Is Airway sim dying?

[Glob-Al]

I don't think AWS is dying at all. But I think that in order to keep everyone interested it does need every 2 cycles of game-worlds or so to have something new that tweaks the best strategic approach. You'll never be able to completely eliminate there being a way to "game" the system, but by closing one loophole at a time you can make it progressively better and in the process change the best strategic approach. Cynically speaking, that keeps people interested because at the very least they have to figure out the new best option for how to game it! But after 2 cycles of gameworlds they've done that (as currently with frequency / small aircraft / tech stopping where necessary) and so something needs to change. Crucially this doesn't necessarily have to be a huge new feature like city based demand - tweakings of things like numbers of slots (last time) or the balance between different factors like frequency, speed and price (as Sami is looking at now) can have a big enough effect to keep people interested. But those changes to the core game mechanics do need to keep happening I think, or people will get bored and drift away before the big scale changes like city based demand come around.

In a shameless plug, here's one idea I've just posted about a (highly bastardised) form of codesharing that might make for greater competition and longer playability in gameworlds. Take a look and see what you think. https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,41163.msg222589.html#msg222589

The other thing though is that the community can get involved to create new ways to keep things fresh - it doesn't all have to be down to Sami! In other (non-airline based) online games I've played sometimes one of the community has taken the lead in developing a new challenge that others can choose to join in on and chart their progress. This usually involves voluntarily applying some rules / restrictions to yourself in addition to the regular game rules, to see how you get on. The guys in DOTM who are trying with all Soviet aircraft at the moment are one great example of this, but I'm sure between us we could come up with loads of other creative ideas...

[JumboShrimp]

(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

Tech stopping with narrowbodies is a symptom.  The problem is the overwhelming frequency benefit, best described here by swiftus:

Factors affecting whether a passenger flies with you:
1.  Time of takeoff (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
2.  Time of landing (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
3.  Ticket Price
4.  Seating Quality
5.  Frequency of flights to that same destination
6.  Airline's CI
7.  Airline's RI

Now in order of game importance:
1.  Frequency
40.  Time of takeoff and landing
1000.  Everything else. 

When I see prople complaining about tech stopping narrowbodies, it tells me that the person does not see that it is a problem with frequency, not with tech stop.  It is exactly the same when narrowbodies are flying long distance wihtout a tech stopping (A320 / 737 / 757 can fly quite a long distance).  And it is the same probelm when you have 25 x per day ATR / Q400 / E Jet flights flying a route that should really be served by A320 / 737 or even 757 / A300.

[schro]

When I see prople complaining about tech stopping narrowbodies, it tells me that the person does not see that it is a problem with frequency, not with tech stop.  It is exactly the same when narrowbodies are flying long distance wihtout a tech stopping (A320 / 737 / 757 can fly quite a long distance).  And it is the same probelm when you have 25 x per day ATR / Q400 / E Jet flights flying a route that should really be served by A320 / 737 or even 757 / A300.

The same people that complain about tech stopping due to frequency also don't understand the cost economics of why they planes are being used that way. In DOTM era worlds, flying 2x techstopping 757s against a DC10 or L1011 is a far lower cost per flight and has revenue potential that's about 33% higher (by virtue of having more seats available).  If you could carry more passengers for less money, with the only downside being a tech stop, I find a hard reason to argue against that - you could even afford a 10% haircut below standard pricing and STILL make more money.

[swiftus27]

Concerning the number of slots you get at long haul destinations....

My algorithm for this:

X = 115% of weekly demand
Y = Average carrying capacity of largest XXX # of planes of largest class available
Z = Number of slots you get at the destination airport

Z = X / Y  

For instance, 3000 people want to fly from LAX to NRT daily.
So X = 7(3000 x 1.15)= 24150
Let's just assume Y = 400 (just an educated guess)
Z = 24150/400
Z= 60.375... rounded to nearest 7 and you got 63.
This means you can fly this route 9 times per day.  

EDIT:  Another example.....   
EWR to LHR has 3280 demand... Same Y assumption...  Z = 66.01 (again rounds to 63)
Flying 9x 752s at ~200pax and you can move 1800 per day on average.  That's 1480 below demand.



Rules and reasons I like this:
With this you get a total number of slots to use as you see fit.    (Blow all 6 on Wednesday for all I care)
You do NOT lose slots you've already purchased.   (Wouldn't be fair)
Slots will grow as demand grows but having older/smaller planes will become a serious handicap.   (Forces players to actually play)
The expectation is that you use larger planes as they become available.    (Very realistic, tell me a large airport permitting the uber 752 pwnership strat)
Slots should be available in multiples of 7 (allowing 7 day scheduling)
Keep the 'too-close of flights' penalty alive.   No need to unwrite that code.  

[begin flame]    

[mavi]

Talentz, where are you!?!?  We need your wisdom at this dark hour!  Many of the Beta players are still here.  They just hide in the background a lot.  The 'negative' elements in the forums were seemingly dealt with already.  

-----

Factors affecting whether a passenger flies with you:
1.  Time of takeoff (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
2.  Time of landing (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
3.  Ticket Price
4.  Seating Quality
5.  Frequency of flights to that same destination
6.  Airline's CI
7.  Airline's RI


Now in order of game importance:
1.  Frequency
40.  Time of takeoff and landing
1000.  Everything else.  

Your list may be correct for the majority of passengers, but it is not true for the high value business travelers who travel last minute.  To these travelers, frequency matters a lot and ticket price matters not much at all (assuming, of course, you don't have it above the "default" prices ;-)).  It is true that AWS does not currently model different types of travelers, but I view the importance of frequency as a rough attempt to model what makes a route profitable.  To be sure, frequency is valued too much, especially with respect to travel time.  But it is not fair to say that frequency is not a major consideration to total route revenue in real life, I would argue that frequency is more important than ticket price in determining route revenue.

[alexgv1]

Tech stopping with narrowbodies is a symptom.  The problem is the overwhelming frequency benefit, best described here by swiftus:

Hmmm but diarrhoea is a symptom of a stomach infection yet I am still not a fan of it 

[ACfly]

The same people that complain about tech stopping due to frequency also don't understand the cost economics of why they planes are being used that way. In DOTM era worlds, flying 2x techstopping 757s against a DC10 or L1011 is a far lower cost per flight and has revenue potential that's about 33% higher (by virtue of having more seats available).  If you could carry more passengers for less money, with the only downside being a tech stop, I find a hard reason to argue against that - you could even afford a 10% haircut below standard pricing and STILL make more money.

Tech stop for purely increasing frequency and killing the competition sucks the life out of this game... Anyone can win the game doing this... Just because is can doesnt mean it should. Good players don't do this

Stop the insanity    and join the revolution.. (who's with me?)

[brique]

Tech stop for purely increasing frequency and killing the competition sucks the life out of this game... Anyone can win the game doing this... Just because is can doesnt mean it should. Good players don't do this

Stop the insanity    and join the revolution.. (who's with me?)

Up to a point : As frequency is just about the only meaningful way to compete on a route, whilst price, seat quality, journey time, aircraft quality, etc count for so little, then limiting that factor will just mean first on the route gets to 'own' it until some-one with a bigger plane comes along to usurp that throne.

So, make the other factors as important, if not more so, than frequency when it comes to calculating px loads and then the issue would resolve itself : it would no longer be enough just to throw extra flights on a route : they would have to be attractive in those other areas too : now, that would make for some interesting competition, wouldn't it?

[swiftus27]

The master algorithm needs changing, that's for sure.  Playtesting reqd.  I volunteer.

[ACfly]

The master algorithm needs changing, that's for sure.  Playtesting reqd.  I volunteer.

I volunteer as well. Where do I sign up?

[Sami]

Playtesting reqd.  I volunteer.

I am actually well underway in re-writing the demand distribution script (no major new features, just updating the code all-around since it's basis are very old). This will involve a sort of open beta again.

no ETA.

[Gleipner]

I am actually well underway in re-writing the demand distribution script (no major new features, just updating the code all-around since it's basis are very old). This will involve a sort of open beta again.

no ETA.

Will this delay next MT?  

[JumboShrimp]

I am actually well underway in re-writing the demand distribution script (no major new features, just updating the code all-around since it's basis are very old). This will involve a sort of open beta again.

no ETA.

While this is under way, could MT6 be extended?  Based on my recollection, Air Travel Boom went to 2020.  That would give us one more year in MT6.  It would be great if some of us in MT6 had a running game world to check while the defelopment / testing takes place...

[bakuljav]

While this is under way, could MT6 be extended?  Based on my recollection, Air Travel Boom went to 2020.  That would give us one more year in MT6.  It would be great if some of us in MT6 had a running game world to check while the defelopment / testing takes place...

+1
That would be great

[ARASKA]

While this is under way, could MT6 be extended?  Based on my recollection, Air Travel Boom went to 2020.  That would give us one more year in MT6.  It would be great if some of us in MT6 had a running game world to check while the defelopment / testing takes place...

But what about those who already left MT?? Would we be able to rejoin?

[Jona L.]

Why don't people get it?

Sami said countless times, that extending a running game would result in problems with the servers, and as he says not work smoothly. Especially not worth it for just 1 yr in my opinion.

cheers,
Jona L.

[JumboShrimp]

Why don't people get it?

Sami said countless times, that extending a running game would result in problems with the servers, and as he says not work smoothly. Especially not worth it for just 1 yr in my opinion.

cheers,
Jona L.

I don't think I came across any post from Sami on this subject.  I understand there is a hard limit, but that limit is 2020.  I believe Air Travel Boom lasted until 2020.  MT6 is scheduled to end in 2019.

[schro]

I don't think I came across any post from Sami on this subject.  I understand there is a hard limit, but that limit is 2020.  I believe Air Travel Boom lasted until 2020.  MT6 is scheduled to end in 2019.

I made the request to extend.. hmm.. either DOTM1 or JA1 by several years a while back and there was a direct response from sami saying its not technically possible.

[Sami]

Yes, that indeed.

I will need a few days with this coding and then I am a bit wiser.

First test version (with no passenger preference to anything yet) was run last night, and at least the bugging memory leak problem (that caused the two MT6 time freezes) is ok, and the process runs also at least 30% faster (means more server calculation capacity). I am building it with the provision of pax connectivity in mind so that it would, perhaps, be able to handle the extra increase in calculations when that feature is eventually added, without the need to recode that module from the scratch again.

I will focus tomorrow on improving the frequency related issues, and after that on he passenger preferences otherwise. (all changes will affect only new game worlds, although game engine version shall remain the same due other reasons)

Anyway, if I run into delays/problems, some small regional game world with existing systems will be set up to gove some time. But I am wiser on these perhaps mid next week so bear with me... And MT7 plans will be announced by then, latest.

[ACfly]

I will focus tomorrow on improving the frequency related issues, and after that on he passenger preferences otherwise. (all changes will affect only new game worlds, although game engine version shall remain the same due other reasons)

Fantastic!  Can you also deal with tech stopping penalty as well?