City based demand for pax - any horizon?

[te24]

Hello all.

Firstly I would like to say few good words about te CBD concept. It is far the best mechanism for demand simulation in games like this.

Still, I wonder if there is any plan, and if so then when, to implement it also in the pax sector. It would push the game into completely different level.

[Sami]

Heya,

You might have a bit of a wrong idea based on the user's chat about the passenger-City Based Demand model, since at no point it has been the top priority for the development, but just one potential step among others. (i.e. it has been glorified a bit too much by the users)

Since the new demand model by itself does not change the simulation that much. Yes, it's a big fundamental change and adds a whole new dynamic level to it as we have seen with cargo, but I feel that without a passenger connection model the CBD model for passengers is a bit useless - or let's say not as good as it would be when both features are made. So I would prefer to implement both if possible, but not entirely sure of that.

THUS, I have been on standby with the pax-CBD and focusing on this major update that we launched this summer to bring in more mobile-friendly interface. But at the same time building the foundations for possibly making connecting pax features possible. Trial runs of some parts of that have been done in a sort of feasibility study level coding, but nothing is set in stone yet. But the AirwaySim v.2.0 code that I have been working on for a long time here is promising a lot (in terms of how well it is structured, thus making new expansions easier to plan and do), since naturally I have learned a lot over the years I have managed AWS .. since this all started as a small hobby project, and it's a bit difficult to expand from that when some of the foundations did not take into account the future.

The "dynamic airports" model was also one core requirement for any dynamic demand model, and that seems to work fairly well already now (airports growing based on player actions).

Technically the pax-CBD could be added at any given time since it's of course mostly the same code as for cargo. But to make it realistic (where the pax want to fly) is the harder part - since even with the base data in place, it probably still does need some additional input data. ( = we can have "unrealistic" CBD very quickly, but makes no sense...)

[te24]

Hello.

Thank you for clearing the current status in so detailed way. Actually i remember some discussions about connecting traffic here on forum years ago, and as far as I reach in my mind you were quite sceptic about it. Of course I understand CBD and connecting traffic seem best to be deployed together. So good luck on the developing process .

[Continental Sky]

You might have a bit of a wrong idea based on the user's chat about the passenger-City Based Demand model, since at no point it has been the top priority for the development, but just one potential step among others. (i.e. it has been glorified a bit too much by the users)

Since the new demand model by itself does not change the simulation that much. Yes, it's a big fundamental change and adds a whole new dynamic level to it as we have seen with cargo, but I feel that without a passenger connection model the CBD model for passengers is a bit useless - or let's say not as good as it would be when both features are made. So I would prefer to implement both if possible, but not entirely sure of that.

Well, I am also surprised to hear that CBD is not a priority, I thought it was worked on actively, and that's why I check the forums from time to time. Yes, it would best work together with passenger connection (and hopefully day-to-day spill), but still, CBD would be an improvement over the current situation, it's not glorified at all, it's a necessity.

I would rather play a game with good, realistic passenger model and some flaws in code and user interface than a perfectly coded game with sandbox passengers.

The current model, imho, is sandbox - there is a passenger stuck at an airport in Sunday at 23:50, he just missed the last flight of the day to his destination. There is a flight just one hour later, Monday at 00:50, but they cannot take it. There is a flight from another airport 20 km away, but they cannot take it. They could reach their destination combining 2 flights, with 3 hours or 5 hours layover in an airport somewhere in between, but it's not possible, either. They have to wait next Sunday in that very airport to fly where they wanted. It cannot be much more far from reality, can it?

Add to it dysfunctional alliances, their role in game also has not any resemblance to what they actually do irl, and you get quite static and predictable model which soon gets boring.

Imho, these four features (CBD, connections, day to day spill and codeshare or other similar way of connections between alliance members) are absolute priority to pump some fresh blood into the game and gain new players. The code and UI polishing may come later on, or not come at all - as far as I'm concerned, UI and site performance were quite fine, it is passenger demand model that I got bored of.

[Aero]

City based demand works nice on cargo and will be nice on passengers too.
Heathrow now equals 1 of the wealthiest airliners this way give surrounding airports a better chance too.

For example Atlanta is build from connection so the game start with higher volumes and players can earn more easy money from the start then Detroit for example is not realistic anymore.
Would be nice if this start leveled off and the number of passenger flights made an devide or an % increase.

This would influnce the 4th fleet discusion but i am in favour to keep this as it is only way to avoid the bullying from big Alliances and give yourself a chance for transform your airliner.
And a player cannot place a plane cheaper then bought at the used market then it's book value.
this way keep Alliance away from helping players get cheap planes in as they enter the game later or if in financial trouble.
same as sell a plane should be within 5% of book value,this way keep the high drop of planes on used market too.

[JumboShrimp]

Since the new demand model by itself does not change the simulation that much. Yes, it's a big fundamental change and adds a whole new dynamic level to it as we have seen with cargo, but I feel that without a passenger connection model the CBD model for passengers is a bit useless - or let's say not as good as it would be when both features are made. So I would prefer to implement both if possible, but not entirely sure of that.

I agree about the connection model being on the same (or higher) level of priority as City Base Demand for passengers.

I think, in order to get from where we are (Point A) to where we would like to be (Point B), I suggest we get there via Point C - Cargo connections.

Cargo is being actively played / targeted by a fraction of the players, and these players are more tolerant to growing pains (and some bugs that go along with it).  So that would be my suggestion, to start adding connections to cargo and let players play test and only it has been perfected in cargo, it would be added to passenger traffic (along with pax CBD).

[dmoose42]

I wouldn't say that city based demand is working all that great for cargo.

Let me clarify. I think the "math" of it is working fine and without any issues as far as I can tell.

I think the challenge, particularly when you get into lots of high infrastructure cities that overlap, is that you have absolutely ZERO idea of how much demand your new route will incrementally capture. I have added routes that I anticipated being profitable, only to wait a year (until RI equals 100 to get full cargo) and find out that they are adequate at best and a cash suck at worse - because it's really unclear how much of that "unserved" cargo your incremental flight could pull in. Until there are some tools to provide more analysis/data to the player, I don't know that expanding it to pax is the right answer.

Second, even if it is expanded to pax (which conceptually I agree with) AND connecting flights are modeled which is a huge undertaking, the same conceptual challenges are in place of having limited understanding of the marginal impact of adding that flight has. The benefit of the static demand model is that at least there was clarity in what will happen once that flight is added, but currently with CBD - no such clarity exists.

[MuzhikRB]

1. IRL connecting pax goes via "HUBs".
HUBs - are just an airport (usually a big airline's HQ) providing many destinations.
It will be almost impossible to simulate IRL connection movement from 1950-2035.
IMHO model should be simplified (even it may be som unrealistic).
Example: Need to define HUB airport. Like - "domestic hub", "region hub", "international hub". Which will depends on how many and to where destinations are served.
And after becoming HUB - airport should get pax increase on all routes depending on the number of destinations.
So developing an airport can become an interesting goal and will make new hubs possible.
It also can influence CBD calculations.

2. Alliances.
IRL connection pax in 99% of time will use the same alliance airline after changing planes. If we want Alliances to be reasonable that calculation should be inserted and it means that traffic comes from Alliance members to airport should benefit pax demand for alliance airlines from that airport only, and not benefit others in the same amount at least.

[JumboShrimp]

I think the challenge, particularly when you get into lots of high infrastructure cities that overlap, is that you have absolutely ZERO idea of how much demand your new route will incrementally capture. I have added routes that I anticipated being profitable, only to wait a year (until RI equals 100 to get full cargo) and find out that they are adequate at best and a cash suck at worse - because it's really unclear how much of that "unserved" cargo your incremental flight could pull in. Until there are some tools to provide more analysis/data to the player, I don't know that expanding it to pax is the right answer.

Lack of UI to provide convenient summary of demand distribution is a challenge, and it takes a lot of clicking to get an overview.

2nd, much bigger problem, is the exploit, where you can steer demand to an airport pair by adding a ton of empty capacity, and the system then shifts the demand, well beyond expectation of proportional distribution of the demand.  Then, say between NYC area and England, there may be 100 airport pairs, and you don't know which one is skewing the demand.  Also, if the system did not have this exploit, there would be some rational expectation you could have, as to how the demand could get split proportionally, but with the exploit and lack of UI, it is basically flying blind between high infrastructure cities...

Second, even if it is expanded to pax (which conceptually I agree with) AND connecting flights are modeled which is a huge undertaking, the same conceptual challenges are in place of having limited understanding of the marginal impact of adding that flight has. The benefit of the static demand model is that at least there was clarity in what will happen once that flight is added, but currently with CBD - no such clarity exists.

It certainly is going to be challenging but connecting flight demand will be additional demand.  Assuming the exploit is fixed, a casual player will be able to schedule flights in a similar manner as before.  The direct flights will have a natural advantage over connecting flights, so supplying direct demand (granted there will be more to understanding this demand) should continue to be fine, and a casual player will not need to know all the intricacies of how much the connecting flights will add.

[sirvalkyerie]

The direct flights will have a natural advantage over connecting flights, so supplying direct demand (granted there will be more to understanding this demand) should continue to be fine, and a casual player will not need to know all the intricacies of how much the connecting flights will add.

The other airline game that competes with AWS, renders this probably untrue. Airlines are significantly advantaged by running connections for basically all the same reasons IRL airlines have been advantaged by running Hub & Spoke models. Find an airport with moderate natural demand and a good location, you can pump it full of connections and generate tons of demand. Sure a direct from NYC to anywhere will always be preferable to a connection. But when someone has to get from Tulsa to Green Bay they'll take whatever itinerary gets them there and will still usually prefer that than a drive to a different airport to fly direct.

Casual players will have a hard time keeping pace when connections are added. I think it's overrated to worry about casual players (a this stage of AWS's life the only players that are here are ones who are advanced players or ones who will put in the time to become advanced players). But I don't think it's accurate to suggest players who don't use connections will have as much success. In most instances they'll struggle to stay alive at all without some sort of codesharing to prop them up