Airport attributes

[Sami]

The breakdown of CBD is that each one of the 25 airport pairs is treated equally.

That is incorrect statement.

Sure, if the airports would all be equal in infrastructure and traffic level and they would all be at the exactly the same point (on top of each others), then they would have the same potential to catch the demand from the big city nearby. But they aren't...

(for example: City area of Helsinki; there are two airports of which Malmi is the tiny training/business airport located some 10km from center and Vantaa the big intl airport some 20 km from center. With current setup and strengths set to each attribute, a city person has 25% likelihood to choose Malmi (just because it is close by) and 75% to choose Vantaa, based on the combination of infrastructure, possible available flights (i.e. traffic level) and distance. The calculation combination of all these might be fine tuned more later, as here the 25% "score" is still a bit too much since it's a level 1/1 airport only. However these figures do not mean that 25% of the demand goes there - the actual per-route distribution and actual demand level takes then also into account the actual flights, those figures mentioned are the baseline airport score)

After 20 years or more of 2 companies from CDG carrying medium cargo to Bratislava, and none from ORY, ORY's actual demand should be 1% of CDG's, maximum. It's 530kg for ORY,  2480kg for CDG. Nearly 20% of cargo demand fool enough not to have gotten the memo in decades that medium cargo from Bratislava to Paris flies only through CDG, not ORY.

From what I am seeing at my test server is zero CS demand at LZIB-LFPO, but in live game there seems to be some. Meaning that someone has possibly flown CS there a while back, and it's declining back to zero or near zero, or then the latest update did something to it that was unwanted. (just taking a closer look)   

(Edit: Found a possible reason for that, fix is pending)



And in any case, this is out of scope of this thread already. Since the airport attributes are meant as an easy way to deal some of the strangeness in political and geological environment of the world (that cannot be modelled in the demand system anymore with the new system, where the basis is that everything is open and expandable etc.). For example the fact that in Soviet Union there were only a couple of international airports.

[MuzhikRB]

I want to add for 380 fleet

if the feature with special infrastructure that can handle 380 will be added, then we should make 380 fleet excluded from 4th fleet penalty.

otherwise it would be no sense at this feature.

currently in gw 2|3 i see that average 5 companies uses this birdy.

I know that it is not ecenomically reasonable to use it everywhere. But like Concorde - even me at ZRH can use it at small portions for dedicated routes but surely not sacrificing fleet for it.


IRL we have the same. many companies bought small packs of it just to cover specific routes, so why not do the same in AWS for really special fleet family.

the same could exclusive attribute can be done for Concorde like planes.

[JumboShrimp]

That is incorrect statement.

Sure, if the airports would all be equal in infrastructure and traffic level and they would all be at the exactly the same point (on top of each others), then they would have the same potential to catch the demand from the big city nearby. But they aren't...

(for example: City area of Helsinki; there are two airports of which Malmi is the tiny training/business airport located some 10km from center and Vantaa the big intl airport some 20 km from center. With current setup and strengths set to each attribute, a city person has 25% likelihood to choose Malmi (just because it is close by) and 75% to choose Vantaa, based on the combination of infrastructure, possible available flights (i.e. traffic level) and distance. The calculation combination of all these might be fine tuned more later, as here the 25% "score" is still a bit too much since it's a level 1/1 airport only. However these figures do not mean that 25% of the demand goes there - the actual per-route distribution and actual demand level takes then also into account the actual flights, those figures mentioned are the baseline airport score)

That's excellent that there is already this differentiation.  But it is impossible for us, players to see, since, in my example, just about all of the airports in NYC, LA, London areas are 3+ infrastructure, 6+ traffic.  It just seems like they are all equal, and someone flying from downtown Manhattan to downtown LA or London City has 25+ nearly equal possibilities as far as airport pairs to fly from.

For example, between NYC area and LA area, there is 1,000 tn of cargo demand.  It is impossible to fly a single Very Large aircraft between any of the airports in the area.  But it is possible to fly a single Large (757, A320F, 738F) at or just slightly above breakeven on perhaps all 25 route pairs.

This just tells me that the differentiation should be far greater.

[Tha_Ape]

This just tells me that the differentiation should be far greater.

I plainly agree with that.

I don't feel an airport should be able to gain all traits (see it as specificities if you prefer), and several airports over the same area could obviously share some traits, but with that kind of more specialized system we could get closer to RL (where +1 here and 0 zero will draw a line) or at least work like RL (in case +1 and 0 get inverted due to the in-game evolution).

And my opinion is based on a completely different situation from JS's one: Moscow. Plenty of routes worth putting a 737F but not enough for two. However the demand gets split between 2 departure airports (if not three on some routes).
Thus making cargo from/to Moscow mostly an economical nonsense, because both me and my competitor fly it, from different airports, and divide everything in two.
I don't mind not having some "cargo trait" on my airport and giving it up, but the current situation in which we divide in two an apple that's already quite small makes things look awkward and is a waste of energy and money from both of us.

This looks like we're unable to check the correct level of competition and should base our flights only on results. While I agree this is an interesting idea, I feel it shouldn't go too far as us (as players) can't spend our time revising all our routes because some butterfly took off at the other end of the globe.
Less caricatural, if we say both my competitor and I fly from the same airport, we'll:
 - pull more demand towards us than by dividing our efforts (if we consider both airport cover the exact same area)
 - renounce this of that route because we can actually see it's already oversupplied like hell and we can't get any juice from it (today, I don't know, I have to try and fly it for at least 6 months before deciding if I keep it or not).

In the case of cargo, obviously, LC and SC could be transported from/to everywhere, but HC could for example be restricted to X airport(s) every Y square kilometers.
-> areas with few airport wouldn't have any change (or barely), and airport-rich areas wouldn't be such a mess.

[Sami]

From what I am seeing at my test server is zero CS demand at LZIB-LFPO, but in live game there seems to be some. Meaning that someone has possibly flown CS there a while back, and it's declining back to zero or near zero, or then the latest update did something to it that was unwanted. (just taking a closer look)   

Just for info: Found an issue on this and update will be made (among other changes), and the system calculated "correct" figures are as follows:

With current flights the "true" demands will be:
  LZIB-LFPG: aCL = 1260, pCL = 1830, aCS = 3350, pCS = 3350, CH = 0
  LZIB-LFPO: aCL = 520, pCL = 1170, aCS = 0, pCS = 2150, CH = 0
(aXX = actual, pXX = potential)
(LFPG has higher potential since it is 1 scale higher in the traffic level, and probably catches some area where LFPO can't reach; infra level for both is the same)

And demands shown will be so that actual CS for LZIB-LFPO will show as 220kg (instead of 0 kg), since there is always the 10% displayed (or smaller amount if certain threshold is exceeded, at high demand routes) for purposes of allowing easier addition of new flights (refer to manual), and this demand is not deducted from other airports.

Changes towards this happen gradually over coming months.

(Note also that "actual-LFPG + actual-LFPO" is not the same as "potential-LFPG + potential-LFPO" because they do not catch the entirely same areas, so the two pairs cannot be directly compared since airports are not of the same size)

[JumboShrimp]

And demands shown will be so that actual CS for LZIB-LFPO will show as 220kg (instead of 0 kg), since there is always the 10% displayed (or smaller amount if certain threshold is exceeded, at high demand routes) for purposes of allowing easier addition of new flights (refer to manual), and this demand is not deducted from other airports.

But if exactly this 220kg is flown, then it would be deducted from the other airports, correct?

This, IMO, is a huge problem.  An airline can add a flight with zero risk, guaranteed return, while the airline trying to serve more than minimum has all the risk.  This situation should never exist.  It is one sided.  It doesn't exist anywhere in the real world.  It strongly encourages flying what would otherwise be uneconomical routes and it strongly discourages more capacity of the most economical routes.

LZIB

Couple of observations of some possible anomalies (or may be nothing).

I filled out the info for Slovakia, I have a good feel for it but somehow it did not come out so well.
- LZIB (Bratislava - BTS) catchment area covers probably 1/2 of country's GDP but comes out as far less than that.
- LZPP (Piestany - PZY), LZZI (Zilina - ILZ) are the tiniest, 1/1 airports with no flights, yet have more potential demand than BTS.  I wonder if it is just the most peculiar placement of airport to surrounding demand squares.
- BTS being on the edge of the country, half the catchment area is in Austria, maybe some in Hungary and Czech Republic, but the borders are still impermeable,  EU borders should be open.  Luxemburg would benefit most from this in EU.  It is actually quite a significant cargo airport in RW.
- BTS airports and its catchment area overlaps with VIE airport, which serves most of the pax and cargo demand in RW.

[DanDan]

ok... what would be needed for CBD to work better, from the perspective of the dumbest user here (aka me, since apparently i dont get it yet)

I try to make a route between my airport (PTY) and the NYC area:

1) Well, obviously I check for airports to connect in the airport list. Now I see a will try to some airport  that is close to New York. I search for "New York".

2) I check the demand to the two airports I find. In total the demand is 3200, it seems. JFK: 4590 / 1990  LGA: 4150  / 1210

3) Now if I am a new entrant to the market, I have absolutely no clue to which one of the airports I should fly...  so i check the infrastructure/traffic levels are:  JFK: 6/10  LGA: 5/9

4) Great! Noone else is flying to those airports, I can make great profit! I install my route to JFK and expect the "possible demand" to get to me

5) I realize: it seems I dont get it all... why not?

6) Oh... there is other airports in the area... like for example EWR:
EWR: 4380 / 2380 with  6/10 and other airlines are flying that route.


What i want to say: it would help if there were a graphic interface for all this data, a map, that shows what airports are in the vicinity and which ones are affecting the demand to my airport. Since else later i might realize: wait, in the NYC area there is also westchester county... i have absolutely no clue how big such a circle around an airport is!

So a map, showing demand density, maybe by colour, airports, airports "influence circles" - also with various degrees of influence, to make it comparable which airport is more in demand: the big airport 50km away or the small one 10km away. Or is the sphere of influence of the airport 100km? Or 400?

Without this, i am afraid the whole concept of CBD is going into the long list of AWS "secretive knowledge", that already is including the "too small rule", the "fourth fleet penalty", aircraft data, price insensitivity, etc. etc.; a clique of experienced players knows every detail, and everyone else starting is just wondering and likely to give up on the game for a lack of information.

[Sami]

But if exactly this 220kg is flown, then it would be deducted from the other airports, correct?

This, IMO, is a huge problem.

No. The "fixed minimum 10%" (or lower on big routes) is only shown if nobody is flying on the route on that travel/cargo class. If one starts to fly that route, the actual demand will be calculated based on what you offer there and it can be less than the 10% too, or it can grow higher over time etc.

For the first few game weeks you have (sort of) no risk of demand falling (due to calculations being performed at a slow/gradual pace) but that is the entire idea of the minimum shown demand! As if all demand would shift to the other airport the whole city demand and shifting between airports would be a moot point since nobody would be able to start at the secondary airport if all demand is shown as zero.

(And also yes the border crossing rule set is not active yet.)

[JumboShrimp]

No. The "fixed minimum 10%" (or lower on big routes) is only shown if nobody is flying on the route on that travel/cargo class. If one starts to fly that route, the actual demand will be calculated based on what you offer there and it can be less than the 10% too, or it can grow higher over time etc.

For the first few game weeks you have (sort of) no risk of demand falling (due to calculations being performed at a slow/gradual pace) but that is the entire idea of the minimum shown demand! As if all demand would shift to the other airport the whole city demand and shifting between airports would be a moot point since nobody would be able to start at the secondary airport if all demand is shown as zero.

(And also yes the border crossing rule set is not active yet.)

This is solving a problem that does not exist.

For all practical purposes (considering the strong influence of RI on cargo routes), the amount of cargo picked up in first for months by the airline rounds to zero.  And since the demand shifting (based on my observation) seems to be a function of supply, not of the amount currently flown, in the first 4 months, just about all of the shift has already takes place.  The pace of demand shifting is now very swift, all of it happens before the high RI kicks in and player starts delivering cargo.  Problem solved - or no problem existed in the first place.

So the stated purpose of the minimums is effectively eliminated.  What remains is all negative
- freeloading - flying un-economical routes at unearned, artificial, system guaranteed minimums (just about all of the route pairs between NYC, LA, London are there, so no CBD in places where it was supposed to work the best)
- leaching all of the demand from economical routes - no RW equivalent of dedicated cargo demand between secondary and tertiary airport (except specialized hubs, like Memphis, Louisville, Leipzig)
- fragmenting of the demand to the tiniest component - which has no RW equivalent
- destroying Very Large cargo Aircraft as a viable strategy - unlike RW, where cargo airlines are now searching the deserts for 747 that could be converted to cargo

Showing potential demand as zero is very useful information.  It means that all of the demand is being served by other airports, and any of the demand shifted will have to be earned, by taking it  from other airports.  (There is no other graphics, no UI to give player this information, other than opening 25+ tabs with all the combinations of route pairs to provide this info.  The minimum actually misleads the player into thinking there is some unserved demand, while there may be none).

Hopefully, low starting infra and traffic numbers, reworking of infrastructure to make number of different categories (cargo, pax, runway, transportation)and levels that have to be earned / unlocked, some airports will develop while others will not - which I think was the original intention of CBD.

[Sami]

It is not attempting to fix or patch anything - showing a small part of the potential demand on unserved routes has been part of the design from the very start and has been there since the first test version. And again, it is not reduced from the figures of the "active" airports. (Although on some very high potential areas the shown amounts for this are still too high compared to what is reasonable, have not yet fine tuned that fully)

[JumboShrimp]

It is not attempting to fix or patch anything - showing a small part of the potential demand on unserved routes has been part of the design from the very start and has been there since the first test version. And again, it is not reduced from the figures of the "active" airports. (Although on some very high potential areas the shown amounts for this are still too high compared to what is reasonable, have not yet fine tuned that fully)

I am all for tuning the CBD with cargo, so that it can be rolled out more effectively for pax.  But to tune it, it is important to recognize what the problems are that need to fixed by tuning.  The problems are:
1. excessive fragmentation of demand
2. one of the results of the excessive fragmentation is that Very Large cargo aircraft are obsolete in all but about 5 airports.

Making it easier to carry demand from Manhattan, NYC to downtown LA through Lehigh Volley (ABE) to Ontario (ONT) airports by subsidizing it is, IMO, not even a top 10 issue to address.

Yet, the system does subsidize ABE-ONT route to the tune of 20 ton phantom actual demand, with no flights, 0 supply
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/KABE/KONT/?go=1

For comparison, airports with massive cargo facilities, JFK, LAX, with far greater catchment areas only get 66 tn actual demand with 300 tn supply
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/KJFK/KLAX/?go=1

(GW3 links)

If I were to add a cargo flight from the most likely airports, JFK and LAX, I would have a guaranteed loss.  If I were to fly from the most unlikely airports (ABE, ONT), I would have a guaranteed profit.  Further, flying ABE-ONT, with a single flight would chip away even more demand from LAX-JFK.

This is the most urgent issue in CBD to solve.  Fine tuning in different areas will be needed to fully solve this fragmentation
- Fine tuning the minimums (lowering them drastically) will solve perhaps 10% of the problem. 
- Making Infrastructure level, Traffic level, perhaps #of cities served from the airports (to temporarily simulate the connections) to supercharge the attractiveness of well developed airport, fine tuning how demand gets shifted  may solve 50% of the problem
- Connecting traffic may solve the remaining 40% of the problem

[Sami]

Refer to the latest changelog entry:

• The minimum "dormant" demand shown on a route (in City Based Demand) was in some cases counted incorrectly, and was reported as too high. (e.g. This is demand that is always shown, even if there are no flights on that route and the neighbouring airport is taking all the demand. This is 10% of the potential, or a certain maximum level if route has high potential demand and it is not deducted from the demand of the other airports; ref. manual for more details)

Takes time to take effect.


edit: And actually, with a closer look, you are not correct there: route KABE-KONT does have supply and (a) flight (GW#3). So that is not any "phantom" demand. But in case there would not be any flights, the total demand shown on that route would be somewhere around 1500kg. (and those once again in that case are not taken away from any other airport.)

edit 2: gave wrong figures there (4000 -> 1500), updated

[JumboShrimp]

Refer to the latest changelog entry:

Takes time to take effect.

edit: And actually, with a closer look, you are not correct there: route KABE-KONT does have supply and (a) flight (GW#3). So that is not any "phantom" demand.

Sorry, I overlooked that one flight on ABE-ONT route.  and there is an adjustment taking place on that route.

Portion of the actual demand on the route, when it was 20k demand was earned demand, part of it was the system minimum.  The system minimum portion seems to be going down as part of the last adjustment  Total is now 12k.

It would not be the problem for the player on the ABE-ONT route to have full airplanes, if the demand was not being served, but the demand is oversupplied from far more appropriate route pairs.

But in case there would not be any flights, the total demand shown on that route would be somewhere around 1500kg. (and those once again in that case are not taken away from any other airport.)

edit 2: gave wrong figures there (4000 -> 1500), updated

Hmm...  Is that 1500 kg from demand squares not being served, excluding any system minimums?

Looking at similar route pairs, the demand looks higher that 1500kg.  Part of it must be (lower) system minimum.  Which may still be too high.  Adding flight with a large cargo aircraft (737, A320, 757) on a route with unserved 15k demand results in printing money.  Adding the same flight to 3x oversupplied route from EWR, JFK, LAX would be a money loser.

Here is where similar routes stand:
8,500kg, 4.5% of potential
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/X/KABE/KSNA/

15,670kg, 4.8% of potential
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/X/KABE/KBUR/

14,660kg, 4.7% of potential
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/X/KABE/KLGB/


Going back to ABE-ONT:

12,050kg, 4.7% of potential
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Planning/X/KABE/KONT/

So it does not seem we are yet at the point where the ABE-ONT flight is earning anything on its own merrit.  Entirety of the demand is still from the system assigned minimum.

We will see that the ABE-ONT flight is actually earning its demand when the other similar route pairs with no flights are substantially bellow with thier actual demadn as a percentage of the potential demand.

From my observations, demand shifting takes 2-4 months to substantially shift based on the new reality of supply, generally all done in 6 months, so we still have a little bit of time for the full effect of the last fine tuning adjustment to fully take effect.