AirwaySim

Miscellaneous => Archives => (archive) Game talk - The Early Days (test) => Topic started by: lastchancer on January 24, 2010, 01:39:17 AM

Title: General Feedback
Post by: lastchancer on January 24, 2010, 01:39:17 AM
Awesome!

Totally new experience compared to all other running game worlds.
New (or better said old and almost forgotten) airplanes to experiment with, cope with tiny loadfactors...

Suggestion:
Due to the limited range of the airplanes in this time, long distance flights used to be done with a lot of stops in between, for exemple to fly from London to Hong Kong. Thatīs not possible just now. Maybe a 2nd technical stop would be a solution to make this possible. (I mean only fuel stop, not a third leg!)   
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: elpiett on January 24, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
The mighty DC-3 takes to the skies... 

But I must say, pax demand is very low. I'm currently flying from Brussels and have to note that a lot of destinations, even to larger cities, only have a 10-15 pax demand. Don't know how realistic that is.

I agree with lastchancer on the extra legs.  Flying long-haul in the fifties required quite some stops, it would be nice if we had the option to include some extra tech-stops
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: ReedME on January 24, 2010, 06:04:42 PM
Indeed, however elpiett remember that this is the 50's, the start of air travel for the general population, in most cases it couldn't be afforded! And not many people were that eager.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: Maarten Otto on January 24, 2010, 07:05:00 PM
I am operating 6 return trips a day between Glasgow and Heathrow with a DC 3 and that is a bit more over the pax demand. Indeed a bit low.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: d2031k on January 24, 2010, 07:18:51 PM
The figures were very low at this time.  After some research into my aviation library :) I found an excellent book which has this paragraph. 

'In the first full year of peace after the war, the scheduled services by the world's airlines carried 18 million passengers, double the 1945 total, and in 1949 the total for the year was 27 million.  For some time to come the passenger total was to double every five years' (Baldry, D - A History Of Aviation).

If this is true, which I would assume it is being in print, the total number of passengers worldwide in 1952 would have been around 45 million.  This means in the game, we're effectively all fighting over London Heathrow's yearly total in 1993.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: swiftus27 on January 24, 2010, 08:22:45 PM
think of the technology changes that were in store for this era?

The advent of the Jet?

We would soon see the DC8 and the 707!!!!   

STARTING IN THIS ERA WOULD BE GREAT!

Would you spend money early to ensure you had planes?   Or would you wait a bit and hold onto that money until the jets start to come out and pounce on the explosion of PAX demand!?!?!?

This time could yield the most fun and would still be excellent as a 15 year game.  1954 to 1970 ... wow.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: Knud B on January 24, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
But I must say, pax demand is very low. I'm currently flying from Brussels and have to note that a lot of destinations, even to larger cities, only have a 10-15 pax demand. Don't know how realistic that is.
I think it is very realistic - however it should be possibel to have only a few flights a week toa each city and collect PAX from previous days... Not every route have connection every day - not then and not now.

I agree with lastchancer on the extra legs.  Flying long-haul in the fifties required quite some stops, it would be nice if we had the option to include some extra tech-stops
3-4 stops - and not only tech-stops. At that time most routes has stops with unload/load. Many airplanes did also have mail that should be delivered.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: masoniclight on January 25, 2010, 06:35:20 AM
LOVE this game (test).. you have to really think about your base, your routes.. and best of all: NO JETS and NO WIDEBODIES... so everyone has to work harder equally and other planes get used, not just MD, Boeing, Airbus.. love it, love it, love it.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: jchaves on January 26, 2010, 01:02:00 PM
Indeed, it's a lovely scenario. Quite well configured, in my opinion. A fresh change comparing with those massive "modern" scenarios where everybody ends in nonsense huge discount wars.

The only thing I'm missing is an airport in Azores, often used at that time to refuel Europe/North America flights.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: Sami on January 26, 2010, 01:14:42 PM
The only thing I'm missing is an airport in Azores, often used at that time to refuel Europe/North America flights.

Yea the problem actually with the class 4-5 airport restriction is just this ... the small techstop airports are prettymuch excluded.  Didn't think of that...
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: swiftus27 on January 26, 2010, 01:48:03 PM
You can also talk about Pan Am clippers...  They would fly it via sea lanes. 

Also, I know I just posted it in another thread, but I would incorporate some night flying rules.  Dead reckoning is what was used then.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: elpiett on January 26, 2010, 04:24:37 PM
however it should be possibel to have only a few flights a week toa each city and collect PAX from previous days... Not every route have connection every day - not then and not now.
I agree. Maybe for these early scenario's it would be better to start of with a week-based pax demand in stead of a daily based one?  It is correct that in the early days of commercial aviation, lots of routes were only served a few times a week as there was not enough demand for daily flights.  But I guess that would create lots of new problems. :)

Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: jchaves on January 26, 2010, 04:45:25 PM
Yea the problem actually with the class 4-5 airport restriction is just this ... the small techstop airports are prettymuch excluded.  Didn't think of that...

Other thing I'm wondering is why did you exclude Lockheed as manufacturer, and consequently the Constellation (and Electra) series.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: swiftus27 on January 26, 2010, 05:00:08 PM
I asked about the Connie before and never got a true answer other than it was outdated... well, its not now!
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: maya666 on January 26, 2010, 05:09:28 PM
Thought it was because there wasn't enough confirmed data known in the database or not in the current game version.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: swiftus27 on January 26, 2010, 05:34:39 PM
There is tons of data in the real world.   I just don't think Sami ever modeled it in the game.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: Sami on January 26, 2010, 09:43:15 PM
This was mentioned in the game description... Electra is in database, connie not (yet).
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: jchaves on January 26, 2010, 10:23:49 PM
This was mentioned in the game description... Electra is in database, connie not (yet).

Right. My mistake, didn't remember the game description.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: ekaneti on January 26, 2010, 10:37:09 PM
The Electra didnt come out until 1959 I think anyway..maybe 1957. But it wouldnt be in this is game
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: tofen on January 27, 2010, 02:27:21 PM
This was mentioned in the game description... Electra is in database, connie not (yet).

Are we talking model 10, 12 and 14 Electras now or the L-188?
The 10, 12 and 14 should all be available long ago, they are about the same age as the DC-2 and B247.
Real bummer that there's no Connie though :(
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: jchaves on January 27, 2010, 02:54:17 PM
Are we talking model 10, 12 and 14 Electras now or the L-188?
The 10, 12 and 14 should all be available long ago, they are about the same age as the DC-2 and B247.
Real bummer that there's no Connie though :(

I guess that we won't have any Lockheed, as Lockheed isn't included in manufacturers. I hope to play it again with all the additions and corrections. If not, playing the 50's without the Constellation and the L-1049 Super Constellation is like playing the 70's without the 747.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: swiftus27 on January 27, 2010, 02:57:30 PM
Not like Sami needs any defending.

This is the first scenario in the 50s.  Not everything has been modeled yet.
You were told in the description that it wasnt here.
It also says (test) next to the game's name

So be it.  Move on.  It isn't going to kill you.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: Sami on January 27, 2010, 03:04:00 PM
Are we talking model 10, 12 and 14 Electras now or the L-188?

188.

http://www.airwaysim.com/Information/Aircraft
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: jchaves on January 27, 2010, 03:06:28 PM
Not like Sami needs any defending.

This is the first scenario in the 50s.  Not everything has been modeled yet.
You were told in the description that it wasnt here.
It also says (test) next to the game's name

So be it.  Move on.  It isn't going to kill you.

 :) we're just talking, having a conversation, not blaming Sami. As I said before, I'm enjoying a lot this scenario.
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: maya666 on January 27, 2010, 03:43:52 PM
What kind of info do you need before you can add it in to the database?
Maybe we can help provide those (from 'thursted' sites not wiki).
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: Sami on February 08, 2010, 08:30:03 PM
Any more feedback so far?
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: d2031k on February 08, 2010, 08:44:21 PM
I think a lot of the problems 'highlighted' by some at the start are slowly disappearing, as load factors have risen and some airlines can make good money now.  I think the slower speed of the aircraft and the time it takes RI and marketing to develop is excellent, as it acts as a natural brake for airline growth.  Marketing would have been less influential 60 years ago and passengers that flew would have paid more attention to comfort and seating due to their higher social status.  Whether this was intended or not, I don't know, but if it was then its a great tweak :D

The main consideration I would say is the number of players at the start of a world like this.

As you've alluded to in the past, the pax figures are so low that it is hard for worlds like this to operate in the same way as the others.  I mentioned somewhere else, but its effectively ~100 players fighting over LHR's yearly pax in 1993.  I think this could be a possible problem like in Euro Challenge and North American Challenge, where only a few big airlines dominate the skies.  A solution is difficult, but the slowing of growth definitely helps.

Another consideration is the split in demand.  Would business and first class have a greater percentage of demand in this era, with flying retaining its exclusivity until the advent of holiday travel?

I think the era is very appealing and it tests players to develop their profit margins.  In the whole world games, a few big routes with high C/F-class demand can see your profits soar very easily.  In this game economy pax are much more important and developing a short-haul network is essential.

I hope thats of some positive use.

Cheers Sami :)

Dave

Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: lastchancer on February 09, 2010, 12:11:24 PM
I think a lot of the problems 'highlighted' by some at the start are slowly disappearing, as load factors have risen and some airlines can make good money now.  I think the slower speed of the aircraft and the time it takes RI and marketing to develop is excellent, as it acts as a natural brake for airline growth.  Marketing would have been less influential 60 years ago and passengers that flew would have paid more attention to comfort and seating due to their higher social status.  Whether this was intended or not, I don't know, but if it was then its a great tweak :D
I totally agree with Daveos here. In real world,  airlines run a route 6 month befor deciding if it is profitable or not. So, LF around 30 % the first month is something we should deal with, especially when the airline just started operations. This might be hard for new players but could be balanced with an increased start capital.

With Bug Report Airline (http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Others/Airline68 (http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Others/Airline68)) I ignored fleet comonality and checked out 5 different fleet types(C-47, DC 6B, DC 4, B-377, Martin 4-0-4).
All types are profitable, even longhaul routes using a 2nd leg and both legs using the maximum range of aircraft(with technical stop/fuel only). E.g. New Delhi-Technical Stop-LHR with DC 6B or Dehli-Technical Stop-Seoul with Martin 4-0-4 are money makers.

As mentioned before, a 3rd leg would be fine to do things like: LHR-Techn. Stop-Techn. Stop-Tokyo in a "50ies and 60ies only" scenario.

Due to the long flight times, a reconfiguration (I mean reduction of capacity, HD to Standard conf. and adding C&F) of the planes is mostly needed to increase LF.
So the factory default configs are mostly not newbie-friendly.(Iīm based in Delhi, the next destination are 400NM+ away, might be different in Central Europe).
Compare to an 80ies scenario where a B737-300 in default config Y126 can be put on (nearly) EVERY route.

All in all I would say it is easy to make money in this game. One reason might be that fuel is very cheap an fuel costs donīt play a major role compared to other game worlds.

For experienced players it is a new experience and should work fine, but for new players it might be difficult to get the foot in the game because route planning is more tricky and limited to LFīs.


Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: bigdogshark62 on February 11, 2010, 08:49:33 PM
I'm loving this scenario as well. 

The only I seem to be having with Cascade Mountain Air is that (while waiting for longer range aircraft) my tech stop routes are not growing as they should.  I'll wait a little longer to see how things change when route image improves a little more, but the load factors for a high demand route are hovering just over 35% (and I'm the only one flying the route at the moment). 

Otherwise, keep this scenario.  We'll help out with aircraft info, so we can get the Connie in there, plus all the Lockheed, Convair, Martin, Northrop, Grumman, Boeing, etc. 

Keep up the great work!
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: Sami on February 19, 2010, 02:26:33 AM
Bumping/bugging once more & again.

Does anyone else happen to have comments/ideas/complaints that I should take into consideration for the future?
Title: Re: General Feedback
Post by: swiftus27 on February 19, 2010, 05:00:09 AM
none any more.  I like the game you made.   You know I have been begging for games with fewer players and many fewer airports.  It adds variation.   There was good early competition and it was hard to get planes.   

I think that you should also make an International Game.   Only the largest of the large airports in the world.  Only jets.... 

I know, I haven't played this game particularly once I had a stranglehold on Las Vegas.