Changelog and Previews comment thread

[dmoose42]

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.

[JumboShrimp]

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?

[Sami]

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.

[Tha_Ape]

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)

[Sami]

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.

[Tha_Ape]

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...

[schro]

What was the change to the Airbus 320neo family capacity? Up or down?

[Tha_Ape]

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

[groundbum2]

What was the change to the Airbus 320neo family capacity? Up or down?

Will we get this in GW3?

Simon

[JumboShrimp]

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.

[dmoose42]

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.

[Zobelle]

I'd 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.

[NovemberCharlie]

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?

[Zobelle]

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 we're going to get nailed on fuel on top of this, I'm 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...)

[DanDan]

so now old airplanes consume up to 5% more fuel... does it mean that range decreases with age as well?

[schro]

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 ;-)

[Zobelle]

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.

[DanDan]

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!

[ATA67]

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

Or, the workers are going with the logic "Bang Bang Fix".

[JumboShrimp]

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