Author Topic: [ok] Cargo not shifting on one leg (Read 2338 times)

Tha_Ape · « **Reply #20 on:** October 10, 2019, 07:12:25 AM »

Quote from: schro on October 10, 2019, 03:50:42 AM

If this is implemented tomorrow then those of us bugged by this issue should start buying more freighters.... now...

And someone bought more... VL combis

Talentz · « **Reply #21 on:** October 10, 2019, 09:28:40 AM »

Ohhhh yes... just what the cargo-only airline needed, higher profits ~

Talentz

schro · « **Reply #22 on:** October 10, 2019, 12:35:58 PM »

Quote from: Tha_Ape on October 10, 2019, 07:12:25 AM

And someone bought more... VL combis

Production line was threatening to close!

Andre090904 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 10, 2019, 08:40:54 PM »

Looks like this has been implemented in GW2 now? All airlines seem to have much more cargo over night.

JumboShrimp · « **Reply #24 on:** October 10, 2019, 09:59:55 PM »

Quote from: Andre090904 on October 10, 2019, 08:40:54 PM

Looks like this has been implemented in GW2 now? All airlines seem to have much more cargo over night.

Maybe some other issue has been found and fixed but the bug fix under discussion here has not been implemented yet (as far as I can tell)

Talentz · « **Reply #25 on:** October 10, 2019, 10:43:03 PM »

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 10, 2019, 09:59:55 PM

Maybe some other issue has been found and fixed but the bug fix under discussion here has not been implemented yet (as far as I can tell)

Well.. Whatever other "issue" was solved, increased demand by more than double in a number of multiple- city pair routes effected by the bug this thread is based on. Least for me...

Talentz

JumboShrimp · « **Reply #26 on:** October 11, 2019, 02:01:16 AM »

Quote from: Talentz on October 10, 2019, 10:43:03 PM

Well.. Whatever other "issue" was solved, increased demand by more than double in a number of multiple- city pair routes effected by the bug this thread is based on. Least for me...

Talentz

Yes, looks like Sami updated it.

I am checking some of the routes I have reported above once the system fully settles.

Tha_Ape · « **Reply #27 on:** October 11, 2019, 07:35:49 AM »

May I have Sami's or Joe's opinion on that one?
Other's opinion welcome too, obviously

Since the bug fix, all airlines in GW#4 based in complex areas saw their figures strongly rise. However all carriers based in single areas / city-state didn't see the slightest change.

While the former should obviously be more impacted by the solving because of the issue was present at both ends of their routes (double), the later still have issues on one end of the routes. And despite this, no change.

Check airlines in SIN, HKG vs airlines in the UK, GER, USA, etc.

Tha_Ape · « **Reply #28 on:** October 11, 2019, 09:45:29 AM »

Just to be visually clear, here is my graph (above) vs another airline in Europe. Both are representative of what happens generally in each case.

Sami · « **Reply #29 on:** October 11, 2019, 10:44:22 AM »

One route pair to keep an eye (GW4):

18-Jun-2031
WSSS-CYEG: Potential ~15400, Actual 11400
CYEG-WSSS: Potential ~6200, Actual 5600

Singapore area has 2 airports (WSSS, WSSL), and so does Edmonton area (CYEG, CYXD). But only route is between those main airports so it's easy to track. Judging the services provided the Actual should rise to, or near, Potential for both sectors.

Tha_Ape · « **Reply #30 on:** October 11, 2019, 10:54:41 AM »

Thanks Sami for keeping the inquiry open.
For reference, here's the evolution of WSSS-CYEG (mondays) over the last 5 weeks.

schro · « **Reply #31 on:** October 11, 2019, 10:57:45 AM »

Quote from: Tha_Ape on October 11, 2019, 07:35:49 AM

May I have Sami's or Joe's opinion on that one?
Other's opinion welcome too, obviously

Since the bug fix, all airlines in GW#4 based in complex areas saw their figures strongly rise. However all carriers based in single areas / city-state didn't see the slightest change.

While the former should obviously be more impacted by the solving because of the issue was present at both ends of their routes (double), the later still have issues on one end of the routes. And despite this, no change.

Check airlines in SIN, HKG vs airlines in the UK, GER, USA, etc.

That would be expected given the nature of the change. Airlines with the most complex catchment areas and competition within those areas stand to gain the most out of this. I would also guess that the lack of actual demand was compounded by having multiple competing airports for such demand. In Fra, there were many routes where a small amount of competition on the fringe of the catchment depressed actual demand to a quarter to a half of potential. All of those are rising significantly right now.

Tha_Ape · « **Reply #32 on:** October 11, 2019, 11:07:02 AM »

I completely agree on the fact that I shouldn't get the same increase that a guy in FRA has, that's plain normal.

However one end of a lot of my routes is still impacted by the bug (I don't do exclusively simple-simple), and I should have at least a small increase, as well as other simple-areas airlines like HKG, Bahrain, etc.

JumboShrimp · « **Reply #33 on:** October 11, 2019, 02:16:50 PM »

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 01, 2019, 04:51:53 PM

Another fresh example:

Demand to HAM: 53k

Opened route to BRE, result:
Demand to BRE: 0 -> 15k +15k
Demand to HAM: 53k -> 28k, -25k

So opening a flight to BRE destroyed 10k of demand, that just disappeared (15k - 25k = -10k)

Since BRE should have some demand independent of HAM, the demand destruction is in fact greater than 10k (we have no tools to find this level of detail to verify).

Update on this one after the fix:

Full potential from HAM 62k (there was some growth)

Additional route to BRE with some overlap now resulted in:
Demand from BRE: 0 -> 26k = +26k
Demand from HAM: 62k -> 52k = -10k

So the situation with the bug was: Net result of additional flight and additional caption area: -10k
After the bug, +16k

Which makes sense.

JumboShrimp · « **Reply #34 on:** October 11, 2019, 08:24:55 PM »

Looks like the bug fix introduced a new issue, where airport pairs that have no connecting flights, that should have lost all but the minimum of actual demand to other airports that have connecting flights, are retaining some demand, that may in fact be duplicated.

I suspect that if the system does not have it, it should have additional table. for each record of square to square demand, it needs another table that will hold to which airport pairs the demand was allocated. This would really be a sort of an audit table that could serve other purposes as well - reporting / displaying information.

SP7 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 11, 2019, 08:36:33 PM »

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 11, 2019, 08:24:55 PM

Looks like the bug fix introduced a new issue, where airport pairs that have no connecting flights, that should have lost all but the minimum of actual demand to other airports that have connecting flights, are retaining some demand, that may in fact be duplicated.

I suspect that if the system does not have it, it should have additional table. for each record of square to square demand, it needs another table that will hold to which airport pairs the demand was allocated. This would really be a sort of an audit table that could serve other purposes as well - reporting / displaying information.

I’m seeing this as well. Lots of heavy demand showed up almost overnight, now I’m furiously buying freighters.

MikeS · « **Reply #36 on:** October 12, 2019, 04:10:18 PM »

The jump in demand in for my airline in GW2 (only medium aircraft) is pretty crazy. My competitors have similar jumps.

Mike

Tha_Ape · « **Reply #37 on:** October 13, 2019, 10:42:43 AM »

Singapore-Edmonton example, as brought by Sami (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,82543.msg488649.html#msg488649), is indeed very interesting:
Only WSSS-CYEG and return is served, out of this city pair with only 4 possibilities (2 airports at each end).
Results from GW#4, 10 oct. 2031

WSSS-CYEG has actual at ~65% of potential (should be around 90%)
CYEG-WSSS has actual at ~90% of potential (seemingly correct)

WSSL-CYEG has actual at ~10% of potential (seemingly correct)
CYEG-WSSL has actual at ~70% of potential (impossible)

WSSS-CYXD has actual at ~10% of potential (seemingly correct)
CYXD-WSSS has actual at ~10% of potential (seemingly correct)

WSSL-CYXD has actual at ~10% of potential (seemingly correct)
CYXD-WSSL has actual at ~10% of potential (seemingly correct)

Seems pretty consistent with the result of my testing on the test server: SIN remains bugged just like before the fix, and then we can add the side effect of the fix. For what reason only SIN remains uncured while all other airports checked so far have only the side effect, I don't know.