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: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements  (Read 3538 times)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8182

The 2 people who like this post:
[ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« on: August 08, 2019, 09:40:01 PM »
1. Some airports that under the old system were Level 2, and start in early start games as Level 1 are at danger of getting stuck forever at that level, under the new system.  The problem is that since most of the aircraft in the game is >= Large, they will not receive much traffic.

I think the Level 1 airports that used to be Level 2 under the old system should receive some artificial boost in probability to grow (to 2).

(Similar to problem of some island destinations that needed to be level 3 in order to receive Very Large Aircraft, but would not receive it because they were not already level 3).

2. In GW2, there are already 150 airports that are Level 6 (in 1978).  I think the club of the highest level should be more "exclusive", limited to perhaps 50 airports.

3. Traffic Level seems to be capped based on the year of the game.  It does not seem to be necessary, IMO, to have this cap.  It should just be using the same formula, regardless of game year.  I think it is enough if the Infrastructure is capped based on year.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 02:42:39 PM by Sami »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8182
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2019, 11:06:57 PM »
For example, when we have Long Island McArthur to be the highest infrastructure level in the world (Level 6) in 1978, we have overshot the target by a mile.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8182
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2019, 12:48:21 AM »
Examples of airports that are Level 1 in 1978 that used to be Level 2: (just a few I noticed): Ancona, Maastricht, Augsburg, Quimper

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8182

The person who likes this post:
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2019, 01:56:45 AM »
Infrastructure upgrade probability should also be a lot more traffic dependent.  Long Island McArthur upgrading to Level 6 before CDG (as just happened) should really be a rarity to impossibility.

Offline Jetsetter

  • Members
  • Posts: 1003

The 5 people who like this post:
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2019, 08:08:31 PM »
Agreed. There is a bias against level 1 airports for airport infrastructure upgrades. A cycle emerges, airports don't upgrade because of lack of service, and there is a lack of service because I have to have a small or medium fleet type in order to serve the airport. The stakes are raised when I want to operate a DC-9 or 737-200, and have sufficient demand, but can't because infrastructure levels.

From the US perspective where the FAA issues airport infrastructure grants, it's critical for an airport to be included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), where it fits into one of four commercial 'primary airport categories': Non-Hub, Small, Medium, and Large. If it fits into this category (or into an approved General Aviation category), it can qualify for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds, given by the FAA to an airport in order to conduct infrastructure improvements.

The distinction between the categories is more detailed than we need to cover here, but critically to be the lowest commercial service tier that still qualifies for favorable AIP funds (non-hub) has a floor of 10,000 enplanements a year (in 2018). That's only 27 passengers a day.

In AWS, in 1978, airports like Palm Springs, Trenton, and Rapid City are still infrastructure level 1, while in reality they were all getting mainline aircraft by now.

A better factor to launch infrastructure upgrades would be demand than actual service. If an airport's cumulative demand to all destinations is say 100 pax a day, then don't initiate infrastructure upgrades. Once an airports cumulative demand to all destinations is 1,000 pax a day (or 365,000 a year), then that should automatically trigger an infrastructure upgrade to at least a tier 2.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2019, 10:12:39 AM »
A better factor to launch infrastructure upgrades would be demand than actual service.

Well, maybe not one over the other, but with both factoring in.

One thing to consider is CBD. For current static pax demand, use demand as reference would work, obviously. But let's think of something that would work in the future all-CBD system.

If we consider for example London Biggin Hill, it has a lot of potential (right now only for cargo, but anyway, that's for the purpose of the demonstration). Should we only consider that potential? Probably not, because other wise every single airport reaching densely populated areas will suddenly have crazy high infra.

On the other hand, if we take only actual, it might not be enough, and we'd be stuck in the current problem.

However, if we factor in all three aspects:
1) historical real importance (for example from the old static infra system)
2) potential demand
3) actual demand

it's most likely that with the right settings and percentage for influence, no potentially average airport will remain stuck at infra level 1.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8182

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2019, 06:53:41 PM »
Maybe the potential should be used for 1 -> 2 upgrade and then, after that, the current system.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4501
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2019, 07:51:25 AM »
I think Tha_Ape's idea is better. It shoulod be possible to make Biggin Hill a workhorse, but it should be very hard, despite potential. Because of history, and because traffick is not there. Still, upgrades should aslo be easier than in places where noone ever flies and noone will ever fly(because it's empty places, basically), Like Haverfordwest, or Angouleme. Right now, both seem to have the same odds to be upgraded, and it does not feel right.

And at the same time, Biggin Hill should not automagically upgrade either. A combination of demand, potential, and history would be the best. Biggin Hill has the same actual traffick & history than Angouleme(i.e. nothing), but a whole different potential. Just, it needs to be used despite its drawbacks to prove its value.

Offline groundbum2

  • Members
  • Posts: 1099
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2019, 10:00:40 AM »
I think we also need to be mindful of geography. Heathrow has a huge amount of land so can reconfigure and go up infra levels. Places like Biggin Hill and Northolt are little better than grass trips with some hangers for GA so there is only a certain level it can grow to before we're into fantasy land.

Simon

Offline Jetsetter

  • Members
  • Posts: 1003
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2019, 04:46:40 PM »
This game is inherently a fantasy land. In real life in the US, four airports have slot restrictions. In the game, every airport in the world has slot restrictions.

I don't doubt qualitative inputs such as historical precedent would help retain realism, but I don't think those factors have been exposed publicly. What we do have insight into is the demand figures, which seem to account for some type of realism (Biggin Hill in CBD doesn't have 3000 pax a day to New York), so actual demand is still watered down by back-end, unseen measures, which means it could likely serve as the primary indicator for needed airport expansion.

Also supportive of expanded growth for 1-2 and 2-3 infrastructure levels. Beyond that, infrastructure improvements have just been serving to add additional slots to airports that already have excess capacity.


Online dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 2022
Re: Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2019, 12:48:39 AM »
I believe expansion also expands the catchment radius for city-based demand for cargo.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 17202
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2019, 02:45:42 PM »
The priority list of choosing upgraded airports is updated a bit, goes now:

  • Daytime slot usage >=90%

  • Traffic size class = 10

  • Daytime slot usage >=80%

  • Infra size class = 1

  • Is in top 10 for last year's pax or cargo stats

  • Daytime slot usage >=70%

  • Traffic size class = 9

  • Daytime slot usage >=60%

  • Infra size class = 2

  • Daytime slot usage >=50%

  • Traffic size class = 8

  • Daytime slot usage >=40%

  • Traffic size class = 7

  • Infra size class = 3

  • Traffic size class = 6

  • Infra size class = 4

  • Any other airport
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 02:50:28 PM by Sami »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8182
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2019, 06:27:18 PM »
The priority list of choosing upgraded airports is updated a bit, goes now:

  • Daytime slot usage >=90%

  • Traffic size class = 10

  • Daytime slot usage >=80%

  • Infra size class = 1

  • Is in top 10 for last year's pax or cargo stats

  • Daytime slot usage >=70%

  • Traffic size class = 9

  • Daytime slot usage >=60%

  • Infra size class = 2

  • Daytime slot usage >=50%

  • Traffic size class = 8

  • Daytime slot usage >=40%

  • Traffic size class = 7

  • Infra size class = 3

  • Traffic size class = 6

  • Infra size class = 4

  • Any other airport

Looks good.  There are only so many airports with 1-3 condition.

There could still be some randomness.  Say 50% chance that the system will start to evaluate condition 1, either finds eligible airport of moves to next condition.  So when the system is out of airports with condition 1-3, any new infrastruction construction would have 50% probability of raising one of infrastructure 1 -> 2 (or moving to next condition)

There could be an overall target of where the system wants sum of infrastructure of all airports to be at the end of the game vs. current sum of infrastructure of all airports to calculate frequency of start of infrastructure upgrades.  So let's say the system determines that new infrastructure needs to start every 6 days.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 06:58:18 PM by JumboShrimp »

Offline groundbum2

  • Members
  • Posts: 1099
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2019, 07:20:54 PM »
+1 for perhaps 10% are picked at random.

Simon

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8182
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2019, 08:24:38 PM »
+1 for perhaps 10% are picked at random.

Simon

If Sami adds randomness, say probability that the system executes the condition rather than skips it being, say 50$ (or less if we want the system to fall through more often to lower rules, there will be a chance that a completely random airport gets upgraded.

Some of the conditions will run out of eligible airports, meaning their probability of being skipped becomes 100%.

Offline DanDan

  • Members
  • Posts: 2817

The person who likes this post:
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2019, 09:04:45 AM »
+1 for perhaps 10% are picked at random.

Simon

expanding facilities without any need for it: call it the "politician wants to create themself a memorial"-effect  ;)

Offline groundbum2

  • Members
  • Posts: 1099
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2019, 10:10:09 AM »
actually a suggested tweak if I may.

That if the decision is,say, to expand 10 airports this year, that one from each category gets picked. Otherwise I can see that round after round will go to the top category and lower categories will never get a look in.

Simon

Online Mort

  • Members
  • Posts: 650
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2019, 10:44:38 AM »
Each infrastructure level has a "cooldown" period before they can be upgraded again. Not to mention that from Infra 6 upwards, the upgrades take at least a year each to actually complete

Offline Cardinal

  • Members
  • Posts: 1466
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2019, 06:06:50 PM »
expanding facilities without any need for it: call it the "politician wants to create themself a memorial"-effect  ;)

I'm still waiting for the "buy a politician" button  ;D

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8182

The person who likes this post:
Re: [ok] Infrastructure and Traffic growth refinements
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2019, 08:23:17 PM »
The priority list of choosing upgraded airports is updated a bit, goes now:

  • Daytime slot usage >=90%

  • Traffic size class = 10

  • Daytime slot usage >=80%

  • Infra size class = 1

  • Is in top 10 for last year's pax or cargo stats

  • Daytime slot usage >=70%

  • Traffic size class = 9

  • Daytime slot usage >=60%

  • Infra size class = 2

  • Daytime slot usage >=50%

  • Traffic size class = 8

  • Daytime slot usage >=40%

  • Traffic size class = 7

  • Infra size class = 3

  • Traffic size class = 6

  • Infra size class = 4

  • Any other airport

I would make this change:

9. In top 100 of last year pax or cargo stats
14. Infra size class = 2
16. Infra size class = 3

 

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.