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: AWS v.1.1 talk  (Read 8316 times)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 15884
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2009, 04:40:03 PM »
You can market a route if you have created it. Having aircraft assigned to it or not makes no difference, like A.Alien said.

Dazwalsh

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2009, 07:34:45 PM »
oh yeah, strange i didnt think of that before :S

Offline Teemu

  • Members
  • Posts: 348
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2009, 02:16:06 PM »
About the new updates... Mostly about the closure of airports. I was pondering if one loses int status like Haneda in Tokyo will the int routes to be moved automatically to Narita?

Offline Teemu

  • Members
  • Posts: 348
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2009, 07:09:30 PM »
is it possible to get the new loan system in use to the current games?

Offline Brockster

  • Members
  • Posts: 1890
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2009, 10:55:49 AM »
Awesome sami! ;D Thanks for the update!

DenisG

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2009, 11:38:16 AM »
Great! Thanks, Sami!

Denis

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2009, 01:10:56 PM »


  • New feature: New aircraft production start & closure dates can be randomized for each game if needed. System can move the dates back or forward a max of 1,5 years for each model upon game world creation so that the dates are not known to players.

I can not tell you how happy I am to read this.  I have been begging for this for a long time.  Finally, the people who can sit at their machine all day every day will no longer have this massive advantage.

Offline Kazari

  • Members
  • Posts: 469
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2009, 09:33:44 PM »
Sami:

If this kind of work and these kinds of fixes are what we can expect after you take a vacation, I encourage you to go on holiday every other week.

Well done, sir!

DenisG

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2009, 03:24:21 PM »
Hey Sami,

tell me the name of the stuff and where to get it - I could need some of those pills! Thanks for your great efforts and improvements! You're da Man!

Denis

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: AWS v.1.1 updates
« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2009, 04:23:46 PM »
The only problem with the current system is that you can spite your lessor by changing the seating right before returning the aircraft.  People can put 10 first class seats on a 747.  This may need to be looked at.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2009, 06:47:02 PM »
THANKS SAMI!!!! I see you moved this into its own thread and you already implemented one of the ideas stated!

We look forward (approaching impatiently) to a new game.

Marco

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2009, 07:04:36 PM »
ever more realistic ... but where does it stop going? ::)

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2009, 07:09:31 PM »
lol Sami! I was wondering when you were going to "close" your improvements thread for open discussion.

Everyone kept posting and I thought " Its only a matter of time.."





Talentz

Sigma

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2009, 01:46:37 AM »
I'm loving the changes we're seeing in 1.1, Sami!

(And not just because the last 2 things you've implemented came from my suggestion, as I'd be surprised if they hadn't crossed your mind before)

Offline powi

  • Members
  • Posts: 435
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2009, 10:31:10 AM »
With dynamic production end dates these one thing that needs smoe attention:

Some not very popular models in popular fleet type may see very short prodution runs with the new dynamic model.

What if the system checks which models production ends in the same fleet type currently at the same time, and those models are tied to end at the same time in the dynamic model too?

ie 767-200 stays in the prduction as long as 767-200ER (if they stay in the curent model, can't remember)

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2009, 12:52:52 PM »
Sami,

I know that I suggested this long ago.

I like reading about the planes that we are using.  I love the little historical tidbits. 

Could you put a wiki link in the plane's description linking it to the wiki page for that aircraft?

Planes like the Dassault Mercure have very interesting histories.  They only built 12 of those planes yet I have seen many of them being purchased in-game.

Offline Teemu

  • Members
  • Posts: 348
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2009, 06:40:21 PM »
The new order queue looks nice =)

Sigma

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2009, 10:33:17 PM »
In regards to the new production system doing the "one for you, one for him" approach...

I like it.  It's definitely more realistic than what we've got now.   But...

If I'm the launch customer and order, say, 50 x 767-200.  And then, by the time production begins there's a queue of, say, 400.  Which is pretty likely.  What then?

Do my planes make up both #1 and something close to #400?  Because, while mixing deliveries up is common, pushing a customer back many, many months or likely even years out is not.  Now, I know with the dynamic production the queues won't always get out of hand, but queues of 2-3 years on a popular launch aircraft shouldn't be uncommon, and it's my understanding that the production queues won't vary that drastically so we'll likely still see that.  We just won't likely see queues of 5+ years.

Basically, it should be mixed up yes.  But the person who orders the 400th-410th ones should not get his first one within a few months, then another every few months thereafter just like the guy who ordered #1-10.  That's not a good solution for anyone involved.   I would think that not allowing it to "mix up" an order more than, say, 1-year beyond the forecasted delivery would be acceptable.  Any more than that and, in the real world, there would be significant contract repercussions.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2009, 11:39:49 PM »
Quote
If I'm the launch customer and order, say, 50 x 767-200.  And then, by the time production begins there's a queue of, say, 400.  Which is pretty likely.  What then?


With the old delivery system, you would get your 50 aircraft first, over the course of 8 months or so. With the new system, you'll still get your aircraft first, but over the course of 3-4 years. Depending on how popular the aircraft is.


Quote
We just won't likely see queues of 5+ years.


I am not convinced of this. Its more likely we will continue to see very long production lines due to fact there will be more "aircraft" to be delivered within the game time frame. Its just you wont have to wait 5 years before you get your first aircraft. It'll be 6 months or so.. at the cost of your order taking 3 years to fill instead of 3 months.



Though, this is mostly speculation until the system is ready for testing/playing.


Talentz

Sigma

  • Former member
Re: AWS v.1.1 talk
« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2009, 01:17:33 AM »

With the old delivery system, you would get your 50 aircraft first, over the course of 8 months or so. With the new system, you'll still get your aircraft first, but over the course of 3-4 years. Depending on how popular the aircraft is.

Which is what I understood to happen based on Sami's description.  But it just doesn't make any sense.

I'm not "still" getting my aircraft first.  I might get the very first one, but then the next 50 could be bound for someone else if 50 orders were put in prior to launch.  Who knows when you'd actually get the 50th one.  In fact, theoretically you could never receive an entire full order because it will keep moving further and further out as more people put in orders and "cut in line".  If a plane is launched 3 years before production and the queue is 3-years long by launch, someone coming along 2-years after launch, a full 5 years after I put in order in, should not instantly start receiving planes at the same delivery rate I've been getting them at.  Nor should I be burdened with incredibly high fleet maintenance costs because I just took delivery of a single model of a plane I thought I was getting 50 of, but turns out I'm gonna have to wait a few more months for the next one -- that alone could bankrupt a carrier with the way commonality costs are handled here.

And what happens if I put in another order later for more?  I'll start getting those planes before I'm even a fraction of the way through my original order.  In fact, all I've got to do to ensure a steady stream of planes is to keep putting orders in.  Assuming a somewhat equal distribution of orders as the system divies up the "one for you, one for him", the way around this will be to put in lots of orders for a few planes each will ensure a much more immediate fulfillment than a single large order of the same size.  The total plane order will be the same quantity, but 50 orders of 2 planes each will result in a bunch of planes delivered at the beginning of the queue and a bunch of planes at some later point.  I'll still net 50 planes, but I'll receive them in much friendlier 'waves' (again, assuming equal distribution of the dividing up of production slots).

And all competitors have to do to disrupt any expansion plans is to put orders in for the same model planes as I've got -- they'll completely kill my expansion options.  In 6 months time I could go from thinking I'm getting 50 new planes coming down to just 5 with the rest coming sporadically over many years.  It's completely unrealistic.

It's not at all realistic and doesn't even make sense.  And it's a huge contradiction to a previous feature that Sami noted, and that's the ability to freeze your delivery dates, a feature I was very much looking forward to.  Mixing up plane orders makes perfect sense, and I agree is very realistic.  But it should be limited, so that no single order of planes has deliveries extending out more than a year at most beyond their original anticipated date.


 

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.