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: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?  (Read 1629 times)

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Should have be the same....?

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16971
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2016, 11:24:58 AM »
They are in the entirely different speed range, so they cannot be in the same fleet group for that reason.

Offline Scott

  • Members
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2016, 12:57:38 PM »
Oooo, I would love to go on about the 767 and the 757 being the same fleet type but that is never going to happen  ;D ;D

Offline TheLostNZ

  • Members
  • Posts: 441
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2016, 07:35:25 PM »
Isn't that cause the 757 is a narrow body and thus a large and the 767 is a wide body?

Offline NovemberCharlie

  • Members
  • Posts: 968
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2016, 07:41:24 PM »
They are in the entirely different speed range, so they cannot be in the same fleet group for that reason.

Is there an update on the "similar fleet type" feature request? (or for that matter any other projects? Keenly looking out for new previews  ;D ;D)


Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2016, 08:20:04 PM »
but FAA did connsider tham to be together...http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/fsb%20dhc-8%20rev%203.pdf

Offline qunow

  • Members
  • Posts: 738
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2016, 08:21:09 PM »
Oooo, I would love to go on about the 767 and the 757 being the same fleet type but that is never going to happen  ;D ;D
I believe that is happening in real world and that is also why 757 pilots are getting same paid as wide body pilots?

Offline Scott

  • Members
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2016, 10:03:39 PM »
They were designed to have the same rating to make them more affordable for airlines. I believe a lot of the parts were interchangeable too.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463

The person who likes this post:
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2016, 10:50:30 PM »
Isn't that cause the 757 is a narrow body and thus a large and the 767 is a wide body?

They were developed as a common family with similar flight decks, sharing of parts, etc.

From a game play perspective, there is a very solid case to combine the two types, much like there's a strong case to combine the DC10 and MD11.

Offline kscessandriver

  • Members
  • Posts: 57
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2016, 05:21:43 PM »
They were developed as a common family with similar flight decks, sharing of parts, etc.

From a game play perspective, there is a very solid case to combine the two types, much like there's a strong case to combine the DC10 and MD11.

And the 737 of all vintages. And the DC-9/MD-80/90/717. I fail to understand why Sami is against this, especially in the case of the airplanes being the same type rating.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463

The person who likes this post:
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2016, 05:57:14 PM »
And the 737 of all vintages. And the DC-9/MD-80/90/717. I fail to understand why Sami is against this, especially in the case of the airplanes being the same type rating.

There has to be a break at some point between the generations. Sometimes it is logical, sometimes it is not.

For example, with the 737s, there's a difference in cruise speed for each of the major families that would make it a game breaking type of combination. For a real world example, the FAA is not going to let WN operate classics, ngs and max's as the same type (for pilots) as there are too many differences between the types.

The dc9 series could be an interesting combination, but at some point, there needs to be a break point where a player has to chose to transition from an early generation jet to a new generation....

Offline Zombie Slayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2016, 06:07:02 PM »
And to add to Schro's post, back when WN operated Jurassic, Classic, and NG 737 from 97 to 05, the NG's flight deck was programmed to have -200/-300 style "steam gauges" displayed on the monitors so all 3 generations could be operated by the same pilot group.
Co-founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
PacAir President and CEO
Designated "Tier 1" Opponent

Offline kscessandriver

  • Members
  • Posts: 57
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2016, 08:51:04 PM »
There has to be a break at some point between the generations. Sometimes it is logical, sometimes it is not.

For example, with the 737s, there's a difference in cruise speed for each of the major families that would make it a game breaking type of combination. For a real world example, the FAA is not going to let WN operate classics, ngs and max's as the same type (for pilots) as there are too many differences between the types.

The dc9 series could be an interesting combination, but at some point, there needs to be a break point where a player has to chose to transition from an early generation jet to a new generation....

Game breaking or not, it's realistic to run it that way. Either run it realistically or don't pretend that there is any realism in this game whatsoever.  At least group some common sense things, like the Dash 8

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4463

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2016, 09:02:07 PM »
Game breaking or not, it's realistic to run it that way. Either run it realistically or don't pretend that there is any realism in this game whatsoever.  At least group some common sense things, like the Dash 8

It's game breaking in that it breaks one of the early design decisions of the game with respect to how the scheduling function within the game works. It's not really a realism vs not thing - it's that the scheduling function makes the assumption that everything in a fleet group flies the same speed at all stages of flight and that schedules are interchangeable between planes of the same type (which leaves slots alone).  To make it work within the game's design, you would have to determine some midpoint speed that's fair to assign to every plane of the type, which is a bit of a stretch given the .42 vs .57 mach difference for the Q's. Alternatively, you could change the game's design, but at that point, you might as well hire a squad of programmers from Vietnam and construct your own sim....

Offline kscessandriver

  • Members
  • Posts: 57
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2016, 09:28:30 PM »
It's game breaking in that it breaks one of the early design decisions of the game with respect to how the scheduling function within the game works. It's not really a realism vs not thing - it's that the scheduling function makes the assumption that everything in a fleet group flies the same speed at all stages of flight and that schedules are interchangeable between planes of the same type (which leaves slots alone).  To make it work within the game's design, you would have to determine some midpoint speed that's fair to assign to every plane of the type, which is a bit of a stretch given the .42 vs .57 mach difference for the Q's. Alternatively, you could change the game's design, but at that point, you might as well hire a squad of programmers from Vietnam and construct your own sim....

That's fine, but you can make them the same fleet cost without making them the same option for scheduling, can you not?

Wagster

  • Former member

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2016, 11:25:32 PM »
If you can program fleet penalties in you can program fleet penalties out.

Don't touch fleet scheduling, leave that as is now. Instead, change the way fleet penalty is calculated, it's the least drastic way to produce this effect.

Create a new layer to the fleet penalty calculator, assigning a "Fleet Penalty DNA Identity" to fleets, identifying which fleets are more similar than dissimilar, where they won't count towards the fleet penalty or they get a reduced penalty (to simulate, if and where necessary, additional training or equipment modification).

I'm not a programmer but I think it would take more work to judge which fleets merit a DNA match than to implement a new layer like this to the penalty calculator...

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4238
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2016, 09:54:15 AM »
That's fine, but you can make them the same fleet cost without making them the same option for scheduling, can you not?

As he says : hire your own programmers.

Any game has to be based on some design choice, and the way fleet groups are designed is something rather core to the game engine. There might be(or not, I'm no in the secret of the code) a way to change the penalty. Still. People who complain about the penalty are usually the ones who would be eradicated by the big boys, were the fleet groups not so strictly enforced.

The "similar fleet groups" idea, OTOH, could probably be done(simple hypothesis, I don't have access to the source code), but would be probably a PITA to balance. I've been betatester in enough games to fear that kind of changes. I've seen a commercial game half-broken by 2 betatester ideas that seemed cool when they were said first. One of them was completely unbalancing the game, the other one killed the CPUS. I'm the author of the second one. I'm not proud. Fortunately, the next version of the game was far better - they did learn. But I was not invited for the beta-test, this time.....

The current fleet group system is core to the game, simple to understand, simple to balance. Toying with it bears more risks than rewards, IMHO.

Offline Scott

  • Members
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Why DHC-8-100/200/300 and Dash-8-Q400 are considered different type?
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2016, 08:24:30 PM »
To be fair though, if this game introduced type ratings for pilots rather than the current setup it would start getting really complicated, and expensive. Having looked at the cost of a A320 type rating recently (in which most cases you have to stump up for during your initial commercial rating, which you pay for yourself) I reckon it would really fix you into a fleet type and force you to stay with it. Imagine if you had to recruit from a limited pool of pilots, or had the potential to fund your own future pilot programme.... oooo I would seriously like that. Your pilots could have loyalty, on time and customer satisfaction multipliers.... I need to stop as all of this would make Sami's head explode!

 

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.