Simple quality control for routes?

SimBrief Dispatch
1

Hello! Just wondering that could there be some sort of “quality control / validation” system, even a simple one, in SimBrief by default?

As it seems that when someone files a route that is really making no actual sense, it for some reason offers that as first option for everyone else. And it causes a lot of headache for online ATC to start re-clearing pilots to their route from scratch, lots of pilots flying tours and basically 80% of them having same totally useless route.

Example below:
EYKA - UUWW, straight line distance 504nm.

Distance with valid airways, including SID and complex STAR total 521nm (+15%), screenshot below

image
image1435×311 213 KB

Still as first option offered is a route with total distance 705nm (+56%), created by someone who doesn’t bother to even check how his route looks actually, screenshot below

image
image1372×597 391 KB

Such increment in route would never be passing through validation system in real life. So if there is possible, would be nice to have some sort of algorithm for distance increment… of course 15% is not the same in 500nm flight as in 4000nm flight. But I think you get the idea. :slight_smile:

I understand that in the end, responsibility for checking quality of the route belongs to pilot, but… in virtual aviation with lots of pilots who doesn’t bother to do anything extra to simulate “as real as it gets”, just flying tours with haste and hunting for badges or awards… this is increasing issue. And would be amazing if there was some sort of pre-evaluation for routes wether they actually have reasonable increment percentage.

2

Other option could be a filter option, that show/suggest only routes which have been for example Eurocontrol validated… to actually give some credit and promotion to those routes, which are created by members bothering to pay attention and actually spend a bit time creating those routes. :slight_smile:

Why not also an option to rate suggested routes between 1-5 depending. And filter to show/suggest routes rated at or above preferred value.

3

We already have some logic in place, but the threshold is higher than in your example route. A mere 56% distance increase is not a reliable indicator of an invalid route, in fact there are countless IFPS compliant routes which exceed this threshold all over Europe. If we made SimBrief’s criteria low enough to avoid the route in your example, thousands of valid routes would also end up getting excluded unnecessarily.

Often times we actually have the opposite problem. A user has planned a “more direct” route, but this route is actually completely invalid. And we would then receive complaints if we suggested that one instead.

We actually have such a system in place. I will message you with the details on how to contribute your own routes.

Best regards,