1.3 Open Testing scenario feedback & discussion thread

[oggie84]

Click next page / Size changes

I noticed that when I go on open new route and sort the airports by distance and then click to the next page, the graphic calibration changes every time. I noticed this because when searching a specific airport, I would click through the pages (sorted by distance) to find the concerned one; hence I left the mouse on the arrow. In current DotM it works. I have this with Chrome and Safari.

Cheers,
Denis

Edit: It is not the case when I click through e.g. airport statistics.

I get the same thing. It changes size everytime you click the next page. One page will be small and the next page it'll go bigger. Then the next page goes small again and so on. I'm on IE.

Might have something to do with the Airport Name column going larger to fit in the text...

[Sigma]

Is there some kind of hit to airlines operating a lot of frequency on a route as a deterrent?

I'm running A300s on DFW-ATL and DFW-DVX, taking a bit less than 100% of the demand on each route.  The planes are identical with identical configs, as are the schedules.  But there's a lot more planes on the ATL route (since more demand) and a bit more RI as a result of operating the route a couple game-weeks longer.

But the ATL planes are running only about 20% LF, even after lowering the fares 20%.  But the DVX planes are running 60-70%, which is what I would expect at this point.

[Curse]

@ Sigma

I think this is related to my question here:

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26358.msg165655.html#msg165655

Your flights are 3x 1020, 1x 1035 (=4x 1020), 3x 1840, 1x 1900 (=4x 1840)

So in fact for AirwaySim your aircraft counted as two very big aircraft what makes frequency to two. Due the fact I have not yet an answer on my question I can't say clearly if your problem is a result due to this low frequency, but it could be.

To Denver your A300 act as single aircraft (3 times) and the A320 is added to the first A300 flight - makes out of your four aircraft a frequency of three, so a frequency more than on KDFW - KATL.


However, 20% is much too low. The fact you are using 8 flight that act like 2 should still give you a high load factor but should make you weaker to competition.

[bleedfax18]

The automatic registration setting needs a little bit of tweaking, based on the following scenario:

I wanted my A320s to be assigned the registrations N200IF, N201IF, N202IF and so on. So I set this function to begin with N200IF. However, after three aircrafts have been delivered now (over night), the registrations were N200IF, N200IG and N200IH. I had to re-register them with the new codes (which is ok, as it doesn't cost anything).

So I would recommend to somehow enable us to clarify which of the code needs to be fix, and which part can be variable. I don't have any clue if that is possible with the coding, but maybe it can be solved by using the $-sign known from the functionality in MS Excel. In that case, I would have set the automatic registration to N200$I$F

Otherwise, a vey good feature.

[Sigma]

@ Sigma

I think this is related to my question here:

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26358.msg165655.html#msg165655

.....

However, 20% is much too low. The fact you are using 8 flight that act like 2 should still give you a high load factor but should make you weaker to competition.

After waiting a few more weeks, now through the 9th week of the game with no change in LF at all on the ATL route, I've pulled 2 of the ATL flights off and moved them to ORD.  We'll see if there's any improvement.  If so, clearly it's not working as intended.  Well, something's not working right regardless.

[marc0o0o0o]

Everything looks pretty good so far. Aside from having a terribly slow internet connection as I'm not at home and thus not being able to load the online logo editor, everything looks fine. And as mentioned earlier in this thread, the "live" clock isn't working properly. It used to flash between 23:59 and the real time, but now it's flashing between the real time and "NaN:NaN" and a lot less frequently. I'll keep digging and see if I find anything new.

[Sami]

Is there some kind of hit to airlines operating a lot of frequency on a route as a deterrent?

You have multiple flights departing at the VERY same time to same destination, span them out more (since it's a high demand route, make them let's say 15-20 minutes apart).

liked have some more logos example two pictures next to each other - some airlines have this

It is a simple editor, so anything more complex has to be done in paint/photoshop etc.

you now have to scroll down and select the country, whereas before you could type in the starting letters of the wanted country, and it would select it in the

The new pretty flag-enabled dropdown causes this. It is either way, the looks or functionality. Would prefer both but not sure if that is possible.

So my request:
If possible, move the pre-payment cost next to "Lease price" and allow it to update when changing the lease period.

This page is not completely finished yet.

t used to flash between 23:59 and the real time, but now it's flashing between the real time and "NaN:NaN" and a lot less frequently. I'll keep digging and see if I find anything new.

Clear your cache and report browser type and version.

The automatic registration setting needs a little bit of tweaking, based on the following scenario:

it always assumes that it's the last two digits or letters that increase, and it cannot know that you wish to keep the letters static and increase only numbers. But the excel idea sounds nice but may be too complicated, not sure.

[Tujue]

This page is not completely finished yet.

Thank you!

[MidlandDeltic]

No real problems so far, apart from the time issue already reported : Firefox 3, Win XP.

Couple of niggles:  when selecting country in the new routes in 1.2, you could type the first letter of the country name in the drop down and your position jumped to the frst country starting with that letter.  In 1.3 this does not happen - annoying when you have a lot of flights to the UK

On the logo editor, a back button would be useful from each stage to allow more playing with sizes of logo, text etc - at the moment you can only click out and restart.

One other thing  -I bought an aircraft, then took out a loan secured on it; the aircraft history now shows bought by Mancunian, and leased by Mancunian.  Is this because a loan has been taken out, or is it a bug?

MD

[yyebo]

The automatic registration setting needs a little bit of tweaking, based on the following scenario:

I wanted my A320s to be assigned the registrations N200IF, N201IF, N202IF and so on. So I set this function to begin with N200IF. However, after three aircrafts have been delivered now (over night), the registrations were N200IF, N200IG and N200IH. I had to re-register them with the new codes (which is ok, as it doesn't cost anything).

This can be fixed from user end. (at least for used a/c)

it happens when
1. user set N200IF as prefix in settings
2. user manually entered N200IF for an existing plane
3. the first delivery after N200IF was set, because N200IF has been used, the system automatically change the last letter.

to fix it:
set the existing plane's registration number prior to the setting, ie N200IF for the plane and N201IF in the setting.

Cheers
Pai

[Tujue]

to fix it:
set the existing plane's registration number prior to the setting, ie N200IF for the plane and N201IF in the setting.

Yes, but that only helps for the first aircraft. The automatic registration function will continue as N201IG, N201IH, so you need to enter registration each new (or used) aircraft manually whole time

[NPWair]

Edit buttons missing from right hand side
see pics


[attachment expired]

[MidlandDeltic]

Is there some kind of hit to airlines operating a lot of frequency on a route as a deterrent?

I'm running A300s on DFW-ATL and DFW-DVX, taking a bit less than 100% of the demand on each route.  The planes are identical with identical configs, as are the schedules.  But there's a lot more planes on the ATL route (since more demand) and a bit more RI as a result of operating the route a couple game-weeks longer.

But the ATL planes are running only about 20% LF, even after lowering the fares 20%.  But the DVX planes are running 60-70%, which is what I would expect at this point.

Quote from sami here https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.40.html :

* Added a new method for calculating / reducing the effect of flight that depart at the same time:

   - If you have several flights to the same destination (ie. same route-pair) departing at the very same time, or very near the same time, they are counted almost like a single flight.

   - The "minimum departure interval" depends on how large the passenger demand of the route is. But rule of thumb is that on lower-demand sectors (less than ~400pax/day) the route departure times should be always at least 60 minutes apart. If the route is more busy the allowed interval drops linearily all the way to 5 minutes. On a 1000 pax/day route you can have the flights depart approx every 35 minutes, and on 4000pax/day route the min. interval is 15 mins between two flights. The interval is calculated so that players can keep decent frequencies during daylight hours.

   - If the flights are too close to each others they are treated basically as a single flight (but with the total amount of seats available of course), so this leads to lower sales for those flights that overlap or nearly overlap on dep. times.

   - But from now on, never make two flights depart to the same destination at the exactly same time.



Good move IMHO - players will have to think about scheduling now, rather than just copy.

MD

[Sigma]

You have multiple flights departing at the VERY same time to same destination, span them out more (since it's a high demand route, make them let's say 15-20 minutes apart).

Yeap, that was it.

I changed the departure times, and everything seems to work.  Within a couple game-days I was getting LFs in the 70s.  So the feature seems to be working as intended.

Extremely welcome change.

EDIT:  No, I take that back.  I got high LFs because I had a plane in maintenance (the middle one that departed at 0530, leaving just 2 at 0505 and 0550).  It appears the difference needs to be a minimum of 30minutes (I only get to about 50% LF with flights at 0505, 0530, and 0550) and more like 45min+ for no hit at all (with flights at just 0505 and 0550 I get about 70%, what I expect with this CI).  I've got to play around with it a bit more.

[Curse]

Anyhow the LF should not be this low.

[Sigma]

Anyhow the LF should not be this low.

Depends on the perspective of the problem, I guess.

Under the way AWS worked previously, I'd agree with you.  Because there was no 'granularity' to the demand.  If you flew 2000 seats at 6am on a route with 3000 demand, you'd get all your planes filled up.  The reasoning being if there were no other option, then people would fly you regardless of when you showed up.

But, if you figure I was flying in about 1200 seats worth of demand in a 15-minute span, it makes sense that half of the entire route demand wouldn't want to fly all at 0515.  I was still getting about 300 people to fly though, they were just split between 4 planes.  When I moved a plane last night to 3 planes, the LF did go up -- so I was still moving the same number of passengers, just divided amongst fewer planes.

And when I split them all out 20 minutes, I now appear to be getting planes as full as I would have in the past.  I can still pick up the 1200 seats, half the route demand, I just have to do it over 80 minutes rather than just 15.

We could probably argue all day about relative 'realism' of this (if anything, it should be even more harsh, in my opinion).  And I think your point is that it shouldn't really matter until competition shows up and the way my planes are scheduled I get less of a frequency bonus, as opposed to how it is working now where it's actually a close-departure-time punishment rather than a frequency hit.  But, regardless, it adds a significant depth of strategy on very dense routes that pushes players to use larger planes because frequent departures of smaller ones will no longer be viable.

[Dave4468]

Really like the 10m game day on this by the way.

[d2031k]

Is the new categorisation of airport classes implemented in v1.3?

Thought of this and would probably go with a size class system that has two parts:

* "Infrastructure" level, 1-10; measuring the level of available airport facilities like terminal and apron capacity. Affects available slots, and various prices (like handling), and could affect number of planes one can base at apt.

* "Traffic" level, 1-10; measuring the level of (statistical or actual) passengers at this airport. Affects various costs ..

These would be displayed separately.


(change to size classification is necessary to facilitate other features)

[Sami]

Is the new categorisation of airport classes implemented in v1.3?

No, didn't have time to think it properly.

(mainly since the sizeclass variable affects so many other features..etc)

[Curse]

But, regardless, it adds a significant depth of strategy on very dense routes that pushes players to use larger planes because frequent departures of smaller ones will no longer be viable.

I'm on your side, Sigma, but here I must disagree. Atlanta - KDFW is not a very big route, you cover it with 5 or 6 flights of A300. As you pointed out the needed time-span are 20 minutes.

Effective flights are possible between 4 o'clock and 24 o'clock, that makes 20 hours á 3 flight possibilities. So a total of 60 possible flights without having one flight counted as two.
1200 pax divided with 60 flights = 20 seats the smallest possible aircraft must have.

So there is still no difference in flying 70 seat ATR, 150 seat 737, 220 seat 757 or 300 seat A300.


Long text in short:
The feature is a good idea but it is not strict enough to be effective. At the moment it's just a bit pain in the ass without the cool result (= forced to use bigger aircraft).