AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes  (Read 1634 times)

Wagster

  • Former member
This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:08:23 PM »
The Comet 4 is a massive sales success in GW2. It paid for its development and should've brought massive profits to de Havilland and alone raised the United Kingdom's GDP. So where is the Comet 5 with newer, more fuel efficient engines and other improvements to compete with the more recent designs?

Our airlines are virtual and fictitious, the nearly completely unregulated environment is completely fictitious (free-market airlines in the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba... LOL!), passenger demand is fictitious, interest rates are fictitious, fuel prices are fictitious, staff salaries are fictitiously uniform across the globe, but aircraft models, oh boy, don't you dare extrapolating a plausible model based on an existing model that would've existed in real life if said model had been a major success! No sir!

Why not? Without it this is just a Boeing/Airbus simulator with a bunch of clutter dead-end aircraft that nobody cares about.

With still 4 engines the Comet 5 would still be a gas guzzler, but given the next generation engines it would be a little less of a guzzler (5500 to 6000 kg/hr instead of 7000). If that plane sells, then in the 80's the Comet 6 would ditch the flight engineer. If that plane sells then in the 90's the Comet 7 would come with Rolls-Royce turbofans, lowering consumption more.

And similarly and plausibly with every or most planes out there. Shall we start working on this?

Those who repudiate the idea can still play in a Game World without these plausible airplanes.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 15921
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The person who likes this post:
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2014, 01:15:16 PM »
The database has already DOZENS of aircraft models that never flew or were sold/produced in the real life.

But we're not adding any aircraft that are completely fictitious or never properly planned etc. In other words it has to be at least in the prototype phase or have some sort of meaningful specifications so that it can be considered. And Comet 5 for example was a completely hypothetical plan from what I understand from Wikipedia.

http://www.airwaysim.com/Information/Aircraft

headphase

  • Former member
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2014, 01:11:29 AM »
It would be fun to play in an "alternate universe" game world with fictional airframes, but I doubt that the player demand for such a game would justify the amount of work needed to make it happen.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 3183
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2014, 07:10:21 AM »
Who will program all that? Having automagically new generated aircraft types is not something easy to code, you know... Probably Sami is able to do it, but he would have to postpone quite a lot of other features that many more players are requesting.

I mean, I'd love to have that. But it would probably not be a wise choice from Sami to go that way : too much work, not enough reward.

Not counting that he's not thinking it's a good idea...

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 15921
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The 4 people who like this post:
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2014, 01:14:31 PM »
Our airlines are virtual and fictitious, the nearly completely unregulated environment is completely fictitious (free-market airlines in the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba... LOL!), passenger demand is fictitious, interest rates are fictitious, fuel prices are fictitious, staff salaries are fictitiously uniform across the globe, but aircraft models, oh boy, don't you dare extrapolating a plausible model based on an existing model that would've existed in real life if said model had been a major success! No sir!

Oh yes, forgot to comment on this part as I was a bit busy. It seems to me that you do not know very much about the background of the sim (no offense).

a) There is no global fully free market; yes - airlines CAN fly to which ever destination they please. But they can not base anywhere they like. In many countries, and especially in the history, the air traffic has been based on bilateral deals between countries where they fixed the number of routes, airlines and such, and even the prices were fixed. This makes no sense for the point of the game, and moreover it would be 100% impossible to model those agreements realistically over the course of last 70 years for every single country in the world. So it's theoretically speaking even pretty much undoable (how one would even model the Soviet-era Aeroflot here for example?) and would fully destroy the game as nobody wouldn't be able to do anything really. Manual explains this all with great detail: http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Freedoms/

b) Passenger demand is not fictitious really (depending on what area of the world we look). There is a whole heap of data on real routes in the background (from actual point to point traffic stats, whole US for example), but again modelling all millions of route pairs is impossible for the whole world and entire history, and that's not even what has been attempted. But just saying, it's not just some random numbers passed through .. (but have to note that for game play purposes for example the general overall demand is rather much higher than in the real life; and have to note also that since there are like 10 million possible route combinations it's not really necessary to start looking differences in single routes vs. real life)

c) Interest rates are 100% based on real history (they could be customized per each game but haven't ever done so)

d) Fuel prices by default are 100% based on real history. However for most of the games they ARE customized to prevent people from guessing what will happen soon (anyone can look up the fuel price history chart). The price customization in current long games is not always full, so there are periods where they might follow the historical prices and periods that are custom priced. Purely a game play decision to make the world more dynamic, but again the starting point has been the real historical data.

e) Staff salaries are based on realistic values. (but the salary model is simplified; a fixed monthly salary for each employee.. but what I am saying is that there's some sense here too; you are not paying $10 000 a month for a flight attendant..)

f) Staff salary variations between countries are based on real life wage statistics. Each country has a different level of wages. Here you most definitely do not pay the same wages if you are based in Norway or in Indonesia for example.


Anyway, on general level I am all in for making the worlds a more dynamic place, and that is the long term goal with all the new features too. But the baseline is still to keep some level of realism involved and not go totally overboard with all made up stuff. And all the historical stuff do serve as the baseline data too (such as in the case of fuel prices like I pointed).
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 01:26:07 PM by sami »

Offline JavelinX

  • Members
  • Posts: 88
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2014, 12:16:01 PM »
As a newbie, I can only say that the game is good as-is, bur the idea that air models would be released based on the popularity of earlier ones is one thing that would make it great. Some aspects (engines etc) are probably easier to model, while other parts would be, to say the least, trickier... But one shortcut could be to let real-life models also be "general ideas", i.e. if de Havilland  makes huge success in a long game world (and Lockheed utterly fails already before the jet age begins) they could release a wide body unit that would be similar to the Tristar (de Havilland Ultramegacomet  :P) with similar specs +/- a few %, random-generated. That would make programming much simpler, since one would only have to deal with "general ideas" and types/families instead of making up all sorts of numbers to create a new craft. That could be one way of handling it. And the real world history would provide baseline data, i.e. no 2707b out of the blue...

zimmah

  • Former member
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2015, 05:31:57 AM »
The database has already DOZENS of aircraft models that never flew or were sold/produced in the real life.

But we're not adding any aircraft that are completely fictitious or never properly planned etc. In other words it has to be at least in the prototype phase or have some sort of meaningful specifications so that it can be considered. And Comet 5 for example was a completely hypothetical plan from what I understand from Wikipedia.

http://www.airwaysim.com/Information/Aircraft

Well, I actually like the idea from OP.

If a certain aircraft is high in demand and successful, it's only logical they'd make a follow up. It would be quite interesting to see completely hypothetical planes based on customer demand.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 3183
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2015, 05:59:20 PM »
Well, I actually like the idea from OP.

If a certain aircraft is high in demand and successful, it's only logical they'd make a follow up. It would be quite interesting to see completely hypothetical planes based on customer demand.

Once again, code it yourself. Or at least make an integral specification for it. My IRL job is to test software, and the first thing I break, before even having software to play with is the specification. It's insanely tough to make a proper specification that think about everything. How do you design the hypothetical planes? Are they pre-planned(and therefore limited) or fully dynamic generated(which is insanely difficult to balance properly)? What is the lower limit for a firm to generate new planes? Is it firm-based, company-based? How to simulate state support(USSR, USA, and later Europe with Airbus, and today China with COMAC)?

I'd love to play with it, or even to balance it. But it's really a big, big thing. From my experience, doable, but worth the workload?

Offline hmellouli

  • Members
  • Posts: 663
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2015, 12:22:35 AM »
e) Staff salaries are based on realistic values. (but the salary model is simplified; a fixed monthly salary for each employee.. but what I am saying is that there's some sense here too; you are not paying $10 000 a month for a flight attendant..)

f) Staff salary variations between countries are based on real life wage statistics. Each country has a different level of wages. Here you most definitely do not pay the same wages if you are based in Norway or in Indonesia for example.

Sami, if I could tag on to the staffing points. IRL I work for a major airline in financial planning and analysis. I would agree with you that an overwhelming huge part of this sim is realistic. In the staffing world, outside of ASK driven jobs like pilots and FAs, the headcount is definitely higher than it should be. Tbh I'm not sure how you can optimize that without consuming too much coding time. Maybe the staff in model has two sides, one is metric drive (departure for airport staff, ASK for air staff) and some sort of hybrid for office support, less mangers as well. 

Otherwise, as I've said before, this is an awesome sim. I enjoy correlating this to my day job.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 15921
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2015, 10:51:14 AM »
The staff costs are modelled so that the first objective has been to get the general overall cost level at the proper levels. In other words a normal mainline carrier has combined staff costs of around 20-30% of all expenses, a bit depending on the area of the world and fuel prices etc. This is modelled correctly, and only after that the aim has been to produce realistic staff numbers.

AWS does not have the possibility to choose what type of organization you run and everything is done in-house (= no proper LCC model yet), so one really cannot combine a single real airline and single AWS airline as they will be all different. Real airlines have also other staff costs that are not modelled here like pensions and such things - but the main aim with the staff is the correct general cost level.

Offline hmellouli

  • Members
  • Posts: 663
Re: This game is pointless without fictitious airplanes
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2015, 07:37:20 AM »
The staff costs are modelled so that the first objective has been to get the general overall cost level at the proper levels. In other words a normal mainline carrier has combined staff costs of around 20-30% of all expenses, a bit depending on the area of the world and fuel prices etc. This is modelled correctly, and only after that the aim has been to produce realistic staff numbers.

AWS does not have the possibility to choose what type of organization you run and everything is done in-house (= no proper LCC model yet), so one really cannot combine a single real airline and single AWS airline as they will be all different. Real airlines have also other staff costs that are not modelled here like pensions and such things - but the main aim with the staff is the correct general cost level.

Valid point. Thanks!

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.