RTWR 2014 Early News and Discussion

[MM]

First, we are pleased to announce that the 2014 Round the World Race will commence, as is traditional, on the first weekend after Valentine's Day. This year we shall start on Saturday, February 15, and probably earlier in the day than usual.

Second, we want to announce that Ed Keller will take the Austin Davis seat on the RTWR Executive Committee. Importantly, we want to express to Austin our deeply-felt appreciation for what he has done for the race both during the last year on the Committee and also during many previous years as well. Ed will bring to the table both new perspectives and a great enthusiasm for the RTWR itself.

Third, we are considering an expanded use of faster more modern aircraft, among those proven in past races, in order to increase the overall average speed and reduce flying hours.

Fourth, we are working on reducing the time commitment demanded by the Race. A number of pilots have stated that they are no longer able to dedicate the same effort to the event as they have in the past. While understanding those concerns, we are also keen to maintain the challenge of Round-the-World real-time real-weather high-adrenaline racing. For many, the RTWR is the prime team event in our flight simulation community.

While there may be many ways to go forward, two main options have been discussed. One would be a route redefinition that, while maintaining the spirit of global racing, would involve shorter overall distances. A second would involve splitting the event into two weekends which would allow racers to begin the race one weekend, pause during the normal work-week, and finish on the following weekend. (Racing would remain a round-the-clock event during the weekend windows.)

We would like to invite your comments, concerns, and suggestions about how to modulate the time commitment so as to make the race more manageable for those who also participate in a real life. In particular, we want to know how people feel about moving toward a two-weekend schedule this year or in the future.

Please post your ideas in this thread. We are keen to get the views of participants from all the forums.

Mike, Rob, and Ed

 

[PRB]

I think I like the idea of allowing more modern planes. That would definitely speed up the event some. Allow anything subsonic, as determined by the aircraft.cfg [reference speed] section, and increase the standard leg length to 800 NM. The other good thing this might accomplish is to attract people who love jets...

EDIT: And then those "classic required aircraft", of which three legs must be flown, would be the P-38, J1M2, and the Spitfire...

 

[DarkCharizma]

I think that having the race being an uninterrupted, real time race around the whole world is important. So I wouldn't want to see the race being split over two weekends, I feel that it would make it a completely different event.

More jets, and route requirements which make a shorter route are good ideas as far as I'm concerned. Concorde corridors, anyone? An extra wildcard or two would likely give a lot shorter routes across the oceans, as well as pretty good speed. (Wildcard Concordes? NZ to McMurdo to Base Marambio distances? [I'm not crazy enough to go via NZSP ]) Helicopter Hemisphere? (Oh, right... faster.)

While I don't really like the idea of adding more wildcards, as I find the long legs a bit boring, I don't think jets on normal legs would make an extreme difference, as our normal race birds are not that much slower when you have to land after 1.5-2 hours. Wildcards would give more efficient use of a jets speed, as well as enable shorter routes.

What is the target race time? End on Monday evening UTC instead of Tuesday evening, or even shorter?

Too keep it more contained to the weekend, maybe even start the race on Friday night? Though, I suppose it's difficult to find a start time which is good for everyone from UTC+1 (we don't have that many raceres further ahead, if any at all?) to UTC-8. Except for the usual start time I would think someone would have trouble joining in on the start. Say 2300 UTC on Friday, UTC-8 guys might still be at work, but a few hours later us UTC+0/1 guys would probably rather be asleep so we could be up and take over in our morning. This year I suppose it's not possible since Friday is valentine's day, but maybe it's something to consider for next year? Though I would let someone else decide which continent gets the bad start time.

 

[Milton Shupe]

Slightly different concept:

Same basic race rules except:

1) Race starts 8AM Saturday EST and concludes Sunday 4PM EST (last leg must land before 4PM or revert back to last completed leg)
2) First team to log 15,000 nm after landing wins, or longest distance achieved if 15,000 not attained
3) Race can start and end anywhere but flights must be flown in West to East generally

This is an all-out race for miles against time. Best tailwinds and fastest long-legged (within rules limitations) aircraft wins assuming no re-flights.

 

[Tako_Kichi]

Slightly different concept:

Same basic race rules except:

1) Race starts 8AM Saturday EST and concludes Sunday 4PM EST (last leg must land before 4PM or revert back to last completed leg)
2) First team to log 15,000 nm after landing wins, or longest distance achieved if 15,000 not attained
3) Race can start and end anywhere but flights must be flown in West to East generally

This is an all-out race for miles against time. Best tailwinds and fastest long-legged (within rules limitations) aircraft wins assuming no re-flights.

Ahhh, but, what's to stop a team grabbing 'ER' tubes and doing the 15k nm in three hops or less?

 

[Milton Shupe]

Ahhh, but, what's to stop a team grabbing 'ER' tubes and doing the 15k nm in three hops or less?

As I said, same basic rules... maybe a few tweaks to drop or limit the tubes, one wildcard max, all flights follow 700nm/2 hour rule.

 

[StoneC0ld]

Slightly different concept:

Same basic race rules except:

1) Race starts 8AM Saturday EST and concludes Sunday 4PM EST (last leg must land before 4PM or revert back to last completed leg)
2) First team to log 15,000 nm after landing wins, or longest distance achieved if 15,000 not attained
3) Race can start and end anywhere but flights must be flown in West to East generally

This is an all-out race for miles against time. Best tailwinds and fastest long-legged (within rules limitations) aircraft wins assuming no re-flights.

My response there would be that if this was going to be the way forward, then I would propose not calling it an "around the world" race. If this is going to be the way forward for this year, then not have the "RTWR" this year but rather hold this new type of race instead. If permanent, then retire the RTWR and make this the permanent new February race event. As someone who has been involved in this race since year 1, it pains me to suggest possible retirement of the RTWR for such a reason, but I don't think the RTWR should be scaled back to the point where it becomes a "not around the world around the world race". The RTWR is the "Superbowl" of the various FS racing events held between our forums, and should remain as a complete to its original intent.

Myself, I don't have a problem with the normal race duration as-is, but if we really need to shorten the time requirements, I believe the best way forward is to find ways to increase the average overall speed. That could include more jet legs (perhaps one 1,000-1,200nm continental jet leg per continent, plus the usual 2 wildcards), reducing or eliminating the thoroughbred/whitelist restrictions to eliminate the restrictions on faster aircraft. Whether it be a wildcard option or a dedicated oceanic corridor, the Concorde could be offered for one oceanic crossing between 2 specific airports (with zero stopovers by the nature of the aircraft involved). Perhaps that will be enough to get the overall race time down below 96 hours (4 days) with minimal reduction in overall distance.

 

[Ferry_vO]

Two ideas from me:

1) We do the race in one weekend, old style. Not too many rules or special events, just fly around the globe as fast as possible. Maybe drop a few rules like landings at specific latitudes, just hit each continent as fast as possible. Kinda like we did eight years ago when I first started.

2)We do two or three big special events (Something like land in every state in the USA), perhaps on sunday, wednesday and saturday in which time matters, like we would do in tha race. The rest of the week the event still continues, but with less pressure, as we would still need to move from one event to the next. Total time is no longer important, but bonus points can be won by flying as close as possible to a certain average speed, using the least amount of fuel and by having the least amount of crashes or baton hand overs. We wouldnt have to fly day and night that way, but pilot skills would be more important than pure speed.

 

[WND]

A couple of thoughts from me:

1. I really don't have any 'heartburn' with the current concept - of each participating team doing their 'thing' of flying RTW based on whatever the committee sets forth for rules - however I thing maybe a couple of 'jet legs' for 'subsonic' type fighter jets would be interesting - with a leg distance / time requirement..(T-33 / T-45 / F86 type) We already have the 'tube' type and their scenario...

2. I personally like the concept of dividing it into 2 weekends!! Taking time off from work and going 3 to 4 days straight with little sleep was getting to be a 'chore' for me...

I don't think doing it in 2 weekends will take away from the concept of a Round the World Race - it will still be a "time / distance / speed' event - it will just be divided in 2...

The committee could designate a 'required' stop roughly 1/2 way around

OR

they could designate a 'stop' time (say 18:00 or 19:00 on the first Sunday) and if anybody happens to be flying a leg at that time - then the airport they are headed for would be their 'stopping' point for the week - then the race would continue for EVERYBODY (at their respective airports) on the second Saturday again at a designated 'start' time (same as when the race started on the first Saturday) and the race would end on Sunday whenever the last participant lands - at whatever time that may be....

Anyways, just my thoughts...

Bill

 

[epwatson]

Copied my post from AVSIM:

I personally dislike both ideas, I understand there is a time concern but the last several years we have finished on Tuesday so it wouldn't be like in the first few years where we finished on Thursday.

I would still like to see an entire world circumnavigation as opposed to half the world, but maybe that's just me. I dont know about the rest of you but I personally really look forward to this event every year.

I see this as the beginning of the end, last year we had no opening event, this year we are going to shorten it and next year what?

 

[jt_dub]

RTWR Proposed Changes

I am glad to see so much interest in the RTWR this year and am looking forward to another great race. We all have our ideas on how to make the race better and/or more enjoyable for all, so there are bound to be differing opinions. That said, I will offer mine.

For me an important part of the character of the RTWR is the non-stop continuous flying once the flag drops. I understand that this makes the race more demanding but that is one of the things I like most about it. I would vote against breaking the race up to be run over two weekends.

I would support rules modifications that would reduce overall race duration including measures that would increase the use of subsonic jets.

I would like to propose a rule change for the North South requirement. Instead of multiple landings north or south of a fixed lattitude, the requirement be that there be more than 90 degrees of lattitude between the northern and southern most airports in a team route of flight. Multiple possible ways to satisfy the reqirement: 45N-45S, 60N-30S, 70N-20S. More planning fun.

 

[Milton Shupe]

I think most of us would like to maintain the original format but I thought new ideas were being entertained to try to increase participation, key to RTWR survival.

I don't know how many folks are on the Avsim and Flightsim teams lately but when you have less than 8-10, it becomes a long 4 days. Being retired, I can fairly easily swing my times around the clock but certainly I am in the minority of participants.

 

[Willy]

Like Milton, I can be pretty flexible with my time so that's not a big deal to me but I can see where it would be with someone with family to support. I like Ferry's idea about going back to just hitting the continents on the way around, no north or south and just a couple of bonus airports if any. I also liked PRB's idea about allowing more subsonic small jets (not to be taken in anyway that I like shop heaters). But still limit the number of legs that can be flown in one.

 

[PRB]

The problem isn't that the race is too long, or that we don't like going all the way around the world. The root problem is that we can't assemble enough interested members to fly for four days non-stop anymore. If each team had 25 pilots beating down the door to participate, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. If four guys have to stay up for four days, the fun is gone. And it's a classic “positive feedback loop”: As people loose interest, those that remain have to stay awake for four days. People see that and want no part of it, and interest declines more. So if problem #1 is that we can't get people interested in this event anymore, why is that? Interesting question, but if that problem can't be solved, and we still want to have an event each year in February, then it has to change in some way. Hence problem #2. The obvious way being to make it shorter. The fact that we're looking at ways to change it tells me we've given up on problem #1, and are now addressing problem #2. Then there is problem #3, which is if we address problem #2 and change the event to the point that it no longer resembles the RTWR of 2004-2008, some “old timers” valuable race veterans who have been doing this since 2004 will be pushed away, which brings us full circle to problem #1 again... My head hurts now.

We didn't always have these beginning and ending events in this race. Taking both of them away is, IMO, not harming the race, but it does make it shorter. Add more jets. That shouldn't hurt the event much, and it will also make it shorter. Take away as many funky “oh by the ways” as possible. Don't make us fly Jenys, Cessna 172s, Vimys, Cubs, or Wright Flyers! Stick to fast rides. Add a supersonic wildcard leg.

 

[CavalierDuck]

I am happy participating with the race format as it has been for the last few years. It would be disappointing if it has to change. According to the comments we're seeing, for some participants the appeal of the RTWR is that it is such a "big event" - I would probably include myself among them. Reducing the race therefore also could risk reducing its appeal to those who like the "big event". There are other shorter events through the year, but the RTWR is "the big one".

Looking at the two options we have been asked to consider though:

Shortening the race - I really hope we're not talking about making the race not a full circumnavigation. My following comments are based on the assumption that it will still be a RTW race. The last few years, the race has gone about 80 hours, finishing late Tuesday UTC. To get any significant advantage from a shorter race, we'd surely need to finish late Monday - cutting 24 hours off an 80 hour race, which is a massive reduction. Can we get a saving of this magnitude from reducing some of the requirements and "straightening" the route? I'm not sure we can (I did some playing with Plan-G earlier). Even if you add an increased use of jets, I'm still not convinced there's 24 hours of savings to be had unless it becomes almost all long jet legs - which changes the whole nature and appeal of the event. I could see a shortened race working with a Friday night start - but this year that falls on Valentine's Day itself, not likely to be a popular move. A shortened route/more jets/Friday start may work in the future, but not this year - unless the race is postponed by a week?

Splitting over two weekends - if change is needed for this year's race , I find myself moving closer to this one because I think it keeps closest to the spirit of the race. For me, I don't think it would detract that much. Total race time wouldn't need to be changed, we'd still be doing continuous racing, we'd just be having a break part way through. And removing the need to take time off work would certainly be helpful. I like the suggestion that we'd race to a designated half-way point. Perhaps there could be a staggered start on the second weekend, to keep the "real-time" element alive.

So if there has to be a significant change, I would vote for this year's race to split over two weekends, and in future look at a Friday start/slightly shorter race to finish Monday night (unless the race can start a week later this year).

Nick

 

[DarkCharizma]

Shortening the race - I really hope we're not talking about making the race not a full circumnavigation. My following comments are based on the assumption that it will still be a RTW race. The last few years, the race has gone about 80 hours, finishing late Tuesday UTC. To get any significant advantage from a shorter race, we'd surely need to finish late Monday - cutting 24 hours off an 80 hour race, which is a massive reduction. Can we get a saving of this magnitude from reducing some of the requirements and "straightening" the route?

I was playing around with it a bit today as well. If we strip the requirements to be one touchdown on each continent, with an extra wildcard and more wildcard miles, it's possible to get around in about 57 hours, based on an average speed of 400kn (which is what AVSIM had last year.) Add a few more hours if we want two landings 500nm apart on each continent. This was based on a start/end in India, since that would seem "optimal" in creating a route, as we almost always pass through the area. The main bit for making the route shorter was the increase to the wildcards (a third one, and about 7000nm total), since that allows one to not have to take the long way around any ocean.

We usually spend a few extra hours on special events like team flights, but I would hate for those to go away, as they are really fun. And I don't think cutting fun parts is going to help us get more racers to join.

 

[epwatson]

So if our primary concern is lack of new participants then how do we entice people to join us? I think that is the primary question here.

 

[AussieMan]

My 2 bobs worth.

I feel that the committee needs to move forward in a big way. At the moment the race is restricted to FS9 and FSX only.

I did not participate in last year's race because I only fly in P3D. At the moment I have V1.4 but when my new graphics card arrives today I will be upgrading to V2. Because the Real World Weather engine has been restricted to the default RW weather P3D cannot be used at the moment.

Another problem is the RTW Duenna does not work in P3D unless you tweak it to look for FS9 in your users folder. I have found a way to do this which gives me all greens in the Duenna which enables me to use either Active Sky or REX. I have not tried other weather engines as yet.

As many other flight simmers are moving to P3D I feel that it is time the committee looked at some way to allow P3D (both versions) to be used in the race.

 

[Spookster67]

My thoughts:

• keep it to just one weekend and an extra day or two
• keep it as a full round the world race
• speed it up a little (fewer requirements to fly slow aircraft, and more opportunities for fast jets)
• shorten it a little (less onerous requirements for mandatory airports or degrees north/south)

As others have said, the real need is for more new pilots to join in. How to do that needs some more thought, and isn't something that can be achieved within the next 3 weeks.

 

[AussieMan]

I think a lot of people are scared off participating in the RTW believing that they have to fly super fast aircraft like the P-38 or P-51 or large jets. Some FS pilots never graduate above the low and slow aircraft like the Piper Cub, Cessna 172 or the Beech Baron.

Anything else and the feel very much out of their comfort zone.