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: Changelog and Previews comment thread  (Read 20613 times)

Offline dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #260 on: October 14, 2018, 01:22:09 PM »
Yep - numbers look generally back to the way they were (plus/minus a percent or two likely do to normal variation and maintenance). Thanks Sami.

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 7540
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #261 on: October 14, 2018, 02:16:25 PM »
There was an error in the airport cost factor calculation causing this increase (not all airports were affected, only those with slot usage between certain levels). Already fixed in the morning, and they should return to normal levels.

My numbers are down as well, but I am curious about this cost factor.

I know this is still work in progress, but what is this cost factor, is it based on total slot usage in the airport or just a percentage of used slots?

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16221
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #262 on: October 14, 2018, 03:57:02 PM »
The cost factor has been present at airport calculations for a very long time. Not a new thing. Might be updated with the new infra/traffic class system later on.

Online Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 4737
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #263 on: December 09, 2018, 07:57:14 PM »
Just to say I'm happy that there is finally a full family of NB with freighter variants able to somewhat rivalise with the 737 and A320 :)
Thanks Sami!
(still lacks the -214 though)
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 08:01:41 PM by Tha_Ape »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16221
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #264 on: December 09, 2018, 09:04:58 PM »
Tu-214 is basically the same thing as Tu-204-200. Different designator as it's build by different factory and has a slightly different exit door configuration but performancewise the same, and won't be added separately. -300 series is also sometimes dubbed as Tu-234.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 09:10:28 PM by Sami »

Online Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 4737
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #265 on: December 09, 2018, 09:16:18 PM »
Tu-214 is basically the same thing as Tu-204-200. Different designator as it's build by different factory and has a slightly different exit door configuration but performancewise the same, and won't be added separately. -300 series is also sometimes dubbed as Tu-234.

I had the impression that it had a longer range/additional tanks. But anyway, long range ops with a Russian NB might not be such a good idea...

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4266
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #266 on: January 23, 2019, 04:46:51 AM »
What was the change to the Airbus 320neo family capacity? Up or down?

Online Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 4737
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #267 on: January 23, 2019, 08:46:46 AM »
What was the change to the Airbus 320neo family capacity? Up or down?

Up. At least for the A319:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,79693.0.html

Offline groundbum2

  • Members
  • Posts: 523
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #268 on: January 23, 2019, 09:51:30 AM »
What was the change to the Airbus 320neo family capacity? Up or down?

Will we get this in GW3?

Simon

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 7540

The person who likes this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #269 on: February 07, 2019, 02:20:04 AM »
Really nice new feature that shows the range / payload limited capacity for both pax and cargo on the route pup up on the scheduling screen.

Offline dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1588

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #270 on: February 10, 2019, 06:01:31 AM »
Quick question. With the new aircraft performance system update, will it be possible to easily compare the performance of two different aircraft on the same segment without flying it. For example, if my fleet has both A320's and the 737-800's, if I create a new route from KJFK to KTPA, would I be able to see the forecasted difference in fuel consumption. Currently we can see the changes in travel time concretely, but  performance calculations are more opaque. Similarly, in terms of the performance deterioration over time - will that information be available also?

I guess the broad question is what components of the new system will be visible to the user and which will be under the hood. Obviously I understand the desire to protect the detailed information that so much effort has been spent both by Sami and the community, but some clarity in regards to the impact some components have would be helpful.

Specifically:
* Average fuel use by plane type in the create route page (so if I change from A320 to 738 I can see the difference). Currently, we can impute this after the fact by looking at the fuel costs by segment, but seeing it advance I think is helpful. Providing this number in aggregate rather than all stages is adequate. I understand that this varies by the actual cargo carried (less PAX/cargo, less fuel) and distance (less distance, filling the fuel tanks to the brim is not necessary), but something to compare fuel performance by segment would be helpful. I think this would also help provide some transparency into discrepancies around the fuel calculations. Today, some people complain that a certain aircraft type performs better/worse than it should. Very possibly this is caused by a different average stage length assumption in the average fuel provided by AWS. Thus providing this information would be helpful. For example, per the manual the average stage length for VL aircraft is 4000NM. However, if I have a 767-200ER and a 340-200 (or pick another variant) and want to see relative fuel usage of both on a 6200NM stage could that be done PRIOR to flying the route. This would help in optimal aircraft selection as well.
* Current engine performance deterioration - if it's linear between 0 and 5% than it's probably not a big deal, but if the deterioration curve is non-linear or varies by aircraft type, it would be helpful to know what the value is.

Additionally, does this mean that hot and high altitude variants will have more of a place in AWS as the take-off performance will be more accurately estimated?

Thanks for the hard work Sami, this looks like a really meaningful improvement in terms of precision. Thumbs up from me.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1729
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #271 on: February 10, 2019, 06:06:36 AM »
Id love to see how these improvements translate to niche types like Concorde as currently max range is at least 10% under IRL observed range and cruise speeds are far below the same.

Offline NovemberCharlie

  • Members
  • Posts: 919

The person who likes this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #272 on: February 10, 2019, 06:25:45 AM »
Also I feel that with the current system the increased performance penalty is already paid for in higher mx costs. Will there be a reduction in maintenance costs as well?

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1729

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #273 on: February 10, 2019, 06:36:05 AM »
Also I feel that with the current system the increased performance penalty is already paid for in higher mx costs. Will there be a reduction in maintenance costs as well?

Also curious about this as I agree fully....

If were going to get nailed on fuel on top of this, Im sure I speak for many who would like to see the curve lightened to allow perfectly serviceable aircraft to serve for at least another heavy cycle up to D4.

The current mx cost curve is excessively punitive given slow rate of possible replacement (commonality penalties notwithstanding) and makes operating aircraft past D2 obnoxiously expensive and past D3 nearly a death sentence. (For reference, replacing just 330 A321 with A21N was in itself an 8 year process WITH aid from other purchasers...)
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 06:45:41 AM by Zobelle »

Offline dandan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2034

The person who likes this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #274 on: February 11, 2019, 04:46:16 PM »
so now old airplanes consume up to 5% more fuel... does it mean that range decreases with age as well?

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4266
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #275 on: February 11, 2019, 04:53:06 PM »
so now old airplanes consume up to 5% more fuel... does it mean that range decreases with age as well?

Physics aren't really relevant to this particular change ;-)

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1729
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #276 on: February 11, 2019, 05:07:52 PM »
Physics aren't really relevant to this particular change ;-)

I suppose part of our mx cost go to add fuel tanks in place of belly cargo container, lol.

Offline dandan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2034
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #277 on: February 11, 2019, 06:28:14 PM »
I suppose part of our mx cost go to add fuel tanks in place of belly cargo container, lol.

ahhhh... thats why there are so high maintenance costs for old planes, so the guys in the hangar make some extra dents in it! :D

Offline ATA67

  • Members
  • Posts: 9
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #278 on: February 13, 2019, 02:49:07 AM »
ahhhh... thats why there are so high maintenance costs for old planes, so the guys in the hangar make some extra dents in it! :D
Or, the workers are going with the logic "Bang Bang Fix".

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 7540
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #279 on: February 17, 2019, 01:25:12 PM »
Feedback to the nee Alliance rating:

Made is a separate subject in Feature Request:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,80047.0.html

 

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.