Sim-Outhouse's Interest in the RTRW

[Milton Shupe]

You are correct of course MaddogK. Even as we speak, things are happening to better prepare for the next year.

HD made some great suggestions, many very close to what was already being discussed by some.

There is hope.

 

[MaddogK]

Hi MD. In past years I would agree with you that this discussion should be in our "hide out". But this year was different. Have we ever had a team have to suspend operations due to pilot exhaustion, as FlightSim had to do? In truth it very nearly came to that for us this year. This time, the discussion needs to be here, in public. Unless we come up with ideas to get people involved, this will be the last event. People don't want to spend four days glued to their computer, so they stay away, but if more people were involved, everyone would get more rest. So, a "negative feedback loop" has taken hold, and that ends only one way...

I'll let those who participated rest up first. I'm sure the conversation will be more meaningful when your speaking from the heart instead from a point of near exhaustion and frustration with many of us who couldn't, or didn't show. I just don't want to hear that the event is dead, from those who may be angry, tired, frustrated, or whatever. Sitting in front of a PC for 4 solid days only to lose isn't the main reason many don't come back every year, it's deeper than that. When your rested we'll see if the conversation can get meaningful instead of where it'll undoubtedly go this close to the finish.

 

[PRB]

... Sitting in front of a PC for 4 solid days only to lose isn't the main reason many don't come back every year, it's deeper than that...

Bingo... This is where we need to go, and publicly. Perhaps in the days ahead, after we're rested....

 

[PRB]

I have enjoyed SOH and the RTRW flights and while I have never participated I have followed the efforts of the participants with interest. If I may offer some observations and possible solutions to promote this and other similar events. 1) Offer a tutorial on how to get involved. Explain what is required and how to set up a computer to compete in a race event. 2) Explain and teach what skills are required for a person to compete. 3) Offer smaller races thru out the year using stock MSF aircraft to help the neophyte racer get experience. 4) Offer a running commentary on the race. Audience participation draws interest which will bring participation at the racer level. 5) Race result announced in a timely fashion with all participants recognized for their efforts. This should be done all of the team websites. These are just a few thoughts and are not meant as criticism, just observations from one enjoys flight simming who would like to see this grow. Thank You to Team Out-House for your time and efforts. Harley Dude

Hi HD. Thanks for your observations. I think you have some great ideas here. Some of them we have been doing, sort of, in the form of race events we host here in the summer. But even these have been dwindling over the past couple years, and they have been designed only "incidentally" as RTW training events. What you have outlined above is exactly what is needed, IMO. A "RTW Race Marshall Plan", as it were. We have a year to figure it out. When we do, I expect to see you there, with goggles and charts!

 

[HarleyDude]

Well, I appreciate the encouragement and would like to try my hand at cross country racing. As I see it (from an outsiders point of view) it boils down to an aircraft, weather, the duenna, and the course. A possible course of instruction could be as follows: For the sake of argument and instruction the "student" aircraft would be the MSF stock Mooney. Everyone uses the same aircraft. The "students" would all face the same weather say MSF default "Fair". The Course would be preselected and posted to included say three or four stops at specific airports. With the unknown being how to use the Duenna. The "student" would then be instructed in tutorials on how to install the Duenna software and its use. They would then fly the course posting the results. The "instructor" could then evaluate the "students" progress. Once this is mastered then the same thing could be done with weather software. The goal is to add positive reinforcement to the "student" pilot as they progress to being an accomplished RTW pilot. Other factors on longer distant races such as route selection, altitude and weather reading as well as aircraft selection could be added in additional tutorials. A mentoring system by veteran pilots would work well in this process. As I stated in an earlier post shorter races could be held with different classes of aircraft giving the "new" race pilots experience and confidence to compete in the Round the World Race. Positive reinforcement is a must. Please feel free to kick this idea around. As I see it our goal is to bring more pilots to flight simming and expand the RTW pilot pool. Happy Flying!!!!

 

[robert41]

Before the RTW racing, I started with the smaller events.
Setting up the duenna was simple and straightforward.
Starting with a easy to fly aircraft like DCC's P38. Depending on the event, what aircraft to fly.
And a lot of practice.

 

[Milton Shupe]

Before the RTW racing, I started with the smaller events.
Setting up the duenna was simple and straightforward.
Starting with a easy to fly aircraft like DCC's P38. Depending on the event, what aircraft to fly.
And a lot of practice.

Good point Robert, and thank you for all your efforts this year. That was greatly appreciated.

One thing not to overlook is using Teamspeak and a head set with a boom mike. You get lots of knowledge by being able to converse with the other guys racing about race conditions, local target airport wx, flying tips for each aircraft, routing, coordination for takeoff and landing (formation and team flights) and the joy of being with the team vocally.

http://www.teamspeak.com/

You can get a nice, light-weight head set with boom mike from Wal-Mart for $20. That investment pays off every flight you use it. Light weight is important as you have it on so much. Don't over-invest.

 

[srgalahad]

HD, Thanks for the "outsider" comments. Often people forget what it was like before they got involved. We also tend to run into a lot of time pressure from January to Race week and it's not easy to keep up with the promotional side of things.
In fact, much of what you suggest is already in place, although not in a single place ( it tends to be 'organic' instead of 'logical') but let me point out a few of those things.

I have enjoyed SOH and the RTRW flights and while I have never participated I have followed the efforts of the participants with interest. If I may offer some observations and possible solutions to promote this and other similar events. 1) Offer a tutorial on how to get involved. Explain what is required and how to set up a computer to compete in a race event. 2) Explain and teach what skills are required for a person to compete.

This is, in part, covered here: http://www.fsrtwrace.com/about.php

It is also explained in more depth in both this server and on the .net (flight center) forums but much is either buried in the pages of the forums, or tucked in the Team private forum because that's where everyone heads when they think of racing. (we'll get someone on that project!)
In the interim, the Duenna information and download is here: http://www.fsrtwrace.com/duenna.php and instructions are included in the download. Set-up and use are pretty straightforward. There's a bit more work to set yourself up with a username and "select an event" but again, it's not overly complicated. The Duenna can be used outside of racing if you want to track your own flights for learning purposes although we tend to worry a bit about loading the Duenna server with too much data.

Additionally, we have, over the years posted announcements and pleas for participants across the various sim forums (newshawks, FS2004, FSX) with very little response and I'm afraid that, after a time there comes a feeling of 'beating a dead horse'. (So we're glad you spoke up!).

3) Offer smaller races thru out the year using stock MSF aircraft to help the neophyte racer get experience.

SOH is THE headquarters for off-season events. Much of the work is done by RTWR racers and the Exec Committee because it's what we like to do. Each event is discussed, posted and generally tracked in this forum. Most of these events are specifically set to accommodate neophytes and there's much help available from the competitors. Here are a couple of links to recent ones:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforu...e-Event-Airfields-of-the-Southwest-Pacific-II
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforu...-London-Melbourne-2014-A-Heads-Up-for-October
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?82442-The-Transcontinental-Announced

Your point about short, one/two day or minimal-leg events is very good and not beyond reach. We tend to power-out for a while after the RTWR but maybe we'll "draft" as an 'intern' you to keep us interested - that way you get the full learning experience

4) Offer a running commentary on the race. Audience participation draws interest which will bring participation at the racer level.

We've considered some form of live-streaming with commentary, but it's hard to find and keep the extra personnel to provide that. People seem to think that flying is the only worthwhile part of racing or that 'there's no place for non-racers". However, there is a "live feed" that's pretty accurate for aircraft positions at: http://www.fsrtwrace.com/followrace.php along with the penalty/bonus bank display.

5) Race result announced in a timely fashion with all participants recognized for their efforts. This should be done all of the team websites.

This is done as soon as possible and often gets the best response of the year (after the fact though...). This year, the results are delayed, as is Team FlightSim. They have stated their desire and intent to finish the race and we have a lot of respect for their determination. Once they arrive at MRLB we'll have Official Results and the awarding of trophies.

These are just a few thoughts and are not meant as criticism,

None taken. It's rewarding to see a different point of view and, as I said, some valid observations.

Rob
Team SOH
RTWR Exec. Committee

 

[srgalahad]

Good point Robert, and thank you for all your efforts this year. That was greatly appreciated.

One thing not to overlook is using Teamspeak and a head set with a boom mike. You get lots of knowledge by being able to converse with the other guys racing about race conditions, local target airport wx, flying tips for each aircraft, routing, coordination for takeoff and landing (formation and team flights) and the joy of being with the team vocally.

http://www.teamspeak.com/

You can get a nice, light-weight head set with boom mike from Wal-Mart for $20. That investment pays off every flight you use it. Light weight is important as you have it on so much. Don't over-invest.

HAH HAH! What amazing timing for that suggestion Milton!
I was just reading a comment from another team:
"As it turned out, TeamSpeak was *the* important tool of the race this year. Most of the planning was done on the way, in TeamSpeak, all of the flight-bookings, all of the background helping, scouting, etc. This kept the forums clean of idle chatter, but it also kept them almost sterile, so much that “outsiders” almost wouldn’t see the work and excitement behind the scenes."

It followed an earlier comment:
"- We need more pilots. Most of the flights were done by a few people. Not only did this limit the number of people involved, but it also led to some exhaustion - I recall someone falling asleep at the yoke and having to refly a leg."

The source?? John Mueller (creator of the Duenna), FlightSim post race comments, June 2005

 

[srgalahad]

I wouldn't be a bit ashamed about a 2nd place showing, [./QUOTE]

Let me put that 2nd (unofficially) place in perspective.

The Elapsed time difference between us and AvSim was 3 hrs 13 minutes. There are three parts to this:

Routing: Because of choices AvSim was faster between Newfoundland and Croatia (CYYR/CCE4) and LDRO by 1+05.
Martin is sitting in a hotel in Japan muttering "if I'd only seen that..." and we discussed it during the race. However, if there had been 4 or five or ten people testing plans instead of one or two, it might well have been noticed. Planners need not be flyers, either, but they seem scarce.

Penalties, etc. We incurred penalties and "wait time", reduced by the few bonuses we could earn with a pilot shortage to the net amount of 1+07
3:13 -(1:05+1:07) = 1:01

That's the flight time deficit! A fair bit, you say?
Over 54 hours that's just a minute and a few seconds PER HOUR!
Alternatively, over 34 legs, that's less than 2 minutes per leg!

Pretty damn good flying, but not quite enough. Realistically, the difference was often taking a bit more time because we were tired or plain 'punchy'.
Can we get better by 2 minutes per leg? I think so - if we practice and have enough pilots that are rested.

Who says a few seconds don't matter.

 

[robert41]

Roger on having teamspeak. Last year it was giving me problems running the sim, so I did not use it this year. Ideally running it on a second computer, but I don't have that.

 

[robert41]

I wouldn't be a bit ashamed about a 2nd place showing, [./QUOTE]

Let me put that 2nd (unofficially) place in perspective.

The Elapsed time difference between us and AvSim was 3 hrs 13 minutes. There are three parts to this:

Routing: Because of choices AvSim was faster between Newfoundland and Croatia (CYYR/CCE4) and LDRO by 1+05.
Martin is sitting in a hotel in Japan muttering "if I'd only seen that..." and we discussed it during the race. However, if there had been 4 or five or ten people testing plans instead of one or two, it might well have been noticed. Planners need not be flyers, either, but they seem scarce.

Penalties, etc. We incurred penalties and "wait time", reduced by the few bonuses we could earn with a pilot shortage to the net amount of 1+07
3:13 -(1:05+1:07) = 1:01

That's the flight time deficit! A fair bit, you say?
Over 54 hours that's just a minute and a few seconds PER HOUR!
Alternatively, over 34 legs, that's less than 2 minutes per leg!

Pretty damn good flying, but not quite enough. Realistically, the difference was often taking a bit more time because we were tired or plain 'punchy'.
Can we get better by 2 minutes per leg? I think so - if we practice and have enough pilots that are rested.

Who says a few seconds don't matter.

Looking back now when awake, I see some improvements we could have made. Such as leaving 2 RR Hornet and 1 SeaFury flights unused.

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Well I'll chime in.

First I think you guys did a great job! I was watching most of the weekend and I think the organization (spreadsheets, signups and everything) was outstanding.

I have been around this race for I believe 12 years. DCC (of P38 fame) and I were on AVSIM team in 2005 if memory serves me right. I bought the FSD Cheyenne 400LS to fly in this race way back then.

I have seen the good the bad and the ugly and may have caused some of it...

That said I did not volunteer this year as my computer was bought in pieces in 2004/2005 and I use it to this day even though I have the pieces to a 4 or 5 year old machine 20 feet away that my son has upgraded to something else this year. My old computer is getting ever increasingly cantankerous all the time. Sometimes I or it reboots it 3 times over 5 or 6 hours - blue screen Windows has recovered from a serious error - you may know the drill... I don't want my computer holding the team back. If I pulled and reset the RAM maybe that would get better - who knows. I have decided to buy parts this weekend (Hmm skylake or Haswell E?) instead of my usual guns or guitars or camera lenses and such - so I should have a good system soon.

Anyway I decided to step away this year. That said I was planning a route the saturday before cause I like to plan and I'll be looking at the results cause I like to analyze - in real life I'm trained as a scientist. What I saw plan wise was pretty similar to what we did - there were no magic bullets that occurred to me. I saw the greenland route versus what AVSIM did and I added up the distances start to Croatia - about 160nm further - <25 mins in a thoroughbred however there is an additional stop or two so maybe 40 mins total? But then if the winds are strong you can get some of that back and you have saved a jet leg for elsewhere so you should regain some time based on speed and the trick is to use it to gain some advantage. We were 90 odd mins back to Croatia but I don't think it was just due to greenland. I will say that AVSIM did a great job of maximizing jet distance (left less than 10nm on the table I believe while we left near 100 or so) and their jets were fast - real fast. At one point close to the mainland on the leg Hawaii to US mainland Srgalahad was like 7 or 8 thousand feet below PRB and going over 100 kts slower. I think maybe winds were huge this race. I wonder if Eamon made the wind statistic in Duenna output meaningful when he reprogrammed it? Anyway I think the team needs to really dive in to understand what happened. I'm pretty hesitant to say or do anything more since I didn't sign up. I just want to say I think you guys did great! Especially compared to some of the old races where we were hours and hours and even days behind...

As for the flying - I can kinda take it or leave it. If the race flew planes I like to fly (fast GA but this race is and always has been WWII fighters at it's core) it would be more interesting to fly. Make no mistake I like the Alpha hornet because it is so well behaved but it is a bit short legged compared to the "I'm Available" P51. It is great that we use jets now and there are always many who like to fly jets. I like virtualcol embraers but they aren't white listed and cat 2 jets were not of any use this year except to max the jet distance as Avsim did.

I would be totally in favor of an SOH event every 2 or 3 months for fun and practice as lack of confidence is I suspect often an issue. You guys should be proud of how well you "hung in" there and finished.

-Ed-

 

[srgalahad]

At one point close to the mainland on the leg Hawaii to US mainland Srgalahad was like 7 or 8 thousand feet below PRB and going over 100 kts slower.

Nothing to do with wind...
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforu...ICIAL-THREAD&p=1009337&viewfull=1#post1009337

More like "saving the bacon". When I discovered the fuel issue I could have abandoned the leg. I had faith in Paul's ability to get into Oxnard, barring any disasters. I elected to use the opportunity to learn a bit more about how to handle the emergency so I experimented. Then, once I had gotten to the point where I thought could make the coast and likely glide to a landing, and the cabin crew had served dinner, I started thinking about "what if"... Paul has an event (wind-shift causes overspeed, weather, crash on landing?) and doesn't make Oxnard. Then we go back to PHTO and lose 4 hours.
Simple.. putter along at 250Kts indicated on two engines and minimal fuel and divert to Vandenberg which is now in reach. (The lower altitude was because I stalled it once in a three (3)* heading change and decided it wasn't worth the climb back up to FL370.) That makes a baton transfer still an option.

If so, we lose 30 min. for the transfer and I landed 17 minutes after Paul so that would have been, at worst, 47 minutes instead of the 4 hrs.

Note that on a previous leg our intrepid wingman landed dead-stick with dry tanks.

So, how many people EVER practice unusual situations? Most worry about completing a NORMAL flight. let alone with a broken airplane, no fuel, or icing, no radios or GPS (can you navigate with an ADF only?)

Such as leaving 2 RR Hornet and 1 SeaFury flights unused.

And replace them with...? We used all the thoroughbred legs and all of the fastest regular a/c legs.

Remember, 1 minute per hour, 2 minutes per leg? --- faster, tighter, harder flying would cover that. This year we were all tired and were forced to fly cautiously, but if, on every leg you can, you turn on course at 200 ft agl, turn final at 1 mile, not 5, descend at 4000 ft/min instead of 2000... That takes practice and confidence. Not a couple of flights, but many, in each type of aircraft, until it's 'natural' - then repeat at night then with marginal weather. THAT is flying competitively. That means practicing for 12 months, not 12 days. That doesn't mean you can't fly a 'favorite' aircraft to practice, but you can practice flying near the edge.

 

[epwatson]

You guys all did a great job and should be proud of yourselves. I do not believe there was any one thing that slowed you down, like Rob said more cautious flying slowed you down. There were several flights where you did not have a wingman and that leads to more cautious flying like the good ol days.

As for planning, I do not know how many planners you have/had but team AVSIM really only has 3 planners in our team. The route we took this year "Black Tickle™" was actually a route we investigated a couple years ago but couldn't use due to either length or winds. This year it was not only the shortest route of the 5 or 6 we had but the one with really favourable winds. We knew a couple days ahead of time that the winds across the north Atlantic were going to be good and it turns out they were GREAT.

In the early stages of the race, we thought SOH was doing something similar to us when they headed to panama with us. When Flightsim went to colombia we assumed they were taking a south atlantic route, which is a route we looked at. With all 3 teams then heading north we knew all 3 of us had a similar plan. When you guys hit the big iron in cuba we were really wondering if you knew something we didn't or if you had made a mistake as we knew instantly that you had to goto greenland and iceland then. I commend you for going that route as getting into Narsarsuaq can be a pain at times. Now while it both took Team Outhouse and AVSIM 10 stops to get to croatia, our transatlantic trip was far faster and helped us pull ahead. After that it was just trying to stay ahead and we did notice you guys catching up quite a bit in the journey to australia.

All in all you guys did a great job while being understaffed. Once Flightsim finishes and the final results are given I think we all need to have a cold beer.

 

[MaddogK]

Nothing to do with wind...
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforu...ICIAL-THREAD&p=1009337&viewfull=1#post1009337

More like "saving the bacon". When I discovered the fuel issue I could have abandoned the leg. I had faith in Paul's ability to get into Oxnard, barring any disasters. I elected to use the opportunity to learn a bit more about how to handle the emergency so I experimented. Then, once I had gotten to the point where I thought could make the coast and likely glide to a landing, and the cabin crew had served dinner, I started thinking about "what if"... Paul has an event (wind-shift causes overspeed, weather, crash on landing?) and doesn't make Oxnard. Then we go back to PHTO and lose 4 hours.
Simple.. putter along at 250Kts indicated on two engines and minimal fuel and divert to Vandenberg which is now in reach. (The lower altitude was because I stalled it once in a three (3)* heading change and decided it wasn't worth the climb back up to FL370.) That makes a baton transfer still an option.

If so, we lose 30 min. for the transfer and I landed 17 minutes after Paul so that would have been, at worst, 47 minutes instead of the 4 hrs.

Note that on a previous leg our intrepid wingman landed dead-stick with dry tanks.

So, how many people EVER practice unusual situations? Most worry about completing a NORMAL flight. let alone with a broken airplane, no fuel, or icing, no radios or GPS (can you navigate with an ADF only?)


And replace them with...? We used all the thoroughbred legs and all of the fastest regular a/c legs.

Remember, 1 minute per hour, 2 minutes per leg? --- faster, tighter, harder flying would cover that. This year we were all tired and were forced to fly cautiously, but if, on every leg you can, you turn on course at 200 ft agl, turn final at 1 mile, not 5, descend at 4000 ft/min instead of 2000... That takes practice and confidence. Not a couple of flights, but many, in each type of aircraft, until it's 'natural' - then repeat at night then with marginal weather. THAT is flying competitively. That means practicing for 12 months, not 12 days. That doesn't mean you can't fly a 'favorite' aircraft to practice, but you can practice flying near the edge.

OUCH !
That brings back the painful memory of the loss a few years ago (2010 IIRC) when 16 minutes was difference between victory and defeat. There were only a few of us awake at the end of 4 days flying, and DD and I were flying the 2nd to last leg and he had fuel issues and suggested he ditch and take the refly penalty. I as wing suggested a divert as I could easily make it. DD relented and the divert with transfer penalty cost us the race.

Ya, I was never happy with the fact a crash and refly could've won us the cup when a good landing cost us so much. THAT'S one of the issues I don't care much for in this event, tho not something likely to change.

 

[robert41]

"replace them with...? We used all the thoroughbred legs and all of the fastest regular a/c legs."

I think you are misreading my post Rob. I do not want replace them, I want to use them, and we didnt. The RR Hornet and SeaFury are two of the fastest normal AC we use.

 

[Spookster67]

Martin is sitting in a hotel in Japan muttering "if I'd only seen that..." and we discussed it during the race. However, if there had been 4 or five or ten people testing plans instead of one or two, it might well have been noticed. Planners need not be flyers, either, but they seem scarce.

Yes, exactly. I knew I'd missed something in selecting the route, it was only a matter of "what". As it turns out, I missed the opportunity to fly Canada to Ireland. Not only was that 200nm shorter, but it also had far stronger tail winds (120-160 knots!), compared to our Greenland/Iceland/England route. With more planners involved, we might (or might not) have spotted that. AVSIM had three times more planners than SOH, and it showed.

AVSIM also flew better/faster. We made mistakes, where they didn't. I'm annoyed at myself for flying a leg and running out of fuel mid leg (aircraft failed to switch fuel tanks automatically, while I was multi-tasking and trying to plan where to do jet and GA legs). Ideally I shouldn't have been flying and planning at the same time.

Also, look at their jet legs. A pair of PMDG 777s from PHUP to KSBA in 3:37 and 3:44. That's flying of the highest quality, and far faster than anything the tired SOH and Flightsim jet pilots could manage.

The best team won, and the other two teams shouldn't feel disheartened by that. But the other two teams do need more planners and pilots next year...!

 

[srgalahad]

"replace them with...? We used all the thoroughbred legs and all of the fastest regular a/c legs."

I think you are misreading my post Rob. I do not want replace them, I want to use them, and we didn't. The RR Hornet and SeaFury are two of the fastest normal AC we use.

Gotcha. Perhaps we could have used them except that the RR Hornet is FSX only and we were about 50/50 on FS9 vs FSX flyers at any time. I've always liked the Sea Fury but not everyone does, nor is practiced in it (another note on the "to do" list). Considering the fatigue factor, perhaps the slower but safer option was best in the situation. I have learned that flying the fastest aircraft does not ensure the fastest time (30 minute transfer penalties hurt!), except in an ideal world.

 

[Willy]

I have learned that flying the fastest aircraft does not ensure the fastest time (30 minute transfer penalties hurt!), except in an ideal world.

That was the beauty of DCC's P-38s. Not the fastest aircraft out there, but the one mostly to complete a leg.

On the flight from Hawaii to California, Rob did the smart thing. In our nightly online flights for the most part, if things start going wrong, we just ride it out and see if we can recover from it. There's usually something you can do if you know your aircraft.