Changelog and Previews comment thread

[Sami]

The new achievements...are those active already? In other words: If I am flying let's say 500 US-aircraft can I expect to get this achievement any moment now?

Yes, from next in-game Sunday onwards. (but in order to get the level III badge you will have to get I and II first .. so 500 Embraers => three weeks and you will have level III for the Brazilian wax since only one level is granted at every time the system checks them, which is once every week)

[schro]

The new achievements...are those active already? In other words: If I am flying let's say 500 US-aircraft can I expect to get this achievement any moment now?

Or are those only valid for new game worlds?

PS: Thanks for those! I have another idea for another achievement. Since we have the "Yearly Passenger" achievements, why not have "Yearly Cargo" achievements, too? (Since you're at it...)

Usually achievements are processed at the end of each game week, so check back in a few hours to see if your question was resolved on its own :-)

[Tha_Ape]

What about Airbus' a/c "made in the US", in Mobile?

[groundbum2]

yes they're active in GW4 as I got one ;-)

S

[Tha_Ape]

Great changelog! Thanks Sami.
(ok, quite happy because there were quite a lot of things I reported )

As for the demand between ex-Soviet states, don't know what bug you precisely refer to, but I still see some one way full demand / 0 demand on the return leg (ex: UUEE/UARR in GW#2).

[wilian.souza2]

As for the demand between ex-Soviet states, don't know what bug you precisely refer to, but I still see some one way full demand / 0 demand on the return leg (ex: UUEE/UARR in GW#2).

Maybe the fail to display the airport map of SU in the Asian side on Airport Information page.

[Tha_Ape]

Maybe the fail to display the airport map of SU in the Asian side on Airport Information page.

I don't think so, I think he refers to this one:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,77615.0.html
(the map got a very specific entry)

[schro]

I'm going to give a hearty two thumbs down to the production lines closing after 20 years change as it is simply game breaking for large airlines.  This will have significant impacts across all game worlds in a very negative way and reduce the amount of fleet diversity, strategic choices and long world playability especially given the uptake rate limit of new planes.  Planes fall out of favor and cease production because they are no longer economically viable (for the most part) in the real world. In our simulated world, we don't follow the same economic model - specifically related to fleet commonality, which is a force that makes the simulated economy vastly different from the real economy.

Let's look at a few cases where this will be game breaking -

The "final" 3 types of "large" planes in game - A32x, 737NG and MD90/717. The first two are fine, but the MD90/717 combination left production in the early 2000's after a very short production run. For game worlds that run until 2035, this means a MD90/717 flyer will not be able to get new planes for the last 10 game years of the world and potentially have to switch types. This will lead to all MD flying airlines to likely reconsider and get in the huge line of the A32x and 737NG.

The 757 - Seeing a resurgence with cargo capabilities, it will also not be available in the final 10 years of the game world.

There's a number of more examples, but if the fleet transition/4th type penalty is not modified, then this change breaks the game for large airlines that use types that were put out of production before the end of their economic life.

[Sami]

GW#2: year 2010, AW650 & Bristol Britannia still in production. So, that's about the reason for the change.


edit: I've changed it to 35 yrs which allows the semi-modern models to run till 2035. The idea is that there has to be some end of production, at some point, and that will stay there (= not possible to do DC-3 in 2035). There will be also some changes to maintenance / operating cost models (at some point, maybe) to better model the inefficiency of running old designs (even though newly built) in modern times.

[JumboShrimp]

GW#2: year 2010, AW650 & Bristol Britannia still in production. So, that's about the reason for the change.

But isn't that a symptom of a different problem - that newest generation of jets (and props) don't get enough advantage over Britanias all the way to 2010?

[Tha_Ape]

GW#2: year 2010, AW650 & Bristol Britannia still in production. So, that's about the reason for the change.

I don't feel this is a problem. And the guy flying them is sure in a niche and better stay put (not trying to kill other players, better stay on his own).
Sure, it isn't realistic at all, but while some parts of AWS are quite realistic, some aren't (for playability purposes - not a critic, just a statement), and this is what is good. It's a sim, but also a game.
As long as nobody suffers from a few unrealistic niches here and there (and there are not many), I don't see the reason to forbid them.

[Cardinal]

I don't feel this is a problem. And the guy flying them is sure in a niche

[...]

As long as nobody suffers from a few unrealistic niches here and there (and there are not many), I don't see the reason to forbid them.

There are some extremely-niche carriers flying out-of-production types in parts of the world because they either can't buy new (Iran Air) or current models are not suitable (Hawaiian's interisland service).

[gazzz0x2z]

yeah, the guy is doing an experiment(which is beginning to fail badly, by the way) in Vietnam, a place noone flies. I don't see the harm he's doing. He's having fun at the expense of noone.

[Tha_Ape]

Closely related point: what about the RL airlines using a/c well past their 35 y old limit in AWS?

Prop-modified CVs recently retired, DC-8s are still in the air as of today (production ceased in 72), 737 Jurassic (one just crashed in Cuba), Viscounts still flying in the 90s/2000s in Africa, etc?

I don't complain - I just note that a closely related matter of realism has been denied (for gameplay reasons) while this is forced in (while it doesn't disturb playability).

[Sami]

35y is the internal design limit. Not entirely impossible to change it at some time, now when cargo is in play too.

[yearofthecactus]

Don't see any problem with the 20 year rule tbh. 20 years past real life closure, and a further 24 years up to 3rd d-check, with the potential to go up to 35.... one can still fly aircraft 55 years after real life closure. If the game world isn't over by that point, or the airline not bankrupt from operating old aicraft, there is more than enough time to find a replacement. If anything, 20 years is a bit high rather than low 

[Tha_Ape]

@Cactus

I see your point, completely makes sense. But what I'm saying is: what harm does a guy flying old tin cans in a GW? None.
It's for this very reason that I feel there shouldn't be a limit ("no harm, no nerf").

[yearofthecactus]

I see that. I think a different way of encouraging newer aircraft is probably more apt anyway. Increasing the costs of maintenance for old series more sharply sounds like a decent idea.

I have to admit, before yesterdays left field changelog announcement, it's something I'd never thought of.

[wilian.souza2]

edit: I've changed it to 35 yrs which allows the semi-modern models to run till 2035. The idea is that there has to be some end of production, at some point, and that will stay there (= not possible to do DC-3 in 2035). There will be also some changes to maintenance / operating cost models (at some point, maybe) to better model the inefficiency of running old designs (even though newly built) in modern times.

I'm totally in to this. Endless production runs, although allowing fun experiments, can also benefit players who want to build airlines of 1000+ aircraft and own their field of operation, without bothering much on what's going to happen tomorrow.

[fark24]

From my observation, a lot of the operating DC-9s (or MD-90s, etc.) well past 35 years after introduction is more likely due to the financial penalties involved with operating more than 3 fleets than with someone trying to do a fantasy scenario of seeing how they would fare in the modern era.

Once you build up an airline of a few hundred frames of the type, it can be extremely difficult to do a 1-for-1 replacement using just one model. Even in real life - witness American Airlines making deals with both Boeing and Airbus to get some 400+ narrow body aircraft on the property in short order to work down their fleet of MD-80s.

As noted in a previous comment, most of us are going to want to ditch frames that are 20+ years in age - which is logically when a fleet transition should be taking place. Perhaps the following could be implemented in combination:

- 20 years after entry into service: Extra fleet penalty no longer applies to this type.
- 35 years after entry into service: Type is no longer produced.

Gives a nice window to conduct fleet replacement and even operate some aircraft as freighters in their old age (since freight conversions become available later on).