Just plan the flight before you set off. Especially know where, in what conditions, on what surface, and with what available runway length you will land. If that doesn’t suit you, don’t fly it.
It’s not like there’s a shortage of missions.
Yes there’s a change needed to enforce a minimum runway length for a given type, but that data is not in the config for every plane yet.
Wouldn’t you use the pc12 for that runway?
1 Like
We need to implement a feature where the destination airport varies depending on the type of aircraft. Why do you think this will have a negative impact on bush pilots and helicopter pilots? This issue can be resolved with a simple adjustment. For those transporting medium cargo or piloting business jets owned by their companies, it is an essential fix for efficient mission execution.
The idea is to provide larger runways for larger aircraft, so I don’t understand the opposition to this improvement in the game. As you know, moving company-owned aircraft incurs costs, so players are forced to choose nearby missions. If they go to areas with low mission frequency, their autonomy in selecting destinations diminishes. The probability of rejecting a mission and replacing it with another is not that high.
Therefore, aircraft without STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) capabilities should not be assigned destinations with extremely short runways. This is not content that should be left up to user discretion to reject. Missions come with predefined rewards and experience points, making them legitimate tasks. Requiring STOL capabilities from aircraft that cannot perform STOL is unreasonable and should be corrected.
4 Likes
this is absolutely not true, there are many 172s doing skydiving as well as other piston airplanes
3 Likes
It seems you don’t get it 
edit: just to be clear - you’ve described exactly what I just said in the post you seem to be trying to mock.
I can see this being complex, or impossible to implement.
At the point where you are choosing a mission, it is not known what aircraft you will use. (You can change at any point up to ‘Fly’).
You may have several compatible aircraft available with varying characteristics.
So it absolutely has to remain the pilot’s job to determine the suitability of the aircraft and the capabilities of the pilot.
And it’s not just runway length. I just ran a VIP mission into an airfield in Germany at 4,000 feet, in a 172. It was icing and just ! squeaked the landing with 55% fuselage iced up. So I should not have used an aircraft not equipped for icing condition.
Unless they are giant windsocks that has to be a model flying club site. Some do make small tarmac runways. There’s one in the hills nearby and I flew R/C and even deadsticked models onto it. Also spotted it from the air when flying nearby. (I wonder if any pilot saw it and tried an approach only to see how small it was when lower).
2 Likes
i have to disagree. plenty other “career” programs offer this. ex onair, fseconomy, pilots life, neofly
I disagree. Missions for all airports large, small, and everything inbetween. It should be up to the player to determine whether the conditions are right. If they added a mission search filter, players who want big runways can filter out the small ones.
3 Likes
This is what’s needed - a decent filter on the available missions view.
That still puts the onus on the pilot, but makes it more efficient to find missions.
I spend too much time researching missions only to reject them on account of conditions, runway length, etc..
The filter needs to be comprehensive though.
3 Likes
With what?
offer what?
Well, I’ve tried a few of these. None so successfully integrates something approximating actual aviation in real-world conditions. For FSE for example, you can crash land anywhere within the destination airport’s zone without penalty. So take a Herc into that 900 foot hilltop airstrip, no problem. Neofly I found unplayable.
That’s not to say MSFS is perfect, far from it. But it’s an amazing start.
The filter is absolutely needed, but the root stems from the lack of aircraft selection and flexibility, at least in freelance mode. In other programs you still have small airports, but the difference is you always provide/select the airplane based on the needs and limitations of the mission. Here it’s putting the cart before the horse, choosing the aircraft for you, and often poorly.
But but but, it’s you who choose the aircraft. Employee mode, you see it in the description; Freelancer mode, you get to choose.
Choose the aircraft that’s tied to an inappropriate or unwanted mission and airport(s).
Maybe I’m using the wrong terminology - I mean “freelance” to be the mode before starting a company.
I skipped Europe for this reason.
Middle East has long runways on the other hand
I think you are missing the point. In FSE for example it’s still on you to take the appropriate aircraft to ferry those six passengers to a smaller airfield.
Asking for smaller airfields to just not be selected is an airliner centric idea as the solution when of course it’s not. If it could provide some background filtering and checking based on your selections that would help but it’s untimately the pilots responsibility to make that determination.
2 Likes
I don’t mind the small airports but we should have an option to reject a mission due to limitations and it generate a new one.
It’s odd there isn’t much medium to medium style flying. Like KBUR-KSMF for example. Just a bunch of tiny private fields doing big business.
73CA (Bear Valley) is pretty easy to land at with a TBM930 or C208.
Just curious, what did you find unplayable in Neofly? Been using it in both 2020 and 2024 with no problems.
In fact, the career in 2024 seems very similar to Neofly, but much rougher around the edges than Neofly. Neofly the filters many are requesting to filter out the smaller airports that would be unsuitable for the chosen aircraft. While I haven’t formed a company in 2024, in the freelance it seems to lack continuity that Neofly has by the fact you can choose different airfields and aircraft for each mission within the area you have removed the “fog of war “ filter in MSFS. In Neofly you must progress choosing missions from the current location, or take a free flight to the airport of choice or move yourself to the new airport and rent an aircraft for the mission.
Long explanation cut short, I see many similarities between the two implementations and sort of view MSFS carrier implementation as a work in progress moving toward the more fleshed out Neofly.
1 Like
Well, it was a while ago. I found it a bit ‘cartoony’ and disliked it, probably irrationally. I do remember that the filtering of what was available was much better. ‘Unplayable’ was an exaggeration that I take back.
I agree that MSFS Career has jarring discontinuities - it’s daft to be paying to move an aircraft a few hundred kilometres but be able to do an employee mission on the other side of the world with no time or cost involved. And you should be able to dead-head. And divert without penalty.
And the accounting system is a mess.
The units are all over the place. Local/Sim/UTC times seem to get confused.
And the aircraft persistence (which is a solid feature in FSE) doesn’t really work properly. Aircraft icons on the map don’t give type or role until you click on them. I’ve quite a few aircraft and it’s hard to keep track or forge the kind of meaningful relationship with my aircraft I had in FSE.
In the HQ UI, their location is hidden away in the ‘Manage’ screen. The aircraft don’t give access to their flight logs.
So there’s a lot wrong and I agree it’s a WIP but I nevertheless find it compelling. I think because of the live weather challenge, and being sent to difficult locations. And the fact it’s integrated.
To get back to the point of this thread, it’s more complicated than the request suggests and there are other problems I would like to see prioritised.