet in a single week.
It feels like planes are designed for personal use, not rental business.
I think they should remove the cooldown on airplanes. Not everything can only benefit the platform users should have something in our favor too. Remember, we as users are the ones who keep the platform alive. I think they need to think a little more about us, because sooner or later more people will continue leaving.
Hi Karim,
This phrase is catching my eyes. Could I ask, will SimFly introduces only blacklist feature (for blocking) only. or will we have whitelist as well (so we put only the pilots we want them to see the aircraft).
→ This is part of the risk of renting out your aircraft, but we also plan to release a blacklist feature so owners can block specific pilots from using their aircraft.
Thank you very much.
I don’t read any sort of hints or suggestions on how to prevent flights that are flown just for getting pax/XP and not care about how a flight is flown, either respecting departure from parking (where obviously is permitted) or following lights on and off simfly rules, also see a lot of MAX speed reached, in order to simulate a good flight..but is not. I just see a race to gain PAX. forgetting everything else.
I see logs were airplane reach their cruise 25/30K feet altitude in a bunch of seconds, or always with a tail wind of at least 100kts or more right from departure to destination, every single flight. Or users that love airliners , following a simple GPS straight route and never a SID or STAR, its very rare. i’m not sayinf everyone of course, but in some way Simfly needs to put some “rules”. Now what I would like to see is some suggestions on how to prevent these types of behavior.. any idea? And don’t just write down , It’s a Simfly issue or problem, “we” are not the owners, Simfly has to think about it… and well this is what is happening . It’s just the first step. I can understand rules may also appear or be unfair, but it needs to start from some point and settle down nice and slow. But I don’t see any other suggestions about it.
Like some pilots here that flights via vatsim or Ivao/icao, they follow the CTR/ATC rules, if the ATC says to speed up, since that is ``pilots need obey the ATC/CTR) so We pilots will be penalized of max speed, thats kind unfair to us.
First of all I wasn’t talking about just speeding up, but using tail wind modification in order to gain time. Ground speed difference of +200kts the whole trip seems very unusual (just check the graphics window)..
Second. Maybe vatsim pilots don’t know that you can refuse a speed increase on VATSIM if it exceeds your aircraft’s safe operating limitations or capabilities, but you must immediately inform ATC by stating you are “unable”. Speed assignments are mandatory for separation; however, safety-critical limitations (e.g., maximum mach/IAS, structural limits) allow you to decline. But of course as it is a simulation and gaining “Pax” is mandatory, who cares about pushing the airplane to the max limit (no real flight would fly at max speed the entire flight), this it’s not a real flight. So … that’s the common thought.
On above subject.
Day one there was even worse system than now - perfect landing was 0 fpm 1.0G - every “bump” cost 50% of score (if multiple then income was 0 or close to zero if I remember correctly).
Generally the system is designed to introduce penalties that limits tokens income every place it is possible for end users (fact).
Actually descent rate does not matter that much what matters is force on impact. If you would ask 737 real pilot what is typical G on landing answer is not 1.0 or 1.05 - its more in territory of 1.2-1.3G.
Then after a year or so it was changed to something that makes more sense except owners of platform made a very huge mistake to still keep “Pax-cutter” mechanism when landing is less than - -80fpm
That’s wrong - I am not saying “greasy landings” should not be penalized but level currently is a bit ridiculous to say the least.
Suggestion: treat is somehow as bumps >>>
0-20 fpm = -20%
20-50fpm = -15%
50-80fpm = -10%
to be fair it should probably by a fix penalty to go below 80 - its not end of the world to land soft + it is still just a game.
it is still quite questionable for GA planes as often they land in “semi-stall” state with actual alarms in the cockpit.
Regarding planes and income from them - it always has been way off compared to airports. You would need some years (YES years) to get any plane to break even (in PAX value - its not currency - especially sales is kind of dead now).
Finally.
“living breathing ecosystem with healthy economy” - that is a myth since PREMIUM plans were introduced. I can see just a few people who fly for flying - vast majority is chasing the rabbit and only using 60% airports which makes economic side of this whole concept (game-wise) absolutely a myth and simply not true.
Only economy that exist here is sales for platform owners - which is understandable to some extent - but number of active users compared to other systems that also have subscription model says it all.
Just my 5 cents. Cheers.
