AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Airline size and complexity un-realism  (Read 3548 times)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2010, 07:06:38 PM »
if the slots are full, those 96 planes will sit in hangars looking all pretty.

Offline Minto Typhoon

  • Members
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2010, 07:26:05 PM »

And their competitors will have gone bankrupt also, also with aircraft in hangars.

How to do well in the Jetage - order loads of aircraft - dont worry about of age and commonality - drive others out of business - restructure to improve commonality.   Real world sim - not really.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2010, 08:05:28 PM »
I disagree.  Most of those airports have so many people who want to fly in to it that they are eyeing any slot opening as well.   This is why LHR/ATL/HK are all so tough to use.  Everyone wants to use them. 

Aahz the Pervect

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2010, 11:14:07 PM »
Perhaps a hard cap on Credit that rises over the years, or just a graduated cap for the first 20-30% of the game time would even out the start.

Another possibility would be to tie a company's net worth into the formula that decides interest rate. A company with more liquid assets would be a much safer 'bet' for a bank and get a lower rate. This might reduce the  drive to be 100% in debt in order to grab max planes.

auerbacs

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2010, 01:20:00 AM »
A lot of you are are pointing out that these rapid airline expansions are unrealistic. This is not really the issue. In fact, if there were tens of thousands of passengers in Tokyo who would pay good money for air service and no airline there, you would have no difficulty at all getting the credit needed from a bank to buy planes that you knew you could fill. As Sami says, the unrealistic part is that the world has 0 airlines when it starts. Given that premise, the rapid expansions are realistic given the context. So I agree with those who say that a rather mediocre AI could do cool things for the game, but I would imagine that that would be hard to set up. And remember, those giant airlines are playing by the same rules as everybody else, so you should congratulate them on their success rather than see it as a flaw in the game. Although, I will grant that it is almost impossible to come into the game late and become one of those massive airlines, unless one goes out of business and you slip into his airport.

Aahz the Pervect

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2010, 01:40:49 AM »
I agree Auerbacs. The issue is the zero competition at start. My suggestions were merely ideas to compensate for this in lieu of coded A.I. competition.

I understand that the game gives easy credit and that if (in RL) one can prove to a bank a high chance of good profits, they are likely to grant credit. I'm not suggesting credit be 'easier' or 'harder'. Just cheaper for those who keep a higher company value. (are less leveraged).

Not  looking to create a loophole or change the current flow. But I think it might add additional options/strategies to the current decision tree which appears to simply be grab every plane that passes inspection and use every slot possible until you get the Big Boys and start giving them your hoarded slots.
Not saying I disagree w/that strategy, I've yet to even come close to that stage :) - just seems like that is one of the current beefs, so was brainstorming.



   

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism/ curfews not authentic
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2010, 03:36:18 AM »
Please get KSAN open for arrivals 24/7 as in real life since the airport has been in existence. Its irritating that I can't  have a flight arrive at KSAN at 0400, yet real airlines/aircraft are arriving at KSAN throughout the night. When will be there be a fix for this? I also believe the takeoff curfew in real life is 2330. Lived there for 12 years and have a hunch take off curfew may be incorrect as well. Not sure about that but I do have a hunch on that. Other airports operate like this as well. LOTS! :-\

L1011fan

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2010, 03:39:00 AM »
And their competitors will have gone bankrupt also, also with aircraft in hangars.

How to do well in the Jetage - order loads of aircraft - dont worry about of age and commonality - drive others out of business - restructure to improve commonality.   Real world sim - not really.

You are right! Not really. If my current airline goes bankrupt again, I am going to try your strategy! :)

Mahon

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2010, 07:50:38 PM »
They do just fine in cold weather.  I see Dash 8s all over my home town.

The Dash-8's deicing capabilities are somewhat atypical, particularly compared to aircraft of the era of this game.

carloscarlos

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2010, 10:41:23 PM »
Having 50 planes in 18 months is close to non-sense in reality. Those guys who practice this way of business are a bunch of people who want to ruin the beauty of this game, which still need to be improved. Are they still survive in the game ? With a negative balance sheet ? I guess we need more tough regulator in this game. This regulator should regularly take some time to look into each company balance sheet and list of airplane and it's route. Any suggestion about this ? Is that because each player pay to play means can do anything they want ?

In a way i agree with most of the posts made, event though not 100% realistic thats what we currently have, therefore we need to adjust to the current game as it is.

therefore i disagree with the quote above. say player A decides to use the game as done in real world, sticking to just 1 type of a/c getting just 3/4 a/c a year in order to make it as real as possible andplayer B decides to use the oposite idea and exploit the simulation to the max benifit of his company, allowing him to grow quick expand and become one of the biggest airlines in the game. you cant really judge them the way you did, the simulation allows it, it is not ruining the game but knowing how to plan its strategy, no matter which in order to get as much profit as possible. correct me if im wrong, but isnt that one of the objectives, even though not written anywhere!? the player isnt doing what he wants because he pays, he is doing it, because he can plan and has a strategy that works. you cant just survive in a large hub, packed with "sharks" just because of your look. you need to be able to plan and expand as quicly as possible, if you dont, when you least expect you will have the hub you desired to start, with all the routes taken, where some1 else "owns" the market share, then when you least expect, you will betaken out of the way, because they have grown, you havent, they can fly new markets though taken by some1 else and player A cant.

this is a simulation as close as possible to the real world, if it is allowed for you to do whatever to grow, you do it, otherwise you will never have a successfull airline. i must confess, i have played a few airline simulations, online and not....and this is the closest as it can get. yes it can get improved, but unfortunatelly it is not done overnight.
maybe some of the suggestions above have already been considered and may be or not to be coded out for newer versions. you need to give time to time for updates to be made. Let Sami work, i am sure it can only get better.

dont take this post wrongly, i am not critising, in a way i understand what you mean, but for now this is the way the simulation works and we are the ones who need to adapt to it. it may adapt to our request, but in time. so use what we "have" the best you can, better days will come!

regs

carlos carlos

CX717

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2010, 07:07:04 AM »
Acquire used aircraft are too easy in this game.  ;D


Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2010, 07:50:10 PM »
The scaling costs of fleet commonality already do this.  If you dont' read the manual, you'll learn this the hard way pretty quickly.  For example, when I had 15 Tridents, 10 DC7's and a single Vanguard, that Vanguard basically cost me in overhead what it made each month - even though it was my most profitable plane, the overhead killed it.

Some airlines are operating 10 a/c types at  and nothing has happened to them - they are still very profitable - seems totally ludicrous to me as well - every game I have ever been I have tried to still to good commonality for me fleet thus slowing my growth, however it seems the 'dominant' airlines are still the ones who can have 7/8/9/10 different a/c types and arent feeling any effect of the apparent tweak that was done foe the fleet commonality issue.

How to fix this - who knows but I certainly think something needs to be done.  :-\

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2010, 08:01:36 PM »
I remember early games when Magic Carpet would fly out of Narita with every plane type in the game soaking in cash. 

Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2010, 08:02:54 PM »
I remember early games when Magic Carpet would fly out of Narita with every plane type in the game soaking in cash. 

Me too! Wasn't good at all!

Offline Minto Typhoon

  • Members
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2010, 10:31:36 AM »
it seems the 'dominant' airlines are still the ones who can have 7/8/9/10 different a/c types and arent feeling any effect of the apparent tweak that was done foe the fleet commonality issue.

This points to a fault in game logic.

auerbacs

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2010, 03:54:33 PM »
The larger airlines in the real world often have a similar number of fleet groups... Granted, I wouldn't mind it if the commonality costs were raised a little further, but I think we're forgetting that dominant airlines exist in the real world too.

Offline lastchancer

  • Members
  • Posts: 142
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2010, 12:14:38 AM »
But any suggestions on how to handle this elegantly?
My suggestion:
When ordering a new fleet type, your personal has to be trained 6 weeks on the plane.
This means, you get your plane after 2 weeks as usual, but it is grounded for another 6 weeks and cannot be sheduled. Of course, you have to pay all costs in this 6 weeks like leasing rates, personal needed etc.

When starting airline, the first fleet group is exampted from this rule (like training is done before founding the airline or so).

This means, adding a new fleet type is more expansive and due to the 6 weeks "training on the new fleet type" it slow down expansions in general.

This might be realistic and easy to implement (I guess).


Offline ukatlantic

  • Members
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2010, 07:32:02 AM »
The larger airlines in the real world often have a similar number of fleet groups... Granted, I wouldn't mind it if the commonality costs were raised a little further, but I think we're forgetting that dominant airlines exist in the real world too.

What you are forgetting is these 'dominant airlines in R/L were/are the legacy carriers which were operated by the governments of the time although most are now privte companies.  However the likes of Ryanair, Flybe, EasyJet, Soutwest as startups stuck to 1 fleet type hence making them profitable airlines in their early years and that common sense to stick to one type has earned them just reward as they are now some of the biggest carriers in the world by pax numbers or fleet size.  Also you will notice that they still only operate 1 a/c type or in the case of easyjet 2 but, these are the guys who are making profits in the current economic climate wheras the legacy carriers are really struggling with huge losses.  In this game also if you start with 4/5/6 different aircraft types you shouldnt be able to expland as rapidly as you have been doing (far too easy in my opinion and unrealistic in a sense) simply by having that amount of uncommonality as the costs or training, engineering etc should eat your profits away.  I think sticking to one or 2 aircraft types in the early parts of the game should be where you see airlines succeed not the guys who grab all and everything.  Granted when you are a good profit making company then in the latter parts of the gmae increase your fleet types as required, but shouldnt happen in the first 2 or 3 years of a game as has been allowed.  

Branmuffin

  • Former member
Re: Airline size and complexity un-realism
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2010, 08:54:00 AM »
My suggestion:
When ordering a new fleet type, your personal has to be trained 6 weeks on the plane.
This means, you get your plane after 2 weeks as usual, but it is grounded for another 6 weeks and cannot be sheduled. Of course, you have to pay all costs in this 6 weeks like leasing rates, personal needed etc.

When starting airline, the first fleet group is exampted from this rule (like training is done before founding the airline or so).

This means, adding a new fleet type is more expansive and due to the 6 weeks "training on the new fleet type" it slow down expansions in general.

This might be realistic and easy to implement (I guess).


I think this sounds like a good idea; you might consider posting it in the feature requests board to see what Sami thinks.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.