Vote: Next game world

[minerva]

Point taken.  But many of the suggestions noted here were due to the pervasive feeling that v.1.2 had developed into a Squawk 7700 situation.

[swiftus27]

Im sorry, I didnt read you.

[THI]

to understand it correctly:
will it be some kind of Air Travel Boom ??

[Filippo]

What about the usual ATB 1992-2020?

Is there going to be another game world after this 2000 one?

[JumboShrimp]

What about the usual ATB 1992-2020?

Is there going to be another game world after this 2000 one?

It might be more interesting to do 2001-2025 instead of 1998-2020.  Later time frame would give players more incentive to upgrade their fleets mid-way through the game.  Right now, in ATB, I don't see that players who bothered to upgrade to Mitsubishi, Bombardier CS, A350, Boeing 787.  Some, but not that many.

[Sigma]

It might be more interesting to do 2001-2025 instead of 1998-2020.  Later time frame would give players more incentive to upgrade their fleets mid-way through the game.  Right now, in ATB, I don't see that players who bothered to upgrade to Mitsubishi, Bombardier CS, A350, Boeing 787.  Some, but not that many.

That's because none of those planes offer a compelling reason to upgrade.

A 2001+ scenario is, undoubtedly, the worse scenario if your goal is to get players to upgrade fleets since no major new aircraft come out that warrant the change.  Once the NGs and 321s are out there, people don't change much.

Real-life is a different story because airlines are constantly looking to replace aircraft and there are always periods where there's a rush to replace particular models -- i.e. American's push to finally dump the Super-80s, or United's push to replace its DC10s, etc.  Here though, starting in 2001, everyone's planes will be new(er) and stay new throughout the entire game.  We won't have antiquated fleets made up of many different merged airlines all needing to be replaced like the real world is faced with.

[JumboShrimp]

That's because none of those planes offer a compelling reason to upgrade.

You are right that the upgrades coming out are not exactly compelling...  But if you have 10 years left to use some of the less than killer aircraft (A350, B787), they may warrant more attention than they get in ATB.

Real-life is a different story because airlines are constantly looking to replace aircraft and there are always periods where there's a rush to replace particular models -- i.e. American's push to finally dump the Super-80s, or United's push to replace its DC10s, etc.  Here though, starting in 2001, everyone's planes will be new(er) and stay new throughout the entire game.  We won't have antiquated fleets made up of many different merged airlines all needing to be replaced like the real world is faced with.

I guess one way to get that replicated in AWS is in a longer, say 30-40 year game time game world, which Sami does not want to start under 1.2.  Maybe under 1.3

[JumboShrimp]

A 2001+ scenario is, undoubtedly, the worse scenario if your goal is to get players to upgrade fleets since no major new aircraft come out that warrant the change.  Once the NGs and 321s are out there, people don't change much.

BTW, do you think it would make sense for AWS to use real life caps for aircraft like 737-NG and 321?  Here is what I found out yesterday:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,25416.0.html

737 NG production is going up to 38, A32x production is going up to 40.  These real life figures are significantly higher than AWS production caps.

[Sigma]

You are right that the upgrades coming out are not exactly compelling...  But if you have 10 years left to use some of the less than killer aircraft (A350, B787), they may warrant more attention than they get in ATB.

Sure, I'll grant you that.  I'd buy some if I had 10+ years usage on them, but I've always ignored in them in past games because you just don't get enough life out of them to warrant the extra fleet group.  For someone who tends to have the fleets that I do (100-200+ of a model), I prefer not to upgrade to a new model unless I know I can replace all my current one -- and that takes about a decade now with the delivery schedules (which I'm a fan of despite the long-term planning, actually because of it)

I guess one way to get that replicated in AWS is in a longer, say 30-40 year game time game world, which Sami does not want to start under 1.2.  Maybe under 1.3

Well, the problem with these long game-worlds is, as mentioned here earlier, they go stagnant really quickly and the aircraft replacement process is way too arduous.  Only once have I successfully done a full fleet replacement on almost 200 aircraft.  In long game-worlds we have played, you get a huge bunch of bankruptcies later in the game as airlines BK that let their airlines idle because of boredom and/or the daunting prospect of large-scale fleet modernization.  That said, I've yet to think of a better way to do it myself, so it's no hit against sami not doing something to fix it.

BTW, do you think it would make sense for AWS to use real life caps for aircraft like 737-NG and 321?  Here is what I found out yesterday:

For what my opinion is worth -- it depends.  First of all, I think we should use a combined cap for 737 and NGs -- so you can have 40 total, but demand might dictate you have 30 NGs and 10 regulars being produced.  Initially it'll be heavy on the regulars and, as time goes on this should slide over towards the NGs.  In a perfect world we'd even be able to upgrade our orders much like real-life, but there's a good reason we took that feature out here.

But we can't look at a real-life cap and make it match.  The reason I say "it depends" is because I don't think we should raise up the cap on A320s to 40 any more than we should lower the rate of F100s to [whatever] simply because, in real-life, it wasn't a particularly popular aircraft.  Capacity should fluctuate with demand both up and down, and it shouldn't "cap" at all, but rather continually increase around a maximum lead-time that sami can determine -- but I'd choose 3 years at the absolute minimum.  So whether it should go up to 40 like real-life or not entirely depends on whether our queue is as long as real-life or not.

[JumboShrimp]

So whether it should go up to 40 like real-life or not entirely depends on whether our queue is as long as real-life or not.

The queue in AWS does adjust up and down, which is great.  I like that feature very much.  But it only adjuts up to a pre-set cap.

When I was ready, in my current game (my first game) to look beyond used a/c market at the new AC market, both 320 and NG queues were full years into the future, and stuck at the cap for years.  Anyone looking at theses queues, and no wait for classics - has to consider the classics, which is a big pet peeve of swiftus.  But that decision - to go with classics when NG is available - is only a function of the hard cap that's built into the game.  As with all the artificial caps, I am against this one as well.  Especially if the cap makes AWS reflect real world less rather than more.