How does the new wind model plan ULH flights

[NovemberCharlie]

Hi,

As long as we are going to have an advanced planning system, how does the game handle ULH flying?
For example the Singapore Airlines flight from SIN to EWR flies westbound one way and eastbound the other way.
This makes for a difference of 20 minutes flighttime, however I feel like airwaysim would not see it that way, making ULH flying even more challenging...
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/SIA22/history/20190410/1545Z/WSSS/KEWR
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/SIA21/history/20190410/1435Z/KEWR/WSSS

[Talentz]

NC, don't you have access to GWs? The changes should have been rolled in, thus you can check.

As for ULH in general; Yes, ULH pretty much is money pit. You can expect payload limits on at least one leg. Plus, the new fuel calculations should make flying at that stage length hardly worth it. Though, not much has really changed in that respect, eh?

Basically with wind and fuel calculations, any aircraft flying at the edge of their range will perform much worse then in the past. Flying VLH will cost far more and be at greater risk of fuel spikes. Throw in the fact that flying long, thin routes is even dumber then it was before, strategies and aircraft choice should be revised moving forward.



Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

NC, don't you have access to GWs? The changes should have been rolled in, thus you can check.
Talentz

GW2 is in 1960, so no ULH aircraft to test things.  The planes we have can barely cross the Atlantic.

[groundbum2]

GW2 is in 1960, so no ULH aircraft to test things.  The planes we have can barely cross the Atlantic.

standby. I have an aircraft carrier en-route to mid-atlantic. Cheap buns and coffee for passengers and reasonable landing rates for y'all DC6s... ;-)

S

[JumboShrimp]

standby. I have an aircraft carrier en-route to mid-atlantic. Cheap buns and coffee for passengers and reasonable landing rates for y'all DC6s... ;-)

S

If you can park it half way between Shannon and Newfoundland, that would be ideal 

[deovrat]

If you can park it half way between Shannon and Newfoundland, that would be ideal 

Come on all you elitist North Atlantic rim airlines, spare a thought for Europe to South America crossings ! 

[NovemberCharlie]

As replied above.

But when owning aircraft and with 0 competition it CAN add something to your bottom line.
I've had some good times playing ULH out of EZE, GRU and the French Overseas Departements.
Don't expect to do so for my GW2 airline, but still something I wonder for the next GW3...

[groundbum2]

Come on all you elitist North Atlantic rim airlines, spare a thought for Europe to South America crossings ! 

I could put 2 carriers end to end to accommodate the 707s.... !

[Tauge]

So... I'm hearing that we should resurrect project Habakkuk

[Sami]

GW#2 is the only with the new performance model (winds and stuff) so far.

But out of interest, from development server at year 2000, SIN-EWR:

Code: [Select]

    Airbus A330-200: Limited to 8 pax by payload/range.
    Airbus A330-300: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A330-300X: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A340-200: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A340-200X: Limited to 7 pax by payload/range.
    Airbus A340-300: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A340-300X: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A340-500: Limited to 241 pax by payload/range.
    Airbus A340-600: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.

    Boeing 777-200: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Boeing 777-200ER: Limited to 29 pax by payload/range.
    Boeing 777-300: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
These are from the route editor with airline not having any aircraft so meaning the basic payload variants then. Add better MTOW options and the list is probably not so restricive. (also for example A340-600HGW isn't out yet)

[Tha_Ape]

GW#2 is the only with the new performance model (winds and stuff) so far.

But out of interest, from development server at year 2000, SIN-EWR:

Code: [Select]

    Airbus A330-200: Limited to 8 pax by payload/range.
    Airbus A330-300: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A330-300X: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A340-200: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A340-200X: Limited to 7 pax by payload/range.
    Airbus A340-300: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A340-300X: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Airbus A340-500: Limited to 241 pax by payload/range.
    Airbus A340-600: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.

    Boeing 777-200: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
    Boeing 777-200ER: Limited to 29 pax by payload/range.
    Boeing 777-300: Unable to fly this route due to payload/range.
These are from the route editor with airline not having any aircraft so meaning the basic payload variants then. Add better MTOW options and the list is probably not so restricive. (also for example A340-600HGW isn't out yet)

Thanks Sami. However it would be really meaningful to have the values for planes that are actually able to fly the route, to see the difference: A340-500, 772LR, A380, A350-900ULR (will it make it to the game? ).
Because Singapore Airlines has two very, very different paths for both legs, playing with winds: will the flight department of our airlines be able to do something else that aiming straight at the wind and get the max delay they can?
-> https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,73170.msg428057.html#msg428057

Thank you.

[Zobelle]

I could put 2 carriers end to end to accommodate the 707s.... !

What, no arrestor cables?

[Cardinal]

What, no arrestor cables?

[groundbum2]

What, no arrestor cables?

My inventors have come up with a giant marshmellow gun that fires hundreds of giant marshmellows at landing aircraft to slow them down. Then passengers hop out and eat them while we fuel the bird back up! Easy! Works with props, slight issues with jets...

;-) S

[spiff23]

Thanks Sami. However it would be really meaningful to have the values for planes that are actually able to fly the route, to see the difference: A340-500, 772LR, A380, A350-900ULR (will it make it to the game? ).
Because Singapore Airlines has two very, very different paths for both legs, playing with winds: will the flight department of our airlines be able to do something else that aiming straight at the wind and get the max delay they can?
-> https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,73170.msg428057.html#msg428057

I'd also be curious how much this plays with transPAC vs polar routing.  Case in point most westbound North America flights to Asia now go trans polar to avoid the winds.  Eastbound race off from Japan and make landfall around Vancouver/Seattle getting a massive tailwind boost.   Even on TATLs it's the same reason eastbound stay southerly vs the westbound going closer to Greenland. 

US-India flights are another case in point in RW.  Westbound from SFO usually goes polar, counter-logic, but the east bound aims for Japan to get the time / jet stream boost even though its longer.

Is this modeled or is it more straight line penalty without actual jet stream arbitrage?  It seems like there's some nuance missing from the new system in GW2

Given how much folks like to get in the weeds on technicalities, and trusting a meteorologist hasn't scrutinized every routing for maximizing cost as in RW airlines, perhaps a future game improvement could be an optional meteorological department that give you some added reduction in wind/weight restriction/fuel burn.  It would be like hedging.  If you are a large global airline there's a positive cost benefit,  if you're a regional then, you wouldn't sign up as there would not be enough benefit to outweigh the cost...just a thought  to get the "pendulum in balance" on this.

[spiff23]

Also on topic, the wind penalty seems to be constant vs RW.  Case in point is the airlines that now actually do fly 757s TATL. Most times they can make it back nonstop, but only really strong winds and certain winter months and everyone gets their unexpected stop in Gander or Portland ME.  THe probabilities are low enough that they all do this now...so seems like it should be more a variable probability than a constant...possibly manifesting in cancelled flights (I.e., with what I assume would be game engine limitations, and rather than diverting to Gander, if the wind is too strong your westbound TATL is cancelled and the plane is grounded or forced to fly with the minimum payload). 

It would make it ocassionally/randomly more costly, but also introduce some random probabilities that you could weigh the cost benefit...or be like American this winter and put all the TATL summer 787s on US flights to the carribbean 

Just additional thoughts to make more interesting vs ruling out whole classes of planes from routes they do actually fly in RW with occasional diversions for wind vs scheduled stop.

[slickwillbo]

I've noticed that on some legs, a tech stop is actually faster than a nonstop using the same fleet type.  For example, flying Connies from Seoul to Amsterdam:

GMP-AMS nonstop: 19 h 30 min
GMP-AMS (via SLY): 18 h 55 min

Besides being unrealistic, is there a tech stop penalty when the tech stopped flight gets there faster?

[Zobelle]

I've noticed that on some legs, a tech stop is actually faster than a nonstop using the same fleet type.  For example, flying Connies from Seoul to Amsterdam:

GMP-AMS nonstop: 19 h 30 min
GMP-AMS (via SLY): 18 h 55 min

Besides being unrealistic, is there a tech stop penalty when the tech stopped flight gets there faster?

You could land the day before and there would still be a penalty.

[Tha_Ape]

I've noticed that on some legs, a tech stop is actually faster than a nonstop using the same fleet type.  For example, flying Connies from Seoul to Amsterdam:

GMP-AMS nonstop: 19 h 30 min
GMP-AMS (via SLY): 18 h 55 min

Besides being unrealistic, is there a tech stop penalty when the tech stopped flight gets there faster?

"Old" topic (before the new ESAD), but still relevant in the way things work, I believe:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,73170.msg428057.html#msg428057