Changelog and Previews comment thread

[Tiberius]

The BAC-111 moving to large is a huge nerf and I'm not sure I'm a fan of the change. Now there's really no reason to select it over a DC-9 or 737-Jurassic due to its much lower range (and capacity) with (now) comparable operating costs due to the sizing change.

Prior to the change, the BAC could be a wise choice where the limited range was a fair trade for the lower operating costs of a medium plane. Now, there's really no reason to make that exchange...

BAC is significantly cheaper most of the time...isn't it?

[yearofthecactus]

I know the change is controversial, but I'm broadly for it. The BAC is over-powered in that is so good for so long if used correctly, when we know in real life it was never a keeper in such a way.

What will be interesting is how people's strategies change. There is no like for like alternative. What I expect to see is more large bases, fewer regional airlines, the 737 becoming even more precious, along with the DC-9, and the NAMC becoming the go to plane for regional carriers.

I think a better solution to the problem however might be a new class of plane, and a new class of base size and a new class of airport size. We currently have 4 classes. Small, medium, large and extra large. I think there the BAC, the Fokker 100 and the E190 sit in a field all of their own, that could do with a category in between the current "medium" and "large" categories.

[Talentz]

The changes are welcomed and should change the fleet structure of players airlines, regarding the BACs.

Its more of an annoyance in fleet planning then anything else. The player base will rebound in kind and new strategies will be developed. Other overlooked aircraft will see some new daylight. BAC re-class will force players to retire them sooner then normal, to switch to more modern era Med class aircraft.

Changes to the 1950s/60s era aircraft will result in a slightly more expensive start up, but nothing ground shaking.

VC10 changes are interesting. This will bring the VC10 and Super inline with the 707/DC-8. Which it naturally competes with in range/capacity. Players will have to treat it as a more LH oriented aircraft and not some hybrid LH aircraft flying like we see in the modern times era (A321,739). Im sure this will upset the natural balance of those who have to update there excel 7 day scheduling spreadsheet, but live and let go I say.

Talentz


 

[Aoitsuki]

I agree with the rebalance of BAC, however it will just hurt more "casual" player who wants to stay in the game...

before if you start late or not as wealthy you can go for less popular plane(yes bac was not as popular many years ago until too many people found it's advantage). Now you are forcing those crowd to go to dc9/737.... assume there is no special treatment increasing the production of 737/dc9 you are just making not as well run airline harder to source plane, and stay competitive compare to better prepared player who drops like 200 order right from the launch.

This also applies to vc10, which is a good alternative to 707/dc8, where you have backlog for a very long time, player who cannot afford to wait can take a lessor range vc10 with cheaper run cost to challenge those 707 player.... now with these changes the cost makes it non reasonable to do so.

at the same time, while small airport expansion is already hard enough, with those better plane moving to medium category you are essentially increasing the cost of running it..... to be honest I am not sure the motive of making these changes.

[MuzhikRB]

before if you start late or not as wealthy you can go for less popular plane(yes bac was not as popular many years ago until too many people found it's advantage). Now you are forcing those crowd to go to dc9/737.... assume there is no special treatment increasing the production of 737/dc9 you are just making not as well run airline harder to source plane, and stay competitive compare to better prepared player who drops like 200 order right from the launch.

now it becomes easier. Currently BACs becomes very popular, therefore not everybody can get them for fair price. loosing its extra-advantage more people will turn to dc9, therefore bacs become easier to get.

[Aoitsuki]

now it becomes easier. Currently BACs becomes very popular, therefore not everybody can get them for fair price. loosing its extra-advantage more people will turn to dc9, therefore bacs become easier to get.

which become a worse idea.

let's say each plane have 3 slot production line... each with 100% utilisation. BAC's advantage can only be used in certain area where range is not required. most people are happy because load is being distributed. Newcomer has a fair chance in choosing a BAC, dc9 or 737.

Now with the change, there is 0 advantage using BAC compare to Boeing or dc..... those 30% players will want to go to 737/dc9, the 6 production slot will have 9 slot worth of order, new comer or people who cannot make large order will get pushed out after ordering 5-10 plane, and it will take them up to 30% longer time for obtaining those aircraft.

Yes, it is easier to get bac, but what's good of a BAC if you are in countries that need more than 1600nm range route? And it is not as effective then the monster competition that has their 737-200adv running? you are pretty much suckered waiting for additional years to have a slot, or forced to get lucky and lease one of the overpriced ones.

[MuzhikRB]

before dc9 comes to market ppl are using 732 and 722 for 1600+ routes. or even dc8.
by the time dc9 arrives big players are already packed their fleets and dont want to add extra fleet.
they are used to wait until 733 or airbuses arrives. or md80.

[gazzz0x2z]

(.../...)what's good of a BAC if you are in countries that need more than 1600nm range route? And it is not as effective then the monster competition that has their 737-200adv running? you are pretty much suckered waiting for additional years to have a slot, or forced to get lucky and lease one of the overpriced ones.

dynamic pricing. That's the difference. When a plane costs half what it should, and other better plane costs double than what it should, you have high differences in ownership costs. Last 3 GW3, I toyed with A148. An inferior plane. The other GW3 I played, I had E75. A superior plane. Still, when the A158 can be bought for 17M$, while the E175(not quicker, less seats) is around 45M$, the choice is not between choosing the bad plane and choosing the good plane, but between buying bad planes and leasing good planes. And suddenly, the communist crap makes sense financially. As long as you're the only one to buy it, of course. And as long as you scrap them after 16 years.

BACs, in this perspective, will become a niche plane for a few players who want to own their fleet and don't have the firepower of the big boys. Or even smaller players who simply can"t afford leasing the overpopular models. Of course, they have no use in large countries. But for a medium-sized player located in Europe, they still make a lot of sense. Because other players will ignore them.

[schro]

before dc9 comes to market ppl are using 732 and 722 for 1600+ routes. or even dc8.
by the time dc9 arrives big players are already packed their fleets and dont want to add extra fleet.
they are used to wait until 733 or airbuses arrives. or md80.

Usually there would have to be a split fleet type strategy for a player on say, the east coast of the US, in order to properly cover demand if the BAC was in the mix. This adds to the complexity of the airline more than anything - Suppose you're in ATL - you can use hundreds of BACs within their range envelope, but they can't hit california, so a secondary 732/722 fleet must be used for those destinations (say, 100 planes). If the next step is the MD8x planes, then you've got to transition carefully as you go... With there being no cost differential, then there's no point in spending time on the BAC in that situation - just load up on Diesel 9's and call it a day.

dynamic pricing. That's the difference. When a plane costs half what it should, and other better plane costs double than what it should, you have high differences in ownership costs. Last 3 GW3, I toyed with A148. An inferior plane. The other GW3 I played, I had E75. A superior plane. Still, when the A158 can be bought for 17M$, while the E175(not quicker, less seats) is around 45M$, the choice is not between choosing the bad plane and choosing the good plane, but between buying bad planes and leasing good planes. And suddenly, the communist crap makes sense financially. As long as you're the only one to buy it, of course. And as long as you scrap them after 16 years.

BACs, in this perspective, will become a niche plane for a few players who want to own their fleet and don't have the firepower of the big boys. Or even smaller players who simply can"t afford leasing the overpopular models. Of course, they have no use in large countries. But for a medium-sized player located in Europe, they still make a lot of sense. Because other players will ignore them.

At the era when the BAC/732/722s are viable planes, leasing and ownership costs are rather immaterial as they are incredibly low compared to revenue (as are all costs in the early games). Once you get into the 90's-2000's and beyond, that's where ownership costs start to make a material difference to the bottom line....

[mi]

Sitewide SSL

Due to future changes implemented by Google in their Chrome browser, followed later by others, we've implemented a sitewide encrypted transfer policy. All pages are now loaded using the SSL protocol, as indicated by the green lock icon at the address bar.

Wow, Thank you so much for this! I have been waiting for this for a long time.

[Cardinal]

From the latest changelog:

New aircraft ordering system has more logic built into it. The system stores now the individual discounts each order receives, and this allows the system to calculate the price better when later editing the order (previously discounts were not stored and editing the order afterwards was usually costly if you got a good discount). [affects only orders made after 1st April 2017 real time]

I made an order for 10x B717 in the past 48 hours, after 1 April (real time), in GW3. (09-Jul-2006 in-game.) I went to edit the order today to change the delivery base, and the game wants to charge me $107k and increase my lease by $15k/mo. I did not get any discounts on my order as it was a lease order for only 10 planes, but simply changing the delivery base 7 game weeks after placing the order shouldn't cost me anything.

[JumboShrimp]

•Route editor's slot handling is updated so that you can now choose to get slots only for one leg of the route. Previously if you ticked "Do not buy slots for this airport" you had to get all the slots when next time editing the route but now you can do that in increments.

Something may have changed with the functionality recently:  When I own the slots at only 1 airport, and not the other, in the past, I was able to fly one leg of the flight and hopefully acquire the slots at the other airport later to be able to fly in both directions.

Now when I have slots at only one airport and not the other, the system closes the route and drops the slots.  After about 2 months of flying.

[JumboShrimp]

Something may have changed with the functionality recently:  When I own the slots at only 1 airport, and not the other, in the past, I was able to fly one leg of the flight and hopefully acquire the slots at the other airport later to be able to fly in both directions.

Now when I have slots at only one airport and not the other, the system closes the route and drops the slots.  After about 2 months of flying.

Should this be considered a bug?  Should I move it to the bug reports?

[schro]

Something may have changed with the functionality recently:  When I own the slots at only 1 airport, and not the other, in the past, I was able to fly one leg of the flight and hopefully acquire the slots at the other airport later to be able to fly in both directions.

Now when I have slots at only one airport and not the other, the system closes the route and drops the slots.  After about 2 months of flying.

It has always dropped all slots when not flown after the 2 month period as far as I can remember.

If it didn't, that'd mean the game would allow you to fly your planes one way, and return via a warp?

[MuzhikRB]

well

I found one warp route at my GW3 company also.

I search for unslotted routes to check and see that one route has income

DEN-PWM 23:55 route - has no slots at Den. but still flying and providing profit on back leg

[JumboShrimp]

It has always dropped all slots when not flown after the 2 month period as far as I can remember.

If it didn't, that'd mean the game would allow you to fly your planes one way, and return via a warp?

Isn't slot more of a gate thing than a take-off slot?  So the flight takes off without passengers and comes back with passengers.

BTW, closing the route if it has only one set of slots kind of defeats the purpose of the flexibility built into the system where you CAN buy just one set of slots.

And I am about 99% sure that the system did allow flying one way only just few months ago.  I had several LAX routes like that, flying, while I was waiting for slots to be freed.

[qunow]

Isn't slot more of a gate thing than a take-off slot?  So the flight takes off without passengers and comes back with passengers.

BTW, closing the route if it has only one set of slots kind of defeats the purpose of the flexibility built into the system where you CAN buy just one set of slots.

And I am about 99% sure that the system did allow flying one way only just few months ago.  I had several LAX routes like that, flying, while I was waiting for slots to be freed.

but then it should consume fuel and etc for both legs?

[fark24]

Regarding July 20th update for aircraft conversions from passenger to freight, does the aircraft come out of conversion with a fresh heavy (C/D) check?

[Sami]

Currently no, but C check would be reasonable. That would change the cost calculation then.

It's anyway just the first version (does not have multi-conversion support yet)

[qunow]

For Combi aircrafts, like F27 Mk.300 combiplanes, is there any tools in cabin configurator that allow we to choose the size of the combi department on the main deck of those aircrafts?