Manufacturing production rates.

[Hillians]

Hi

I wanted to raise this idea out there to see what other people think regarding an idea I want to share relating to production rates of new aircrafts. Currently all models of aircrafts seem to have a production rate which goes up and down without too much detail on how this is determine (except for the bigger the backlog, the more likely prod rate will increase).

To raise a level of realism I propose the following idea

My proposal would be to have a production rate output for the manufacturer. I.e. by Airbus/Boeing/Embraer/Douglas,etc..
Each manufacture has a set manufacturing footprint (maybe set in area) - based on this footprint - there is then a decision of which models/types to manufacture depending on the production line. Larger ac models take a bigger part of the footprint which may limit the production output.. We could then have news notifications that will state "Airbus/Boeing or whoever" plans to open a new plant in "X country" will open from X date with this capacity.. This would then increase the overall production output.. and somehow need to think about a mechanism that decides which types get the allocation.

For example in GW2, the Douglas is very popular with DC6B but it also shares the DC8, the DC8 becomes more popular as time moves on so more production rate should go to the DC8 (and take it away from the DC6B, unless there is a game announcement that new factory opens in 2-3yrs time for example). When models are then phased out production rates can ramp down for a model and make space for other models. (as an example maybe prod rate of 2 dc6b would be the same as 1 dc8 in terms of space needed in assembly hall - this would determine prod rates)

I think it would make an interesting change to how production rates are set but more importantly it adds a sense of realism and more clarity to production rates.
You could set it that the bigger aircrafts get a marginal benefit over smaller ac in terms of allocation of prod rates - this would be an excellent measure to counter balance frequency benefits that smaller aircrafts get now...

it's just an idea I want to throw out there for now to see what others think and what suggestions you may all have to get a more realistic sense of prod rates..

We know it's unlikely to happen and I'm not sure if it's feasible from a programming perspective but it would be nice addition and I'd like to have it implemented by the time I'm retired so I thought I'd raise it now as an idea.. I'm 36 3/4 now.

Look forward to hearing others' thoughts on this.

[TheLostNZ]

maybe a very popular manufacturer could announce a second-third... factory opening to help with orders, this could start at pre-production rates and increase its own production until its virtually 1:1 with the original, and if that fleet stops it will assist other fleet lines. like how the 737 is made in about 3 or 4 factories and shipped to Seattle for final assembly.

my 2 cents

[groundbum2]

maybe Chine could create a knockoff at half the price ;-)

S

[JumboShrimp]

The problem is very simple:

The production line rate works up to a cap, than is broken in the rest of the territory.

Sort of like selling a supersonic jet but disabling the speed increase over Mach 1.0.  I would call it a broken supersonic jet, and I call it broken production rate system.

Just about all of the production lines in GW2 are in the territory, where the demand is for 40-65 aircraft per month, but the system is stuck at 28-30.  So in practical terms most relevant production lines are broken.

And it does not quite help if the production rates of lines not in production yet (DC-8, 707, DC-9, 727) have much greater rates.  What is relevant that some 300 out of 525 players were left out, didn't have money for anything good early on, and suddenly, they were 3 years behind first possible delivery.  First 5-7 years of majority of airlines was screwed up, and for many of them, there will not be year 8 when they can order a jet.

So there is no silver lining here, the production line caps are all bad.  Game playability should override historical parallels, in real world, 525 airline did not just pop into existence in 1955. 

[Zobelle]

So what you're saying is, 700 airline start + cheap planes + cheaper slots + inadequate production lines = chaos.

[Zombie Slayer]

So what you're saying is, 700 airline start + cheap planes + cheaper slots + inadequate production lines = chaos.

Any 700 player start prior to 1995 is chaos. There are simply not enough viable aircraft types to go around, new or used, to satisfy demand for that many players. And y'all can spare me the "Use DC-3 or C-46" nonsense. The route structure those aircraft worked on is not available in AWS. The game is hub centric, which is a route structure that did not exist until the 1980's. So I will go beyond 700 airlines + cheap planes + cheap slots + inadequate production slots and add in there unsuitable aircraft types available for the route structure required by game design = Chaos. Now, the game design is what it is, it cant be changed nor, really, should it at this point, but there are things that can be adjusted. As Jumbo mentioned, with limited viable types production rates need to match player count. Since the route structure is not historically accurate, some aircraft types could be "fudged" to force viability, for example a DC-3 with 1200nm range = usable plane, or we could go back to historically accurate numbers and 200-250 players at game start.

[JumboShrimp]

So what you're saying is, 700 airline start + cheap planes + cheaper slots + inadequate production lines = chaos.

I just think that the players who started the game deserve some chance to play the game.  If they missed out on UM (which was challenging since Day 0), if they did not make enough money to place orders in production line very early, the whole game passed them by.

I think most players would prefer winning or losing flying planes, rather than not even having a chance to participate.  All at the altar of production rate cap.

I just don't think that the system should have a predetermined outcome hard coded:
- What if many people want to fly Breguet 763, rather than DC-7?  No they can't. 
- What if many people want to fly DC-6 rather than Connie?  No they can't
- What if many people want to fly Britannia rather than DC-7?  No they can't

Everything is set in stone by the production caps.  I think if the production rates are capped, the player count for early years should be capped to 200-250.  If there is no cap on players, there should be no cap on production line rates.

[gazzz0x2z]

Indeed, there should be more of those rare planes. Even in 1998 starts, would be nice to have more than 12 Y42 on the UM - hence allowing for an alternate kind of start. Dangerous, but doable. I had exactly one Y42 at the start of current GW3, and it did actually some good money on a well-chosen route setup(it did nearly paid the Commonality costs, actually). But I had to give up that path. Noone can go that path, actually. Which is a bummer.

[Zobelle]

Any 700 player start prior to 1995 is chaos. There are simply not enough viable aircraft types to go around, new or used, to satisfy demand for that many players. And y'all can spare me the "Use DC-3 or C-46" nonsense. The route structure those aircraft worked on is not available in AWS. The game is hub centric, which is a route structure that did not exist until the 1980's. So I will go beyond 700 airlines + cheap planes + cheap slots + inadequate production slots and add in there unsuitable aircraft types available for the route structure required by game design = Chaos. Now, the game design is what it is, it cant be changed nor, really, should it at this point, but there are things that can be adjusted. As Jumbo mentioned, with limited viable types production rates need to match player count. Since the route structure is not historically accurate, some aircraft types could be "fudged" to force viability, for example a DC-3 with 1200nm range = usable plane, or we could go back to historically accurate numbers and 200-250 players at game start.

Agree wholeheartedly. Those prewar taildraggers may as well be removed from the game in its current structure.

[slickwillbo]

C-46s are very profitable under the correct circumstances.

They shouldn't be removed just because you don't like strategies that use them.

[Zobelle]

C-46s are very profitable under the correct circumstances.

They shouldn't be removed just because you don't like strategies that use them.

Was not referencing your operation at all, actually. Don's insight is 100% true atm.

The types were designed for multipoint flights, not hub and spoke operations as is in AWS and if slots weren't as cheap as they were in the current GW2 anyone would have had a hard time at profitability (achieving breakeven after slot purchase) using them.

[slickwillbo]

Was not referencing your operation at all, actually. Don's insight is 100% true atm, The types were designed for multipoint flights, not hub and spoke operations as is in AWS and if slots weren't as cheap as they were in the current GW2 anyone would have had a hard time at profitability (achieving breakeven after slot purchase) using them.

If I'm not mistaken, the C-46 was designed as a military transport. And over 3,000 were built - so it's completely realistic to have so many on the used market.

And if the AI aircraft brokers were better at pricing their birds, it would change some peoples' strategies completely, too...

[JumboShrimp]

Was not referencing your operation at all, actually. It doesn't discount don's insight which is 100% true atm. The types were designed for multipoint flights, not hub and spoke operations as is in AWS.

Exactly.  Because of that, new, longer range aircraft is needed.  Aircraft that the production lines are not delivering in sufficient quantities.

But the caps in place for the production lines result in situation where the new market supports 200 players, while the number of players that were allowed to enter 700, and the actual number of players who entered were between 525-500.

So the production caps in placed resulted in more than half the players not being served  at all.  For many players, this may have been the first shot at the full game world, and their experience was probably not so great.

[Zobelle]

Exactly.  Because of that, new, longer range aircraft is needed.  Aircraft that the production lines are not delivering in sufficient quantities.

But the caps in place for the production lines result in situation where the new market supports 200 players, while the number of players that were allowed to enter 700, and the actual number of players who entered were between 525-500.

So the production caps in placed resulted in more than half the players not being served  at all.  For many players, this may have been the first shot at the full game world, and their experience was probably not so great.

Production backlogs were not the only curveball thrown at long time and new players as of this GW.