PDA

View Full Version : An open letter to the 2010 RTW Race Rules Committee



PRB
November 29th, 2009, 06:49
Dear RTW Race Committee,

As February 2010 draws near, and we start, once again, to think about the RTW Race, I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you Makers of Rules. This letter is not the result of collaboration with nor encouragement from my team mates. It's just me jabber-jawing on about a couple of things rattling around in my head.

I've been involved in this event since SOH's first year as a participant in 2005. I think two things have gotten slightly “out of control” over the years and could use a bit of “reigning in”: 1) Planning, and 2) Rules Complexity.

Planning

There was a time, long ago, when planning was actively discouraged in this event. The idea was that this was a fun event first, and it was thought that huge planning staffs on each team, micromanaging the entire race from start to finish, planning each leg, would not be in keeping with the “spirit” of the event. The next baton carrier would jump into his (or her) plane and head off into the general (hopefully) direction of the race course. At best, the destination airport was known, and maybe even scouted out for terrain “features”, lights, etc., but that was about it. This was the original reason the rules were only released 24 hours prior to the event, right? You didn't want teams to have the whole event mapped out to the smallest detail before the green flag even dropped. It's almost as though you knew, way back then, what would happen if planning got “out of control”, and you wanted to avoid it. Well, planning is now officially “out of control”, and that thing you wanted to avoid is here. The last race in 2009 was mapped out before the green flag dropped, by a dedicated and rather stressed out “planning staff”, down to every single leg, all the way around the world. When they (the planners) emerged from the smoke filled basement, all bleary eyed and gaunt from lack of food and sleep, clutching The Plan, well, all the fun was distilled out of the event. Where was the sense of adventure? The unknown? The fun? All gone. And now, as we begin to think about this year's race, already last years over-worked Planning General Staff is worried that there was not enough people planning last year, and this year, dammit, things better change. But some of us who have been around since 2005 have seen what happens when too many people start “planning”. The first thing to happen is that two “planners” inevitably disagree on some point of the “plan”, egos kick in, fun drains out. So we either have a “plan by committee” in which case there's too many people trying to plan, and people get stressed out and the fun goes away, or you have a small dedicated planning staff, in which case they get stressed out and angry that nobody is helping them plan, and the fun drains away. So how did we get here? This brings us to rules complexity...

Rules Complexity

In 2005 we had bonus airports, required stops, and the “wild card”. Now we have corridors, and “air bridges”, the wild card, a list of required planes, an airplane use-count limitation, a special event at both the start and the end of the race, regions where jets are allowed, more complex rules regarding the required planes, Team Flights, three kinds now, a new class of planes, the “Cabin Class”, which have different leg requirements than the other planes, and “bonus banks.” I'm guessing that the “bonus airport” list was cut down to almost nothing last year as an attempt to reduce the complexity, but the complex required aircraft rules, team flights, and cabin class all conspired to more than make up for the loss of complexity which resulted from dropping the bonus fields. The special aircraft requirement illustrates this “complexity creep” phenomenon well. When it was first introduced, the requirement was simply a list of planes (the “classics”) that had to be flown on at least one leg, with a leg length requirement. The 2009 race broke the required aircraft into three groups, aircraft from which had to be flown four times (each), and each group had a different leg length requirement. This made keeping track of “compliance” more complicated. These features of the race, bonus fields, required fields, team flights, cabin class aircraft, required aircraft, use-count, make planning the event necessary if there is to be any hope of winning the thing. All of these things either have bonus or penalty times associated with them and as such require a very complex plan, up front, to maximize the combined use of each feature, and avoidance of penalties.

What can be done?

Eliminate things that make keeping track of compliance more complicated. Loose the cabin class. Provide a list of required planes if you must (“classics”) but can we get back to just one list? Do we really need corridors and air bridges? I still couldn't explain what the difference is. Eliminate “use-count” limitations on airplanes. Somebody, after all, has to keep track of how many times each type of plane has been used! Who cares how many times I fly the P-38? I like the P-38! It's fun... Get bonus and penalty time back under control. This is why it's darned hard to track what's going on, which is why you had to invent another concept, the “bonus bank”, so the load wouldn't be entirely on you Rule Makers to keep track of it all. Have some bonus airports if you must (difficult approaches), but loose everything else that awards bonus points. Leg lengths? 700 NM, except for corridors and the wild card. That's it! Make it so that planning is not necessary anymore, and you won't see this thing over-planned. Then we can fire the planners (or free them) so they can fly legs instead of plan, and actually look forward to this event. It can be done.

In Conclusion

I know a lot of these added features are the result of racers asking for them, or liking them a lot after their initial introduction. I know some people would find the race “boring” if were held using simple rules. But I can tell you for certain that some traditional faces you were used to seeing at these events in 2005 and 2006, have not been back, and the reason is the rules complexity. It's a fine line to manage, I suppose. I think it's worth trying.

jkcook28
November 29th, 2009, 07:23
Here, Here Paul!!!! :applause:

Dangerousdave26
November 29th, 2009, 12:11
{cough} {cough} {clears throat}


{Stands up and gets on Soap Box}


At this point it is not necessary for most of you to read this unless you want to know how my sick and demented mind works.


...scratch that you will not know how it works you will just have more questions.


This is my response to PRB's open letter intended mostly to be read by the race committee.


My thoughts are my own as much as Paul's are. I intend these thoughts to be positive and informative and not criticism of anyone.


I agree with some of what Paul has stated but not all of it.


I think that we all will agree that Simpler and Easier are the real goals. That should translate into less stress and more fun. I do not believe that requires neutering the event by taking out all of the bonuses and penalties which prevent the event from becoming stale.


Route Planning:


I do not believe that eliminating the Planning is possible. As each year passes and the desire to win becomes greater this causes the event to progress and expand. Part of that expanding process is Pre Planning those who Pre Plan their over all route are far better off than the teams who do not. The likely hood that you will win has gone up strongly. The competitive nature of any event dictates that this is bound to happen.


Let me also state that I believe there is one way to stop Pre Planning of the race. That method would be to simply drop the hat, state the race has begun, and release the rules. Now you have eliminated Pre Planning but you have invented Post Planning or Planning on the fly. I think this will be more stressful because before the rules are even read somebody is going to be out on a leg heading the wrong way or in the wrong plane.


That said dropping the hat to start the race and releasing the rules at the same time could be fun...


In a sadistic way.


Rules and Complexity:


Much like Planning things change and expand with each passing year. It should only be natural that after almost 10 years there is some fat that can be trimmed from the rules.


A good example of this was the drop tank rule. Last year the size restriction was removed. To compensate the normal leg maximum was increased but yet the max time for a leg stayed the same. This was a good change.


Last year the Team Outhouse was bitten by an obscure rule that state the original pilot my not take off on a leg that he just failed to complete. That leg cost us almost 2 hrs of flight time lost to the crash of the wingman and the pilot. The pilot the only one who was available to fly the leg took off again but because of the 2 hr post time rules it incurred and extra 45 minute penalty on top of the additional flight time. That rule needs to go. It would seem to me and others that if you already lost the total flight time and had to fly the leg again that is enough penalty.


I am sure there are other minor rules that can be trimmed, simplified or eliminated.


I also understand the need for rules and the addition of new rules from time to time.


At this time I would like to call for a new rule for the 2010 RTWR.


It has been revealed to me by two Team AVSIM Members in the last two years. They turn off their Autogen and remove all the buildings from the world so they do not hit anything on landing. I do not know if this is a Team Sponsored view point on how to fly or if these individuals were acting on their own. I believe if we are going to expect a certain amount of realism from aircraft in the Simulator then we should have a reasonable amount of realism in the world. Otherwise Mr. Ito makes some really nice planes that should be legal because they are only slightly HOT.


My suggestion (rule) is simple.



Each Pilot shall have installed at least the default FS8, FS9 or FSX Mesh.
The scenery and autogen sliders shall be placed to the appropriate level to give a smooth simulation in a Multiplayer or single Player environment.
Moving the scenery or autogen sliders completely the left is considered poor sportsmanship and is to be avoided.

Why do we need this new rule? Because someone has done this and this will lead to someone doing something else to decrease their probability of crashing. The example would be the person that just created a world mesh that reduces the elevation of the whole world to a ball shaped sphere with no mountains.


OK I just made it as a test. I don't plan on using it but I can't remember which install of FS I put it in...


Hope I don't mess up on race day and use it...


Hence the need for rules.


Aircraft Selection Bonuses and Penalties:


They are all kind of related so I have lumped them here together.


Aircraft Selection If the desire on the part of the race committee is to have more aircraft diversity in the race then the proper thing to do is promote diversity with bonuses. The Cabin Class and the 2008 rule the Aircraft Diversity bonus both did this very well. These rules help the event from progressing into a Shockwave P-51H and de Havilland Hornet shoot out.


At no point would I ever want to see anyone ever be restricted on the model or type of plane they want to fly. This includes the too hot to the too mild.


Default Aircraft: This was way over done with the multiple classes last year. Just spell out which ones to fly and for how many legs and how far.


Bonuses I have no problem with any bonuses or the addition of more bonuses so long as a proper tracking system is in place. See Race Tracking below.


Penalties: I have no problem with any penalties (except those imposed on me) but we probably have just about enough of them.


Special challenges for bonuses provide not only bonuses but also help define the route. These challengers also help the event from becoming stale. While I liked the 2009 challenges I would like to see more of a twitst in them. Last year I think we had 3 or 4 now with out looking I can not remember. What I would like to see is at most 4 challenges or maybe 3 but each team can only complete 2. The goal by doing this would be to prevent or hopefully induce different flight paths around the world. It just seems that last year there was only one route for each team to fly. This if done right it should cause some variety in the route. This however is what some people do not like it causes planning and thought to be placed into the route early on. I however like it.


Race Tracking:


This is the part of the race that I know can be improved and improving it would make the committee's job easier as well as each teams. I would love to see the rules come out with a self calculating excel spread sheet to track each leg, bonuses, penalties and requirements.


No matter how complicated the bonuses, penalties, and requirements are a properly configured spread sheet should eliminate any tracking head aches.


If there is only one change this year then this one would be the one I vote for.


One thing that we can always count on is change and with change will come voluntary attrition. It goes both ways and will always be a side affect that we can not control.

The views and opinions above are my own if anyone else believes these things then....:icon29:

For anyone who does not agree with my views and opinions don't worry that's expected. :icon_lol:

Willy
November 29th, 2009, 14:08
I'll second what Paul said. I stayed out of it last year as it's gotten overly complicated and the fun was gone from it. I know geography well enough that if you just tell me that we're heading east and what continent is next, I can pick out my own flight plan based on what my aircraft is capable of and where I'm headed. Also I'm not fond of the excessive rules and special events.

It's gotten to where I have no interest in flying the RTW anymore under these conditions and my participation other than forums support is unlikely again this year.

RedGreen
November 29th, 2009, 16:40
My Random Thoughts:

I don't think pre-planning needs to be eliminated, but I agree that the rules have reached an overwhelming level of complexity. Another point on this subject. The RTW Committee has repeatedly stressed to us that we need to make our Posts, Bonus Bank accounting, etc. as descriptive as possible so that spectators can follow along. If this is such a concern, I ask why the time bonus rules are so complicated that one needs to have a Doctorate in Advanced Algebra in order to figure out who's winning?

I like the idea of having a list of bonus airports we can fly to, having a simple list of aircraft that need to be flown during the race, as well as the wild card and corridors. I for one liked having the Bonus Bank last year, as it allowed us to subtract a crash penalty from our bonus hours and continue on rather than have to sit around idle for a half an hour.

Now, the Cabin Classes. As I understand it, these planes were meant for relative newcomers to be able to participate in the action flying an easy-to-handle plane. It's safe to say this hasn't worked the way it was intended. First, the P-38 is a much better newcomer plane, as it's faster than the Cabin Classes and just as idiot-proof. Second, the Cabin Classes were used exclusively last year to get quick time bonuses. I'm not sure anyone on Team Flightsim really wanted to fly a bunch of King Air legs, but when every other team started doing it, we really didn't have much of a choice. I managed to only have to fly one King Air leg last year, and it was easily the most boring leg I flew during the race.

Either ditch the rule altogether, or allow to fly some different planes for it. Instead of having the same group of planes eligible for that bonus every year (with about 90% of those legs flown in the same plane: the King Air), why not let us fly, say, Classic Propliners? The DC-7s, Stratocruisers, and Constellations used to be the plane of choice for long-distance legs, but sadly now the Avanti is pushing them out of that niche. I for one wouldn't mind having an excuse to fly the DC-7 more than once during the RTW, and I'm sure there are people out there who feel the same way I do.

(Did I just see Willy's hand shoot up in the back row? :wavey:)

Finally, I agree with what has been said before about aircraft variety. The day the RTW becomes a P-51H Spec Race is the day I quit. I liked the aircraft diversity bonus from 2008, except that we had to fly the same aircraft three times in order to get that bonus. Perhaps make it so an aircraft only has to be flown twice (or maybe even once!) to get a bonus. Aircraft diversity would surely skyrocket, and it would force us to try to master more planes besides our "old stand-by".

That's all I have for now, but probably will come up with more later.

(PRB, thanks for taking what many of us have been thinking and putting it out there in the open! :applause:)

vcaptmattsmith
December 30th, 2009, 19:12
Folks,

I have only now seen this thread - so let me begin by apologizing for having ignored it for so long.

I am so, so glad to have your feedback.

Let me assure you that even as we speak the committee are working to simplify this year's race. As you all intoned, the balance to be struck is a difficult one, but it is one worth looking for.

Please be assured that this year's race will be far simpler than the previous few years' have been.

If anyone has any additional thoughts, please don't hesitate to contact any of the committee via e-mail.

Once again, thanks!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Smith, PPL-ASEL
matt@fsrtwrace.com
Chair | Executive Committee
Microsoft Flight Simulator Around-the-World Race | www.fsrtwrace.com

Willy
December 30th, 2009, 19:51
Thanks Matt! I'll be warming up my Spitfire :salute:

PRB
December 31st, 2009, 11:59
Thanks, Matt.

Hey, EasyEd: after reading your post at the RTW Race Headquarters Forum, I find myself agreeing with much of what you wrote. I'm reminded now of this song, especially after looking at the results (so far) of the poll: :d


EbkowHt45yg

EasyEd
January 1st, 2010, 11:19
Hey All,

Good song Paul. You can't go back - in life or FS.

I see I'm basically the only guy at SOH who voted for variety - so what else is new.

It's also interesting that the majority of the "simple" votes are from SOH. Be interesting to see how the totals come out.

-Ed-

Milton Shupe
January 1st, 2010, 14:59
PRB et al,

My thoughts exactly ... I have not flown since 2006 because of the complexities of the rules, the corridors, jets, and the expanding technologies required to be involved. My poor computer could not handle it. lol

If the committee gets back to a simpler, more fun approach, I will reconsider.

Ferry_vO
January 1st, 2010, 15:13
Have to agree with my team mates here; when just reading the rules gives me a headache I'm pretty much done with the whole thing already.

Also keep in mind that this is an international event, and for those who are not native English speaking reading and understanding the rules takes even longer.. :isadizzy:

Also IMHO a simpler event will mean a shorter, higher paced event. Flying for three to four days is good, anything longer and it does tend to get boring.

Last year all teams pretty much flew the same route I believe, because the rules forced us all to do so. If the rules are more open it will be much more interesting to see who goes where, and in what aircraft.

Willy
January 1st, 2010, 17:12
Ferry, for us native English speakers, reading and understanding the rules takes some doing.....

srgalahad
January 5th, 2010, 15:29
I haven't said much. That's not to say I don't have strong feelings - and mixed ones. I love variety and getting people to think, choose and learn new skills. On the other hand a race as long and complex as the RTWR can be hugely over-complicated and I think we've seen that happen already.

When Matt put up the poll I had to figure out how to vote simply ( and only once, dangitall!) so I started putting thoughts down in Notepad. Now THAT's turned into a beast too but I think I have it done. However it is still too large to post in it's entirety so I'm attaching the "what would I do if it was my plan" and you can take it home and let it filter through..

Rob

fliger747
January 7th, 2010, 10:37
Too complex and only two of the three teams are on the rules and judicial ends of things. I have not always felt that the participant judges have fairly represented the interests of all equally.

T

buzzbee
January 7th, 2010, 12:17
Interesting read.

Me, I just want to fly and not have to figure out if I fly this aircraft from point a to point b and it takes me X hours, I can subtract y - you get my point.

For team flights or required aircraft, I proposed that there be legs that feature some of the great freeware that is out there.

Cheers!

MaddogK
January 7th, 2010, 13:07
Too complex and only two of the three teams are on the rules and judicial ends of things. I have not always felt that the participant judges have fairly represented the interests of all equally.

T
:kilroy:

Haitun
January 14th, 2010, 20:01
Well but isn't all that number crunching and route planning and all simply FUN, and makes RTW far more interesting?
Also voted for the variety=)

Haitun
January 14th, 2010, 20:20
Also the average of all the opinions made at RTW forums averages as that as an ideal RTW Race: An aiship flight atop Mt.Everest and a Trans-Pacific propliner flight (and that's very biathloic and in a way interesting))

MaddogK
January 18th, 2010, 09:33
I just flew in from Mexico last night and boy, are my arms tired,
:)
Having spent a week on the beach drinking rum and generally over-indulging myself but away from computers, politics, job headaches, pets, etc I've had time to organize some thoughts I've been planning on throwing out but undoubtedly would've posted them un-PC like and caused arguments. Now newly 'recharged' I'll put them out for consideration.

This being the third event I've been party to, I'm very proud to be a member of team SOH I've always wondered why our team didn't have representation on the ruling body of the event, especially since the other 2 'legacy' teams are run by members who make up the rules of the event. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not accusing anyone of anything but it seems a little suspect that the same body that decided the rules, routes, bonuses and aircraft to be used are the same ones that run the teams that dominate the event and it smells of a conflict of interest, now compound that with the new team comprised of ex-devs of MS who may have inside knowledge of FS quirks and you'll understand why I feel SOH is at a further disadvantage in this. I have seen at least one of our teammates leave to another team stating 'he wanted to win for a change' and that saddened me, but an SOH win is sweeter BECAUSE we don't have any 'inside' thru the loopholes in the rules. All I'm really trying to say is that I feel each team should have a rep on the council OR the ruling body should be 3rd party (NON-Participants) to ensure fair competition.

Next: It was my understanding when I first participated that it was a race, any route was possible as long as certain 'checkpoints' were hit, but last years rules ensured there was one route around the planet (bonus events not included). PLEASE don't do that again, I'm not sure how many liked last years routing but I absolutely hated it.

I'm not sure about last years rule about drop tanks- increasing the allowed size but decreasing the min range of the A/C to 700 miles. Maybe one day I'll figure that one out but that that just sounded weird to me.

I really like the 'cabin class' but last year the B-26K was pulled. Someone really wanted to turn the class into a kingair only class- unless you own some payware. This year a couple other hot payware planes are available in this class, whats going to happen to those who can't afford to 'buy' a competitor in this class ? I also would like the Avanti put back into this class- it's FREE, and it takes some skill to fly so if ye can't afford some primo payware to compete with a kingair ya gotta gain some skills, or get smoked by those with cash to burn.

I'm all for simplification of some of the rules but one day I'd like to see some importance put on fuel usage. The Jug is a rocket and uses ungodly amounts of fuel and IMHO should be penalized for it (as well as a few others), but few can keep up with a Mustang-H.

I guess I'll close now since I'm starting to ramble but one last thought I think we can all agree on, the weather situation is getting out of hand. We need to ALL use a standardized weather scheme, and we need to have Duenna verify it. We have 3 different sims and at least 6 different weather programs available and NO way to ensure that the weather at any one time for any pilot is accurate, and being updated. The weather is one of the biggest influences on the outcome of the race and no way to verify that a pilot is running updating weather other than 'pilot honor'. If nothing else this issue is the ONE that needs to be addressed.

Thanks for listening, and I look forward to this years event.

RFields
January 18th, 2010, 10:01
.......

jkcook28
January 18th, 2010, 10:26
...snip..I'm all for simplification of some of the rules but one day I'd like to see some importance put on fuel usage. The Jug is a rocket and uses ungodly amounts of fuel and IMHO should be penalized for it (as well as a few others), but few can keep up with a Mustang-H.

In defense of the P-47, it uses lots of gas, but it carries lots of gas. In the case of the P-51H comparison, 590gal vs 412gal; a full 33% more. And it does perform accurately speed-wise, unlike the H stang. my .02 cents.

You need to jump in the practice now too MD. :running:

Spookster67
January 19th, 2010, 14:01
now compound that with the new team comprised of ex-devs of MS who may have inside knowledge of FS quirks.
Which team is that then?!

MaddogK
January 19th, 2010, 21:23
Which team is that then?!

I thought some of your guys were some old Aces Studio devs, if not sorry I overestimates ya's.

:)

Spookster67
January 20th, 2010, 13:50
I thought some of your guys were some old Aces Studio devs, if not sorry I overestimates ya's.

:)

No, not us. Just a bunch of flight simmers (and a couple of real life pilots), who are just about capable of installing new skins and understanding config files. We get just as many problems with FSX glitches as the rest of you... :isadizzy:

And since we all fly on an FSX server, none of us use the (probably) more reliable FS2004.

Regards,
Martin.

HaveBlue
February 28th, 2010, 15:24
I have been on Flightsims team since 2005. I'm one of the lucky ones that just get told which plane to fly and where to fly it.
The rules are very complex and there are many of them. But because of the changes from year to year it keeps me coming back because I know that no two years are alike.
It's good now all teams have someone on the committee. Saying that I have never seen any biased decisions by them.
They will punish the most simple mistake because if they don't other teams will complain.
The mainstay rules are always the same so we have all year to learn them. We don't have to learn all the rules in 24 hrs, even though it seems that way.
The smaller and newer teams must sure find it overwhelming to get their heads around though.
I was so glad that SOH won in 2008. It meant every team had had at least one win. You guys proved you could do it.
You guys are fast- no doubt about it. Now you have teamspeak comms must be much better.
I sure do hope you guys are there in 2011. Same with ifly.
I would like to see no jets at all but it's said the race would take too long. I think the overall goal is to keep it to as close to 4 days as possible due to real world commitments.
The committee does a great job, I don't envy them one bit. And they do listen. Trying to keep everyone happy must be a real headache.
I do confess though that if it wasn't for my team-mates I would be totally lost.:isadizzy:

MaddogK
March 1st, 2010, 06:38
They TELL you which planes to fly ??

...How interesting.

Henry
March 1st, 2010, 12:13
They TELL you which planes to fly ??

...How interesting.
different strokes for different folks
well done to all!:medals:
H

RFields
March 30th, 2010, 06:49
They TELL you which planes to fly ??

...How interesting.

The team tells him and all pilots "We need a helicopter leg here" (He is the best helo pilot on the team) or "We need a dh-Hornet or P-51H leg here" or "It doesn't matter which plane is flown - just a fast safe leg".

The plane is always the pilot's choice, but all teams have legs where only certain aircraft are suitable to achieve the team goal. This is especially true on overwater and island hopping legs when any plane which is slower than the Hornet will not meet the range / two hour time limit goal. We had some legs from ZUCK to HADR where winds eliminated many aircraft like the P-38L or M or Bearcat or Tigercat from being able to complete the leg in the time limit.

FlightSim has been supportive of some potential rules changes to lessen the impact of the fastest aircraft for years - which the committee has not implemented - possibly eliminating drop tanks for all aircraft, requiring all aircraft to be multi-seat, multi-engine, possibly requiring half or 25% of the legs be flown in non-military warbird aircraft, etc.

I personally do not like limiting pilot choices, but the proposals from some SOH team members to ban the P-51H, the Do-335, the Alpha-Sim Hornet, the FSD Avanti, the Lionheart Epic LT would make the race more equitable and make a greater choice of aircraft competitive.

Unfortunately banning the P-51H would eliminate any FSX heavy team from being able to win.