Quick beta available

[Sami]

now I don't get pax on SFO-FLL (M90 and 320) but I saw, that it's flown with 319's in real world.

Your route image on that route is practically ZERO and you are also oversupplying the demand. That's the problem.  (= try with a single flight first)

Even when the RI is full, you cannot expect full planes due to the oversupply (305 supplied, demand is 180)

So. No thank you.

[JumboShrimp]

- the math behind the "passenger's desired aircraft size for a route" has been adjusted a bit. It takes now into account long domestic flights (like intra-USA) and allows smaller equipment there. On the other hand intercontl. flight requirements have been increased (= penalty for 737 sized jets over atlantic or such). Also calculation is changed so that pax see the whole fleet of planes as similar, in other words the A318 and A321 would look the same to them.

I am not sure if there needs to be distinction between intra USA and the rest of the world.  2 of the 9/11 aircraft were 767, 2 were 757.  Both larger than 737.  757 is still common on trans-continental flights.

I think it would be better if the code did not get convoluted with exceptions, and this sounds like one of them that may not even be necessary.  I think all we need is a fighting chance for the widebodies, so that they don't automatically get slaughtered by A320/737.  The way it can happen is when on longer distances, the smaller and smaller aircraft would not get higher and higher LFs...

[Sami]

Let me re-phrase. A "domestic longhaul" factor has been added so that you can also potentially use the 320/737/md-90 series there. But they are still considered "a bit too small" for those routes, and pax do prefer the bigger planes there too but just less than in intl routes.

[meiru]

ok, forget SFO FLL... the key point is -> your code will be a collection of thousands of special cases and it will be too complicated to work

[Sami]

No it is not, and will not be. End of that story, ok?

For example the long domestic rule is just one line of code, simple as "pts * 0.8" or that way. So thank you, I am very well capable of knowing how complicated it is or not.

[Zombie Slayer]

No it is not, and will not be. End of that story, ok?

For example the long domestic rule is just one line of code, simple as "pts * 0.8" or that way. So thank you, I am very well capable of knowing how complicated it is or not.

Sami,

I admit I have not had as much time as I would like to build in the test world, but this question is still lingering. The "frequency bonus" (.8 above, for example)...does that mean that best case scenario I can only carry 80% of the potential passengers that would have flown on that route since the plane is "too small"? In other words, will that mean the flight is, in essence, artificially restricted to an 80% load?

Thanks!

Don

[Sami]

I admit I have not had as much time as I would like to build in the test world, but this question is still lingering. The "frequency bonus" (.8 above, for example)...does that mean that best case scenario I can only carry 80% of the potential passengers that would have flown on that route since the plane is "too small"? In other words, will that mean the flight is, in essence, artificially restricted to an 80% load?

That was just an example to show simple that part of the code is. Firstly, there is no separate "frequency bonus" even coded, or never has been. It's just a byproduct of the process and the updates made are ways to harness it a bit.

The 0.8 I mentioned above is just a factor in one variable, not relative to the entire demand in any way.

In other words with proper values (prices, RI, CI ..etc. etc, as usual) you can get the 100% demand to you, or even 130% of the demand if you are offering low prices or such (as mentioned the demand is not static and can grow there).

[meiru]

... and pax do prefer the bigger planes there too but just less than in intl routes.

Passengers select flights according to some rules... they don't like high prices and if they can chose, the take flights closer to the prefered time when the want to fly... now, with larger aircrafts you can provide smaller prices. That's why larger aircrafts work on those routes... not because of the fact, that passengers "like" bigger planes more... let's talk about the 757. She has the same fuselage like the 727 and the 737 had! So, passengers don't even "feel" the difference between a 737-200 and a 757-200 ... so, it can't be a criterion when selecting a flight... it's just an economical calculation.

So, when the departure-time-match get's more irrelevant and the price more relevant on those routes... you can't beat the large planes with high frequency and small ones.

[Sami]

Passengers select flights according to some rules... they don't like high prices and if they can chose, the take flights closer to the prefered time when the want to fly...

Correct basically, but already out of the scope of this topic.

But since people "do it wrong" by using too small planes on too long routes, to simplify, there is a need to change it. In other words to make it more realistic, by for example discouraging people to fly A321 across Atlantic. Simple.

(One factor is the missing cargo too (among a few other things).)


But I guess it's better for me just to announce the updates, and won't discuss any technical matters here (and just perhaps publish guidelines in the manual), since most of my time goes into this talk now. So just saying: it will be done, it has been already done, and all what's left is some tuning in this part. After that the remaining variables affecting will be added, and fixing of the rest of the issues noticed and it's good to go.



edit; Also, bumped your FLL route's RI to 100, so you can see it "properly" now without the RI effect - should be all good.

edit2; checked it now. Demand for Wed is 176, you sold 90+90 => 180 seats => all demand + few extra sold. => Works just fine.

[meiru]

Correct basically, but already out of the scope of this topic.

But since people "do it wrong" by using too small planes on too long routes, to simplify, there is a need to change it. In other words to make it more realistic, by for example discouraging people to fly A321 across Atlantic. Simple.

I think, if the price (and maybe quality -> smaller plane seats should have lower quality than those on larger aircrafts) gets more weight, it will be solved automatically... at least I could imagine, since then the small aircrafts aren't the optimal ones anymore, because you can't offer so small prices.

Doing it "wrong" should simply cost you too much... but not generally mean that passengers don't like it :-) ... if you offer me a F flight from Europe to NY for just 10$ I would also take that... but it's hard to run an airline profitable like that.

[Cardinal]

I wasn't fast enough to get in on the beta, but I've been following the discussion. Is the "widebodies are better longhaul" calculation based on demand? Meaning, a 767 > 737 on BOS-LAX but not necessarily on BOS-EUG (or any transcon route with demand around 150-200) since the 767 is way too much airplane for that route...

[Sami]

There may be some changes to pax demand figures over the next game months; found a bug there.

[swiftus27]

I wasn't fast enough to get in on the beta, but I've been following the discussion. Is the "widebodies are better longhaul" calculation based on demand? Meaning, a 767 > 737 on BOS-LAX but not necessarily on BOS-EUG (or any transcon route with demand around 150-200) since the 767 is way too much airplane for that route...

There really aren't many nations that have domestic flights of 2000nm or more. Just sayin... you're right though.  I fly from CLE to SFO on a 737...  to HOU on a 737 to LAS on a 737...

[Sami]

My a/c screen:  I looked at one of my planes that showed an avg lf of 74%. Clicking on that plane, it showed 100% lfs on every route. How is plane avg 74% lfs when every route is 100%

Screenshots needed, or at least some info on which plane this is .. etc...

[Zombie Slayer]

There really aren't many nations that have domestic flights of 2000nm or more. Just sayin... you're right though.  I fly from CLE to SFO on a 737...  to HOU on a 737 to LAS on a 737...

And SJU, CUN, SJD on a 320, SAN (occasionally), etc. Another country with long domestic is China, some flights topping 1700nm. If small planes like the E-Jets are going to get penalized these routes will suffer (although your explanation above on how the pax allocation works seems to indicate these routes will be fine)

Don

[swiftus27]

And SJU, CUN, SJD on a 320, SAN (occasionally), etc. Another country with long domestic is China, some flights topping 1700nm. If small planes like the E-Jets are going to get penalized these routes will suffer (although your explanation above on how the pax allocation works seems to indicate these routes will be fine)

Don

if two flights were identical times and prices, people would always gravitate to the airline they know/trust first and the size of the plane second. 

[MA831]

You did if you were a member of that world still when it ended.

Uh, no, he probably didn't. At least looking at my credit history, the refund was never applied and I did play to the end (unless it was restarted at some point and I didn't notice, so the airline bk-ed). Then again, I figured that the two free weeks I got in JA6 (alongside everyone else) and the ability to look up future planes in the Test world and make plans accordingly did go some way to make up for this.

[l33ch86]

Seems that narrowbody vs widebody problem is still not solved 

[Pukeko]

Still getting 100% on these flights with the 20% increase. I guess this makes sense, if there is a big demand and the route is undersupplied by a monopoly (as well as no randomisation as Sami sayss), passengers will be willing to pay more. Going to increase prices by 20% again... and again and again to see the breaking point.

Still sitting at 100%, although flights with competition are suffering a bit. Time to increase by another 20%!!!

[JumboShrimp]

Seems that narrowbody vs widebody problem is still not solved 

I don't know the level of oversupply of that route, but it looks like a big improvement over MT6 for this set of flights.  In MT6, if each airline supplied 100% of demand, the A321 airline would have > 66% if tge market.  So it is not as bad, but still quite bad...