Changelog and Previews comment thread

[Andre]

"Can I build by own big HUB?

Players can indeed make the airports grow and create traffic to airports that would be otherwise quiet. For example you could find a small city airport that will catch the demand of a big city (like Stockholm and the Bromma airport) and start flying from there. Initially your problem can be that the airport might be capacity limited but future versions of this system will allow airports to expand with new runways (more slots) and so forth."

From the Previews thread. This is a huge aspect of City Based Demand, and something many of us has asked for in the past. I really hope the option to expand airports with new runways, runway extensions and slots will be implemented sooner than later. Very happy to see that it is planned for in the future.

[[ATA] Hassel]

Hello,

i would like to bring to the table the topic of maximum alliance members, related to the change back in January 2016

"The maximum amount of members per each alliance is now related to the player capacity of the game world. Minimum level is 20 members in all games, and the new maximum is 40 members (reached when game's max player capacity is >700). This way we can encourage more players to join alliances in large games."

I've given it some time to see how it would work and based on my experience i would like to share my thoughts

When i first saw the post i thought 'awesome, the more the merrier', but i soon realized this was not the case.

Having a team with 25 members was a good number, Not to low and not to high, you have the feeling that you have a connection with everyone. But raising this limit to 40 changed that since you now have 15 more people to keep in contact with.

Suddenly the focus of an alliance changed to get the maximum numbers of member as possible, so the alliance can get those 5 point per member each year. This as a result will leave the variable score to be less important at the end of the game...

The way the alliance point system works today is too depending on how many member each alliance has. I think this is a shame since it takes the focus away from running and building a succesfull airline focusing on a good score

My final though is that for a 40 member alliance to work, i think the alliance point distribution should be "re-shuffled" so alliance members point don't play such a big part in the alliance score

As a start maybe the maximum numbers should not be determined by the capacity in the game world rather than the amount of players in the game world....

Best Regards
Christian
(Fresh Air)

[gazzz0x2z]

the advisor idea is excellent. While mentoring, I've seen quite a few strange things. Dunno if they are easy to catch.

"why lease another aircraft when the previous aircraft is used less than 5 hours a day"?
"why setup a line where the airplane is obviously too small?" (the "too small penalty is not easy to spot, for whoever does not know to look for it")
"why fly a regional turboprop during the night, and having a A-Check during daylight?"

[NovemberCharlie]

Sooo will we also get France ATC strikes as a bimonthly event? 

[[SC] - King Kong]

Can you add major sports events? an idea?

[Sami]

Sports events are already covered by the random events. But changing them to historical events is possible, just have to remove the random sports events then.

[Andre090904]

FIFA worldcups and Olympic Games are most likely then. Should be rather easy to have those implemented. Question is where to stop. Cricket world cups should not be that famous.

[NovemberCharlie]

Bringing this up again as I have a 737 coming in with 13 routes in a 7 day schedule, which requires slot buying

With the new function "create routes for the next six days" I usually don't buy slots for these seven day schedules as the last planes are usually 6-7 months away.
And even if you were to purchase those slots, they would expire before you get use them.

Wouldn't it be an idea to have a "buy slots for selected routes" on the manage routes dropdown menu?
Some schedules have 9 routes and this would save the time to "edit" all of them...

Kind regards,

NC

[Andre]

Loving the new automatic schedule conversion! I just tried it with a Fokker 100 -> MD-90 schedule, using original departure times. Worked flawlessly.

It will probably be difficult going the other way, because the F100 is slower. But if we implemented a generic Cost Index feature (a speed override), it could be regulated so that even slower aircraft could increase speed to use the same departure times, at the penalty of increased fuel burn.

Keep up the great work Sami!

[LotusAirways]

...I think the alliance point distribution should be "re-shuffled" so (the quantity of alliance members) point don't play such a big part in the alliance score...

It should be the median of all members scores. Like this alliances will focus on getting members with good scores as opposed to as many members as possible.

[MuzhikRB]

Alliance should get points and rewards for what is alliance goals, not company goals.

I mean - what is the goal of alliance for this game? If its supposed like IRL alliance/codesharing etc, then the alliance points should be given for how many continents/countries/cities is covered, and with how much quality. Which can be obtained by CI. And also how many pax served.

Something like this. IMHO

[cutchie]

Great to see the Embraer E2 being added! Given that the E195 E2 is very close to the CS300 in terms of capacity, perhaps it's time to reclassify the CSeries as a medium aircraft?

[Sami]

CSeries is a whole lot bigger than E-Jets. Average (max) capacity of all models in Cseries is 142 pax while for E-Jets it is 104 pax.

[schro]

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...

[wildavidson]

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...

This is a change I would feel too as I normally operate the BAC for this exact reason. The only reason now to take these would be if they were much cheaper or yu came into the game late and that's all you could get new.

[chwatuva]

I, for one, am a big fan of the change.  I think it will bring more balance to the game; should make it more possible to compete if you aren't lucky enough to get a huge order into the BAC production queue very early on.

Not for nothing, I also like that it should make the game conform closer to historical reality.  DC-9s outsold the BAC by something like a 4-1 margin.  Granted, getting into the DC-9 queue may become critical to early success, but such is life when you have a world with 0 airlines and in a matter of a week a world with 300-400 airlines...

[wildavidson]

I, for one, am a big fan of the change.  I think it will bring more balance to the game; should make it more possible to compete if you aren't lucky enough to get a huge order into the BAC production queue very early on.

Not for nothing, I also like that it should make the game conform closer to historical reality.  DC-9s outsold the BAC by something like a 4-1 margin.  Granted, getting into the DC-9 queue may become critical to early success, but such is life when you have a world with 0 airlines and in a matter of a week a world with 300-400 airlines...

Yeah I get the change and it makes perfect sense I think it will be interesting to see how the prices of the BACs will differ to the rest if it turns out to be less popular.

[fark24]

One possibly overlooked effect of the size changes is that some types can now not fly to certain airports. The Vickers VC10 for instance would no longer be able to fly into any airport below size 3.

Likewise, the BAC would now not be able to fly to size 1 airports. So a 'large' 70 seat BAC 200 (4,987 ft runway requirement) would not be able to fly to the same airport that a 'medium' 96 seat BAe 146-300 (4,921 ft runway requirement) can. Like not just a penalty - be totally forbidden from doing so.

I would hope the BAC 200/300/400/475 (all 75 seats or fewer) would remain medium with the 500 version going to large. I know that it may not currently be possible to have different aircraft sizes within the same fleet type. But I think it is something which should be explored as it would be a more holistic refinement (and not as blunt and polarizing). Especially as there are similar dilemmas across other aircraft types (DC-9-10/51, Boeing 757-200/300, Embraer 170/195, etc.).

[chwatuva]

Likewise, the BAC would now not be able to fly to size 1 airports. So a 'large' 70 seat BAC 200 (4,987 ft runway requirement) would not be able to fly to the same airport that a 'medium' 96 seat BAe 146-300 (4,921 ft runway requirement) can.

1. There will always be problems, and the problems always happen at the margins.  Just like in so much of real life.  Does is make sense that 757-300 can carry more people further as a large aircraft than many 767-200s?  One obstacle at a time...
2. Sami (and others) talk about generations of aircraft.  You are talking about different generations of aircraft, ships that started service in 1965 vs. 1983.

[Tiberius]

Thank you.  So glad to see the change in size for these aircraft.  Tired of the DC-9 becoming obsolete early because of the BAC.  And other impacts.