Ideas on Rules For the Race Thread:

[Sonar5 3]

Ideas on Rules For the Race Thread:These are Compiled from the pinned thread. They are meant as to further define what types of aircraft should be allowed or excluded and other ideas as to the running of the race.The final arbiter of rules is Matt Smith. It is he and he alone that decides what flies and what don't. But since suggestions were made, We can list them here, refine them, and I will forward them to Matt.Please comment on these by listing the number IE #3, and then refining any clarifications, etc..Once this has been up for a while, say a week or so, I will forward them to Matt on behalf of Avsim. Please keep the spirit of the race in mind as you comment, as our goal should be a fair race for all.Regards,Joe****************Ideas****************From StoneCold1) I personally think Matt should have 10 specific cities each forum must stop in, actually doing a baton hand off there, not just a touch-and-go. One city on each of North America, South America, Central America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia, and clues for the other 3 where each team must solve the clues/riddles/whatever to determine those 3 specific airports. For the known cities, if there's more than 1 airport in the city, any of the airports will do; for the mystery cities, the clues would point to a specific airport at the specific city. Some of these cities might take the flight route well away from the "ideal straight" route, like forcing a stop at a city in South Africa, or an airstrip in northern Canada. The extra distance would make the race take longer, offer more legs to allow more pilots to participate, and make flight planning even more important. The required cities/airports can be done in any order, but all must be done.2) Invite other forums to participate, making it a race between 3 or more teams.3) Alternately, if the race is limited to just avsim and flightsim, allow each forum to form multiple teams. So, Avsim might form 2 teams, "Avsim A" and "Avsim B", which are completely separate teams in direct competition with each other in addition to the team(s) from flightsim. Of course, this strays away from the "Avsim vs. Flightsim" concept, becoming "Avsim vs Avsim vs Flightsim", or "Avsim vs Avsim vs Avsim vs Flightsim vs Flightsim" or whatever, depending on how many teams are formed. Avsim A members are members of that team only, and cannot participate in Avsim B's race as well because they're unique teams. This would also allow more pilots to participate, but might complicate things further, and lead some to think it unfair that Avsim might have 2 teams vs 1 on flightsim. Thus, this may not be desirable, but I give the idea now anyway...4) Questionable aircraft such as the Thunderscreetch that caused controversy in last year's race need to be banned from the beginning.5) A minimum time between legs? For example, pilot A lands, hands off to pilot B over the course of a 5-minute waiting period. Or, at least the next pilot cannot takeoff (and post the "I have baton!") until the previous pilot has posted their "baton available!" AND their proof screenshot(s). Once the screenshot is posted, then the next pilot can post "I have the baton" and takeoff. (no more having your basic messages ready to just hit submit then post screenshot afterwards to save time..) Tip: just make sure your image editor works properly before you fly your leg, so you don't delay your team while you fix your image editor.From SoarPics6) And a pre-race ruling about the LearFan 2100 would be good as well.From Jwenting7) I'd advocate limiting the event to normally aspirated engines only (so no turboprops or supersonic propellers on jet engines at all).8) And limit the use of known grossly incorrect FDEs.Last year I think it was someone also found an ATR 42 which had such grossly unrealistic flight dynamics that it almost went supersonic. He decided not to use it because it was clearly incorrect but according to the then-standing rules it would have been legal as it was openly available and not modified by him.9) Maybe even further restrict it to a fixed set of aircraft (participants could be asked to submit their chosen aircraft for approval before the race and get permission to use those, others coming in later can then use only one of the aircraft listed as permitted).From StoneCold RE #910) Only if the majority of the permitted aircraft are freeware... (Maybe limit it to freeware aircraft so everyone can choose from the entire list....)From Jwenting11) I was thinking of people being able to register the aircraft of their choice by type (say DC-3, Cheyenne 400, Avanti) rather than specific addon names.12) That would enable you to choose any implementation of that type (as long as it has reasonable flight dynamics, so not like the supersonic ATR someone discovered last year) while still preventing the thunderscreech (or something like it) from making an entry as it would be shot down before ever taking flight.From dcc13) I'd vote for keeping the same airplane rules as before, but saying the airplane must have been in production -- that keeps it limited to real-world craft that actually flew, and should exclude super mods like reno racer P-51s or experimental craft.Jwenting14) Yes, stating explicitly that only production aircraft that have not been modified for increased performance (thus excluding race modifications like you mention) should be sufficient.****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

[vcaptmattsmith 3]

Hi folks-Just to let you know, I've been watching and will keep watching this thread as we finalize plans for this year's race. A few things mentioned have already been implemented.Regards-Matt SmithOrganizerMicrosoft Flight Simulator Around-the-World Race

[Sonar5 3]

Sounds Good,Thanks Matt.Regards,Joe

[Guest The Spazzz]

Hey folks,I've used AVSIM for a while now but I'm not a well known poster. I missed the race last year and am looking forward to the race this year.My suggestions are as follows.Keep the Turboprops. They are a fun class to fly and being an avid DASH-8 lover I am very much looking forward to flying a repainted Dash 8 for AVSIM. I've worked on these aircraft and had the opportunity to fly them IRL they are just a blast to fly IMHO.In terms of keeping out for the flight dynamics. Establish a panel of judges or one judge who would know how it works *laughs* and first compile a list of known "GOOD" aircraft. These Aircraft would be PRE APPROVED for use in the race because they are known to have good flight models. In the event someone's aircraft is not on the list they can submit it to the judges and if they decide then it can be added to the list. Aircraft would have to follow the existing rules to be submitted for approval. IE: Must be an unmodified production non experimental aircraft.Just my 2 cents. I really hope we keep the Turboprop class~Vince (AKA Spazzz)

[barryward12345 0]

Wel, of course, in real life long distance air races, teams only fly one aircraft for the whole distance. To use a different a/c for each leg is not very realistic-- but I guess it is fun.Barry

[Guest]

The only reason I suggested TPs might want to be dropped was the controvercy which developed last year over what constitutes a turboprop when fs.com started using a jet aircraft with a supersonic propellor. It wasn't until I (together with others at the same time) found information in an old book confirming that the majority of its power was directly generated by the jet, not the prop as in TPs, that the argument was settled.I agree fully that they're fun to fly, as the list of them in my hangar shows (Avanti, Cheyenne 400, Turbo Porter, Conquest II, ATR.72, Dash 8, maybe more).The later idea to allow only aircraft that were/are in series production would largely or completely solve that debate since no such hybrid ever made it past experimental stage.The only remaining disagreements could rise over someone using a quad turboprop (or even more engines), mistakingly thinking it was a regular prop (as one person wanted to do last year when he found a Tu-95, this was prevented as he posted his intention to use it beforehand and his error was pointed out).

[Guest The Spazzz]

A rule requireing compeating aircraft to be "Inspected" before they fly would also remove that concern.

[Guest]

Suggested that :)"From Jwenting11) I was thinking of people being able to register the aircraft of their choice by type (say DC-3, Cheyenne 400, Avanti) rather than specific addon names."

[Guest EasyEd]

Hello,I think this will be a very cool and fun event. I only have FS2k2 so I'll be a spectator I guess or if there is a way I'd be happy to help - as long as it's not actually during the Daytona 500 which is that Sunday :) as well! As for aircraft it seems to me that whole classes of aircraft are being left out in favor of speed. Why not require a leg or two to be run by say a supercub, or a 180 or 185 or bushhawk or Stinson something like that. Any leg(s) teams chioce. Perhaps ditto for an ultralight. Sounds like there are lots of legs so put a few vintage aircraft in the race. Might generate some more interest - perhaps a few pilots won't feel left out. The race is what 19 or 20 legs or better so perhaps only 3 or 4 should be with slower aircraft since it is a race. Perhaps a way to do this would be to require teams to use on two legs different aircraft with rated top speeds less than 100 knots and 2 legs with different aircraft with rated top speeds less than say 160 knots. Something like that. Otherwise blaze away. I certainly enjoy my Cheyenne but also equally enjoy my Porter and other light GA aircraft and bush planes. And to make the legs meaningful set a minimum leg distance 150 to 300 nm perhaps. Just a thought. Looking forward to the event!Take Care! -Ed-

[Guest]

If you use vatsim you can use FS98 for all anyone cares.Bushnet supports FS2002 and 2004 both AFAIK (depending a bit on the version of the serversoftware they're running, some old versions support only one or the other).Maybe forcing slow aircraft for some legs is an option, but that's for the race organisers to decide.We're not going to go that way unless everyone does it and loose the race because of it (last year it was close enough that having 2 legs at 100 knots when the others didn't could have led to a photo finish).

[Guest EasyEd]

Hey All,Quote "Maybe forcing slow aircraft for some legs is an option, but that's for the race organisers to decide.We're not going to go that way unless everyone does it and loose the race because of it (last year it was close enough that having 2 legs at 100 knots when the others didn't could have led to a photo finish)."I agree that's exactly what I was suggesting. All teams would have to fly a few (3 or 4) slower legs. And just to make those legs mean something I thought they should be at least say 150 nm otherwise you'd see a slow aircraft takeoff fly 5 miles land and then it's back to the Avanti's, Cheyennes, Howard 500s and the like - if they allow turboprops that is. Even with the slower aircraft you still have the ability to take advantage of windspeed to get a few more knots out of them.The other wrinkle that occurred to me was the idea of requiring at least one landing at an airport above say (pick a number) 8000 ft. Another option would be requiring a landing at an airport with a short runway say less than 1750 ft.Anyway Just a few ideas for the rules guys to consider.Take Care! -Ed-

[StoneC0ld 5]

The Howard 500 is a reciprocating radial engine, not a turboprop, if the "if they allow turboprops that is" included it.... :)"The other wrinkle that occurred to me was the idea of requiring at least one landing at an airport above say (pick a number) 8000 ft. Another option would be requiring a landing at an airport with a short runway say less than 1750 ft."That could easily be worked into my idea of listing 10 specific airports/cities that aircraft must land (and handoff the baton) at. 1 of those 10 forced cities could be La Paz, Bolivia to force a high-altitude airport or something..... Or, do that in addition to the 10 forced specific airports/cities in order to let us choose whatever works best for each team... Whatever our race organizer decides is best... :(

[barryward12345 0]

>That could easily be worked into my idea of listing 10>specific airports/cities that aircraft must land (and handoff>the baton) at. 1 of those 10 forced cities could be La Paz,>Bolivia to force a high-altitude airport or something..... >Or, do that in addition to the 10 forced specific>airports/cities in order to let us choose whatever works best>for each team... Whatever our race organizer decides is>best... :(>The problem with giving a list of airports that "must" be visited is that there is a strong chance that all the teams will aim for the closest one first -- and after that, a kind of "follow the leader" develops. I do think that the requirement to vist a certain list of airports is very good -- but as a start to the race, perhaps thought could be given also to a small list of say 4 airports within say 300-600 miles of the starting point and require the first leg to be flown to any one of these. That way the entrants will likely pick different ones depending on the distance to them and the a/c being flown first.Barry

[Guest EasyEd]

Hey All,I've one last thought on this. I was looking in on the forums at FlightSim and they have expressed a concern that this race could become an Avanti showcase. I don't know how valid this is but it might be a good idea to have a rule that says something like no more than say 1/5 of the total legs flown can be flown with any particular aircraft.So - for example - 25 legs around the world would result in no more than 5 Avanti legs, 5 Cheyenne legs, 5 P-51 legs, etc. Of course less is fine. As for the idea of mandatory cities - I don't know. What the above poster said about that possibly resulting in everyone going the same way could happen - not sure.Anyway that's it from me. Let the games begin! :) Take Care! -Ed-

[StoneC0ld 5]

As I see it, it could easily turn into a follow-the-leader race anyway, regardless of forced cities.....But, if that might be a big enough issue, then how about this.... We take 9 specific cities, same as I had already suggested, and all forums will have to handoff the baton in each of them. The 10th city becomes a choice of 3 or 4, all of them as close to equal distances from the start/finish line as humanly possible, all heading in different directions... With any luck, different forums will fly to different cities......Alternatively, for this choice of "first forced city", have only one forum allowed to claim that airport. Once claimed, no other forum can use it. Last year's winners (and I'm truthfully not saying this because I'm part of last year's winners, I'd say this even if I was on the losing forum) would choose first, and then flip a coin or draw numbers or something to determine who chooses second and obviously third.. If there's 4 airports to choose from, the 3rd forum to choose would get a choice of 2. If there's only 3, then the 3rd forum gets whatever the first 2 don't want, but since all of these airports are almost the same distance away that's not a factor, just a possible deciding factor on which direction around the world the forum takes...