Quick beta available

[Sami]

Edit 20:06: CYVR - CYPW route does not show pax limitation in graph (it shows on route edit)

Payload is limited only CYPW-CYVR.

I've got something odd.  On RJAA-VTBD I'm actually managing higher load factors in C class than in Y class

The system does not calculate load factors. It calculates how many seats you actually sell, and LF is a statistical value based on that.

But anyway, the C/F class RI effect has been increased.

IMHO I'm getting weird oversupply warnings. For example BIKF-BIAR - it shows between 60-80 pax/day and I supply 116 (2 flights). Two warnings already. Are real pax figures really below 58?

Checked, BIKF-BIAR true demand at a certain date is 69.3pax/day. You have 116 seats. => should not be a problem.

And indeed there was a bug, it thought demand was 55 seats ..

[BryanIAH]

My flights are scheduled with 1% chance of delay but my on time departures are 20%. It looks like no airline is above 75%.

https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/27/#AirlineInfo

[Jona L.]

I've got something odd.  On RJAA-VTBD I'm actually managing higher load factors in C class than in Y class in spite of my company image of 2 and a route image of 4.  I thought it was supposed to be harder to attract those C class passengers with values so low.

Edit: only in one direction though...maybe it's just a daily fluctuation since you cleared the history?

@ EDIT: no daily fluctuation as Sami said in first post

@ rest: It is just harder/impossible to fly Magic carpets with more C than  SEATS available, You can still have highe C/F LFs than Y, if you have a "normal" configuration

[Sami]

Route cancellations did not register to route history. This is fixed now.

[JumboShrimp]

Now, regarding the statement that there will be a "penalty" on a plane with less than 83 seats. What kind of penalty? Similar to the route overlap function where LF's plummet, or the "frequency" penalty that has been discussed where, say, a 76 seat EMB-175 would count as .915 frequencies but all seats would still sell assuming no competition?

I am also wondering about this.  Let's define concepts first:

- Frequency benefit is:  Capacity is not treated as equal.  Capacity in 1/2 size aircraft is worth 2x (will have 2x LF) on certain routes

- No frequency benefit:  All capacity is equal, regardless of the aircraft size.  LF is equal regardless of aircraft size

- Frequency penalty (small aircraft penalty):  This is new one. if really implemented, it would mean that capacity of in aircraft that is too small would be penalized.  Meaning capacity in aircraft that is too small will have lower LF than capacity in larger aircraft.

[JumboShrimp]

- Technical stopovers carry about 20% penalty vs. non-techstop flights (each stopover adds another ~20% penalty). (increased from previous)

- The following are not yet modelled, but will be added before the final release version of the system: dep/arrival times, route flight duration, aircraft type/condition bonus, company image effect, alliance effect, onboard service/seat quality, and few other minor factors.

The extra 20% penalty seems a bit harsh if the flight duration is going to be implemented.  Why not just make flight duration significant enough so that the extra delay of tech stop makes it less desirable vs. faster competition, but would not add penalty if flying the route alone?  There is already a dis-incentive to tech stop flghts to gain frequency advantage.

There may be low demand routes (4000nm ~130 pax in MT worlds) that can now be served by tech stopped A320/737, at above break even.  With 20% (LF?) penalty, a bunch of marginal routes will not be viable.

Or, as Don mentioned, in JA worlds, a lot of routes will no longer be viable with the penalty, since there is no aircraft in existance capable of flying the route.

[JumboShrimp]

BTW, I really love the lack of randomization in pax distribution.

I would go even a step further: No randomization on route demand screen...

Also, I would disable randomization of route demand screen in live games on routes where an airline reaches cerain RI threshold (RI of 90 or 100).  There is no one who knows more about the demand of a route than airline flying it daily...

[ucfknightryan]

- RI plays a larger role now than in the past. It still grows like before from 0 to 100 and stays there, but effects of low RI have been increased. (RI will, perhaps, become a fluctuating number in the future instead of static once reaching 100). It is advisable to start new route with smaller equipment and less frequency, rather than blast the full demand right away.

Wow this one sure is noticeable.  Same equipment flying 2x daily RJAA-VVTS at ~100% demand gives lfs of ~35% whereas same type of aircraft flying RJAA-EGLL 1x daily only 4 days a week at ~7% of demand gives 80%+ LFs.  RI is 11 for VVTS and 4 for RJAA

Also, satisfying ~75% of demand on RJAA-VDSR with the same equipment 1x daily provides no noticeable improvement in lfs compared to 100% demand on VVTS. 

[esquireflyer]

- Frequency limits for routes have been adjusted. The system includes now two separate checker mechanisms for this; another factors the plane size vs. route distance, and other factor is route frequency vs. route demand. In short, players are expected to use the appropriate sized aircraft equipment for routes (usually meaning a bit larger planes than in the past game worlds). Information to user interface about these will be built later.

- Technical stopovers carry about 20% penalty vs. non-techstop flights (each stopover adds another ~20% penalty). (increased from previous)

You mean tech-stopping 727s across oceans to instantly kill the widebodies will no longer work?

Woohoo!

[meiru]

No idea if this is an indication of a problem, but my KSFO-KLAX flight on normal day times (6-24) don't get as much passengers as the one in the night (00.30 and back on 4 in the morning) ... it's just a little bit more pax than on day flights, but I'd expect a lot less? Am I wrong? ... I added more capacity with different plane sizes to investigate this (and other things) further.

[Sami]

Flight dep/arr times do not (yet) matter at all. Please read the first post.

[meiru]

And a little question about the used aircraft page... can't you store the settings that were used the last time and directly restore them when I return to this page? When I click on an aircraft and then press the back-button I always have to redo the whole filter settings... ok, I could open the linke in a different window, but sometimes I don't think about that when searching an aircraft.

[JumboShrimp]

Pax allocation issue:  Classes

Day 1: 1x A332 on CDG-BOS ~3000nm

Supply:
Y: 234
C: 16
F: 8

Allocated pax:  
Y: 116
C: 13
F: 2

Day 2, Added 1x753 + 1x752

Total Supply: 332 + 753 + distance limited 752
Y: 234 + 222 + 162 = 618
C: 16 + 15 + 15 = 46
F: 8 + 0 + 0 = 8

Allocated pax: 332 + 753 + distance limited 752
Y: 46 + 46 + 38 = 130 (up 14, ok I guess)
C: 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 (down 4, probably not ok)
F: 0 + 0 + 0 = 0 (down 3,  not ok)

LFs on Day 2, just looking at Y:
332: 19.7%
753: 20.7%
752: 23.5%

I think this may be a problem.  If the ideal aicraft is ~250 pax aircraft, if would be roughly the 753.  Therefore, slightly lower LF on A332 is expected (753 seats count for more seats than A332 seats on route this distance).

What does not make sense is 752.  It should have the LF equal to 753 (with no frequency, or smaller aircraft size benefit on this route).  Or, it should have lower LF (if there is an actual penalty for aircraft too small).

[Sami]

Pax allocation issue:  Classes

Probably related to low RI.

Changed RI of that route to 100 to test. (probably will be 100% LF on all flights though since the demand is not met?)

[JumboShrimp]

You mean tech-stopping 727s across oceans to instantly kill the widebodies will no longer work?

Woohoo!

Tech stopped narrowbodies should not be able to kill non-stop widebodies for completely different reasons:
- narrowbody smaller than ideal aircraft for the route
- generally slower narrowbodies + tech stop time result in greater duration of flight.  Once coded, that should give advantage to non-stop widebodies.

Given this, additional 20% penalty for tech stop is unnecessary, IMO

[meiru]

Flight dep/arr times do not (yet) matter at all. Please read the first post.

Sorry, didn't see that... the rest seems to be good so far... I'm getting 85 pax with every plane, no mather if M90 or 763 ... that's much bether now.

[esquireflyer]

Tech stopped narrowbodies should not be able to kill non-stop widebodies for completely different reasons:
- narrowbody smaller than ideal aircraft for the route
- generally slower narrowbodies + tech stop time result in greater duration of flight.  Once coded, that should give advantage to non-stop widebodies.

Given this, additional 20% penalty for tech stop is unnecessary, IMO

Some narrowbodies (e.g. 727) are very fast. So the second point would apply to 737s for example, but not 727s.
IMO the additional 20% penalty for tech stop is appropriate because it is realistic--in real life, pax do not like techstops, especially when there is a nonstop available.

Maybe the 20% penalty should only apply if a competitor is flying nonstop, and not when the techstop is the only option? But there should definitely be a techstop penalty when a competitor is flying nonstop. The techstop player should have to either lower prices significantly, or take a LF hit.

[Sami]

Changed RI of that route to 100 to test. (probably will be 100% LF on all flights though since the demand is not met?)

Fast-forwarded the time a bit (due to B checks) and now the RI is back to 3.5 where it was.

If you look on the seats sold (extended route data) for last 2 days, seems logical. (?)


--
I'm off now; any further changes/fixes tomorrow evening.

[JumboShrimp]

Probably related to low RI.

Changed RI of that route to 100 to test. (probably will be 100% LF on all flights though since the demand is not met?)

I am guessing that a single calculation is performed for pax allocation rather than 3 class independent.  That and some rounding probably resulted in the 3 F pax disappearing when additional equipment was added on the route.  I don't think it is a problem.

Thanks for changeing the RI to 100.  I will re-test once I get some aircraft delivered that will allow me to oversupply the route a little more.  Right now, I am only at about 115% of demand...

I am still seing LF that is too high on the 752, BTW:
332: 65.8%
753: 69.4%
752: 79.6%

In general, 752 should not be having higher LF than 753.  Possible reasons:
- the system is not looking at the effective capacity.  My 752 is distance limited to lower Y limit.  I will substitute another 752 once it arrives and retest.
- the system is looking at max HD capacity to figure out ideal aircraft for the route length.  If that's the case, I think the formula could use some tweaking to shift the minimum aircraft up by 10 to 25%.

[WalnutWhip]

I was in the last test game world which must have just ended, but dont think i got the refund that it said there would be last time and says there will be this time.