New game to replace DOTM?

[NorgeFly]

As DotM ends soon, are there plans for another game to start soon?

[Sami]

Yes. I am just behind on the announcement schedule again. But it will be coming.

[alexgv1]

But it will be coming.

Woop woop! Good to hear. Same time era I guess?

[Zombie Slayer]

I hope as that is my favorite era to play in. The Modern Times scenarios get kind of bland after 2011 with no new types being introduced, IMHO.

Don

[alexgv1]

I hope as that is my favorite era to play in. The Modern Times scenarios get kind of bland after 2011 with no new types being introduced, IMHO.

Don

Completely agree there.

[NorgeFly]

Any idea yet when this game will be starting?

[vitongwangki]

I hope the game will be a 30 years game instead of 20 years. 

[Sami]

Starting date is next week, wed/thu/fri probably. Details will be announced in the news.

[TranceAvia]

I hope the game will be a 30 years game instead of 20 years. 

same

[ICEcoldair881]

I hope as that is my favorite era to play in. The Modern Times scenarios get kind of bland after 2011 with no new types being introduced, IMHO.

Don

what on earth are you talking about?! the Mitsubishi Regional Jet is launched (which I personally LOOOOVE) and the B747-8, B787, A350, Sukhois, Bombardier C-series, CRJ1000 and a whole bunch of other aircraft (I think I covered the gist of it there). I find MT and even ATB the best game eras because I usually do so well... plus I find them fun, easy and challenging at the same time which is a bonus.

Cheers,
ICEcold

[JumboShrimp]

I hope as that is my favorite era to play in. The Modern Times scenarios get kind of bland after 2011 with no new types being introduced, IMHO.

Don

I am not sure if it is boring.  Suppose there is a new aircraft introduced in 2018 and the game ends in 2020.  There is not really any point to the aircraft, since you can't replace a fleet.  There is barely enough time to replace fleet with A350, B787

[Zombie Slayer]

I am not sure if it is boring.  Suppose there is a new aircraft introduced in 2018 and the game ends in 2020.  There is not really any point to the aircraft, since you can't replace a fleet.  There is barely enough time to replace fleet with A350, B787

True, but the 787, to me at least, is worthless unless you need the range as the fuel numbers are so close to the 767 serise. The A350, which I planned on using in MT4, is introduced too late to be useful, the E-Jets offer a wider range of options than the SSJ, and the A32X and 73NG offer a beter range of options than the C-Serise. Not that I don't like those planes, but realistically I am not going to replace a fleet of A319's with CS300's unless I only operate A319's. The extra fuel burn on the 32X's is worth it to have a 200 seat 321 flying around with a 120 seat 318 in the same group (ditto for the 739ER and 736). For me, once the whole 32X/73NG line, the E-JEts, and the 330/340 groups are fully introduced, there is nothing else worth buying unless the game went through at least 2025. Other opinions may vary, but this is just how I feel. Also, I do not find MT scenarios boring at all, quite the contrary. With fuel so high, it takes more skill to successfully keep an airline alive in 2011 than in 1991. I like DOTM era games because I love the aircraft succession in that era, from classic beauties like the 727, DC-9 and L1011, changing over to 733/4/5's, 757's, and 767's, then the A342/343 with the hairdryers ending with the 737NG's, A320's, and 777's.

Just my opinion. Anyway, looking forward to DOTM 2 (or whatever it ends up being called!)

Don

[JumboShrimp]

For me, once the whole 32X/73NG line, the E-JEts, and the 330/340 groups are fully introduced, there is nothing else worth buying unless the game went through at least 2025.

I agree.  With the current MT4 ending in 2017, even the A350, which based on AWS specs is the only really worthwhile new aircraft, there is just not enough time even for that aircraft to make it an interesting business proposition.  As far as 787, it does not really bring much to the table compared to 757 or 767 - other than the range.  But that range - because of the lousy fuel consumption per passenger mile (as modeled in AWS) is not really worth the price.

[GEnx]

As far as 787, it does not really bring much to the table compared to 757 or 767 - other than the range.  But that range - because of the lousy fuel consumption per passenger mile (as modeled in AWS) is not really worth the price.

Makes you wonder why the B787 is so incredibly popular in the real world (835 orders ), whereas in AWS it isn't.

[ekaneti]

Makes you wonder why the B787 is so incredibly popular in the real world (835 orders ), whereas in AWS it isn't.

The lease rates are so high that the savings in fuel costs still doesnt make the plane profitable. I had a hub in YUL and could barely make money flying to Europe. even with 1000 oil, it was more profitable to use a 767-300

[juanchopancho]

I had a bunch of 787s, they were pretty useless even when I owned them.

[JumboShrimp]

Makes you wonder why the B787 is so incredibly popular in the real world (835 orders ), whereas in AWS it isn't.

Which is why I qualified my post with "as modeled in AWS".  Maybe some tweeks might be in order for the aircraft setup for 787.  Or maybe cargo capacity will make the aircraft more worthwhile...

[flightsimer]

Makes you wonder why the B787 is so incredibly popular in the real world (835 orders ), whereas in AWS it isn't.

Because Sami's numbers for the 787 aren't right... everything about it in here is wrong

Range- 787-8 is listed at 7100nm, that's what the first pre-production and test frames are expecting to get, But production -8 aircraft starting around line # 50 (i believe) will be at or very close to the 8200nm range or else Boeing will risk breaking the contracts on the aircraft.
The 787-9 has a longer range than the -8 at ~8800nm, but in here its only 7800. So both are lacking 1000nm for some reason.

Seating... those numbers have been pulled out of thin air and aren't even close to being right. Just take a look at the fact that the -8 carries more passengers than the -9...   

Here are Boeing's revised standard seating arrangements for both aircraft in 9 abreast seating (what most airlines are using)

-8 : 16 first, 44 business, 182 economy= 242 total
-9 : 16 first, 50 business, 214 economy= 280 total

In an all economy configuration the -8 seats 350y and the -9 375y, the same exact capacities of the 767-300/400. Boeing won't be performing evacuation tests with the 787 because it has the same door layout and same door sizes as the 767, so they were able to use the 767's certification.

However, the 787 is still considerably more fuel efficient than the 767 on the same missions 767's fly. The rumor has it, that a 787 cant be touched by any aircraft currently being made (either narrow body or wide body) in CASM on short sectors all the way down to 200nm. ANA is using their converted orders for -9's to replace all their domestic 777's. As for the -3, I'm not sure why we still have it in the game. The whole reason it was canceled was because it was determined that the -8 could do the same exact job but better. The only difference between the two literally was the wingspan width and a paper MTOW reduction. I'm about 95% sure it's not even offered anymore. It was only going to be certified and the US and Asia either way.

Now the 787 is still projected to be 20% more fuel efficient than the 767 on comparable routes, but it appears that the fuel burn in AWS is always what is listed in the aircraft info. So since the 787 carries 10,000 gallons more fuel than the 767 and flies nearly 2000nm further, its numbers are skew for the ULH flights instead of the comparable medium haul flights the 767 makes. The only way to reasonably model this in my eyes is to take into account how much fuel each aircraft can hold and then have variable fuel consumptions over different route lengths. it seems that the 6000nm mark is the point when the 787 starts to have to carry more fuel than it would burn just to carry that additional fuel.

[JumboShrimp]

-9 : 16 first, 50 business, 214 economy= 280 total

In an all economy configuration the -8 seats 350y and the -9 375y, the same exact capacities of the 767-300/400.

Well, Sami has 787-9 all economy at 280, vs. 360 for 767-400ER.

BTW, what are the cabin dimensions for these 2 aircraft?  That would go a long way to persuade Sami to update the figures.

[flightsimer]

Well, Sami has 787-9 all economy at 280, vs. 360 for 767-400ER.

BTW, what are the cabin dimensions for these 2 aircraft?  That would go a long way to persuade Sami to update the figures.

the 787 is overall bigger than each 767 variant it replaces.

the 787-8 is 186ft long with an interior cabin width of 18ft allowing either 8 or 9 abreast with 4822ft^3 of cargo volume
the 787-9 is 206ft long with an interior cabin width of 18ft allowing either 8 or 9 abreast with 6086ft^3 of cargo volume

the 767-300 is 180ft long with an interior cabin width of 15.5ft allowing either 7 or 8 abreast with 3770ft^3 of cargo volume
the 767-400ER is 201.5ft long with an interior cabin width of 15.5ft allowing either 7 or 8 abreast with 4580ft^3 of cargo volume

the floor space of the 787-8 is actually greater than that of the 767-400ER.

Cabin floor areas in square meters:

767-200 154.9
767-300 184.5
767-400 214.1
787-3/8 223.8
787-9 257.4
777-200 279.0

next in line would be the 787-10 with a cabin area of 291m^2 making it in line to replace the 777-200. The 787-10 is almost a sure thing. Several airlines have interest in it and Boeing themselves have said its not a matter of if, but when. My bet is it will be launched within the next two years once the -9 gets rolling. the -10 is ment to just be a simple stretch compromising range for the extra payload. It would also seat another 40-50 seats giving it a ~320 seat capacity in a 3 class config.