Online Airline Management Simulation

My Account
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

### Author Topic: [-] Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation  (Read 258 times)

#### Tha_Ape

• Members
• Posts: 5596

The person who likes this post:
##### [-] Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation
« on: March 03, 2019, 09:28:08 AM »
ENFB-LFPG, with a CV-240.

CV-240 nominal range at full pax capacity: 830nm
Distance: 714nm
Distance via airways: 771nm (+8%)
Wind component: -24kts
Still-air distance: 867nm (quite a lot: +21,5% to base, +12,5% to distance via airways)

CV-240 pax capacity @ 870nm: 39 pax

But the pop-up displays a limitation to 28 pax. I however fly the right number of pax, 39.

Edit: OK, 28 is for the CV-340, I mixed it up and this bug report is irrelevant in its form. However it brings up a new question: why display in yellow limitations for both the 240 and 340, and in the pop-up only the one for the 340?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 04:20:52 PM by Sami »

#### Tha_Ape

• Members
• Posts: 5596
##### Re: Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2019, 05:45:54 PM »
Went a little further on this pop up...

Oslo-Kuwait with a DC-6B

distance: 2377nm
return leg via airways: 2567nm
wind component: - 11kts
return leg still air distance: 2682nm

But the pop up says: "no limitations". While the max range at max pax capacity is 2540nm
-> exactly the opposite of what happened with the CV of my previous post.

Also, back to the previous post, I'd like to underline what seems to me like an inaccuracy: wind component is -24kts, so on a 3h33 flight (3.5hrs) represents 3.5x24=84 nautical miles. While the pop up says 867-771=96nm. That's more than a rounding error.

(I'm not used to such calculations, so I could have made a mistake, but I don't think so).

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 8040
##### Re: Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2019, 05:53:35 PM »
The limitation of pax or cargo is always for the worst model (displayed in yellow).

Since it is there, it would be nice if it displayed (perhaps as a pop up) either all the combinations of engines and MTOWs that the player has, or that are in the game.

Also, the yellow portion does not seem to be taking correctly all the components of the new range calculation.

As far as the pop-up for route details, I don't think it should have the limitations, because it does not know which aircraft is going to be used.

#### Tha_Ape

• Members
• Posts: 5596

The person who likes this post:
##### Re: Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2019, 06:02:21 PM »
The limitation of pax or cargo is always for the worst model (displayed in yellow).

Since it is there, it would be nice if it displayed (perhaps as a pop up) either all the combinations of engines and MTOWs that the player has, or that are in the game.

Also, the yellow portion does not seem to be taking correctly all the components of the new range calculation.

As far as the pop-up for route details, I don't think it should have the limitations, because it does not know which aircraft is going to be used.

In my first post, the pop up seemingly displayed info for the the CV-340, which is effectively the worse of all 3 models.

However on the 2nd post, the pop up says "no limitation", while the worse of the family, the DC-6, has a pax capacity of 70-73 pax at 2682nm, vs a capacity of 85.
Even the better DC-6B can carry 94-96 pax at this same still-air distance (vs 102 max capacity).

Opposite to what you say, the info displayed in the yellow box seems correct (worse possible config: figures for the return leg when the plane got more head winds). But the info from the pop up is seemingly wrong.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 06:06:35 PM by Tha_Ape »

#### Sami

• Members
• Posts: 16941

The 2 people who like this post:
##### Re: Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2019, 11:25:23 AM »
Edit: OK, 28 is for the CV-340, I mixed it up and this bug report is irrelevant in its form. However it brings up a new question: why display in yellow limitations for both the 240 and 340, and in the pop-up only the one for the 340?

You might have up to 10 different aircraft types in a fleet so there is no space for all that. Simple ...  (the idea of that info is only to let you know what leg of the route causes the worst limitation)

I will add a note to say which model it refers to.

#### Tha_Ape

• Members
• Posts: 5596
##### Re: Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2019, 11:41:06 AM »
You might have up to 10 different aircraft types in a fleet so there is no space for all that. Simple ...  (the idea of that info is only to let you know what leg of the route causes the worst limitation)

I will add a note to say which model it refers to.

Thanks, but that's actually only a part of the issue: see the "no limitation" for a route that should indeed have some (still air distance above range).

#### Tha_Ape

• Members
• Posts: 5596
##### Re: Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2019, 11:55:26 AM »
One more example: Oslo-Prague, with a CV.

Distance is 601nm
Still air distance is 663 on leg 1, 636 on leg 2.
But the pop up shows no limitation, while the 340 has limitations on this route (and the yellow box actually displays it right).

#### DanDan

• Members
• Posts: 2729
##### Re: Wind components + airways: wrong limitation calculation
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2019, 01:18:04 PM »
a) maybe we could get a dropdown on "subtypes" of a fleettype. so you first select the fleettype for a route [e.g. B757], and afterwards you can select [-200; PW engines; +25t mtow or something like that]. so you could get the info for your specific aircraft, instead of a generic info.

b) make the range-charts for "flight time" instead of "distance"?

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.