As DotM ends soon, are there plans for another game to start soon?
Yes. I am just behind on the announcement schedule again. But it will be coming.
Quote from: sami on May 04, 2011, 07:28:10 PM
But it will be coming.
Woop woop! Good to hear. Same time era I guess?
I hope as that is my favorite era to play in. The Modern Times scenarios get kind of bland after 2011 with no new types being introduced, IMHO.
Don
Quote from: jetwestinc on May 04, 2011, 08:22:46 PM
I hope as that is my favorite era to play in. The Modern Times scenarios get kind of bland after 2011 with no new types being introduced, IMHO.
Don
Completely agree there.
Any idea yet when this game will be starting?
I hope the game will be a 30 years game instead of 20 years. :laugh:
Starting date is next week, wed/thu/fri probably. Details will be announced in the news.
Quote from: vitongwangki on May 08, 2011, 04:47:22 PM
I hope the game will be a 30 years game instead of 20 years. :laugh:
same
Quote from: jetwestinc on May 04, 2011, 08:22:46 PM
I hope as that is my favorite era to play in. The Modern Times scenarios get kind of bland after 2011 with no new types being introduced, IMHO.
Don
what on earth are you talking about?! the Mitsubishi Regional Jet is launched (which I personally LOOOOVE) and the B747-8, B787, A350, Sukhois, Bombardier C-series, CRJ1000 and a whole bunch of other aircraft (I think I covered the gist of it there). ;) I find MT and even ATB the best game eras because I usually do so well... plus I find them fun, easy and challenging at the same time which is a bonus. :laugh:
Cheers,
ICEcold
Quote from: jetwestinc on May 04, 2011, 08:22:46 PM
I hope as that is my favorite era to play in. The Modern Times scenarios get kind of bland after 2011 with no new types being introduced, IMHO.
Don
I am not sure if it is boring. Suppose there is a new aircraft introduced in 2018 and the game ends in 2020. There is not really any point to the aircraft, since you can't replace a fleet. There is barely enough time to replace fleet with A350, B787
Quote from: JumboShrimp on May 08, 2011, 10:34:07 PM
I am not sure if it is boring. Suppose there is a new aircraft introduced in 2018 and the game ends in 2020. There is not really any point to the aircraft, since you can't replace a fleet. There is barely enough time to replace fleet with A350, B787
True, but the 787, to me at least, is worthless unless you need the range as the fuel numbers are so close to the 767 serise. The A350, which I planned on using in MT4, is introduced too late to be useful, the E-Jets offer a wider range of options than the SSJ, and the A32X and 73NG offer a beter range of options than the C-Serise. Not that I don't like those planes, but realistically I am not going to replace a fleet of A319's with CS300's unless I only operate A319's. The extra fuel burn on the 32X's is worth it to have a 200 seat 321 flying around with a 120 seat 318 in the same group (ditto for the 739ER and 736). For me, once the whole 32X/73NG line, the E-JEts, and the 330/340 groups are fully introduced, there is nothing else worth buying
unless the game went through at least 2025. Other opinions may vary, but this is just how I feel. Also, I do not find MT scenarios boring at all, quite the contrary. With fuel so high, it takes more skill to successfully keep an airline alive in 2011 than in 1991. I like DOTM era games because I love the aircraft succession in that era, from classic beauties like the 727, DC-9 and L1011, changing over to 733/4/5's, 757's, and 767's, then the A342/343 with the hairdryers ending with the 737NG's, A320's, and 777's.
Just my opinion. Anyway, looking forward to DOTM 2 (or whatever it ends up being called!)
Don
Quote from: jetwestinc on May 09, 2011, 12:01:48 AM
For me, once the whole 32X/73NG line, the E-JEts, and the 330/340 groups are fully introduced, there is nothing else worth buying unless the game went through at least 2025.
I agree. With the current MT4 ending in 2017, even the A350, which based on AWS specs is the only really worthwhile new aircraft, there is just not enough time even for that aircraft to make it an interesting business proposition. As far as 787, it does not really bring much to the table compared to 757 or 767 - other than the range. But that range - because of the lousy fuel consumption per passenger mile (as modeled in AWS) is not really worth the price.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on May 09, 2011, 05:45:36 AM
As far as 787, it does not really bring much to the table compared to 757 or 767 - other than the range. But that range - because of the lousy fuel consumption per passenger mile (as modeled in AWS) is not really worth the price.
Makes you wonder why the B787 is so incredibly popular in the real world (835 orders :o), whereas in AWS it isn't.
Quote from: Quinoky on May 09, 2011, 11:31:49 AM
Makes you wonder why the B787 is so incredibly popular in the real world (835 orders :o), whereas in AWS it isn't.
The lease rates are so high that the savings in fuel costs still doesnt make the plane profitable. I had a hub in YUL and could barely make money flying to Europe. even with 1000 oil, it was more profitable to use a 767-300
I had a bunch of 787s, they were pretty useless even when I owned them.
Quote from: Quinoky on May 09, 2011, 11:31:49 AM
Makes you wonder why the B787 is so incredibly popular in the real world (835 orders :o), whereas in AWS it isn't.
Which is why I qualified my post with "as modeled in AWS". Maybe some tweeks might be in order for the aircraft setup for 787. Or maybe cargo capacity will make the aircraft more worthwhile...
Quote from: Quinoky on May 09, 2011, 11:31:49 AM
Makes you wonder why the B787 is so incredibly popular in the real world (835 orders :o), whereas in AWS it isn't.
Because Sami's numbers for the 787 aren't right... everything about it in here is wrong
Range- 787-8 is listed at 7100nm, that's what the first pre-production and test frames are expecting to get, But production -8 aircraft starting around line # 50 (i believe) will be at or very close to the 8200nm range or else Boeing will risk breaking the contracts on the aircraft.
The 787-9 has a longer range than the -8 at ~8800nm, but in here its only 7800. So both are lacking 1000nm for some reason.
Seating... those numbers have been pulled out of thin air and aren't even close to being right. Just take a look at the fact that the -8 carries more passengers than the -9... ??? ::) ???
Here are Boeing's revised standard seating arrangements for both aircraft in 9 abreast seating (what most airlines are using)
-8 : 16 first, 44 business, 182 economy= 242 total
-9 : 16 first, 50 business, 214 economy= 280 total
In an all economy configuration the -8 seats 350y and the -9 375y, the same exact capacities of the 767-300/400. Boeing won't be performing evacuation tests with the 787 because it has the same door layout and same door sizes as the 767, so they were able to use the 767's certification.
However, the 787 is still considerably more fuel efficient than the 767 on the same missions 767's fly. The rumor has it, that a 787 cant be touched by any aircraft currently being made (either narrow body or wide body) in CASM on short sectors all the way down to 200nm. ANA is using their converted orders for -9's to replace all their domestic 777's. As for the -3, I'm not sure why we still have it in the game. The whole reason it was canceled was because it was determined that the -8 could do the same exact job but better. The only difference between the two literally was the wingspan width and a paper MTOW reduction. I'm about 95% sure it's not even offered anymore. It was only going to be certified and the US and Asia either way.
Now the 787 is still projected to be 20% more fuel efficient than the 767 on comparable routes, but it appears that the fuel burn in AWS is always what is listed in the aircraft info. So since the 787 carries 10,000 gallons more fuel than the 767 and flies nearly 2000nm further, its numbers are skew for the ULH flights instead of the comparable medium haul flights the 767 makes. The only way to reasonably model this in my eyes is to take into account how much fuel each aircraft can hold and then have variable fuel consumptions over different route lengths. it seems that the 6000nm mark is the point when the 787 starts to have to carry more fuel than it would burn just to carry that additional fuel.
Quote from: flightsimer on May 09, 2011, 10:10:16 PM
-9 : 16 first, 50 business, 214 economy= 280 total
In an all economy configuration the -8 seats 350y and the -9 375y, the same exact capacities of the 767-300/400.
Well, Sami has 787-9 all economy at 280, vs. 360 for 767-400ER.
BTW, what are the cabin dimensions for these 2 aircraft? That would go a long way to persuade Sami to update the figures.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on May 09, 2011, 11:06:42 PM
Well, Sami has 787-9 all economy at 280, vs. 360 for 767-400ER.
BTW, what are the cabin dimensions for these 2 aircraft? That would go a long way to persuade Sami to update the figures.
the 787 is overall bigger than each 767 variant it replaces.
the 787-8 is 186ft long with an interior cabin width of 18ft allowing either 8 or 9 abreast with 4822ft^3 of cargo volume
the 787-9 is 206ft long with an interior cabin width of 18ft allowing either 8 or 9 abreast with 6086ft^3 of cargo volume
the 767-300 is 180ft long with an interior cabin width of 15.5ft allowing either 7 or 8 abreast with 3770ft^3 of cargo volume
the 767-400ER is 201.5ft long with an interior cabin width of 15.5ft allowing either 7 or 8 abreast with 4580ft^3 of cargo volume
the floor space of the 787-8 is actually greater than that of the 767-400ER.
Cabin floor areas in square meters:
767-200 154.9
767-300 184.5
767-400 214.1
787-3/8 223.8
787-9 257.4
777-200 279.0
next in line would be the 787-10 with a cabin area of 291m^2 making it in line to replace the 777-200. The 787-10 is almost a sure thing. Several airlines have interest in it and Boeing themselves have said its not a matter of if, but when. My bet is it will be launched within the next two years once the -9 gets rolling. the -10 is ment to just be a simple stretch compromising range for the extra payload. It would also seat another 40-50 seats giving it a ~320 seat capacity in a 3 class config.
flightsimmer,
Excellent info. Hopefully, Sami will make the updates before the next game world starts.
Quote from: flightsimer on May 09, 2011, 10:10:16 PM
Because Sami's numbers for the 787 aren't right... everything about it in here is wrong
All of the payload & weight & range information is directly from Boeing's own docs. Fuel usage is guesstimated.
Quote from: sami on May 10, 2011, 07:39:38 AM
All of the payload & weight & range information is directly from Boeing's own docs. Fuel usage is guesstimated.
Are any if these performance figures final, seeing as Boeing hasn't finished flight testing even the -8. I imagine that is when their promises on fuel burn, range, etc. are validated. Right now are we not using ballpark figures.
I think the config problem can be solved only by a new config system using seat pitch, but this should be a long way to go, right? :-\
btw, any data for 787-3? in MT4 we have 787-3 but it looks like the same as 787-9 except the range an dprice......
Quote from: alexgv1 on May 10, 2011, 09:00:30 AM
Are any if these performance figures final, seeing as Boeing hasn't finished flight testing even the -8. I imagine that is when their promises on fuel burn, range, etc. are validated. Right now are we not using ballpark figures.
No idea really. I think it has been a year or so since data was inserted so there may have been changes; but I think there cannot be anything major. I have just used the data they have provided (and also hard to start guessing if the 50th or so aircraft will have performance improvements or not and so forth.) Boeing provides quite good documentation on the performance and they are easy and reliable resources.
But database will also have complete prototype models (to make the market more dynamic) and those will be more difficult to estimate properly.
Quote from: sami on May 10, 2011, 07:39:38 AM
All of the payload & weight & range information is directly from Boeing's own docs. Fuel usage is guesstimated.
I think the biggest issue is the passenger count. The cabin space area (provided by flightsimer) shows that the AWS figures are off by a mile.
The wrong passenger count leads to incorrect fuel useage per passenger mile, which is what really makes 787 pathetic in AWS.
If the cabin square footage can be verified, I think you can savely update the passenger info. Then later, once range and fuel consumptions are known, those can be updated as well, but they will make less difference than the passenger capacity.
+1 @ JumboShrimp
I think the disparity is on the premium business seats where they dramatically reduce capacity. You can put the 787-9 into a 3 class cabin and carry between 240 and 260 pax. Individuals will have to reconfigure the aircraft to get up to the specs but it's definitely doable.
As it stands though Boeing has been losing orders due to the the aircraft coming in over weight. With that the range is reduced "10-15%" so I would assume a bit higher than expected fuel economy. The 787 according to Boeing's website has lost 12 orders this year, and other airlines are looking to possibly reschedule delivery.
Another mitigating factor that I thought about in 787 success is that the 757 is still being produced and has well over 100 orders when Boeing stopped making them in 2005.
Quote from: flightsimer on May 09, 2011, 10:10:16 PM
So both are lacking 1000nm for some reason.
Though the number seems pretty large, but sami already deducts the required "reserve hour" from the maximum range, so that even if we fly our planes at AWS's maximum range we still don't break that rule....
Jona L.
The standard reserve fuel is usually (but not always?) included in the range graphs the manufacturer provides. And as mentioned the AWS payload&range data should be the same what manufacturer has published.
Quote from: Silentlysailing on May 10, 2011, 03:01:15 PM
I think the disparity is on the premium business seats where they dramatically reduce capacity. You can put the 787-9 into a 3 class cabin and carry between 240 and 260 pax. Individuals will have to reconfigure the aircraft to get up to the specs but it's definitely doable.
Definitely not doable. Just review this line from my post above:
787-9 all economy: 280
767-400ER all economy: 360
That implies that 787 is a much smaller aircraft than 767, when in fact (according to cabin size posted by flightsimer) it is a larger aircraft, ~20% larger
What is the max certified pax count for 787-9? (don't have the docs right here)
As it is marked as max 330 pax and 767 is marked as 409; and that causes the difference in the seat config. As it is still based only on the max seating number and proportions of that for other calculations. But in future it should be based on the actual length of the cabin instead, but data is still not found for several models.
Might it be due to the difference in cabin layout? The B787 cabin looks incredibly spacious to me.
Quote from: Quinoky on May 10, 2011, 06:06:47 PM
Might it be due to the difference in cabin layout? The B787 cabin looks incredibly spacious to me.
Boeing is definitely not building these to waste space. It is up to the airlines what kind of seating configuration they pick.
If ww take 767-400ER and HD seating, it allocates about .52m^2 per passenger. As a result we have:
767-400ER 409 HD economy seats
787-9 330 HD economy seats (current AWS data)
If we allocate the same area per HD seat what we should have
787-9 491 HD seats.
The difference between 330 what it is and ~491 what it should be is HUGE. Nearly 50% difference. It's a difference between being one of the most efficient aircraft and being much worse that the aircraft 787 is supposed to replace.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on May 10, 2011, 06:25:56 PM
The difference between 330 what it is and ~491 what it should be is HUGE.
(I am only interested about what the true certified max seating is; not what can be calculated.)
Edit: Found it. Boeing has updated the docs. Exit limit is 440.
Quote from: sami on May 10, 2011, 07:39:38 AM
All of the payload & weight & range information is directly from Boeing's own docs. Fuel usage is guesstimated.
I would like to see these documents then because my info also came straight from Boeing documents or official press releases except for the floor area which I relied on from post on A.net from people that are involved with the 787 in some form (either with Boeing or with airlines already ordering them).
The configurations I gave for seating are straight from Boeing's airport planning brochure for the month of March 2011, I just saw the April one last night and its still the same.
As I said earlier in this thread and in another a while ago, the 787's max capacity is exactly the same as the 767's.
The -8 and previous -3 were maxed at 350 seats (same as the 767-300) and the -9 seats a max of 375 seats (same as the 767-400ER). Now theoretically, the 787's could seat even more in each variant if it used the same density seating as a 767 since they have more room, but to save time and money, Boeing decided to use the 767's certified max seating due to the same layout and number of exits between the two aircraft. So you will never actually see an evacuation test done with the 787 because of this.
As for fuel economy/range, in all honesty, any number now is going to be a guess because they have released NO info yet on its true fuel consumption and range. The first 6 test aircraft are about 5,000lbs overweight. However, they have a program already in place to reduce the weight back down to spec starting with l/n 7. I previously said by line number 50 the weight should be corrected, but I did a little more searching today and have found that they have since brought the correct weight all the way forward to line number 20/21. Boeing is already in the 30' so they should already be corrected.
However, just because they are overweight doesn't mean they won't make range. Because of being overweight, Boeing raised the MTOW of the 787 to allow the same ranges to be flown.
@ silentlysailing 240-260 seats in the -9 is still only the seating capacity of the -8. The -9 is supposed to seat almost 300 passengers in a 3 class configuration.
Quote from: sami on May 10, 2011, 06:39:50 PM
(I am only interested about what the true certified max seating is; not what can be calculated.)
Edit: Found it. Boeing has updated the docs. Exit limit is 440.
If the exit limit is (based on flightsimer post) in order to bypass a level of certification, probably still does not make sense to base the seating fonfiguration on that number, if the true HD seating capacity is ~490 estimate.
Nobody is going to configure 787 with all HD economy. But the starting number will decide the quality of the rest of the seating that can be configured in the aircraft.
So the best way to resole this is to (at some point) convert the calculation, to be derived from cabin area (as planned), rather than some random numbers in the specs.
if its only certified for 375 seats even if the plane can seat 440, it wont, because its not certified for that.
I know ANA is replacing their domestic 772's with 789's. They have stated that they will be seating nearly 400 seats in a two class configuration. So 375 seats seem about right in a two class config with the majority being econ seats. I do question the 440 for the -9 though, but it might be right if they intended on using the 767's certificate only the -8.
One thing to remember about the 787 is so far, it hasnt been about hauling economy passengers. Its configured towards the premium classes which is why you hear about the -8 seating only ~220 seats for multiple airlines. Same thing with the 747-8I. LH has a massive premium cabin planned for the -8 with over 100 business/1st class seats in it.
I deffinately agree about using floor space in the future. However, the seat types need to be changed as well in the way of not being just luxury, standard, HD, etc... You can fit 149 passengers on a 737-700 and still be very comfortable. It depends on the type of the seat itself. If they are slimbacks, than the seat pitch can remain the same, but yet they dont take up as much space.
Quote from: Silentlysailing on May 10, 2011, 03:01:15 PM
As it stands though Boeing has been losing orders due to the the aircraft coming in over weight. With that the range is reduced "10-15%" so I would assume a bit higher than expected fuel economy. The 787 according to Boeing's website has lost 12 orders this year, and other airlines are looking to possibly reschedule delivery.
i forgot to say that is just completely wrong.
To date, Boeing has not had one 787 airframe canceled due to it being overweight or delayed. So far, every single cancelation has been directly caused by the GFC and airlines needing to use the money they would have paid for the 787s elsewhere.
Just yesterday, the first airline to cancel a 787 order replaced their initial order plus two more additional airframes.
Quote from: flightsimer on May 11, 2011, 12:42:04 AM
i forgot to say that is just completely wrong.
To date, Boeing has not had one 787 airframe canceled due to it being overweight or delayed. So far, every single cancelation has been directly caused by the GFC and airlines needing to use the money they would have paid for the 787s elsewhere.
Just yesterday, the first airline to cancel a 787 order replaced their initial order plus two more additional airframes.
flightsimer is absolutely right about this.
The 787 is so attractive IRL that airlines are happy to take the compensation they get for the delivery being delayed as long as they get their planes.
geez, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to feel so unwelcome here, I was just trying to say what I've read and come up with possible reasonings. Guess I'm just better off not posting ever. :(
Quote from: Silentlysailing on May 11, 2011, 02:12:40 AM
geez, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to feel so unwelcome here, I was just trying to say what I've read and come up with possible reasonings. Guess I'm just better off not posting ever. :(
If I made you feel unwelcome (did I?), I should be the one apologizing. You should certainly always say what comes to your mind, because what you have to say might be important. In this particular case, you were not correct (your reasoning wasn't implausible, it's just that better information was better), however just because you don't know the specific reasons and specifications for one thing, that shouldn't stop you from posting other things which you know.
So.... the subject of this thread being...
QuoteNew game to replace DOTM?
...do we know yet when the new game will be? Sorry to be impatient - I'd like to plan my week (morning off work etc). Yes, I really am that sad! :(
Not sad at all...I think there are about 500 other players here that do the same thing! I called in late to work one day to be among the first in MT3!
Sami did say, back on the first page, that the new DOTM would start "Next Week, Wed/Thu/Fri and details will be posted in the news." It was Saturday when he posted that which led me to believe it would start before the end of the week, but it is now Wednesday and no announcement, so I must assume that we are looking at May 18/19/20 as a start date for "DOTM2"
Don (who is about as impatient as you!)
Sami did say that a new game would start/be announced late this week, but he never said it would be another DOTM, it may be or may not be.
With another DotM ending soon and other world already running, DotM is the most likely option we have...
QuoteDotM is the most likely option we have
Or... perhaps it'll be something totally new. Got to be a reason why things have gone so quiet. Maybe the long awaited V1.3?
I heard mention of a 30 year game world instead of 20 ???
Quote from: alexgv1 on May 11, 2011, 04:42:30 PM
I heard mention of a 30 year game world instead of 20 ???
22 ;) so a small step for a player but a huge step for an admin ;D ;D ;D
Jona L.
This message has too many smileys. Please reduce the number of smileys.
Quote from: Jona L. on May 13, 2011, 09:53:58 PM
22 ;) so a small step for a player but a huge step for an admin ;D ;D ;D
Jona L.
This message has too many smileys. Please reduce the number of smileys.
I would like MT5 to be that length as well. The current MT4 is only 14 years long...
I have a feeling that is going to be the new standard. If you look at the time remaining in the 3 main game worlds, there is about 2 months separating each games end. It appears that Sami has created an AWS that will have a new game world every 2 months :)
Don