RTWR 2014 Early News and Discussion

In another RTWR thread I posted about my hesitance to participate in the RTWR, mainly due to either screwing up (the biggie), picking the wrong airplane, or the fear of
the Duenna going south (mainly due to something I did). Paul (PRB) replied, and his posts helped alleviate some of my fears. Note I said 'some'...

This Thread reminded me of a couple other things, that might add to the 'Why aren't more people participating' discussion...

1) The Rules. With all of the Requirements during the RTWR (# of Airports/ continent, or above/ below ° of Latitude, Formation Flights, Team Flights, etc.), couldn't the
RTWR be simplified somehow? A point to point route without the # of Airport/ continent restrictions, no Special Legs except at the Start (Keeping the Yearly theme
alive, albeit shorter), and keep both the Polar and Mulligan requirements.

2) The White List. Personally, I think this is the biggest factor in why more people don't participate. I appreciate the fact that the White List is in place to create a
more level playing field for everyone. On the other hand, I don't think a prospective pilot would be too keen on finding out that if he wants to fly a Mosquito and uses FS9,
that he's going to have to fork out $30.00 for the Aeroplane Heaven version just to compete. Not everyone owns WoP or Warbirdsim airplanes, or has the technical know how
to swap FDE's in order to get an airplane to pass muster.

If you were 'forced' to fly an airplane you really didn't want to, how is that fun?

Open up the choices for Aircraft, and allow folks to fly what they want to, regardless of who made it. I mean, the only other option is for every participant to install RealEngine
in the airplane they want to use, and fly the RTWR the REAL way... by the numbers. At that point, the RTWR would take two weeks to complete!

Maybe I shouldn't comment at all, since I'm not an 'old hand', or have flown in a RTWR. I enjoy the event a lot; it is the biggest FS event of the year, and is a tradition
throughout the FS Community. It would be a shame if it was changed so drastically that it would lose its identity.

Like I said... just my 2¢.

Alan Hobbes_cartoon-emoticon-0011.gif
 
Alan, this is precisely the sort of stuff we're looking for. We need to hear from people who don't participate, and why. For what it's worth, I agree with everything you said!
 
A number of good points have been raised here, particularly related to maintaining a healthy interest in the event. I think it is vital that the community find a way (or several) to generate interest from those who have never participated before. To Paul's point, if this event can't attract new blood, it will eventually wither.

Pat made some good points about needing to accommodate P3D. FSX has been out of print for almost 10 years now. Even if new copies are still available, it's getting harder to install on newer operating systems without some tweaking to get running properly. I'm sure a lot of newcomers to flight simming are going the P3D route, and if we want to recruit new pilots, we need to find a way to make it work.

If new pilots are concerned with making mistakes when flying the baton, then we need to find ways to encourage participation while emphasizing that there isn't a "zero defect mentality" in any of our communities. I thought the team events and flights were a good way to break new pilots in without the pressure of carrying the baton. Let's try to keep those. My favorite was the Berlin Airlift recreation - I think that was the first year I raced. Team flights in aircraft outside of our usual hangers are also fun. Our team particularly enjoyed the Connie last year.

Alan raised a good point about aircraft eligibility/availability. No one likes to spend $$$ on payware and then find they can't fly it. If fiddling with files is a big obstacle, perhaps there's a way to make competitive, prepackaged, race-eligible freeware aircraft available on a team basis. You have to join and be accepted on the team before you get the package - and include training/coaching to fly it competitively (I'm looking at you, Avanti). Could be a recruitment incentive if the freeware authors are willing to allow it. This would need to be done across all forums for fairness, of course.

To Pat's point about people being concerned about moving out of their comfort zone of low-and-slow, I'd just like to point out that I learned more about flying through RTWR than I ever would have on my own, particularly the more complicated tubeliners. Avsim holds dedicated practice/training sessions in the weeks leading up to the race, as I'm sure SOH and Flightsim do also. Maybe some additional promotion of these as workshops (e.g. "Getting the most out of your Mustang") would help with recruiting/interest-generating? Just spit-balling here... My biggest obstacle was getting out of my comfort zone with multiplayer, I guess, and worrying about being accepted into a group of people that I didn't know. The aforementioned workshops on MP/TS open to all might be a good way of overcoming that for others.

Anyway, just my two sheckles' worth. :mixed-smiley-010:
 
I do not like the idea of splitting into two weekends.
That would only disturb the family life more.

Shortening the race time is better, if this is neeeded.
There are several ways to do this.
The North/South requirement could be changed. Jeff made a good suggestion there.


I believe it is important to have the diversity of having to use different aircraft types.

Regards Jock
 
Hi all,
Just a quick note to pitch an idea that might help. If time is the problem, why not split the race into segments and run the segments on different weekends then total the segment times for the OT when the last segment is run ? Maybe even allow the teams to choose when/where the weekend segment is complete, then the 'live timer' stops for the week, then resumes for all teams the following weekend at a designated UTC time.

I won't even try to guess why there's not more participation but Paul touched on a few good points, as well ViperPilot2 mentioned some too (coincidentally the same reasons my interest has waned) but the game has changed more than I'm willing to. This isn't the 2004-2008 race I used to love, but back then flying was a very small part of the overall event. Now that the event has been simplified to make flying the main focus I urge you to keep it a complete 'around the world' flying event.
 
Another angle: The planning and flight schedule of the whole race.
How did this work before? Did pilots just jump in to take the baton when it was available? Did they pick a new destination on their own?
Or was this coordinated somehow?

If interested pilots provide their free hours then they can all be slotted in when it suits them.
If you know beforehand when you have to fly then you can plan your real life around it.
This also helps keep people with little time on board. If pilot X only has a few, very specific hours then these can be reserved for him so that he will not lose his opportunity because pilot Y, who has seas of time, takes the baton during these hours.
We may also help inexperienced, daylight-only pilots by giving them daylight legs.

If the route is planned centrally then pilots can be given a simple task: Fly from A to B, no need to worry about which airport to pick as B.

Experienced can help others planning their flight, decide how much fuel to carry, at which altitude to fly.
 
I can only speak for AVSIM, but I would assume the other teams are similar.

The exact way planning works is dependant on the year's rules, for a few years we didn't know all the requirements at the start, and those years we would have to plan more on the fly. But normally, when all the requirements are known beforehand, we've planned most, if not all, of the route before the start of the race. Anyone in the team who wants to help may join in, usually maybe a third to half of the team helps out.

During the race, there is usally some replanning to improve local parts of the route, or changes in case of unexpected events. Individual pilots won't usually have to do this themselves, there are at a minimum 3-4 veterans online, usually more. I don't know if that is the case in the other teams, at some points last year it seemed at least Sim-Outhouse was spread quite thin.

There isn't really a set flight schedule from the start, since it's usually pretty hard to predict when we will be somewhere it it's more than maybe 8-10 hours away. We usually have about 2-3 legs forward planned as far as who flies, but if someone comes on and only has a few hours they can usually hop in on one of the next flights.
 
Klas hit the nail on the head there. I believe its against the rules to assign the entire route ahead of time, so we keep it to only a few legs in advance and the whole process is very fluid and subject to change. If someone comes online that hasn't flown in a while and wants the leg, its given to them. I don't think we've ever had an argument over who flies what where. As for the route, well usually very well planned but obviously things can happen (unexpected fuel shortage :banghead::banghead::banghead:) so you never know. :)
 
I am curious how many members each team has. Team AVSIM has 15 confirmed racers, with 1 maybe and 2 possible new racers for a total of 18 possible racers, which if memory serves me is a little on the high side for us.

How many does Sim-Outhouse/Flightsim have?
 
Hey All,

Well I'll comment a bit...

About:

1) the general nature of this race. This is not a race. It is a minimum time event which can be a race but not necessarily. Have you ever seen a bonus for first to finish? How often has the first across the finish line lost as the next team had more bonuses? Something to think about as the committee sets up the not a "race" "race". For this reason even if for no other I see no problem "splitting" it into more than one weekend. That said I have a 3-day weekend (Sat-Mon) that week and it is not in conflict with the "500" so I'm there if they'll have me.

2) more pilots. I completely agree with the idea that the best way to try to get more pilots is to allow more aircraft. There are at best a half dozen truly fast piston aircraft and quite frankly most of those are - in my opinion - either costly or harder than heck to fly - unless you have a full "cockpit" (stick, pedals, throttles) at home. I think aircraft that "fly well" with a full cockpit can be heck with just a joystick. For me I fly the Hornet not just because it is fast but because it is so easy to fly and land - I don't even need to line up with a runway - just land it even crossways to a runway - and the props won't let you overspeed in a dive to your destination - the hornet is incredibly well behaved. Now it is free - I think. But I digress - I have never understood why a team can't "submit" the aircraft they are going to fly - from a 172 to the fastest P51 and simply have them "equalized" via handicapping - or even a "handicapped white list" presented. For me personally I love flying civvie turboprops (PC12, PC6, 1900c, kodiak, cheyenne 400ls...) but none of them would ever be vaguely competitive... however. That way pilots who fly "low and slow" can participate which I think is perhaps all important.

3) special events. I think a big plus - my favorite was the hamburger runs a few years ago. If the race is split I think not a prob.

4) strategy and planning. I have always thought that planning is a fundamental and important part of flying. I think the strategy aspect is really important and should not be lost from this minimum time event. As an example I really like JT's idea of north and south being 90 (or choose a number) deg apart instead of specific latitude requirements - great idea. That said I totally disagree with those who think every leg should be preplanned. I think tactically the pilot responsible for the next leg decides where he/she is going. I think teams should only "preplan" the "grand strategy" meaning turning points to the next turning point. Certainly you can have some tactical discussion along the way (remember SOH trying to land a plane on an island in the middle of the Atlantic a few years ago?) but it should be ultimately up to the pilot in the plane flying the leg. You can't really enforce this but I do wish there was a way. I personally don't like the you go here then you go here approach.

5) other. Hmmm what to say. multiplayer - I fully understand pilots not comfortable with trying to land in front of others. It adds pressure - pressure which I think is counterproductive. Teamspeak is a plus - discussion is always good but you know there is a routine for flying a leg and when you get right down to it - it ain't needed - who used teamspeak in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008... I think teams should be clear about the team expectations around teamspeak and multiplayer - and accommodate what a pilot is comfortable with. If somebody wants to fly a 172 on a leg offline - what is wrong with that? More jet legs - I'm fine with that especially if it brings in more pilots.

Ultimately you - the committee - need to decide what this "not a race" race is all about - broad participation in a "virtual event" or a purest Reno style race. Make up your mind and give people time to consider it - year by year.

Just my thoughts since being around this event since the start.

None of what I said was mean't to offend and I hope it doesn't/didn't.

-Ed-
 
We are not the only ones having to make decisions and spousal appeasement on the weekend of the 15th. Here's a quote from someone planning to attend a large aviation gathering:

"Fly out the morning of the 15th at 0-dark-30 and hope to make it on time or fly out Friday night — Valentine’s Day — and risk the wrath of a significant other. The fact that I’m even thinking of flying out Friday night tells you how dangerously I live, or how much of a geek I am."

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/01/aviation-geek-fest-tickets-sale-wednesday-details-event/

So, I guess it's a matter of dedication...:biggrin-new:
 
Well I am going to chime in here with a few things I have said privately to the committee before and thoughts specifically for this year.

For this and any year after I would hate to see the event run multiple weekends. It should be a start to finish race and when we can no longer pull that off be done with the Around the World Race and we can all live with the fond memories. Lets not be like that worn out athlete that does not know when to retire. At some point in time this will end like all things lets not butcher it as long as it does run.

Now for my previous thoughts which still stand. This is a letter I sent to the committee last year with a few modifications for this year.

Around the World Race 2013 thoughts and suggestions

Mike, Rob, and Austin

I am really sorry for chiming in here so late but since before Christmas I have been busy with real life.

I have a few suggestions for this year’s race I would like you all to look at. Some of these ideas I discussed with Rob after Mike had asked to help out with the race this year.

With the recent changes to the committee I think we have an excellent opportunity to press the reset button one on the race. Most of the members who fly now are used to the in depth rules and challenges that we have had for the last few year’s.

It’s the start of the next era of the Around the World Race and my suggestion is to strip all of the extras from the race this year making the rules as simple as possible.

There are a lot of benefits to doing this now. First is with the change in leadership it’s the right time to do it. Second it’s actually completely instep with past planning that always added more or different to enhance the race. This idea will certainly count as different. The last reason is with the new management system fewer rules and account should mean it will be easier on everyone involved.

There are probably a few other reasons but for now those will work.

In the nut shell

1. Strip out all bonuses
a. No kickoff event
b. Team Flights are a requirement but yield no bonus, let them all be done as soon as a team can with no restrictions on time.
c. No aircraft bonus
d. No landing bonus​
2. No Penalties such as wingman transfers the delay in time between baton and wingman serves as sufficient penalty.
3. Necessary penalties for cheating type infractions constitutes a loss of leg, no additional time.
4. No unnecessary accounting because there is no bonus bank.
5. No special challenges make the race purely about racing around the world in defaults and aircraft from the approved list.
6. Increase the maximum leg distance to 800nm
7. Remove the 2hr x 3 penalty and replace it with a 3hr drop dead leg time. Any leg going over 3 hrs is lost time.
8. Skip the continental briefing sheets and anything that adds complexity to the race.
9. Make this year’s race a shot gun start. Rob and I have discussed this before. Post all the routing rules less the starting and ending point. The starting and ending ICAO should be included in the Official Race has started post. If anyone objects just tell them it was my idea. LOL
10. I know there has been some thought to close the South Pole route for the race but I would like to voice my opinion on why it should not be closed.
a. Pulling off the Southern route is just as likely to go horribly wrong as it is to be an advantage.
b. The starting and ending point is just as effective in closing the southern route but it still leaves the path there forcing each team to look at is it do able for this race.
c. The Southern Route becomes a mystery where each team will wonder if the other will be taking the path. This means each team should be planning and testing the route. (Except for us I am not doing it again. LOL)​
11. I think I forgot something I wanted to say so if I did it will be number 12.​

Again I know this is late in coming but it should not make planning harder but easier.

Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks for reading my two cents
 
+1 on the shotgun start. Teams all start on their own servers anyway, so I don't think it would detract from anything, and might add an air of mystery.
 
I love the shotgun start idea actually, would make things exciting thats for sure ;)

But that also throws out the entire plan right from the get go, no preplanned route, have to "wing" it. hehehe
 
Hey All,

Lots of good feedback here. It will be very interesting to see what the committee does - that is for sure. It is up to them to think through the consequences of their decision(s) in terms of pilot interest/recruitment, race standing(s) and equability among teams given weather changes inherent in a shotgun start. I wish them well in their deliberations - a pure race in nothing but the fastest aircraft would certainly be different than anything in the past.

-Ed-
 
a pure race in nothing but the fastest aircraft would certainly be different than anything in the past.
Click to expand...

Well, since there is now a freeware FSX version of the SR-71 it certainly could be considered...

From the readme of the latest update:
"Warning: This is a highly technical FDE which requires detailed knowledge of SR-71 specifications, limitations, standard procedures, and non-standard FS gauge operation.
Please read the HTML Manual for complete information.
The provided panel is tightly integrated into the flight model. Other panels than the one provided are not supported and the model will not fly properly."
 
Just a thought or two about the move to include the P3D Platform. I no longer have FS9 on my computer, I do have P3D ver2 and FSX and given the way P3D is heading, especially with Ver2 and the upcoming patch, FSX may not be on my system much longer either. Personally, I would like to see it included, but due to a lack of RWWeather I understand why it can't at this time. I get the sense, from reading the Prepar3D Forums, that a weather engine isn't anything they're working on presently. . .leaving it instead to the many standalone weather engines available. I assume then that it would take an update to the Duenna to make this happen and I don't even know if that's possible.

Also, and I won't belabor this point, but the debate over the EULA for P3D has a lot of folks "on the fence" so to speak as to whether it's a platform they want to pursue in it's current form (non-entertainment based). Just a thought.
 
I dont see why P3D can't be used, if we all agree to use a set weather engine, we should be able to make it work.

As for the duenna, we would need the programmer to modify it to recognize P3D, but I believe P3D works with FSUIPC so that shouldn't be overly difficult. If John Mueller doesn't wish to make any modifications to it, I'm sure I can help, depending on the exact language it was written in. :)
 
According to the "full installation in a zip file" download link, it's coded in Visual Basic 6 (which I do have)--since that link says you need the VB6 runtime package.

Technically, I could do something with it, myself since I do have VB6, but I don't have P3D....

I agree, though... One way forward is to include support for P3D and X-Plane 10 if there's a real-world weather engine available for X-Plane 10....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top