Is Airway sim dying?

[swiftus27]

Well said SAC, however frequency should be turned down a little bit, it is way to influential in this sim.

Haven't many of us been saying that for a long time now? 

The 752 EWR strategy is the auto win. 

Personally, I would think that your NON base airports would give you a fixed number of slots you can use.  So if you're in JFK, you only get 5 slots per day at LHR.  If based at LHR, the same at JFK.  Use them wisely.  If you wanna fill up 752s, great....  you won't be servicing the actual passenger demand but those planes will be full. 

[brique]

Haven't many of us been saying that for a long time now? 

The 752 EWR strategy is the auto win. 

Personally, I would think that your NON base airports would give you a fixed number of slots you can use.  So if you're in JFK, you only get 5 slots per day at LHR.  If based at LHR, the same at JFK.  Use them wisely.  If you wanna fill up 752s, great....  you won't be servicing the actual passenger demand but those planes will be full. 

I rather like this idea, no idea how it would/could be implemented tho, perhaps some correlation between demand level and slot availability might work...

[LostInBKK]

It is a convenience to the consumer offering flexibility and choice, therefore I would expect in RL that 5 x daily 757's would take a lions share of the market against a couple of competing daily 744's for instance, as long as price was the same....which is a factor hugely over looked in this game as most people buy based on one main factor...how much its gunna cost em and they could not careless if its on a triple 7 or a hand glider !!

You can counter this buy saying that people are happy to pay for for a ticket on a A380. I am sure their are poeple who fly a lot more than me but I do check out the metal I am going on so I don't fly Air India as example as they have LOTS of old metal.

I have to say that I find it rather disappointing that Sami has not been more vocal on this thread, I know there have been a few of theards that have asked for change in the game.

Just wonder if we are about to have another EVE moment?

Cheers
Lost

[LemonButt]

I used to be a regular player, but life has been really busy   I'm hoping to jump back in, but I am really waiting for city based demand to be implemented so you're not stuck with the usual airports being huge just because real life airlines are based there.  For example, I'd love to build a huge hub in St Louis, which is an ideal location since it is in the middle of the US, but the demand is scant due to the fact that no major airlines base there   Otherwise, I feel like it's just the same game over and over again, especially since building a regional airline is basically impossible.

[LostInBKK]

I used to be a regular player, but life has been really busy  I'm hoping to jump back in, but I am really waiting for city based demand to be implemented so you're not stuck with the usual airports being huge just because real life airlines are based there.  For example, I'd love to build a huge hub in St Louis, which is an ideal location since it is in the middle of the US, but the demand is scant due to the fact that no major airlines base there  Otherwise, I feel like it's just the same game over and over again, especially since building a regional airline is basically impossible.

Very interesting idea building a hub in St Louis, I could be wrong, was that not what TWA tried to do in real life?

Cheers
Lost

[Jona L.]

Okay, first off: I cannot be asked to actually quote the things I comment on...

second: going towards Oatmeal:

Free country? where? AWS? NO!! we had that some time ago.

Nonetheless, you can't argue away, that LHR is heavily congested, and since some naggy people live around it, it won't get it's 3rd runway within the time we still have fuel/oil. Thus what you can get, namely the few slots during its opening hours, should be used as efficient as possible. Willie Walsh so far does a good job in that with his 744/777/763, but on the other end with his 319s running in LHR, he averages out to be a slot hogger himself. Anyways, I think anything smaller than 130 seats should simply be banned from the airport AWS-wise same as in real world.

But as in a constructive though, slot costs should RISE the SMALLER the a/c gets, to subsidize using larger planes, and make it harder to earn cash on small aircraft in these airports. Of course not using this in all airports, but -say- in the top 30 worldwide ones, to less congest them in AWS.
suggestion for this could be a fixed slot cost for the hours (of course still variable by number of slots available at the airport, and number of slots available in the hour, same as it is now (+ inflation adjustment)), just raise this cost massively, and the devide the cost by the number of seats on the aircraft.

So, say for a 0900 slot in LHR the base cost would be $10.000.000, devide it by 250 for a medium sized a/c (roughly B763 size) the airline would pay 40k for one slot, but an airline using a 100 seater would pay 100k (of course we should have a higher cost for LHR, this was just an example!).

next one:

No, SAC, I am not mixing things. This is just the things I am thinking about, and those are the things making AWS so unattractive for players that aim for big goals, such as a huge airline. The thing about Communism is also right, maybe not that you vote them, but your idea is anti-capitalist basically. I must heavily disagree on them thus, since this world IS capitalist, and thus AWS should not be any different, unless sami was Chinese


Another:

I do agree with swiftus' idea, that the number of slots you can get at the big airports (if non-based) should be heavily limited. Of course going up over time, as demand rises (should use the same factor: 5% annually).


This for now, feel free to keep replying, when I am back home with alexgv1 and lilius I'll check back, and will keep argueing with you

[Sami]

Short answers to things talked (last post was made via cellphone), and sort of roadmap for future too (just out of curiosity for you to read):

- To topic title I commented already previously. Player number fluctuations and "old guys" going away is normal, as new people do join in all the time.

- There has not indeed been any massive growth (ie. doubling the player numbers), and in my mind there are two main reasons: 1) The number of game worlds remains fairly constant (3-4 big worlds running), and this is mainly limited by server capacity (we could run perhaps 5 big worlds at the same time currently?). This in turn limits the player numbers - new worlds (no matter if 300 or 650 spots) tend to get always full. And mainly: 2) the play pattern is still not good enough for long games and keeping it interesting for a long periods of time in a row. And also, 3) this is not "airportville" - so the player base is naturally limited to begin with.

Anyway, before the game engine gets better in this sense, I am not even targeting into expanding rapidly (ie. server hardware etc). Getting additional server space (etc) is rather cheap and it could be done right away (financially), but it's not the time for it just yet in my mind.

- For future there are currently works on new site layout, coding (slow) of the whole new demand system (also known as the city based system) which would allow us to move from predetermined and fairly fixed demand levels into new and more dynamic system. Passenger connectivity is a definite must as with this you can really build your "empire" to any location, and forget the ye'ol LHR if you wish. But the connections is something that is not very well planned even yet (coding has been a bit slow lately). If/When the city demand system comes, cargo will be built with that by latest.

- Other things for the future roadmap include a test application for iPad (mainly based on our mobile site), which will start only as a sort of test system and giving the ability to expand into the appstores. Another thing that will be looked is integrating AWS into Facebook which would be another source of new players. Both would also offer alternative and additional payment methods (especially FB payments seem to be rather nice, since they allow cellphone payments too). (Credits are of course usable on all platforms, no matter where you have bought them). Both of these mentioned expansions require an update to the site layout and some background systems, and are not a very high priority (iPad test app coding is in progress slowly, but I've instructed to create a very rough test only), and either or both may not be ever completed to public release status.

- For game worlds, the target is to move into longer game worlds and span over 50+ years, like talked in the past. The most unrealistic part is currently the scenario startup and the "rush" in terms of planes and slots, and getting rid of this will make it better. But I do very well know that people prefer to start when the world is created - since it's easier. But it's just something that will change, and it has to be taken care that new entrants mid-game are given some help to make their start easy.

- But perhaps with the above, another theme of short (<2 months) mini-games would help to cater the appetite of being able to start fresh and test some ideas perhaps. However the EU and USA challenges etc. have not been very successful in the past though (too hard settings?).


- There will not be any major changes to game rules in regards to airport basing rules, and no major feature changes to new or used aircraft ordering. These are all considered completed features by now. A-B-C routing option will return at some point, but will not be unlimited like in the past but will follow the traffic rights / rules (see manual) comparable to real life (but simplified, as all country vs. country traffic right deals cannot be replicated).

- MT#7 start date; may be postponed a bit. I'm back from a short holiday and will start to look into the demand distribution adjustments during the next few days of free time. I would hope to change aspects of the demand distribution to change the weighings of some values that have been much talked, but it simply is not just a matter of updating some variables but a more complex thing.

..Long story short. This is still a small business, and I like to keep the main things under my own control (ie. core coding) since this is how it started too (though if some Mark Z from some anonymous company knocks on my door with a suitcase packed with bills, I am willing to sit down and drink a cup of coffee with him...   ). And I've always said that AWS is far from perfect, and I will keep making it better until I am personally happy with it. And currently I see that there is a need to increase the dynamic aspects of the sim to make it more playable in the long term (meaning mainly more flexible demand and abilities to affect to it more). Interface and basic concepts are working well and need no major changes for now.


(ps. please do not discuss about specific feature requests or such in this thread; they will get lost and won't be read when the time comes .. post those to the proper sub-forum)

[Pilot Oatmeal]

Okay, first off: I cannot be asked to actually quote the things I comment on...

second: going towards Oatmeal:

Free country? where? AWS? NO!! we had that some time ago.

The United Kingdom is a free country, meaning an airline has the capacity to purchase take off and landing slots from another business (e.g. BAA) to land or take off from their airport (it isn't difficult jona )

A lot of what you say seems to me it is how you want the airline business to operate.  Which just isn't going to happen.  BA have the majority of slots at Heathrow, it's up to them to use it how they like! If they wanted to fly King Airs in every day that's their choice.  A business entity can do what they want (within the confines of the law) with their assets.

With your ideas for costs rising the smaller the aircraft - the idea is ridiculous, HENCE the reason why aircraft are charged on their weight (usually) at airports for landing slots.  This is the correct way to charge.  I wouldn't expect a one off landing slot for me landing at EGCC to be in the thousands, in fact its closer to 25 pounds, but the handling costs are extortionate.

It's like when I purchase a landing slot for VFR flight into EGCC on my PPL, I can do what I want with that slot within reason, I can tell them that my a/c type has changed from a PA-28 to a Seneca, or a Seneca to a King Air Etc.  Because I paid for that slot and as long as my aircraft is their within the time of the slot, it's mine.  



End Of

Jordan

[TranceAvia]

I'm using Jetage to try different things now. Its the first time I've not BK'd since I started playing a few years ago. Now just picked up 50 17 seater, bought outright to run around Greek Islands...

[LostInBKK]

Now guys play nice.

This forum is supposed to be about moving AWS forward. Not scoring points better each other.

Thanks to Sami for his long reply.
Cheers
Lost

[Zombie Slayer]

Thanks for the reply, Sami! Going in the right direction, that is for sure!

Re: MT7 being delayed. Any chance another short (~10 year) 20 minute challenge world could be run, maybe Asia, Europe, and Africa for something different?

Don

[ARASKA]

Thanks for the reply, Sami! Going in the right direction, that is for sure!

Re: MT7 being delayed. Any chance another short (~10 year) 20 minute challenge world could be run, maybe Asia, Europe, and Africa for something different?

Don

+1. Asia/Oceania challenge would be interesting.

[stevecree]

No, SAC, I am not mixing things.

I was saying PilotMeal was mixing up domestic and long haul use of small a/c 

Glad to hear A-B-C will return, but apart from that I personally am more than happy with the game as it is.  If it changes then great also, I'll adapt tactics if needed, but generally going back on topic, considering what logistics Sami has then this a great game that works well, and it is far from running its coarse.   Long live AWS 

[swiftus27]

I will change all of my prior statements and re-state it as this:

The method one must take to dominate a major airport (and because one can expand many times, often able to dominate whole countries) has made AWS so one dimensional.   The 'winning' strategy is easy and copied by many. 

Yes, we've helped diminish the benefits of living in front of the computer by implementing changes in the used market (great change).  Missing elements, like In Flight Entertainment, and the minimal impact price/seating quality/etc have in-game have virtually eliminated the need to have a different strategy at all. 

Capitalism really is absent in this sim.  Max prices are basically set.  Supply/Demand rules don't apply.  Ticket prices should have some impact on demand as well.  If someone else has a route already, why can't I trigger a successful price war?  This is one of the fundamental benchmarks that the airline industry is doing now. 

[ezzeqiel]

I don't know AWS situation, since I've been playing here for a few days, but I can assure you I saw this same post in every text based game I played online this last year... It's hard these days for a text based online game to attract users from overwhelming graphics games like battlefield, WOW, etc etc...

[EsquireFlyer]

Haven't many of us been saying that for a long time now? 

The 752 EWR strategy is the auto win. 

Personally, I would think that your NON base airports would give you a fixed number of slots you can use.  So if you're in JFK, you only get 5 slots per day at LHR.  If based at LHR, the same at JFK.  Use them wisely.  If you wanna fill up 752s, great....  you won't be servicing the actual passenger demand but those planes will be full. 

To be fair, Continental airlines uses the 752 EWR strategy in real life and it does seem to be an auto win as well.
But even CO would not tech-stop a 727 or CR9 across the Atlantic.

[EsquireFlyer]

Capitalism really is absent in this sim.  Max prices are basically set.  Supply/Demand rules don't apply.  Ticket prices should have some impact on demand as well.  If someone else has a route already, why can't I trigger a successful price war?  This is one of the fundamental benchmarks that the airline industry is doing now. 

+1!!!

[Cardinal]

I have not had time to read the entire thread, but something was mentioned in the first few posts that I see in a lot of threads: The rush at game start, and the perception that nobody can be successful unless they start on day one:

I have personally joined a game at the beginning only once, and decided not to do it ever again. There's just too many people starting up at the same time, and if I choose an empty base with only 150 players having joined so far, by the end of the first day my base has 9 airlines. (And I'm not talking about LHR/JFK/ATL either, but places like PHX, DAL, MDW, and TPA).

I've always been FAR more successful starting a couple of real-time weeks into a game. That's when early entrants start going bust and their planes begin to trickle into the used market, and their new plane orders get cancelled. It's really not as hard to start mid-game as everyone seems to think it is, as long as you think outside the 737. It can be done - I do it all the time. Sure, if I join and there are five screens full of 737s on the used page, I go for it. If not, I challenge myself. All-Caravelle fleet in JA scenario? Done it, very successfully, starting around the third game-year, despite fierce competition from an established DC-9 carrier. Start up at a fortress-hub for two mega-carriers in a MT scenario? Done it, it's not easy but it is fun to watch what happens: Will either or both of them try to run me out of town? Or are they too busy trying to bash each others' brains in to pay any attention to my little LAX-FNL route?

[EsquireFlyer]

I've always been FAR more successful starting a couple of real-time weeks into a game. That's when early entrants start going bust and their planes begin to trickle into the used market, and their new plane orders get cancelled. It's really not as hard to start mid-game as everyone seems to think it is, as long as you think outside the 737. It can be done - I do it all the time. Sure, if I join and there are five screens full of 737s on the used page, I go for it. If not, I challenge myself. All-Caravelle fleet in JA scenario? Done it, very successfully, starting around the third game-year, despite fierce competition from an established DC-9 carrier. Start up at a fortress-hub for two mega-carriers in a MT scenario? Done it, it's not easy but it is fun to watch what happens: Will either or both of them try to run me out of town? Or are they too busy trying to bash each others' brains in to pay any attention to my little LAX-FNL route?

Try starting mid-game in the fortress hub of a single carrier. I tried it in DOTM, got bankrupted by the bombing of all of the good routes I could find (which he was not even flying before I opened them), and when I BK'ed and moved to another city, he followed me there with an expansion base, and attacked my L1011 transatlantic routes with a swarm of tech-stopped 727s!

[type45]

(1) Have passengers care more about tech stops, so that a 727 tech-stopped across the ocean can't instantly kill the widebodies on the route.
(2) Have passengers care about seat quality, so that it's possible to run a realistic airline like SQ or EK that charges more but offers better seating/service and makes a profit that way.
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable.

(1) as an aviation enthusiast( ) that's really suck to see narrowbodies w/ tech stop kill widebodies direct flight (and somebody will tell me this is only a game )......in real world there are 3 factors govern this: wind, ETOPS, pax comfort, which are all having limited function now in AWS. It's time to model it, sami

I think another way to control it is introducing cargo......727/757/320 cannot take lots of cargo when widdebodies can hold lots of ULDs on board, and long turn around time will lead to a disadvantage on flight time for pax on a widebodys w/ stopover

(2) I think we can try to make a different on different classes of pax: when F/C class pax care a lot more on comfort, EY pax care more about price than comfort. this is closer to reality and making high-end airlines more possible

(3) 777/747 IS playable already but the conditions are: limited competition, limited slots, low low leasing cost or owned planes. I have a Boeing only airline at japan in last MT and I owned NRT in that world Introducing cargo also help I think as 330 can take much less cargo than 77E if they both go LH, no matter in terms of weight or space