AirwaySim

Some of the current game worlds are coming to an end soon, and another world will be set up. Do note though that couple game worlds have still 1,5 months or more left to go and have many opportunities for new airlines, so don't be afraid to dive in.

Before another new world is started a quick poll about user preferences about the world theme/era has been now opened.

The next game world will be still of the current v.1.2 game engine. The coding of the next larger update has not started yet as all time has been devoted to refining the current features by adding new enhancements to them and fixing the occasional bugs. A lot of time has also been used in day-to-day management of AWS and also other web projects of admin (and of course his real work/life...). There are still a few remaining items in v.1.2 development tasks before the next version coding will start. The next 1.3 version would feature various smaller updates and changes and possible completely new features have not been yet "locked in".

Back to this poll however ... Please cast your vote on the preferred game world start decade. If you have any other comments please post them to this topic. Voting is open for about a week.

Sadly, I think I need to take a quick break from the sim.

I've been playing for 2 years straight.   

I'd say to wait until 1.3.  If commonality is fixed in it, I will be back right away.

I'm dying to start a new game in the 80s... wanna have all those classic birds like DC-10, L-1011 and 747 in my fleet!! And why not be the launch customer for MD-11... hehehe

I'm hoping to see codesharing in future worlds, that'll be nice and will turn out to be very difficult for late start-ups ;)

Quote from: swiftus27 on September 24, 2010, 11:51:37 AM
I'd say to wait until 1.3.  If commonality is fixed in it, I will be back right away.

I agree with this. I'd rather wait for 1.3 and see commonality issue fixed before jumping into a new game world. And I would really welcome a new feature allowing us to follow up other game worlds without joining them. :)

In my opinion there are few worlds available, I'd rather have more choice and a maximum of 300 players to the world...

I would love to see a game starting in the 50ies..

I voted for 2000s.  The main reason are the slots.  They are more plentiful in this era.  Lack of slots can make earlier starting worlds very frustrating.  Also, ATB will be the first one to finish, and I guess players who prefer this era would prefer that to be the next game world to start

I hope some tweaks to the bases (the cost overhead calculation formula, hopefully removal of some of the limitations) will make it to the next game world.

Once more to clarify, all changes that affect the core systems will be only built to next version. As altering some core costs is not possible when there are game worlds running. (or well, it is possible but it would then mess the incomes/costs of airlines in the running worlds thus making no sense)

Quote from: sami on September 24, 2010, 02:03:10 PM
Once more to clarify, all changes that affect the core systems will be only built to next version. As altering some core costs is not possible when there are game worlds running. (or well, it is possible but it would then mess the incomes/costs of airlines in the running worlds thus making no sense)

I see.  All the code of game worlds on the same version is shared.  Makes sense that formulas for costs (hardcoded) would not be something that can be changed.

But maybe some things could be taken out of the code and placed in set-up tables, such as Top X airports excluded from additional bases, or aircraft limit in bases.  Just an idea.

Similarly, some constants affecting fleet commonality calculation.  That way, the constants could be set for existing worlds under 1.2 to mimick the current formula results, but offer flexibility of what the constants should be in the new game worlds.

Sami, it might be helpful to some voters if you estimated when version 1.3 will be ready.

It would be nice if we could have more worlds up and running at the same time, and possibly have their start and end dates staggered so that they aren't all ending at once.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 24, 2010, 01:43:38 PM
I voted for 2000s.  The main reason are the slots.  They are more plentiful in this era.  Lack of slots can make earlier starting worlds very frustrating.  Also, ATB will be the first one to finish, and I guess players who prefer this era would prefer that to be the next game world to start

I hope some tweaks to the bases (the cost overhead calculation formula, hopefully removal of some of the limitations) will make it to the next game world.

I agree with Jumbo....voting for the 2000s. Barring that, the 1990s. Would rather not wait till v1.3 (give poor Sami a break, that would mean the man would have to go start coding now in order to have a game world ready to run when the others start to fizzle out). Just launch with version 1.2(SP1...lol) which has all the tweaks you've been making thus far. I, for one, am patient enough to wait a bit for version 1.3

I don't want to push Sami too hard, so I can wait awhile for V1.3.  But I really want to have another V1.2 game in the meantime.

I voted for the 2000s, but I'd also be OK with the 60s or 70s.  I think that we have had too many games dealing with 2nd and third generation jets.  I want to deal with either the 1st generation jets (hence the 60s or 70s) or the 4th generation jets.  People get too bored in current "modern" games like MT2 and ATB before they have the chance to experiment with 4th gen aircraft like C-series, 787, and A350.

Quote from: RushmoreAir on September 24, 2010, 03:48:32 PM
I don't want to push Sami too hard, so I can wait awhile for V1.3.  But I really want to have another V1.2 game in the meantime.

I voted for the 2000s, but I'd also be OK with the 60s or 70s.  I think that we have had too many games dealing with 2nd and third generation jets.  I want to deal with either the 1st generation jets (hence the 60s or 70s) or the 4th generation jets.  People get too bored in current "modern" games like MT2 and ATB before they have the chance to experiment with 4th gen aircraft like C-series, 787, and A350.

Maybe something like 2000 - 2024 would work for that.  It would give airlines enough time to make the fleet changes to C-series, 787 and A350 worthwhile.  In current ATB, not too many players attempted to do that because of 2020 end of game world, and not enough time to transition their fleets...

I voted for 1960, but actually I'd rather prefer a start date of 1945!
And I'd like to have a game that runs for 50 years or so. This means you really would have to replace the whole fleet, and that would be quite a challenge.
Alternatively, I would opt for 2010 - 2050 or something like that.

I would love a 1945 - 2010 game, covering pretty much all of the history of commercial aviation and airlines as we have them in this game. Lots of big things to deal with, like someone has said fleets would need to be replaced three, maybe four times.

Quote from: Dave4468 on September 24, 2010, 04:53:41 PM
I would love a 1945 - 2010 game, covering pretty much all of the history of commercial aviation and airlines as we have them in this game. Lots of big things to deal with, like someone has said fleets would need to be replaced three, maybe four times.

That would be an interesting game, but I would wait for a long running game to start on version 1.3.

Yes, long running worlds suffer from the fact that I must do heavy updates for new features once in a while and at the moment I don't see it YET worthwile to make such a long scenario as I am not happy with long term playability. But dunno if I ever will be. :P


(and 1950 is the first possible start year btw.)

Quote from: sami on September 24, 2010, 06:10:42 PM
Yes, long running worlds suffer from the fact that I must do heavy updates for new features once in a while and at the moment I don't see it YET worthwile to make such a long scenario as I am not happy with long term playability. But dunno if I ever will be. :P


(and 1950 is the first possible start year btw.)

Sami, whatever you do, please no more radical updates during games that will affect the strategy you pursued so far.

codesharing would be agreat idea!!! :D

70's or 80's but how about with a twist? No planes with a pax above 100 allowed? Bet ya that would make thing interesting....

I wish you would provide more game worlds.  It would be nice to have more choices to choose from. You should start a new game every 2 or 3 weeks because it is a lot nicer starting a game from the beginning than starting it half way through which then you are just starting up trying to compete with established airlines when you dont have time to play for a few weeks and come back to play again and their is only 3 worlds to choose from and they are all over 50% done.  Just a thought!

-JP-

I would love to start in the 80's, hopefully I'll be able to get in the new game world and actually complete it!!!! lol :laugh:

Quote from: masoniclight on September 24, 2010, 09:54:52 PM
70's or 80's but how about with a twist? No planes with a pax above 100 allowed? Bet ya that would make thing interesting....

thats the current way at owning your competition in the game currently.

Quote from: swiftus27 on September 25, 2010, 04:49:17 AM
thats the current way at owning your competition in the game currently.

Not to mention it would make slots go even faster at the slot constrained airports.

Why not make a sort of wacky world with completely randomized aircraft launch dates?

Year wouldn't matter too much (cept maybe world demand and slots).


I'd like too see something off the wall like the 737NG launched in the 60s or maybe A380 launched in the 1970s with 707s and DC-8s.


Would be funny and add something new think about.


Other then that, I'll keep harping on you for changes :)



Talentz

My first beef is that in v1.2 you can set up 10 flights in small acft at midnight and out-compete a 5x larger aircraft (ie widebody) at a decent time of day.

Sami, please calculate demand per hour. in v1.2 pax supplied is divided by number of acft on route regardless of scheduling. The demand per hour should be weighted according to some kind of rule, and allocated accordingly. Then the pax per hour should be allocated according to supply per hour. 5x B757 at midnight should not outweigh 2xB747 at good times of day....

And my REAL REAL request is that you could buy shares in other airlines. Its in the FB version of this game, and so it should be in this. Let people just put up bids and offers for shares on a bulletin board and let people trade shares. It would let good airlines grow faster, and lend support to smaller airlines which need help. It will give cashflow to promising airlines that need it. It would let mature airlines have more options for using their cash. Airlines should launch with 100,000 "treasury" (ie own-held) shares, and be allowed to sell them. PLEASE PLEASE can we have this? Let people post shares for sale and shares wanted at at their choice of price, and let people deal.

Please?

You cannot fly routes profitably in the middle of the night by now already.

I modified my above post to reflect the exact nature of the problem.

And the value of the shares held could be counted as net value per share. Which will give people an incentive to buy or sell according to who is doing well (or not).

Quote from: fjls on September 24, 2010, 07:52:07 PM
codesharing would be agreat idea!!! :D

Would be great, but would give the Alliances some real muscle, and then who would do all the anti-trust policing?

Skyrat

Quote from: fjls on September 24, 2010, 07:52:07 PM
codesharing would be agreat idea!!! :D

Codesharing your own code within your own flights would be even better, but that will not happen in the upcoming game (not to mention codesharing).

I would like to wait for 1.3 with a new game with 1945- 2044

I think us younger players will appreciate starting in our era..

I never heard of any of the planes in the 70's games..

1985-2030 would get my vote ;)

Quote from: sami on September 25, 2010, 08:12:07 AM
You cannot fly routes profitably in the middle of the night by now already.

Sami, no offense, but you need to spend a little more time playing your game if you actually think that's true.

Here's one on my full plane's route:

(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sigma-hyperion.net%2Fpictures%2FMidnightScheduling.jpg&hash=48a73501555eb95e2a9f7ba5c861df5559688c6e)

I can manage better LF's at 2am in AWS than most real airlines can manage to get at 2pm.

Sure, LF dropped 20% after midnight -- but I'm still making a ton of cash on the route.  In real-life, with thin margins, a 20% drop in LF might be enough to make me think twice about operating that route.  But, in AWS, with its massive profits, I could care less about a 20% drop in LF.  Any well-ran airline in AWS can turn a profit with its planes half-empty.  I literally give no thought to when a plane is scheduled aside from trying to back it to 23:55 if it's ever just a tiny bit over midnight because otherwise I'm giving away profit; but I do not worry one bit if a plane is flying between the hours of 12am and 5am and in some cases (see below) I actually go out of my way to schedule planes then.

Thanks to the way your game divides up demand with so much reliance on frequency, a popular strategy by players is to use your large aircraft during the day and then squeeze in little aircraft whenever you can, often in the middle of the night.  The little aircraft at 2am ups your frequency which miraculously helps your large aircraft fly fuller when it departs at 9am.  Your little aircraft fly fairly full even at 2am, your large aircraft gets to fly fuller because of frequency increases, and you make the most use of slots by saving the rarer/better slots for the larger aircraft during the day and use the ones at 2am where they're plentiful for your smaller planes.

I've become the market-share leader on hugely-competitive big routes (2000+/day) that only have slots available after midnight simply by flying 20 flights with F100s at 2am.  I can find a route that's got 400% of its demand supplied by multiple players and hit it with a bunch of F100s at 2am and get each one of them 60-75% full, all while decimating the marketshare and load factors of my competition flying at 8am with larger planes.  And even with those load factors, flying that late, with that much competition, an F100 will still net a gross profit of about $11K/flight, less but that's still half of what it makes on a completely full flight operating in the middle of the day.

Quote from: sami on September 25, 2010, 08:12:07 AM
You cannot fly routes profitably in the middle of the night by now already.

Not totally true. I don't think my flights are very profitable that fly in the middle of the night, but they are making money... I think I couldn't make the company/plane profitable if they were only flying in the middle of the night.

Sigma,

Thank you for again proving two points for me.

1.  Using F100s is the win right now.  (Small a/c for frequency)
2.  There is too little emphasis on time of flight, price, CI, and other factors that real people take into account.

Hahaha wow it's been a long time since I've been on AWS. I miss it  ;)

I haven't actually played a game with v1.2 yet and you say it's still okay to go into one of these games?
I don't know why, but I prefer the newer age game worlds. Maybe it's because of the newer aircraft available, but I ALWAYS do better in the Jet Ages  :laugh:

How long do you want this game world to be? The length of the game will differ my vote. I'm not sure if you want a long one and have it continuing until v1.3 comes in or just a short one so it'll end just after v1.3 starts.

Take care,  :)

just an idea but how about 'Emerging Markets' to start 2000 and run into the future to simulate what is going on now in the airline world. Leaning towards routes in Africa,India, china and the far east as well as Eastern Europe and (to some extent)south america with low slot and opperating costs offered in these new markets.  Developing the latest airliners into new airports would be interesting,perhaps an option to invest in airport facilities to cope with the latest planes could be added. Traditional routes would still be important to pay for the expansion routes.perhaps a base hub with a second start up hub in a developing market right from the start..just an idea

Quote from: Coppinpr on September 26, 2010, 08:44:42 AM
just an idea but how about 'Emerging Markets' to start 2000 and run into the future to simulate what is going on now in the airline world. Leaning towards routes in Africa,India, china and the far east as well as Eastern Europe and (to some extent)south america with low slot and opperating costs offered in these new markets.  Developing the latest airliners into new airports would be interesting,perhaps an option to invest in airport facilities to cope with the latest planes could be added. Traditional routes would still be important to pay for the expansion routes.perhaps a base hub with a second start up hub in a developing market right from the start..just an idea

interesting, a southern hemisphere game.

I'd happily pay again to play another game in the 1980's to present day era, I still haven't mastered v1.2 yet  ;D

bugger, I was hoping for a 2000s world. So we finally get to play the NEW airplanes...

Maybe it's just me, but I'd love to transition from 757 and 767 to 777s and A380s...

Heck, it'd even be fun to include todays prototypes into the game.

Quote from: tm07x on September 26, 2010, 02:08:09 PM

Heck, it'd even be fun to include todays prototypes into the game.

maybe the a380-900, a350-1000 or b787-10

Quote from: fjls on September 26, 2010, 04:15:18 PM

maybe the a380-900, a350-1000 or b787-10

Stuff like that yeah.

Would one very long game be of interest to many...i.e start in the 60,s with prop driven and go all the way through to say 2015, so you experience the huge changes in travel and the airline business. You could start with a small regional carrier with say a couple of DC3,s and build to an international mega carrier. Would take some staying power as the game would looooonnnnggg, but may be an interesting challenge to try??

Quote from: Aliens62 on September 27, 2010, 01:06:10 PM
Would one very long game be of interest to many...i.e start in the 60,s with prop driven and go all the way through to say 2015, so you experience the huge changes in travel and the airline business. You could start with a small regional carrier with say a couple of DC3,s and build to an international mega carrier. Would take some staying power as the game would looooonnnnggg, but may be an interesting challenge to try??

Sami doesn't want to make a super-long scenario, because he says that new updates are hard to put in long-running scenarios, among other things.

Could just be less profitable for the amount of server space it ties up, though.  :P

Quote from: RushmoreAir on September 27, 2010, 03:20:17 PM
Sami doesn't want to make a super-long scenario, because he says that new updates are hard to put in long-running scenarios, among other things.

Especially since next set of game worlds will be the last ones on version 1.2.  Maybe we can come back to ask for longer running scenario when 1.3 is released.

Post war through the beginning of the jet age would be great, roughly 1948 to 1970. :)

2007-2022  or something like that would be a good scenario because we've never reall had a real MODERN scenario.

Quote from: Frogiton on September 28, 2010, 05:40:35 PM
2007-2022  or something like that would be a good scenario because we've never reall had a real MODERN scenario.

I fear, for Sami's sake, that we will have to use too many assumed plane statistics to be able to do this.

Hey Sami and all,

My suggestions in brief:

1) Cargo!!!!  Belly Cargo as well as cargo planes or combis.
2) Possibility to transition pilots within the airplane categories vs. the current having to lay off small plane pilots and at the same time hiring large plane pilots and thereby still wrecking your image.
3) Wetleasing for shorter periods (i.e. to cover C and D checks), thereby creating new oportunities for firms. i.e. ACMI leasing.
4) Infrastructure investment (i.e. maintenance hangars).   Scheduling your whole fleet for a B-Check at the same time should not be possible unless providing sufficient hangar space.  Airlines could rent out open hangar space to others also based at the same airport.    Renting vs. owning.
5) More information about the product the competitors are providing on same routes.   i.e. pricing, seating.

What do you think?

I don´t know about its feasibility and if other players would agree with me. But longer game world, starting maybe in the 50´s and going as far as present days would be very interesting. This would force major fleet updates,  something not encoraged in game worlds that lasts for 20 years or less.

Sami,

Any update on what game will start (based on feedback) and when?  I think most of the current games (maybe except Alliance challenge) are so far into the game world that most of the active players have their airlines more or less on an autopilot.

And it is so much harder for new players to enter mature game worlds - and still go through a full game experience (probably first 5 to 10 years of the life of the airline).  I don't think any of the current games have that much life left in them (5 to 10 game years).

Quote from: AMeniuk on September 28, 2010, 08:43:01 PM
I don´t know about its feasibility and if other players would agree with me. But longer game world, starting maybe in the 50´s and going as far as present days would be very interesting. This would force major fleet updates,  something not encoraged in game worlds that lasts for 20 years or less.

Try a major fleet update and let me know how it goes. :)

You'll see why anyone's who's been around a while doesn't want to play a long-term game.  The process of changing plane models absolutely sucks when you've got to do it, per route upwards of 500 aircraft.  You could very easily be doing the horrible process upwards of two-thousand times.  Whenever we have long worlds you often see the original large airlines just crash and burn because people get so tired of upgrading planes they just stop playing because the game loses 100% of its fun.

Even that fact withstanding the games are already largely no fun after about 10 years.  Competition is gone, it's just you by yourself or you and other airlines that are so huge they're never going down, and the game worlds get really stagnant.

Sigma is 100% correct with that statement.

For a few months, sami has been trying to find ways to slow down the first stage of a game when this all happens because there is often a massive falloff in the number of airlines in the latter 2/3rds of a game.

I personally enjoy fleet planning, updating and so on very much.   Yes, I only owned small airlines (30 - 40 aircraft), but that was the big fun in the JET AGE games.  Beying ahead, planning ahead.   But maybe that would keep people from creating "monster" carriers - not trying to talk down der success - and giving the game another aspect.   I.e. I had to ground an original successful carrier because my 707s turned out to be loosing money on my ultra long range due to rising fuel prices.   I couldnt get rid of them in time and... bankrupt.   

I agree with Swiftus and Sigma, there is a point where you don,t see any challenge anymore in the game as you have build a huge carrier that dominates with a number of others. This leads to other players dropping out and a certain level of boredom for those who continue. Would it be possible to include some features that are 'unlocked' once certain goals are achieved to allow you to develop the game further, that are not available at the start. The ideas suggested by Dashek below would be a good start.
My suggestions in brief:

1) Cargo!!!!  Belly Cargo as well as cargo planes or combis.
2) Possibility to transition pilots within the airplane categories vs. the current having to lay off small plane pilots and at the same time hiring large plane pilots and thereby still wrecking your image.
3) Wetleasing for shorter periods (i.e. to cover C and D checks), thereby creating new oportunities for firms. i.e. ACMI leasing.
4) Infrastructure investment (i.e. maintenance hangars).   Scheduling your whole fleet for a B-Check at the same time should not be possible unless providing sufficient hangar space.  Airlines could rent out open hangar space to others also based at the same airport.    Renting vs. owning.
5) More information about the product the competitors are providing on same routes.   i.e. pricing, seating.

What do you think?

Currently there always seems to be at least 3 "full" game worlds open at any one time.

So to cater for everyone's needs how about these types of scenarios as each current game worlds end:-

One "Early Days" Scenario - 1960 - 1980
One "Jet Age" Scenario - 1980 - 2000
One "Modern Times" scenario - 2000 - 2020

This way all Era's are covered and at 20 years per game, should keep the interest for enough people for the whole duration. At least i think it could  :-\

Quote from: oggie84 on September 29, 2010, 01:51:23 PM
So to cater for everyone's needs how about these types of scenarios as each current game worlds end:-

One "Early Days" Scenario - 1960 - 1980
One "Jet Age" Scenario - 1980 - 2000
One "Modern Times" scenario - 2000 - 2020

I think that's a really good idea.

I, personally, prefer playing games in newer worlds with newer aircraft and larger pax demands. I agree that it's very hard to join a game that has established airlines, and when you get a large airline, it's hard to keep the game fun. It's a delicate balance, but one that the game is yet to master.

Hi everyone.

The ideas being thrown around here are rather good.  I voted for 1990s but now realise that a scenario starting in the 1980s would probably be best.  Allows for players to start with older machines (which are interesting to learn about) before getting access to newer stuff like the A330/A340 and B747-400/777 series.

However regardless of the time period, does anyone have an idea on when a new world will be opened?  I left the Air Travel Boom world a while back due to a lack of time to play and difficult growth within the game.  Been waiting for a replacement recently and now that ATB has closed up it'd be great to know when a new launch is expected.

Quote from: Aliens62 on September 29, 2010, 10:43:06 AM
1) Cargo!!!!  Belly Cargo as well as cargo planes or combis.
2) Possibility to transition pilots within the airplane categories vs. the current having to lay off small plane pilots and at the same time hiring large plane pilots and thereby still wrecking your image.
3) Wetleasing for shorter periods (i.e. to cover C and D checks), thereby creating new oportunities for firms. i.e. ACMI leasing.
4) Infrastructure investment (i.e. maintenance hangars).   Scheduling your whole fleet for a B-Check at the same time should not be possible unless providing sufficient hangar space.  Airlines could rent out open hangar space to others also based at the same airport.    Renting vs. owning.
5) More information about the product the competitors are providing on same routes.   i.e. pricing, seating.

What do you think?

Well, 1 and 2 have been mentioned more than a few times, and each time, Sami has said that they are too hard to code for them to be viable anytime in the near future.  So those are out. 5 has been discussed, and the consensus has been that if this were allowed to happen, whoever had the most money could win, running the smaller airlines into the dirt with $1 and $2 fares.

I do like 3 and 4 however.  Especially 4.  In most other "simulation" or "tycoon" games, you have the opportunity to invest in real estate, no matter what your original business is.

Rushmore, I had put some of those in feature requests over a year ago.   

for instance, Hangars will allow you to lower the cost of certain checks.  Upgrading them will help you do them even cheaper. 

We've all seen requests for clubs and lounges and what they can do for your LFs.



SADLY, all of these will ONLY help the rich airlines.  What are we going to do to make this game more inclusive for smaller airlines and late startups?

I agree with Swiftus and others that the real challenge right now is maintaining a challenging, competitive and fun environment for all kinds of players, not just those that can, due mostly to personal circumstances, devote enormous amounts of time (and use some dubious techniques) at the very beginning of a gameworld to establish control of a major airport and build a legacy carrier in a few short game years.  This dooms the rest of the field to fighting for scraps until the CEOs of the mega-airlines get bored and voluntarily BK, if ever.  Something ought to be done to alleviate this even before v.1.3 is released. I think some across-the-board tweaks might be made to help (though not solve) the problem in the next v.1.2 gameworld.

The first problem, I agree, is that the practice of securing every available slot indiscriminately with any kind of available aircraft, has to be financially punished.  The only way to do this, I think, is to universally jack-up commonality costs on every additional type, to increase further the costs at the current break points (the 4th a/c etc), and to make engine commonality significant.  Even startup airlines in AWS can right now make profits three or more times as high as they would IRL; there is no reason why commonality costs, therefore, cannot also be made multiple times more than they would be IRL or are currently in AWS.  

The second problem is slot-capturing (I won't use the dismissive term 'hogging' since, frankly, the structure of the game encourages players to secure slots as quickly as they can, and even players who do not abuse the rules know they have to secure slots to secure market share).  Again, the most straightforward way to slow down slot-capturing and push players to choose more appropriate a/c for their slots is to jack-up the price of slots, across the board.  In v.1.3 I hope Sami can find a creative way to deal with differential slot costs and flight frequency preference issues, but before then, airline growth and slot usage could be slowed by significant increased slot costs.

No doubt these measures do not help smaller airlines and late start-ups, so third, I suggest (as I have before) that those who start after the initial rush be given more start-up money over and above the general level of inflation.  I suggest a formula of the base amount given at the start of the game, plus a certain percentage increase every game month divided by the number of bankruptcies, plus an amount equivalent to the rate of inflation for the previous game year.  So, a player might get $4 million at start of game, but a new player starting two months later would get $4 million plus (say, at 5% per month) an additional $400,000, while a player who starts two months into the game after a bankruptcy would get $4 million plus $200,000.  A new player who started 2 years into the game would get, $4 million plus $4.8 million (then multiplied by the inflation rate over the two years).  A little complicated, I realize, but surely this is possible to code into v.1.2, and it would reflect the fact that in IRL late entrants to the market need more start-up capital to get a foothold, and it would help reduce (though not eliminate, I realize) the possibility of late start-ups being immediately crushed by existing large carriers. {Addition: there ought to be an upper limit, of course, perhaps at 4 or 5 years into the game the increases should be stablized for the remainder of the game}

My two cents.  Oh, and I'm in the smallest minority asking for a 1970s start time -- no doubt reflective of my age -- but also because I find that era, with its small airports and slowly building demand, to be the most challenging and therefore rewarding.  

FYI, as an early info, next world is planned to start in a week. I'm leaning towards a year 2000(ish) start.

Details will follow....


(and there won't be any more updates to v.1.2 systems, apart from some fixes still being worked on this week)


I do also like the idea of having three worlds each with a different age theme. And also hope that the extra long 1950-2020 type thing could be introduced with v.1.3. But not sure of that yet as the aim would be to improve long term playability first to allow such a long scenario to take place.

I say to do the three age thing as that would allow players to choose which era they want.
I know myself that I want to start my next airline in an era preferably similar to the 'Early Days' test scenario that we had a while back.

Hi,

just wanted to mention that if you guys develope future features, it would be great on the route map to see in a different color the network of alliance partners.


Thanks,
Colibrie

Just reminding everyone, this is a game world topic, not a "feature suggestion" topic.  :)

Quote from: Dashek on September 28, 2010, 08:28:14 PM
Hey Sami and all,

My suggestions in brief:

1) Cargo!!!!  Belly Cargo as well as cargo planes or combis.
2) Possibility to transition pilots within the airplane categories vs. the current having to lay off small plane pilots and at the same time hiring large plane pilots and thereby still wrecking your image.
3) Wetleasing for shorter periods (i.e. to cover C and D checks), thereby creating new oportunities for firms. i.e. ACMI leasing.
4) Infrastructure investment (i.e. maintenance hangars).   Scheduling your whole fleet for a B-Check at the same time should not be possible unless providing sufficient hangar space.  Airlines could rent out open hangar space to others also based at the same airport.    Renting vs. owning.
5) More information about the product the competitors are providing on same routes.   i.e. pricing, seating.

What do you think?

my opinion:

1) would be great if we could have two airlines in the same game - a cargo one and a passenger one.
2) not very important...
3) covering C and D checks would provide us earn money faster but then we had to lease or buy another aircraft. it would only be good for firms as you said.
4) B-check of various aircrafts in the same day and time is one of the things in the game that is really unreal. your idea woul be great :laugh:
5) maybe only pricing would be useful but seating would provide us a bit more information.

Quote from: fjls on October 02, 2010, 08:10:48 AM
my opinion:
2) not very important...

Not important until you end up in a situation like I have where you have to replace 48 old BAe-146's with a total of 340 medium pilots and fire them all only to hire the same number of pilots in the large category to fly their replacement the 737-700.

Quote from: raptorva on October 02, 2010, 10:28:27 AM
Not important until you end up in a situation like I have where you have to replace 48 old BAe-146's with a total of 340 medium pilots and fire them all only to hire the same number of pilots in the large category to fly their replacement the 737-700.

youre right. sorry. i havent seen that situation already. however i think that your company image would raise quickly after the replacement.

I think it would be great to introduce accidents into the game. (v1.3))
There could be hull loss accidents, and also minor accidents.
These could affect CI or even an aircraft type (for example: B737 or A320) could be grounded for an amount of time.
And there would be costs to do the necessary modifications, just in the real world.
Also I know this would be a very difficult task to "randomize" or to code, but I think this is an idea that is worth trying.
Someone wrote that the game gets boring after 10 years or so, but with accidents the big 500+ fleet carriers could not be able to always "sleep" well, if you know what I mean.
What do you think?

Have a nice day!

Steve

Quote from: bistvan on October 02, 2010, 11:34:56 AM
I think it would be great to introduce accidents into the game. (v1.3))
There could be hull loss accidents, and also minor accidents.
These could affect CI or even an aircraft type (for example: B737 or A320) could be grounded for an amount of time.
And there would be costs to do the necessary modifications, just in the real world.
Also I know this would be a very difficult task to "randomize" or to code, but I think this is an idea that is worth trying.
Someone wrote that the game gets boring after 10 years or so, but with accidents the big 500+ fleet carriers could not be able to always "sleep" well, if you know what I mean.
What do you think?

Have a nice day!

Steve

the more than 10 years palyers want to have fun during all game time. they want to sleep thinking that they have money, market to explore and competition that will give them the will to expand!

no ofense, but i think there are other ways to keep the game fun from the begining to its end. ::)   

I didn't say that these accidents should occur on a daily basis, it would just be a bit more exciting, if there were accidents occasionally.

Quote from: bistvan on October 02, 2010, 11:56:32 AM
I didn't say that these accidents should occur on a daily basis, it would just be a bit more exciting, if there were accidents occasionally.

i  know. youre right, but it wouldnt be as fun as have money, market to explore and competition. the airlines want to become even bigger but without competition the CEOs dont have will to keep playing. however the accidents could give extra excitement when another airline have one and we catch the market that it lost. ;D

Quote from: bistvan on October 02, 2010, 11:34:56 AM
I think it would be great to introduce accidents into the game. (v1.3))
There could be hull loss accidents, and also minor accidents.
These could affect CI or even an aircraft type (for example: B737 or A320) could be grounded for an amount of time.
And there would be costs to do the necessary modifications, just in the real world.
Also I know this would be a very difficult task to "randomize" or to code, but I think this is an idea that is worth trying.
Someone wrote that the game gets boring after 10 years or so, but with accidents the big 500+ fleet carriers could not be able to always "sleep" well, if you know what I mean.
What do you think?

Have a nice day!

Steve

This is a great idea, and probably pretty easy to code. 

Just make up a random probability equation involving Pilot Morale, Aircraft Age, Aircraft condition, and number of aircraft,

Quote from: fjls on October 02, 2010, 11:32:07 AM
youre right. sorry. i havent seen that situation already. however i think that your company image would raise quickly after the replacement.

Well, it really doesn't.     I kept "dragging" crew around for years just not to drop my image.

Quote from: RushmoreAir on October 03, 2010, 09:04:03 PM
This is a great idea, and probably pretty easy to code. 

Just make up a random probability equation involving Pilot Morale, Aircraft Age, Aircraft condition, and number of aircraft,

Getting people killed for "fun" is maybe not my idea of fun.   Maybe I am oversensitive being a pilot.   

However I agree that there should be more influence to, and effect of maintenance.  I.e. outsourcing maintenance vs. in house, or influence on the quality of it by payscale.   Right now, there is not much to do wrong besides not scheduling.     

Maybe unscheduled maintenance could be introduced?   i.e. Acft could be grounded for weeks or even months - thereby again attracting the scheme of short notice ACMI leasing.

Guys, this is not a feature request or discussion topic.

Sami, if this thread had a squak code it would be 7500.

edit:  oh, and flaps would be down.

Quote from: swiftus27 on October 04, 2010, 12:51:25 AM
Sami, if this thread had a squak code it would be 7500.

edit:  oh, and flaps would be down.

:laugh:  I had to look that up, but you are correct sir  ;D

just for this thread....



[attachment expired]

Point taken.  But many of the suggestions noted here were due to the pervasive feeling that v.1.2 had developed into a Squawk 7700 situation.

Im sorry, I didnt read you.

to understand it correctly:
will it be some kind of Air Travel Boom ?????

What about the usual ATB 1992-2020?

Is there going to be another game world after this 2000 one?

Quote from: Filippo on October 06, 2010, 09:20:09 PM
What about the usual ATB 1992-2020?

Is there going to be another game world after this 2000 one?

It might be more interesting to do 2001-2025 instead of 1998-2020.  Later time frame would give players more incentive to upgrade their fleets mid-way through the game.  Right now, in ATB, I don't see that players who bothered to upgrade to Mitsubishi, Bombardier CS, A350, Boeing 787.  Some, but not that many.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 06, 2010, 10:57:35 PM
It might be more interesting to do 2001-2025 instead of 1998-2020.  Later time frame would give players more incentive to upgrade their fleets mid-way through the game.  Right now, in ATB, I don't see that players who bothered to upgrade to Mitsubishi, Bombardier CS, A350, Boeing 787.  Some, but not that many.

That's because none of those planes offer a compelling reason to upgrade.

A 2001+ scenario is, undoubtedly, the worse scenario if your goal is to get players to upgrade fleets since no major new aircraft come out that warrant the change.  Once the NGs and 321s are out there, people don't change much.

Real-life is a different story because airlines are constantly looking to replace aircraft and there are always periods where there's a rush to replace particular models -- i.e. American's push to finally dump the Super-80s, or United's push to replace its DC10s, etc.  Here though, starting in 2001, everyone's planes will be new(er) and stay new throughout the entire game.  We won't have antiquated fleets made up of many different merged airlines all needing to be replaced like the real world is faced with.

Quote from: Sigma on October 06, 2010, 11:05:20 PM
That's because none of those planes offer a compelling reason to upgrade.

You are right that the upgrades coming out are not exactly compelling...  But if you have 10 years left to use some of the less than killer aircraft (A350, B787), they may warrant more attention than they get in ATB.

Quote from: Sigma on October 06, 2010, 11:05:20 PM
Real-life is a different story because airlines are constantly looking to replace aircraft and there are always periods where there's a rush to replace particular models -- i.e. American's push to finally dump the Super-80s, or United's push to replace its DC10s, etc.  Here though, starting in 2001, everyone's planes will be new(er) and stay new throughout the entire game.  We won't have antiquated fleets made up of many different merged airlines all needing to be replaced like the real world is faced with.

I guess one way to get that replicated in AWS is in a longer, say 30-40 year game time game world, which Sami does not want to start under 1.2.  Maybe under 1.3

Quote from: Sigma on October 06, 2010, 11:05:20 PM
A 2001+ scenario is, undoubtedly, the worse scenario if your goal is to get players to upgrade fleets since no major new aircraft come out that warrant the change.  Once the NGs and 321s are out there, people don't change much.

BTW, do you think it would make sense for AWS to use real life caps for aircraft like 737-NG and 321?  Here is what I found out yesterday:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,25416.0.html

737 NG production is going up to 38, A32x production is going up to 40.  These real life figures are significantly higher than AWS production caps.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 06, 2010, 11:31:07 PM
You are right that the upgrades coming out are not exactly compelling...  But if you have 10 years left to use some of the less than killer aircraft (A350, B787), they may warrant more attention than they get in ATB.

Sure, I'll grant you that.  I'd buy some if I had 10+ years usage on them, but I've always ignored in them in past games because you just don't get enough life out of them to warrant the extra fleet group.  For someone who tends to have the fleets that I do (100-200+ of a model), I prefer not to upgrade to a new model unless I know I can replace all my current one -- and that takes about a decade now with the delivery schedules (which I'm a fan of despite the long-term planning, actually because of it)

QuoteI guess one way to get that replicated in AWS is in a longer, say 30-40 year game time game world, which Sami does not want to start under 1.2.  Maybe under 1.3

Well, the problem with these long game-worlds is, as mentioned here earlier, they go stagnant really quickly and the aircraft replacement process is way too arduous.  Only once have I successfully done a full fleet replacement on almost 200 aircraft.  In long game-worlds we have played, you get a huge bunch of bankruptcies later in the game as airlines BK that let their airlines idle because of boredom and/or the daunting prospect of large-scale fleet modernization.  That said, I've yet to think of a better way to do it myself, so it's no hit against sami not doing something to fix it.

QuoteBTW, do you think it would make sense for AWS to use real life caps for aircraft like 737-NG and 321?  Here is what I found out yesterday:

For what my opinion is worth -- it depends.  First of all, I think we should use a combined cap for 737 and NGs -- so you can have 40 total, but demand might dictate you have 30 NGs and 10 regulars being produced.  Initially it'll be heavy on the regulars and, as time goes on this should slide over towards the NGs.  In a perfect world we'd even be able to upgrade our orders much like real-life, but there's a good reason we took that feature out here.

But we can't look at a real-life cap and make it match.  The reason I say "it depends" is because I don't think we should raise up the cap on A320s to 40 any more than we should lower the rate of F100s to [whatever] simply because, in real-life, it wasn't a particularly popular aircraft.  Capacity should fluctuate with demand both up and down, and it shouldn't "cap" at all, but rather continually increase around a maximum lead-time that sami can determine -- but I'd choose 3 years at the absolute minimum.  So whether it should go up to 40 like real-life or not entirely depends on whether our queue is as long as real-life or not.

Quote from: Sigma on October 06, 2010, 11:56:43 PM
So whether it should go up to 40 like real-life or not entirely depends on whether our queue is as long as real-life or not.

The queue in AWS does adjust up and down, which is great.  I like that feature very much.  But it only adjuts up to a pre-set cap.

When I was ready, in my current game (my first game) to look beyond used a/c market at the new AC market, both 320 and NG queues were full years into the future, and stuck at the cap for years.  Anyone looking at theses queues, and no wait for classics - has to consider the classics, which is a big pet peeve of swiftus.  But that decision - to go with classics when NG is available - is only a function of the hard cap that's built into the game.  As with all the artificial caps, I am against this one as well.  Especially if the cap makes AWS reflect real world less rather than more.