The much needed Expert Server Revamp!

Hello everyone,
I am making this post after having observed multiple topics about shortfalls and poor experiences in the ‘Expert’ Server. It is unarguable that the expert server does not live up to it’s name, and like how we get aircraft and airport revamps, I think a server revamp would be an interesting (and necessary) change of pace.

For these reasons, I have attempted coming up with a new system for expert server, trying to be judicious in the resources that would be used and realistic in the requirements such that all players can play the game they paid for, without having to grind it for several weeks or months.
Here are some changes that I think would be benificial:

1: Make a mandatory training course of each aircraft that must be completed at least once (overall) before flying that particular aircraft in the Expert Server only.
In my opinion this would fix half of the ES’s problems. Many of the players simply do not know how to handle the aircraft they are flying. I think anyone part of the IFATC organization can agree with this. It is not a rare sight to see an aircraft going 200 kts at 4 mile final, or the same aircraft overshooting the localiser by half a mile and requesting a runway change. It has already been mentioned the IF flying school is being worked on so this could be a great extension to that.

2: Emphasis, Emphasis, Emphasis; on ATC comms
IFATC, and radio communications in general, is one of, if not the best feature of Infinite Flight. But this amazing tool becomes next to useless when the pilot does not know how to communicate with ATC or in unicom. Currently, to learn about radio comms, the pilot has to head over to the ATC Guide and read quite a few pages to learn about different terms. Many are lazy to do so, and some do not even know about the existence of such a thing. While the ATC Guide is great, it is a tiring read for casual pilots, and hence they fly in controlled regions and come up with diddly squat when asked to execute something slightly complicated, and go home with a report. Pilots need to be TAUGHT on how to interact with other pilots and controllers to ensure a smooth flow of traffic.

3: Using virtual airlines as a tool!
Virtual airlines could be greatly revamped as a part of this entire undertaking. Simple incentives to being part of and progressing in virtual airlines would motivate many players to not only join VAs, but also be better pilots! Now I am not suggesting something as crazy as “Get -50VS landing and get a month free of IF” or so, but a simple reward to contributing significantly to the VA. Something that won’t affect the game much as to you would be missing out on an experience in the game, but also something that motivates pilots to fly safer and better.

4: Stricter system violations, but…More lenient violation requirements
The current system violations are anything but strict. An aircraft taxiing at 34kts, phasing through other aircrafts to depart faster, or lining up and taking off from the runway on which an aircraft is just about to land are all things that according to the current system, are tolerable. Of course there is a limit to automatic violations, but even slight tweaks to these would increase discipline by a lot. As a result, Grade 3 violation requirements should be increased, maybe to 7, maybe to 10 or maybe to 15. The point is Level 1 violations should not be used to punish the pilots, instead to help them learn and become better pilots. To balance the severity of the system, upon reaching the set number of violations, the pilot could face a more severe timeout from the ES.

5. ‘In-game tips’ to help out new pilots when they’re going wrong
Last but not least, and possibly the most controversial addition, tips that would appear in a small text on the screen as to when pilots are making a mistake.
Some examples of the same:

  • You seem to be landing at ‘XXXX airport’, contact Approach /Tower/ Unicom to notify others of your arrival.
  • You are approaching 10,000 ft; reduce speed to 260 knots or below to avoid violations.
  • Your cruising altitude is too high for the current aircraft load. Descend to avoid stalling.

Of course some of these might be impractical, but all these changes would be greatly appreciated by those in the sim who strive for realism and efficiency.

P.S: I have tried my absolute best to not include anything that doesn’t bother anyone like “Don’t fly Ryanair in Hong Kong” or “A380’s don’t fly from LAX to SFO.”

I would really appreciate if you guys could let me know any loopholes in this arrangement or anything that is just unfeasible. Thank you.


I have taken my time to read this, and honestly, this sounds amazing, these are all things that should be reworked to keep the IF experience great! One thing I don’t agree with though is the Aircraft training, this should be optional and not required. If I randomly want to fly a diffrent plane I don’t want to take a course to be able to fly it but instead something as an aircraft-info button on the in game menu page would be helpful. I really hope the devs take notes because what you are saying is very good.



After reading through this - this sounds like it could work well however I agree with the person above - I think the individual aircraft training is a bit much - an overall training program which would provide suitable knowledge would suffice.


Hi. You have some really good points!

As @MatsVerhoelst said I’m against the availability of specific aircraft types through tests, too. I’m a learner rn and I have experienced that especially the A380 is much more difficult to land as the other main types. So in case I’m a new random player in this game I would avoid flying the A380 by myself bc after hours of flight it is frustrating to be not able to land in a successful way. So if I would like to have fun I only use the “easier” planes.


I don’t think laziness is an acceptable excuse for being uninformed, but I agree lack of sufficient exposure to that reference info is directly related to lack of skill.

In terms of remedial training (taking “laziness” as a cause rather than an acceptible excuse), my imagination goes to a world where “check tutorials” gets replaced with “please complete remedial simulation training module xyz, to regain access to ES,” when an IFATC sees a clear problem area that affects the ES environment.

Of course, while the above is easy to imagine, the task to implement and administrate falls under the “what then” consequences dilemma: do I create more problems than I solve.

I appreciate your dialogue on this.