Changelog and Previews comment thread

[Sami]

Comments about the new notification messages please ...

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg353401.html#msg353401

The scheduling page (and some others) will be updated probably next week to include these new notifications. This will help in the usability since each action won't then anymore pop you to the top of the page (in order to show the message). Other smaller usability fixes too, but this will mainly be a larger technical update background scripts/functions (consolidating all them a bit more since many functions are cross used over different pages).

[spiff23]

Some questions on cargo and the planes.

Will we see the combi versions...like 747-200. combi?  I flew a BA 747 combi many years ago from ORD-LHR and KLM has put its combi -400 on the Chicago route for a long time.

Will we have the ability to convert pax planes into all cargo at some point?  While most went from pax  to cargo airline, might be a good way to run a pax operation with a dedicated cargo fleet with old planes.

Any chance the 3 fleet penalty could be relaxed to 4 if one of the fleets is cargo only?  It would relate back to point 2 where maybe you convert your DC-8s to cargo and run them through the 1990s even though you would have parked/scrapped them otherwise. Or maybe cargo DC-10s into the 2010s like all the FedEx ones still flying around .

Which raise the last point, will the plane age warning be extended if you convert an old plane to cargo?  I.e., the assumption is they were probably Nearly rebuilt/very reinforced around 20-25 years which is why UPS, DHL, FEDEX and the others can run 40 year old cargo 727s, DC-8s, DC-10s etc.

Looking forward to the first game with cargo!

[Helix]

the new side notifications are much appreciated especially the part where the page will not revert back to the top.

So far it does not work for me though. When changing a price under 'manage routes' via the price button, I still get the old mechanic. Same goes for setting maintenance under scheduling.

However, you said 'Some of the functions like adding a flight to schedule still use the old system' in the change log so maybe that's it.

Thanks.

[schro]

So, to necro this thread, I'm not convinced the server is grinding its gears but has been fixed yet. I have had a number of greater than 1 second page renders based on the stats in the footer since the bug was marked as fixed. I'll likely openba new one once I get more solid data to present (I've been on the road a bit...)

[Sami]

Well, at least part of it was.. I noticed myself when the full-site backup snapshots where taken that there was a significant (>10sec) lag for a period of 2-3 minutes whenever the process was ongoing. That is definitely fixed now, and is "not so bad" anymore since backups are taken on per-game basis now and they are also better spread over the day... Other background processes may still cause occasional lag but several things have been already adjusted.

Occasional 1sec process times are not a cause for alarm, but >2+ secs is too much already. And of course 1sec server process time too if that continues all the time (and not just once a day or something like that)..

[gazzz0x2z]

Sukhoi Superjet and Fairchild Dornier 528/728/928 fleet groups are allowed in London City airport.

argh: arrives too late for my current GW3, and will allow opponents to annoy me there. Snif snif.... Had it be true, I'd have gone J928 instead of E195, and those are much cheaper.

Joke apart, a logical decision. 5 game years too early for my taste, but well...

New setting option: "Automatically send leased out planes to long-term storage when aircraft are returned" (at Settings -> Aircraft Settings page). Does exactly what it says: when any plane is returned to you from lease with another airline, it is automatically put into long-term storage (parking) instead of remaining idle in your fleet. This avoids the automatic C/D checks. The leasing contract termination message also notifies of this when this setting is on.

Waow. No more D checks for 24-years old airplanes destined to the junkyard. Thanks a lot.

[[ATA] Sunbao]

What about a330-800/900NEO ? aswell as  A330-300 Enhanced are we getting those variants in game soon ?

[Andre]

Very happy about the added A330-300 242ton variant! Thanks Sami. I just believe the range added is not correct, the 242tn version has center fuel tanks activated and the range is up to 6350nm with 277 pax, and 5 tonnes more cargo than earlier models. Airbus calculations tend to be very spot on. The A330-300E 242tn is replacing A340 at several airlines, like SAS because of the added range. But in Airwaysim, it only got a tiny 50nm increased range.

From Airbus website:

"A further enhancement of the A330 comes with Airbus' launch of an increased maximum takeoff weight capability to 242 metric tonnes.  With this improvement, the A330-300 benefits from up to 500 nautical miles of extra range, to 6,350 nautical miles (11,750 km.) – with 277 passengers, and carries nearly five tonnes more payload than the previous 235-tonne aircraft.  In operational terms, the increased takeoff weight A330-300 is able to connect to the following new city pairs: London to Tokyo; Frankfurt to Cape Town; Beijing to Melbourne; Beijing to San Francisco; Kuala Lumpur to Paris; and Los Angeles to Dublin. "

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a330family/a330-300/

Sunbao, the A330-300 Enhanced is the same as the 242tn version. Thanks again Sami, just want the added range on it. Please. 

[ezzeqiel]

But in Airwaysim, it only got a tiny 50nm increased range.

It's amazing... they waste time adding a new plane with 50nm more, while core features like city based demand are in the "to do" list since years.

[Sami]

Well, there are at least 100 things on my to-do list..

I will also check the 330 range later when I add the neo variants (before new gw#2).

[Andre]

Sami, thank you! I appreciate it a lot. 

ezzeqiel, I'm happy Sami took the time to add new models.. especially since I was the one asking for the A330-300 242n and NEO versions. I really do appreciate his work, I just wanted to correct the range/payload data. I didn't mean to complain. I hope he continues to add models and change small things. The city based demand is an enormous undertaking, the amounts of work and data involved is really huge.

I do let my opinion be heard about things as well, like the fleet commonality issue. I have complaints about things, but I do respect the work Sami puts into it. And every little bit that is added to the game means so much and keeps my interest in the game.

[[ATA] Sunbao]

Sunbao, the A330-300 Enhanced is the same as the 242tn version. Thanks again Sami, just want the added range on it. Please. 

Perfect then, if it also then get right range as you pinpoint then it will be very good.

[[ATA] Sunbao]

"Minor changes to the slot checker system on busy airports, making route swapping easier."

What does that excatly means sami ?

[Mr Yoda]

Well I know what family I ain't buying for future GW...

[Andre]

Perfect then, if it also then get right range as you pinpoint then it will be very good.

Indeed.

Sami I have a suggestion for the A330-300 242tn. It has two names as Sunbao mentioned, it's called A330-300E (E for Enhanced), or just A330-300 242tn.
Since the aircraft is a bit more than just an MTOW increase, I suggest you can make it a seperate model. Call it A330-300E and launch date around 2014 with deliveries around 2015.

The A330-300E has aerodynamical improvements and tweaks like the flap "canoes" are shortnened, and it's got the centre fuel tanks activated. It's also got an EFB built into it, but that's not relevant to Airwaysim. It's basically a NEO without the new engines. It's got better fuel economy and much longer range due to these changes. Delta and SAS were two of the first airlines to get these models delivered. So I think it would make sense to let it be a seperate model, like for example A340-300X and so on. Also it will be available later in the game, and not be an unfair advantage over the 767/777 in the 90s. Being launched in 2014 and delivered around 2015 would make it a natural replacement for A340, just like in the real world.

[Sami]

A330-300E (E for Enhanced), or just A330-300 242tn.

According to some data the first -300E would been around already in 2008... And other say that the "E" is really only a marketing term by some airlines.. There's talk of 330-300X too (model before E).

Anyway, the weight variants do not have a launch date setting like engines have so I cannot assign a weight variant to appear any later than the launch of the plane. But creating own -300E model with just one weight variant (but all three engine options??) doesn't sound right either.

[Andre]

According to some data the first -300E would been around already in 2008... And other say that the "E" is really only a marketing term by some airlines.. There's talk of 330-300X too (model before E).

Anyway, the weight variants do not have a launch date setting like engines have so I cannot assign a weight variant to appear any later than the launch of the plane. But creating own -300E model with just one weight variant (but all three engine options??) doesn't sound right either.

I understand. The first 242tn was delivered last year to Delta. The A330-300 242tn has the center tank activated, MTOW increased, and about 500 nm more range than the previous version. The A330-200 242tn has a range increase of 350nm, and already has the center tank activated. Both models also got an aerodynamical cleanup which helps with fuel consumption and range.

But of course, it's up to you if you want to just make it another MTOW increase, or if you want to seperate it as it's own model. As I've mentioned before, there's more to it than just the MTOW increase, but the most important thing is that it/they get the right range, or else it won't be much use. +500nm for A330-300 and +350nm for A330-200. I know they're available with RR Trent 700 engines, but I think all engine options are available.

In my opinion I think it should be two seperate models launched around 2012 (noticed the Airbus press release was November 2012), and with EIS around 2014/15. You could call them A330-300 242tn and A330-200 242tn which seems to be what Airbus calls it these days. Or you could just leave them as another MTOW increases as they are now, but with corrected range. The only negative side with that is that some people might think it's unfair to the 767/777, and it would be much earlier than it actually was available.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/airbus-offers-new-242-tonne-a330-takeoff-weight-capability-to-extend-market-coverage/

[schro]

I'd like to see the launch of the newer generation put off as well - if the 242T 330 was available at the launch of all 330's, then that would more or less kill the need for the less efficient A340 20 years before it's time to kill it off...

[Sami]

Perhaps then both 330X and 330E in the same style what we have with 340 ..  the X is the 230tn variant and E 242 .. (though Airbus hasn't really used these terms, but I guess it's better than adding the weight variant way too early). But have to investigate this a bit, rather confusing.

[Andre]

Agree sami and schro. Seperate models would be best. The 242 tn variants are a very large leap from the previous versions regarding range and payload, and they are the models the NEOs will be based on. And I agree with schro that it's best to launch it at the correct date, serving as an A340-replacement plane. It would undermine the A340 if launched in the 90s. 230tn as X and 242tn as E sounds good.