AirwaySim

Please use this thread for the feedback of the test scenario.

---
Notes to testers:

- Please read the info from PM.

- Use General forum, and Bug forum, for the feedback.

- If possible use many different browsers to check the systems, since I haven't done that very much.

---

First thing I've spotted, I can't help noticing (and confirmed from a quick look by my girlfriend) the text on the light grey of the airline fleet page (fleet groups) looks like its blurred. It looks like its got a bit of a shadow. 

A small "glitch" and a request.

You said the clock might be out of sync due to the quick game days, but not sure if this is part of it. At 23:59, for me, it gets stuck. The date changes, and the time will flash forward to the correct time every couple seconds, then go back to showing 23:59. The date stays correct. Clicking on a new page Iie. going to the dashboard) fixes the problem.

And the request. Regarding automatic aircraft numbering, is it possible to break it into subsets? I am ordering 737-3/4/5 and the -300's will start at B-1000, the -400's at B-1200 and the -500's at B-1500, but my only option is to number all 737-3/4/5 as if they were the same type. Being able to specify what each type should be numbered would make this tool much more useful.

Don

This could be a noobish observation, but every plane seems to be classified as "Small Aircraft"

I attached a picture.

[attachment expired]

Aircraft size bug fixed. Everyone who had staff management at 'manual' was put to automatic due to this fix, and everyone has now the proper number of (correct) staff hired. Feel free to put it back to manual if you like.


Also: If it's a bug please report it at Bug forum

Logo generator:

Maybe sounds a bit stupid, but it took me nearly two minutes to figure out how to accept the changed colour.

The "enter"-button (I made a red quarter to point it out for people who haven't used the tool yet) is very logical - if one already figured out. Maybe a short description like at Step 3 how to accept the background colour could help people that are not very familiar with such things - especially if the audience for this tool are casual gamer.

[attachment expired]

"You cannot buy/lease any more used aircraft today your personnel is busy arranging the delivery of the aircraft you have already ordered today or in the past few days."

Should be "You cannot buy/lease any more used aircraft today as your personnel are busy arranging the delivery of the aircraft you have already ordered today or in the past few days."

There's no announcement board, so the function of the airline news etc. can't be tested in this way. I can imagine it's too time consuming such a board, so this is more an information about the situation.

I noticed that when you look at your route map with no routes instead of just showing your country with your base it just says that you have no active routes.

» I just noticed the automatic aircraft register mode when trying the change airport codes to IATA codes. At the moment, can't order 'new' used aircraft at the moment. Did anyone checked this function?
» Warning at dashboard page about expired (A) check aircraft works fine!

The production list page is cluttered with fleet groups that are no longer in production.

Quote from: Curse on July 02, 2011, 05:25:01 PM
Logo generator:
Maybe sounds a bit stupid, but it took me nearly two minutes to figure out how to accept the changed colour.

Not sure if I can change that as the color dropper is a complete third-party module. ..or I mean I can, but it may take a bit work.

Perhaps the easiest if I just change the button to read "OK".

Quote from: Curse on July 02, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
There's no announcement board, so the function of the airline news etc. can't be tested in this way.

Oh yes, naturally that could have been tested .. Well, there isn't much magic in that so nevermind until real games.

Quote from: coopdogyo on July 02, 2011, 06:20:23 PM
The production list page is cluttered with fleet groups that are no longer in production.

Normal, and has been since 1.11. They stay there for a period before going away.

Quote from: coopdogyo on July 02, 2011, 06:13:12 PM
I noticed that when you look at your route map with no routes instead of just showing your country with your base it just says that you have no active routes.

Correct since it is a route map.

btw, first feedback after clicking through all menus etc.:

Very nice work, sami ;) But you know people are like a cat on a hot tin roof till 1.3 real game worlds start, eh?


Edit:
I now know what I miss. I miss the livery in the big format it was in 1.1 and 1.2 :/ Maybe it could be in this big format under the information instead of the right side? The space is supposed to be used by base airports as far as I saw on the announcement board, but maybe under all that info?

[attachment expired]

Hi Sami

I noticed when you are working through route planning it only allows you to select the region you're based in.  The system doesn't allow you select another region for flights.

Thanks

Scott

Has anyone else noticed that planes like the MD-80's have a lower fuel consumption.

Hello, in the repair aircraft section, when I dialed repair to : 90%, the amount was 757 000USD for a B737-200.
Then I random dialed 60/70/80/90... and the amounts were a bit crazy, I finally dialed again 90% and the amount asked was 350 000USD, half of the amount askes the first time.

Julien

Quote from: coopdogyo on July 02, 2011, 07:03:13 PM
Has anyone else noticed that planes like the MD-80's have a lower fuel consumption.

All MD-80s have the exact same fuel consumption than in previous gameworlds.

Quote from: TK1244 on July 02, 2011, 06:15:52 PM
» I just noticed the automatic aircraft register mode when trying the change airport codes to IATA codes. At the moment, can't order 'new' used aircraft at the moment. Did anyone checked this function?

Working nicely for me :)

Quote from: coopdogyo on July 02, 2011, 07:03:13 PM
Has anyone else noticed that planes like the MD-80's have a lower fuel consumption.

B744 was put up by ~ 2.000Kg/hr...  :'(

I've also noticed that the MDs have nearly 600 kg/h better fuel consumption than in the current DOTM2. 

Not in the "compare aircraft" page. There it's exactly the same as in DotM.

And the MD-81 on the used market also consumes 3370kg/hr. Same as in DotM #2, MT#4 etc.

Before I even joined the game, I noticed a bug. For the IATA code for your airline, it won't let you use a number. I wanted to have my code as 6G, but it rejected it.

Quote from: Curse on July 02, 2011, 07:57:37 PM
Not in the "compare aircraft" page. There it's exactly the same as in DotM.

And the MD-81 on the used market also consumes 3370kg/hr. Same as in DotM #2, MT#4 etc.

Ok, you are right. But at the start of the game, at the same time all airplanes were cosidered small, the fuel consumption on the MD81 was about 2800
Kg/h. The same progression in the following MD variants.

Maybe it's about the "small" thing in a variable or so. Don't know, but at the moment everything is normal and like it was in DotM etc.

Quote from: Curse on July 02, 2011, 08:06:43 PM
Maybe it's about the "small" thing in a variable or so. Don't know, but at the moment everything is normal and like it was in DotM etc.

I agree, and I prefer it that way. There's a big difference in efficiency between the NG/A320 and the MDs IRL and it is particularly reflected in the F/F in the game. So this is back to normal.

On the right side of the Dashboard screen I can't see the billing information.

Quote from: dhtdkcug on July 02, 2011, 08:36:25 PM
On the right side of the Dashboard screen I can't see the billing information.

because there is no weekly cost, just the 2Cr for entering

i was impressed BUT i wanted a feedback about logo editor - i liked have some more logos example two pictures next to each other - some airlines have this :) and i found no problems with it except with bug in banner

I must highly support some of the new design elements!

e.g. the more rounded buttons and the new, more modern looking, area-selectors on route planning screen

Also displaying curfews is very good!!!

The Airport Stats tab in the statistics section is hanging off of the top on lower resolutions.

Long-haul is still earning much more money than short-haul.


It's very good visible due to the $35 Million start money - normally long-haul needs a bit longer to establish because most airlines can only get one or two aircraft with start money while domestic ones can get 1-3 more aircraft and have a little advantage till long-haul breaks through with 3-5 aircraft.

However, this isn't important because airlines were able to get several long-haul aircraft now.


Not I will complain about, but due to the fact you changed the income on C/F-class, mainly to reduce income on long-haul, it seemed to me like it's worth a short feedback.

It is more a feature request then a bug:

I'm going to lease a Fokker F28 and according to the text I need to pay a pre-payment of 678 360 USD. However, I change the lease period to 10 months and the lease price increases to 186 550 USD, so if you quick calculate it, I need to pay 746 200 USD. The data of pre-payment doesn't changes and still show 678 360 USD. If I want to lease the aircraft, it says I don't have enough money, which is absolutely correct.

So my request:
If possible, move the pre-payment cost next to "Lease price" and allow it to update when changing the lease period.

[attachment expired]

ABCBA routing is not re-iplemented or not working as it used to work.

Jona L.

Quote from: Jona L. on July 02, 2011, 11:58:38 PM
ABCBA routing is not re-iplemented or not working as it used to work.

It's not activated since 1.1 and 1.3 announcements don't mention it to be reactivated.

1.3 looks very nice and all. However, when selecting a country in any of the country lists (when starting a route, or in the airline map), you now have to scroll down and select the country, whereas before you could type in the starting letters of the wanted country, and it would select it in the list. This makes it more time consuming, and annoying when you are opening a lot of routes to the same country (ie. domestic). Looks nice with the flags though..! :P

Quote from: dansken on July 03, 2011, 12:34:05 AM
1.3 looks very nice and all. However, when selecting a country in any of the country lists (when starting a route, or in the airline map), you now have to scroll down and select the country, whereas before you could type in the starting letters of the wanted country, and it would select it in the list. This makes it more time consuming, and annoying when you are opening a lot of routes to the same country (ie. domestic). Looks nice with the flags though..! :P

plus takes a while to load (sometimes)  coz of all flags (looks good but) :)

Quote from: dansken on July 03, 2011, 12:34:05 AM1.3 looks very nice and all. However, when selecting a country in any of the country lists (when starting a route, or in the airline map), you now have to scroll down and select the country, whereas before you could type in the starting letters of the wanted country, and it would select it in the list. This makes it more time consuming, and annoying when you are opening a lot of routes to the same country (ie. domestic). Looks nice with the flags though..! :P

+1

Not a bug, but functionality:

Fuel Contracts

When I sign the contract for fuel, I get to see the current spread to spot prices. After signing, I have no chance of analyzing whether I made the right choice. It would be helpful e.g. to calibrate the fuel price history chart in a way that it would mark my call price by line and length (duration of contract). This way, I may know how much advantage I gained from the fuel contract and whether for instance my current profits are significantly influenced by my fuel policy, but runs the risk to reverse in three months, when my contract runs out.

Cheers,
Denis

Click next page / Size changes

I noticed that when I go on open new route and sort the airports by distance and then click to the next page, the graphic calibration changes every time. I noticed this because when searching a specific airport, I would click through the pages (sorted by distance) to find the concerned one; hence I left the mouse on the arrow. In current DotM it works. I have this with Chrome and Safari.

Cheers,
Denis

Edit: It is not the case when I click through e.g. airport statistics.

DO you confirm the graphics of transported pasengers disapeared ?
I can't find it, it was very usefull...

Quote from: DenisG on July 03, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
Click next page / Size changes

I noticed that when I go on open new route and sort the airports by distance and then click to the next page, the graphic calibration changes every time. I noticed this because when searching a specific airport, I would click through the pages (sorted by distance) to find the concerned one; hence I left the mouse on the arrow. In current DotM it works. I have this with Chrome and Safari.

Cheers,
Denis

Edit: It is not the case when I click through e.g. airport statistics.

I get the same thing. It changes size everytime you click the next page. One page will be small and the next page it'll go bigger. Then the next page goes small again and so on. I'm on IE.

Might have something to do with the Airport Name column going larger to fit in the text...

(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1022.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf342%2Foggie84%2FV132.jpg&hash=809bef9eead2510c18d675e3d4cd3d50ef87a118)

(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1022.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf342%2Foggie84%2FV131.jpg&hash=ba1bcbfdb2b527e95d9afe1d4e9811a78da9d8aa)

Is there some kind of hit to airlines operating a lot of frequency on a route as a deterrent?

I'm running A300s on DFW-ATL and DFW-DVX, taking a bit less than 100% of the demand on each route.  The planes are identical with identical configs, as are the schedules.  But there's a lot more planes on the ATL route (since more demand) and a bit more RI as a result of operating the route a couple game-weeks longer.

But the ATL planes are running only about 20% LF, even after lowering the fares 20%.  But the DVX planes are running 60-70%, which is what I would expect at this point.

@ Sigma

I think this is related to my question here:

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26358.msg165655.html#msg165655

Your flights are 3x 1020, 1x 1035 (=4x 1020), 3x 1840, 1x 1900 (=4x 1840)

So in fact for AirwaySim your aircraft counted as two very big aircraft what makes frequency to two. Due the fact I have not yet an answer on my question I can't say clearly if your problem is a result due to this low frequency, but it could be.

To Denver your A300 act as single aircraft (3 times) and the A320 is added to the first A300 flight - makes out of your four aircraft a frequency of three, so a frequency more than on KDFW - KATL.


However, 20% is much too low. The fact you are using 8 flight that act like 2 should still give you a high load factor but should make you weaker to competition.

The automatic registration setting needs a little bit of tweaking, based on the following scenario:

I wanted my A320s to be assigned the registrations N200IF, N201IF, N202IF and so on. So I set this function to begin with N200IF. However, after three aircrafts have been delivered now (over night), the registrations were N200IF, N200IG and N200IH. I had to re-register them with the new codes (which is ok, as it doesn't cost anything).

So I would recommend to somehow enable us to clarify which of the code needs to be fix, and which part can be variable. I don't have any clue if that is possible with the coding, but maybe it can be solved by using the $-sign known from the functionality in MS Excel. In that case, I would have set the automatic registration to N200$I$F

Otherwise, a vey good feature.

Quote from: Curse on July 03, 2011, 03:09:59 AM
@ Sigma

I think this is related to my question here:

https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26358.msg165655.html#msg165655

.....

However, 20% is much too low. The fact you are using 8 flight that act like 2 should still give you a high load factor but should make you weaker to competition.

After waiting a few more weeks, now through the 9th week of the game with no change in LF at all on the ATL route, I've pulled 2 of the ATL flights off and moved them to ORD.  We'll see if there's any improvement.  If so, clearly it's not working as intended.  Well, something's not working right regardless.

Everything looks pretty good so far. :) Aside from having a terribly slow internet connection as I'm not at home and thus not being able to load the online logo editor, everything looks fine. And as mentioned earlier in this thread, the "live" clock isn't working properly. It used to flash between 23:59 and the real time, but now it's flashing between the real time and "NaN:NaN" and a lot less frequently. I'll keep digging and see if I find anything new.

Quote from: Sigma on July 03, 2011, 02:51:13 AM
Is there some kind of hit to airlines operating a lot of frequency on a route as a deterrent?

You have multiple flights departing at the VERY same time to same destination, span them out more (since it's a high demand route, make them let's say 15-20 minutes apart).

Quote from: rsdworker on July 02, 2011, 10:26:43 PM
liked have some more logos example two pictures next to each other - some airlines have this

It is a simple editor, so anything more complex has to be done in paint/photoshop etc.

Quote from: dansken on July 03, 2011, 12:34:05 AM
you now have to scroll down and select the country, whereas before you could type in the starting letters of the wanted country, and it would select it in the

The new pretty flag-enabled dropdown causes this. It is either way, the looks or functionality. Would prefer both but not sure if that is possible.

Quote from: TK1244 on July 02, 2011, 11:53:29 PM
So my request:
If possible, move the pre-payment cost next to "Lease price" and allow it to update when changing the lease period.

This page is not completely finished yet.

Quote from: marc0o0o0o on July 03, 2011, 08:13:56 AM
t used to flash between 23:59 and the real time, but now it's flashing between the real time and "NaN:NaN" and a lot less frequently. I'll keep digging and see if I find anything new.

Clear your cache and report browser type and version.

Quote from: bleedfax18 on July 03, 2011, 06:23:24 AM
The automatic registration setting needs a little bit of tweaking, based on the following scenario:

it always assumes that it's the last two digits or letters that increase, and it cannot know that you wish to keep the letters static and increase only numbers. But the excel idea sounds nice but may be too complicated, not sure.

Quote from: sami on July 03, 2011, 10:08:34 AMThis page is not completely finished yet.

Thank you! :laugh:

No real problems so far, apart from the time issue already reported : Firefox 3, Win XP.

Couple of niggles:  when selecting country in the new routes in 1.2, you could type the first letter of the country name in the drop down and your position jumped to the frst country starting with that letter.  In 1.3 this does not happen - annoying when you have a lot of flights to the UK :)

On the logo editor, a back button would be useful from each stage to allow more playing with sizes of logo, text etc - at the moment you can only click out and restart.

One other thing  -I bought an aircraft, then took out a loan secured on it; the aircraft history now shows bought by Mancunian, and leased by Mancunian.  Is this because a loan has been taken out, or is it a bug?

MD

Quote from: bleedfax18 on July 03, 2011, 06:23:24 AM
The automatic registration setting needs a little bit of tweaking, based on the following scenario:

I wanted my A320s to be assigned the registrations N200IF, N201IF, N202IF and so on. So I set this function to begin with N200IF. However, after three aircrafts have been delivered now (over night), the registrations were N200IF, N200IG and N200IH. I had to re-register them with the new codes (which is ok, as it doesn't cost anything).

This can be fixed from user end. (at least for used a/c)

it happens when
1. user set N200IF as prefix in settings
2. user manually entered N200IF for an existing plane
3. the first delivery after N200IF was set, because N200IF has been used, the system automatically change the last letter.

to fix it:
set the existing plane's registration number prior to the setting, ie N200IF for the plane and N201IF in the setting.

Cheers
Pai

Quote from: Pai on July 03, 2011, 01:20:24 PMto fix it:
set the existing plane's registration number prior to the setting, ie N200IF for the plane and N201IF in the setting.

Yes, but that only helps for the first aircraft. The automatic registration function will continue as N201IG, N201IH, so you need to enter registration each new (or used) aircraft manually whole time ;)

Edit buttons missing from right hand side
see pics


[attachment expired]

Quote from: Sigma on July 03, 2011, 02:51:13 AM
Is there some kind of hit to airlines operating a lot of frequency on a route as a deterrent?

I'm running A300s on DFW-ATL and DFW-DVX, taking a bit less than 100% of the demand on each route.  The planes are identical with identical configs, as are the schedules.  But there's a lot more planes on the ATL route (since more demand) and a bit more RI as a result of operating the route a couple game-weeks longer.

But the ATL planes are running only about 20% LF, even after lowering the fares 20%.  But the DVX planes are running 60-70%, which is what I would expect at this point.

Quote from sami here https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.40.html (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.40.html) :

* Added a new method for calculating / reducing the effect of flight that depart at the same time:

   - If you have several flights to the same destination (ie. same route-pair) departing at the very same time, or very near the same time, they are counted almost like a single flight.

   - The "minimum departure interval" depends on how large the passenger demand of the route is. But rule of thumb is that on lower-demand sectors (less than ~400pax/day) the route departure times should be always at least 60 minutes apart. If the route is more busy the allowed interval drops linearily all the way to 5 minutes. On a 1000 pax/day route you can have the flights depart approx every 35 minutes, and on 4000pax/day route the min. interval is 15 mins between two flights. The interval is calculated so that players can keep decent frequencies during daylight hours.

   - If the flights are too close to each others they are treated basically as a single flight (but with the total amount of seats available of course), so this leads to lower sales for those flights that overlap or nearly overlap on dep. times.

   - But from now on, never make two flights depart to the same destination at the exactly same time.



Good move IMHO - players will have to think about scheduling now, rather than just copy.

MD

Quote from: sami on July 03, 2011, 10:08:34 AM
You have multiple flights departing at the VERY same time to same destination, span them out more (since it's a high demand route, make them let's say 15-20 minutes apart).

Yeap, that was it.

I changed the departure times, and everything seems to work.  Within a couple game-days I was getting LFs in the 70s.  So the feature seems to be working as intended.

Extremely welcome change.

EDIT:  No, I take that back.  I got high LFs because I had a plane in maintenance (the middle one that departed at 0530, leaving just 2 at 0505 and 0550).  It appears the difference needs to be a minimum of 30minutes (I only get to about 50% LF with flights at 0505, 0530, and 0550) and more like 45min+ for no hit at all (with flights at just 0505 and 0550 I get about 70%, what I expect with this CI).  I've got to play around with it a bit more.

Anyhow the LF should not be this low.

Quote from: Curse on July 03, 2011, 04:01:47 PM
Anyhow the LF should not be this low.

Depends on the perspective of the problem, I guess.

Under the way AWS worked previously, I'd agree with you.  Because there was no 'granularity' to the demand.  If you flew 2000 seats at 6am on a route with 3000 demand, you'd get all your planes filled up.  The reasoning being if there were no other option, then people would fly you regardless of when you showed up.

But, if you figure I was flying in about 1200 seats worth of demand in a 15-minute span, it makes sense that half of the entire route demand wouldn't want to fly all at 0515.  I was still getting about 300 people to fly though, they were just split between 4 planes.  When I moved a plane last night to 3 planes, the LF did go up -- so I was still moving the same number of passengers, just divided amongst fewer planes.

And when I split them all out 20 minutes, I now appear to be getting planes as full as I would have in the past.  I can still pick up the 1200 seats, half the route demand, I just have to do it over 80 minutes rather than just 15.

We could probably argue all day about relative 'realism' of this (if anything, it should be even more harsh, in my opinion).  And I think your point is that it shouldn't really matter until competition shows up and the way my planes are scheduled I get less of a frequency bonus, as opposed to how it is working now where it's actually a close-departure-time punishment rather than a frequency hit.  But, regardless, it adds a significant depth of strategy on very dense routes that pushes players to use larger planes because frequent departures of smaller ones will no longer be viable.

Really like the 10m game day on this by the way.

Is the new categorisation of airport classes implemented in v1.3?

Quote from: sami on June 14, 2011, 03:54:34 PM
Thought of this and would probably go with a size class system that has two parts:

* "Infrastructure" level, 1-10; measuring the level of available airport facilities like terminal and apron capacity. Affects available slots, and various prices (like handling), and could affect number of planes one can base at apt.

* "Traffic" level, 1-10; measuring the level of (statistical or actual) passengers at this airport. Affects various costs ..

These would be displayed separately.


(change to size classification is necessary to facilitate other features)

Quote from: Daveos on July 03, 2011, 04:19:27 PM
Is the new categorisation of airport classes implemented in v1.3?

No, didn't have time to think it properly.

(mainly since the sizeclass variable affects so many other features..etc)

Quote from: Sigma on July 03, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
But, regardless, it adds a significant depth of strategy on very dense routes that pushes players to use larger planes because frequent departures of smaller ones will no longer be viable.

I'm on your side, Sigma, but here I must disagree. Atlanta - KDFW is not a very big route, you cover it with 5 or 6 flights of A300. As you pointed out the needed time-span are 20 minutes.

Effective flights are possible between 4 o'clock and 24 o'clock, that makes 20 hours á 3 flight possibilities. So a total of 60 possible flights without having one flight counted as two.
1200 pax divided with 60 flights = 20 seats the smallest possible aircraft must have.

So there is still no difference in flying 70 seat ATR, 150 seat 737, 220 seat 757 or 300 seat A300.


Long text in short:
The feature is a good idea but it is not strict enough to be effective. At the moment it's just a bit pain in the ass without the cool result (= forced to use bigger aircraft).

Quote from: ArcherII on July 02, 2011, 07:56:26 PM
I've also noticed that the MDs have nearly 600 kg/h better fuel consumption than in the current DOTM2. 

Idk... the 83 has the same fuel consumptiona as it was in the BW.

Does everybody like that you can only lease a new a/c for 5 years at the min? Im not sure if I like that yet

I ran the test server on my iphone today and didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.

Quote from: Monk Xion on July 03, 2011, 08:45:27 PM
Does everybody like that you can only lease a new a/c for 5 years at the min? Im not sure if I like that yet

I don't like that, too. 3 or maybe 4 year were ok but 5 year lease.... it makes more sense to purchase the aircraft and lease it out later now if one has the money.

Quote from: Curse on July 03, 2011, 09:43:50 PM
I don't like that, too. 3 or maybe 4 year were ok but 5 year lease.... it makes more sense to purchase the aircraft and lease it out later now if one has the money.

I agree b/c I usually like to swap the a/c after 3 yrs or re lease them.

About the lists:

Quote from: sami on July 03, 2011, 10:08:34 AM
The new pretty flag-enabled dropdown causes this. It is either way, the looks or functionality. Would prefer both but not sure if that is possible.

I think most people would prefer functionality. Would it change anything if you put the flags after the text (to the right of the countries)?


/Daniel

Like the colors on the route map of airport page. More functional would be adding a third color for routes flown by both you and a competitor(s).

Quote from: hightide1971 on July 03, 2011, 10:16:47 PMLike the colors on the route map of airport page. More functional would be adding a third color for routes flown by both you and a competitor(s).

+1

The new launched B777 is with 6 440 kg / hr average fuel burn!!!!
It's like the B737 in DOTM2!!

Regarding the flight interval requirements...

Not sure if it is working as intended, so here is what I have found on my PEK-SHA route.

I am running 17 daily flights for a total of 2328 daily pax on demand of 3630 pax/day. On no day does my supplied seats exceed demand, yet my LF's on my 1200 hour flights (1200, 1225, 1235, 1235) run between 35% and 50% while the remaining flights are around 75-85%. My CI is 29 and RI is 56.

Should LF's be taking that kind of a hit when demand is not met and there is no competition?

Don

@ jetwestinc

The same situation was described and discusse by Sigma and me one page before this in this thread :)  It's working as intended as far as I know.

In my experience, on a route with almost identical demand, you MUST leave 30 minutes between flights, else your LFs go into the toilet.  It's not 15-20 like sami recommended I try, it's not even 25.  It's got to be 30 minutes.  Absolutely no less than that.  It's not like a linear gradient thing, where you get hurt more with 2 flights within 5 minutes than you do with 2 flights within 25 minutes; they'll all fly half-empty.  Put 2 flights within 30 minutes and all will be fine.

Quote from: Sigma on July 03, 2011, 11:40:25 PM
In my experience, on a route with almost identical demand, you MUST leave 30 minutes between flights, else your LFs go into the toilet.  It's not 15-20 like sami recommended I try, it's not even 25.  It's got to be 30 minutes.  Absolutely no less than that.  It's not like a linear gradient thing, put 2 flights within 25 minutes, and they'll be half-full.  Put 2 flights within 30 minutes and all will be fine.

It should be 45 minutes, not 30.

Just my 2 cents.

You both guys know this depends on how much pax there are on a route average? So I'm sure Tokyo Haneda to Sapporo or Fukuoka will work with 10 minutes while other routes need the full 60 minutes.

Quote from: Curse on July 03, 2011, 11:44:36 PM
You both guys know this depends on how much pax there are on a route average? So I'm sure Tokyo Haneda to Sapporo or Fukuoka will work with 10 minutes while other routes need the full 60 minutes.

Yes, that's why I said that my experience was on a route with about the same demand as jetwestinc was using. 

But, really, we don't know that for sure.  That's what the intention was, but I don't have any 10000/day routes to test it on.  Suppose I could just BK and go to Haneda.  I'll have to try it to a smaller destination at DFW first and see what happens.

Quote from: Curse on July 03, 2011, 11:27:39 PM
@ jetwestinc

The same situation was described and discusse by Sigma and me one page before this in this thread :)  It's working as intended as far as I know.

Yes, I read through that, but the way Sami explained it (IIRC) was that any flights inside the minimum window would count as one frequency, but still offer all the seats. I read that to mean that the 4 flights that I have inside that window should be the statistical equivalent of 1 500 seat plane, but it seems to be calculated more line 1 150 seat plane with the passengers being split up between all 4 flights.

Don

FUEL CONTRACTS

I've read through all of this thread and haven't seen discussion of the fuel contacts so much yet... please direct me if I've missed it.

I'm surprised at how the fuel contract is set up, if I understand it correctly. Basically... it just offers a percentage discount from the daily price for a fixed monthly fee. So if your airline uses enough fuel so that a percentage discount is greater than the monthly fee, you gain. For small airlines, this will not make sense. (a new airline spends $200k / week on fuel; 5% reduction = savings of $10k / month, so a contract fee of under $40k / month leads to net gain, contracts seem to be 100-250k / month, so no good). For larger airlines, it will certainly make sense (e.g. spends $10M / week on fuel; 5% reduction = savings of $500k/week = $2M / month, so contract with monthly fees under this are big savings. There will be some guess work about when an airline crosses that line to make the fuel contracts worth it... but I don't see a big strategic difference in this.

What I thought the fuel contracts would be: an opportunity to lock in a fixed price for fuel for a certain period of time. So fuel prices right now are $169 / ton. I can choose to "lock in" this price for the next 1 year, and I pay this price no matter what market prices do. Market prices go up, I win by locking in the lower price. Market prices go down, I lose because I'm paying the higher price.

Am I getting this right, and is anyone else surprised by it?

LIVE UPDATES

I like that the game clock is live in the window. Would it be possible to also have the money update live? I ask because I often have multiple windows open, and when I buy a plane in one window, then go back to another window, my money is not updated... of course being confusing.

NOt sure if this is feasible or not... but would be nice. Thanks.

Quote from: LuckyLibra on July 04, 2011, 12:32:34 AM
FUEL CONTRACTS

I've read through all of this thread and haven't seen discussion of the fuel contacts so much yet... please direct me if I've missed it.

I'm surprised at how the fuel contract is set up, if I understand it correctly. Basically... it just offers a percentage discount from the daily price for a fixed monthly fee. So if your airline uses enough fuel so that a percentage discount is greater than the monthly fee, you gain. For small airlines, this will not make sense. (a new airline spends $200k / week on fuel; 5% reduction = savings of $10k / month, so a contract fee of under $40k / month leads to net gain, contracts seem to be 100-250k / month, so no good). For larger airlines, it will certainly make sense (e.g. spends $10M / week on fuel; 5% reduction = savings of $500k/week = $2M / month, so contract with monthly fees under this are big savings. There will be some guess work about when an airline crosses that line to make the fuel contracts worth it... but I don't see a big strategic difference in this.

What I thought the fuel contracts would be: an opportunity to lock in a fixed price for fuel for a certain period of time. So fuel prices right now are $169 / ton. I can choose to "lock in" this price for the next 1 year, and I pay this price no matter what market prices do. Market prices go up, I win by locking in the lower price. Market prices go down, I lose because I'm paying the higher price.

Am I getting this right, and is anyone else surprised by it?

I agree, as in my earlier post here on fuel. This feature may only lead to the fact that as we grow, we will all move to the biggest discount. Would be better, if there were the possibility to 'guess' or 'secure' oil prices for a price, which may be a huge threat to your airline, once the contract expires.
Cheer,
Denis

CHARTS

I like the new charts for the routes, showing ticket income, fuel, and other costs.

I would like to also have such a chart for my aircraft, with the financial info (tickets, line maintenance, insurance, fuel, route costs) that is on the aircraft info page.

  I believe that Toronto city centre is a restricted airport. If anyone has the data to forward to sami that would be great.

City Centre is only restricted by runway legnth, not by other factors I thought.

  Spent a few minutes searching and it has a turbofan restriction, see www.torontoport.com/airport_facts.asp under aircraft accomadation

Quote from: dhtdkcug on July 03, 2011, 11:15:11 PM
The new launched B777 is with 6 440 kg / hr average fuel burn!!!!
It's like the B737 in DOTM2!!

You'd ought to check again the figures. 737 burns around 2500/h I think.

Quote from: LuckyLibra on July 04, 2011, 12:46:16 AM
I like that the game clock is live in the window. Would it be possible to also have the money update live?

Already does that on every day change.

Quote from: LuckyLibra on July 04, 2011, 12:32:34 AM
FUEL CONTRACTS

Fuel hedges will be added later, but it should also extend the outstations then ... somehow.

Thanks for fixing the lists (no scrolling needed anymore)  ;D

I am also experiencing very different LFs on long-hauls. Flying to Paris, London, Madrid with a 7-matrix on 742 from Mumbai, all starting in the same week, I have very different results that cannot be related to departure time nor frequency (1 daily), nor demand. I continue to have London at 55% LFs, while Paris it up at 80%. Both started in the same week, both without competition, both healthy departure times, same 7-matrix.

The only thing I noticed is that the weaker flights depart until 09.00am and the more successful flights after 12.00pm. But then again, I find huge differences depending on the week day. Not sure, perhaps I just imagine this or just do not remember from the past.

On daily operated routes, I also have significant jumps. 83% LF on Saturday, then 36% on wednesday, and the next wednesday 84% (762, Mumbai-Istanbul), no comptition.

Cheers,
Denis

Edit: This is not a 'bug' report, but observation, as I am not sure if this is supposed to be working like that. Personally, I find it quite good.

Quote from: DenisG on July 04, 2011, 03:30:47 PM
I am also experiencing very different LFs on long-hauls. Flying to Paris, London, Madrid with a 7-matrix on 742 from Mumbai, all starting in the same week, I have very different results that cannot be related to departure time nor frequency (1 daily), nor demand. I continue to have London at 55% LFs, while Paris it up at 80%. Both started in the same week, both without competition, both healthy departure times, same 7-matrix.

The only thing I noticed is that the weaker flights depart until 09.00am and the more successful flights after 12.00pm. But then again, I find huge differences depending on the week day. Not sure, perhaps I just imagine this or just do not remember from the past.

Cheers,
Denis

I'm having issues as well on NRT-LAX and NRT-HNL. I just moved everything to a 30 minute interval to see if that helps, but if it doesn't, then it would almost seem that the day of the flight is being disregarded for the limitation (i.e. if you have a monday 10AM and a tuesday 10AM on different flight numbers, both get zinged even if you only have 1x flight per day).

Not sure if the feature request bucket is taking ideas, but it would be awesome to have a warning box put up if the "flights too close" threshold gets triggered.  Its making some long haul scheduling a royal pain/nearly impossible where the city pair only has a 2 hour window of acceptable takeoff/landing timeslots yet needs an 8x frequency on a VLA to fill demand...

Quote from: Curse on July 03, 2011, 11:44:36 PM
You both guys know this depends on how much pax there are on a route average? So I'm sure Tokyo Haneda to Sapporo or Fukuoka will work with 10 minutes while other routes need the full 60 minutes.

yes, it works from Haneda to sapporo or fukuoka with 15 minutes interval. LF between 75-85%. It confirms Sami's notes that route with 4000 pax/day or more should doing well with 15 minutes intervals and route with 2000 pax/day needs 35 minutes intervals.

T. Wong

FYI; if you have some routes that need a closer look for some reason please keep the route running and post the flight number and destination.

I will occasionally take database snapshots and can then debug then locally (or debug is a poor word but I can see the "analysis" for pax distribution). Though not sure if I am able to do anything in a few days, should try to be on holiday a bit ;)


Anyway 1.3 seems to be going smoothly and all minor issues are fixed. So expect MT#5 on saturday afternoon.

Quote from: sami on July 04, 2011, 05:10:53 PM
FYI; if you have some routes that need a closer look for some reason please keep the route running and post the flight number and destination.

I will occasionally take database snapshots and can then debug then locally (or debug is a poor word but I can see the "analysis" for pax distribution). Though not sure if I am able to do anything in a few days, should try to be on holiday a bit ;)


Anyway 1.3 seems to be going smoothly and all minor issues are fixed. So expect MT#5 on saturday afternoon.

Will we have a grand opening with beer?

MT5 on Saturday sounds great!

Cheers,
Denis

I've got a couple parked planes that I haven't scheduled yet and I'm getting a big threatening banner that says some of my planes have expired checks or are grounded, please maintain them.

Since this is purposeful (no point to do checks on a plane that isn't flying yet), I'm not sure I like the banner...

Yep. Would be nice if the banner only shows up when an aircraft with routes scheduled has checks left. Should be easy possible due to the new "unscheduled aircraft"-page. What's listed there can't pop up the banner.

Isn't it the rule "Not allow to make a technical stopover in the world's largest airports" already canceled? But I still cannot make a technical stopover in Beijing.



[attachment expired]

Quote from: ksliu9 on July 05, 2011, 05:25:57 AM
Isn't it the rule "Not allow to make a technical stopover in the world's largest airports" already canceled? But I still cannot make a technical stopover in Beijing.

I think the rule: Not allowed to open a new base in Top 20 largest airports - is now allowed in 1.3.

Good to hear it's working OK so far...  ;)

Oh, oh, my Madrid route seems to have stopped working.

Different aircraft, flying 7-matrix, and one is still showing results.

I haven't modified anything on these routes. Delays are normal.

4 of 5 Madrid-Mumbai routes show no results, no history.

Perhaps B-check? I have scheduled all B-checks to effect the Madrid routes. But B-checks last for one day and should at least show the figure from the week before?!

Denis

[attachment expired]

Just a little error here.

Current Description for CASA C-212:

Originally a military aircraft made to replace the aging fleet Spanish Airforce transport planes was successfully transformed into a regional airliner.


---
A bit of a grammar problem here?  ;D

Could be...

Originally a military aircraft made to replace the aging fleet of Spanish Air Force transport planes, the CASA C-212 was successfully transformed into a regional airliner.


--

The rest of the game is working wonderfully with me so far, bankrupted a few times, switched around to other bases, no bugs present  8).

Quote from: DenisG on July 05, 2011, 12:07:35 PM
Oh, oh, my Madrid route seems to have stopped working.

* Press 'edit' for the route.

* Check if slot price is $0, or not

* if price is 0$ then it is b check or similar, otherwise it has lost the slot and have to figure why.

Quote from: sami on July 05, 2011, 02:08:12 PM
* Press 'edit' for the route.

* Check if slot price is $0, or not

* if price is 0$ then it is b check or similar, otherwise it has lost the slot and have to figure why.

Slots are ok; I believe it must have been B-check, but it should have shown results from earlier weeks. Now, all Madrid routes are working fine again. I have another route with $0 right now, but it shows me that the concerned flight was canceled.
Denis

Edit:
C-checks had no influence on this, just checked the dates.

The route 017/018 did not show any results on 02 October (posting, screenshot above). Now on 14 October, it shows results for the 22 September, that should already have been displayed in the screenshot from 02 October.

[attachment expired]

Just thought of something to ponder. What do you guys think is the ammount of a/c that you need to make signing a fuel contract worthwhile? (or type , number of routes ,etc).

I was just thinking about this after I signed a contract. I have a bunch of A300's, with more coming and some Dash 8-300B's on the way too.

Idk just something to think about for strategy further on.

Quote from: Monk Xion on July 05, 2011, 08:04:46 PM
Just thought of something to ponder. What do you guys think is the ammount of a/c that you need to make signing a fuel contract worthwhile? (or type , number of routes ,etc).

I was just thinking about this after I signed a contract. I have a bunch of A300's, with more coming and some Dash 8-300B's on the way too.

Idk just something to think about for strategy further on.

I think it is difficult to quantify, but as a rough estimate, if you divide your weekly fuel costs in half and figure the discount, determine whether the amount saved is greater than what you pay...

In this scenario, i've got a bunch of 747s flying during a fuel spike and i'm spending 8 million per week in fuel. One of the suppliers is offering a 6.6% discount for 174k, so in theory, i'd save 100k going with that unless fuel prices came down a bit, then i'd lose my cost advantage.

Quote from: schro on July 05, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
I think it is difficult to quantify, but as a rough estimate, if you divide your weekly fuel costs in half and figure the discount, determine whether the amount saved is greater than what you pay...

In this scenario, i've got a bunch of 747s flying during a fuel spike and i'm spending 8 million per week in fuel. One of the suppliers is offering a 6.6% discount for 174k, so in theory, i'd save 100k going with that unless fuel prices came down a bit, then i'd lose my cost advantage.

Interesting. Another question... If you are based In San Juan , Puerto Rico ; can you open up a base on the Mainland? I know this has been debated many times and you can base in PR if you are a US airline... but has this been fixed in 1.3?

I was wondering where it was mentioned about the removal of the basing restriction where you can now open a second base at a top 20 airport and there is no longer a 70plane limit.

Is this true? Thanks.

Quote from: kevin.yeung on July 05, 2011, 10:20:27 PM
I was wondering where it was mentioned about the removal of the basing restriction where you can now open a second base at a top 20 airport and there is no longer a 70plane limit.


Is this true? Thanks.

Yes, no top 20 limit, no, still 70 a/c limit.

Quote from: Tiger Wong on July 04, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
yes, it works from Haneda to sapporo or fukuoka with 15 minutes interval. LF between 75-85%. It confirms Sami's notes that route with 4000 pax/day or more should doing well with 15 minutes intervals and route with 2000 pax/day needs 35 minutes intervals.

T. Wong

Can someone confirm if this is the case?

Quote from: kevin.yeung on July 05, 2011, 10:20:27 PM
I was wondering where it was mentioned about the removal of the basing restriction where you can now open a second base at a top 20 airport and there is no longer a 70plane limit.

Is this true? Thanks.

Only removal of Top20 limit. There was no single word from sami's side about the 70 aircraft limit.

Sami, I really miss the airline overview page with fleet and pax development and route network. I really tried to get used to it...  :'(

Denis

Any opinion about a Puerto Rican Airline basing in the US?

You should be able to open a base in the US if you are based in PR. Unless something has changed, back in the North American Challenge SJU based carriers opened multiple bases in the US.

Don

Quote from: jetwestinc on July 06, 2011, 07:34:03 PM
You should be able to open a base in the US if you are based in PR. Unless something has changed, back in the North American Challenge SJU based carriers opened multiple bases in the US.

Don

Good ;D Now I can plan my airline for MT 5  ;D

can't wait to play a new game with 1.3 up!  8)

At the 'Global statistics' list, Total produced aircraft doesn't sum up at the total count.

Quote from: jetwestinc on July 06, 2011, 07:34:03 PM
You should be able to open a base in the US if you are based in PR. Unless something has changed, back in the North American Challenge SJU based carriers opened multiple bases in the US.

Don

Yeah we sure did  ;D And if it was changed to where you couldn't it wouldn't make any sense.

Is there going to be an increase in slots in this game? They seem to have been static for quite a while now...........  :(

Quote from: Davva9961 on July 07, 2011, 11:38:21 AM
Is there going to be an increase in slots in this game? They seem to have been static for quite a while now...........  :(

I've been questioning that too. I used up all of the slots between 5-6 hrs. There is only 9 per hr for my airport. LHR Is worse... all of them are taken!

I didn't make it into beta.  Quick question:

Have the specs of 787 aircraft been updated?  Can someome post a screenshot of Aircraft compare of 2 787 aircraft from 1.3?

Good news on removal of Top 20 basing restriction.  But it is not going to all that much if the 70 aircraft limit is still present.  One of the points of basing in Top 20 airport would be to fulfill the larger demand of the airport.  Or to effectively compete with the incumbent player at Top 20 airport.  You can't really do that much competing in, say ATL with 70 aircraft...

Quote from: Monk Xion on July 07, 2011, 05:59:48 PM
I've been questioning that too. I used up all of the slots between 5-6 hrs.

I checked the slot count against a local database copy that has a game date one year behind the current, and slot count is the same, so there seems to be an issue there. Probably just not updating the figure properly throughout the year (= it's counting it but not saving..).

Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 07, 2011, 08:09:58 PM
Have the specs of 787 aircraft been updated?

Seems that something has been updated, at least max pax and fuel flow are different.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 07, 2011, 08:09:58 PM
Good news on removal of Top 20 basing restriction.  But it is not going to all that much if the 70 aircraft limit is still present.  One of the points of basing in Top 20 airport would be to fulfill the larger demand of the airport.  Or to effectively compete with the incumbent player at Top 20 airport.  You can't really do that much competing in, say ATL with 70 aircraft...

I was thinking this too. Now that we have slots increasing eventually to 200% of their original levels and the fact these slots are very expensive, it would seem pretty pointless opening a base in the Top20 with only 70 aircraft. You'd be doing your airline more harm than good competing with its incumbent player(s).

Let the 'big dogs' fight it out if they choose to. For smaller airlines and from a business standpoint, they wouldn't be stupid enough to open up there until they knew they and their airline were ready for it. However, for the bigger airlines and their players, this would be a good challange for them to go up against their 'equals' and would provide longevity further into the latter portion of the game world rather than getting fed up once they've reached their goals and bankrupting halfway through.

I realise all this has been discussed before so it just my thoughts now that we have an increased but expensive slot system in place to offset the usefulness of 70 aircraft.

The top70 was supposed to be gone with the "number of aircraft possible to be based at certain airport" (= airport ramp/gate capacity) feature.. But it proved to be quite tricky to calculate in a proper manner, so I have dropped it for now. But then I guess the 70-plane restriction could be lifted and just see what happens, since slots dictate it now, and slots will most likely not be anymore the most restrictive item?


ps. slot numbers should be fixed now, they update slowly throughout the next few game weeks.

ps2. if you (all) have any "final" feedback, it's now or never, since the real game world starts in 1,5 days.

Quote from: sami on July 07, 2011, 09:47:51 PM
ps. slot numbers should be fixed now, they update slowly throughout the next few game weeks.

Wow, slots for KSFO just doubled within the last hour  :o

v1.3 seems a nice natural step from v1.2 and it's crazy to think how different things are since the original.  Some very hard work there, it's always greatly apreciated :)

One very minor issue is with the 'unscheduled aircraft' option in scheduling.

As soon as you schedule one route to an unscheduled aircraft, the aircraft then disappears into its fleet category and you have move around then pretty much removing the need for the option originally selected.  It's ok with a small fleet, but once bases open and fleets get larger I can imagine it becoming a bit frustrating.  Is there any possibility (and I know it was mentioned somewhere before) there could be an option to tick that says the aircraft is fully scheduled before it changes category?

EDIT:  https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,25598.0.html - the tick box was suggested in the original request :)

Quote from: Daveos on July 07, 2011, 10:22:58 PM
Is there any possibility

Not really as "1 route = not unscheduled". And any checkboxes etc. would need a completely different system.

Quote from: sami on July 07, 2011, 10:30:58 PM
Not really as "1 route = not unscheduled". And any checkboxes etc. would need a completely different system.

No worries.  Aside from that, everything looks great.  The forums are brimming with excitement!

I think the 'Most Online Ever: 307 (April 16, 2010, 07:30:02 PM) ' might fall on Saturday :)

Quote from: sami on July 07, 2011, 09:47:51 PM
The top70 was supposed to be gone with the "number of aircraft possible to be based at certain airport" (= airport ramp/gate capacity) feature.. But it proved to be quite tricky to calculate in a proper manner, so I have dropped it for now. But then I guess the 70-plane restriction could be lifted and just see what happens, since slots dictate it now, and slots will most likely not be anymore the most restrictive item?


ps. slot numbers should be fixed now, they update slowly throughout the next few game weeks.

ps2. if you (all) have any "final" feedback, it's now or never, since the real game world starts in 1,5 days.

 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

NOOOOOOOOOOO! don't get rid of the 70 a/c restriction, please!

I have a hard enough time coordinating how alliance members can share bases currently, and if there is no a/c restriction, then everyone will want their own bases and it will make my life impossible. Also, forcing members to limit the amount of aircraft means that more advanced strategy (fleet planning, route choice, etc.) and cooperation (route sharing, etc.) is required, which enhances the gameplaying experience.


However if you were to decide to do this (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31165.0.html), it might mitigate this problem somewhat while still making the game more strategic.

Is there any chance of increasing the number of characters allowed in the alliance description? 

I've been working on a few things, but 500 is pretty short to get everything in.

Quote from: sami on July 07, 2011, 09:47:51 PM
But then I guess the 70-plane restriction could be lifted and just see what happens, since slots dictate it now, and slots will most likely not be anymore the most restrictive item?

We can only try and see where it leads to.

On average i can get around 1500 slots with 70 aicraft flying mainly domestic/Intl shout haul routes. If my calculations are correct, an airport like ATL in MT4 at the moment with 91 slots per hour is a total of 15,288 slots in a week. 91 x 24 x 7 = 15,288. The main incumbent airline there currently uses up 10,339 slots. Any airline who wishes to open a base there is hardly going to make any sort of impression/indentation by only using 70 aircraft on an average of 1500 slots.

Granted this situation is only at the largest airport in the game by pax demand but you see my point. Even if you decide to increase the amount of aircraft form 70 to something like 200, it would certainly help in my opinion.

Quote from: BobTheCactus on July 07, 2011, 10:35:32 PM
  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

NOOOOOOOOOOO! don't get rid of the 70 a/c restriction, please!

I have a hard enough time coordinating how alliance members can share bases currently, and if there is no a/c restriction, then everyone will want their own bases and it will make my life impossible. Also, forcing members to limit the amount of aircraft means that more advanced strategy (fleet planning, route choice, etc.) and cooperation (route sharing, etc.) is required, which enhances the gameplaying experience.

However if you were to decide to do this (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31165.0.html), it might mitigate this problem somewhat while still making the game more strategic.

Being in an alliance shouldn't be restrictive. You say cooperation enhances the gameplay experience so that means everyone has their own right to open a base wherever they wish to.....not be ditacted to by the alliance manangement degrading that experience. Granted they shouldn't open up where another member is based but all routes that are contested between alliance members hubs/bases should be discussed and cooperated by the airlines involved, not management.

In any case why would you put two or more member airlines in the same airports. Would that not restrict their strategies and gameplaying experience?

Quote from: oggie84 on July 07, 2011, 11:02:07 PM

Being in an alliance shouldn't be restrictive. You say cooperation enhances the gameplay experience so that means everyone has their own right to open a base wherever they wish to.....not be ditacted to by the alliance manangement degrading that experience. Granted they shouldn't open up where another member is based but all routes that are contested between alliance members hubs/bases should be discussed and cooperated by the airlines involved, not management.

In any case why would you put two or more member airlines in the same airports. Would that not restrict their strategies and gameplaying experience?

The management doesn't contol our members, they are free to do whatever they want for the most part. However, in order to allow everyone to base where they want and not force people to base in certain places to avoid conflict, we have 10 members in the US next gameworld. With the 70 a/c restriction, the airlines feel comfortable to share a base with an alliancemate so all routes are covered. However, if the 70 route restriction goes, then they will all fight over where to base, and the first people to get dragged in will be me, and the rest of the management.

Quote from: Daveos on July 07, 2011, 10:57:27 PM
Is there any chance of increasing the number of characters allowed in the alliance description? 

I've been working on a few things, but 500 is pretty short to get everything in.

+1

Good news on 787 update and on experimental lifting of the 70 aircraft limit.

Even though I don't have the first hand experience with the Beta of 1.3, just from the announcements and comments, it looks like it is a great evolutionary step for AWS.

I noticed (from the announcements) that a number of new features I put in as Feature Requests made it in.  Thanks Sami.  I hope the players will also find them useful as well.

Now, I can't wait for Saturday...

A big +1 to eliminating or increasing aircraft limits at secondary bases from me!

Quote from: jetwestinc on July 08, 2011, 12:08:41 AM
A big +1 to eliminating or increasing aircraft limits at secondary bases from me!

Just realize that you, SAC, and the other person are gonna have the same issue as me ;) - if you are ok with that, then I guess we're all on level footing.

My opinion is still very  :-\ :-\ :-\ though

Quote from: BobTheCactus on July 08, 2011, 12:13:36 AM
Just realize that you, SAC, and the other person are gonna have the same issue as me ;) - if you are ok with that, then I guess we're all on level footing.

My opinion is still very  :-\ :-\ :-\ though

Increasing or eliminating aircraft limits will certainly not be a problem within WorldLink or their Airlines  ;)

Quote from: BobTheCactus on July 08, 2011, 12:13:36 AM
Just realize that you, SAC, and the other person are gonna have the same issue as me ;) - if you are ok with that, then I guess we're all on level footing.

My opinion is still very  :-\ :-\ :-\ though

I think every alliance will, to some extent, have basing issues with an eliminated aircraft limit, just some more than others. I do not recall every having multiple airlines based at one airport in an alliance I have been in (Glibal Team/Key choice), so I am not sure it will be a big issue for us. What I do think is it will allow second/third/fourth bases to be fully developed and actually be profitable and make it impossible for the airlines that hide at (historically) slot constrained airports to grow uncontested as in the past.

I think, if it is possible, we should at least try a world with no 70 aircraft limit. I will make things interesting, if nothing else.

Don

Quote from: jetwestinc on July 08, 2011, 12:53:41 AM
I think every alliance will, to some extent, have basing issues with an eliminated aircraft limit, just some more than others. I do not recall every having multiple airlines based at one airport in an alliance I have been in (Glibal Team/Key choice), so I am not sure it will be a big issue for us. What I do think is it will allow second/third/fourth bases to be fully developed and actually be profitable and make it impossible for the airlines that hide at (historically) slot constrained airports to grow uncontested as in the past.

I think, if it is possible, we should at least try a world with no 70 aircraft limit. I will make things interesting, if nothing else.

Don

Well, as long as I'm allowed to say "I told you so" when you realize that it was a bad idea, feel free to say whatever you want  :P

I don't know the technicalities but, shouldn't the EMB120 be allowed to operate at EGLC? Or is that it's not capable of a 5,5º glide slope?

Quote from: jetwestinc on July 08, 2011, 12:08:41 AM
A big +1 to eliminating or increasing aircraft limits at secondary bases from me!

+1

Quote from: sami on July 07, 2011, 09:47:51 PM
ps2. if you (all) have any "final" feedback, it's now or never, since the real game world starts in 1,5 days.

Seriously, sami, this will end in a blood bath.

I know I'm not the average guy (you aim for and the game is made for), but let's us have the best example - DotM #2 with unlimited slots.

The game world is ~5 years old, but my airline King Airways out of Tokyo Haneda finished expansion 2 years ago - simply because I ran out of demand (Tokyo Haneda, Naha Okinawa) and aircraft (Tokyo Narita, Osaka Itami).

Let's just imagine there would be no aircraft limit;
Tokyo Narita could base up to 180 aircraft at the moment, even the DC-10 fleet I have there could be extended to 84 or 91 aircraft. But the demand increases very fast, so if I would be able to, I could base up to 600-700 aircraft till game world end - same for Osaka Itam (Kansai) and later for Naha.

You asked about things that stop airlines - I can tell you what stopped me, but I think you already know it. At first it were the very expensive slots - I spent ~70% of profit in slots and only 30% in aircraft till the break through after 6-10 ingame month. Next thing that stopped me was the aircraft limit and it's the final limit that is not extended.


But now create a new example and no, this is for sure not a "worst case that never will happen".

Imagine in MT#5 some player, let's call him Purse, starts at Atlanta. That there is no slot limit is a nice thing and the 70 aircraft limit made shure, Purse will never open a base at a Top20 airport even he could, because 70 aircraft are not enough to establish some serious domestic route network and even an international limit would be hard to fill up just 25%.
But now there is nearly no slot restriction and on important airports on different continents Purse has lots of friends who could give them slots at airports around his.

What exactly could happen?
Purse knows the game very well, so he don't hesitate and orders different kind of aircraft. His three bases will be Chicago O'Hare, Los Angeles and Dallas - Fort Worth.

A total number of 3000+ aircraft in service was only a wet dream? Not anymore. It's possible and the few players with enough time and effort and maybe skill could and will do this. Yet alone because it's maybe a one time chance - like unlimited slots in DotM#2 what was unfortunately not published before (or our example guy Purse would be at Heathrow and not somewhere in Asia).


Again, not the thing an average player can and will do. And as you for sure know I really like this idea, it's like birthday and Christmas and the second I discovered AWS in one gameworld. But I like this game too much to just enjoy this and not say what extreme consequences this will have.

Quote from: oggie84 on July 07, 2011, 11:02:07 PM
Being in an alliance shouldn't be restrictive.

Granted they shouldn't open up where another member is based but all routes that are contested between alliance members hubs/bases should be discussed and cooperated by the airlines involved, not management.

That's an exciting statement. When exactly changed WorldLink the policy to threat players with alliance kick when they don't share routes or give slots away (happend to me in Jet Age #2 and Air Travel Boom #1?). And when WorldLink stopped to create HQ and bases lists (that were made for Jet Age #2, ATB#1, DoTM #1 (or 2?) and an early MT?

No offense, but I'm a bit surprised from which side such statements are made - however, I know you in person, oggie84, has never threaten me to do so. Simply sort things out that are near first and not the one that are far away.

QuoteIn any case why would you put two or more member airlines in the same airports. Would that not restrict their strategies and gameplaying experience?

If both players stick to their strategy and if it's a good strategy and the airport offers enough opportunities, it could be great and very successful.

Curse,

I believe I had some 800 aircraft in ATL in MT3, plus another 140 in 2 bases.

I think the difference with 70 aircraft limit being lifted, and slot limits being raise is that the demand for aircraft will go up, and aircraft delivery rate will be the new limiting factor.

Another result will probably (hopefully) be more competition.  If I look at my airline in MT4, I am flying competition free on maybe 95% of the routes, with LFs in stratosphere.  Lifting some of these limits will introduce more competition.

You never know, your fictional Purse character in ATL may get some competition from another strong player at his HQ in ATL.  With slots going to 200% later in the game, ATL can support 2 x 800 aircraft in a deathmatch and LFs in the 40s....

Quote from: Curse on July 08, 2011, 06:34:31 PM
Seriously, sami, this will end in a blood bath.

I know I'm not the average guy (you aim for and the game is made for), but let's us have the best example - DotM #2 with unlimited slots.

The game world is ~5 years old, but my airline King Airways out of Tokyo Haneda finished expansion 2 years ago - simply because I ran out of demand (Tokyo Haneda, Naha Okinawa) and aircraft (Tokyo Narita, Osaka Itami).

Let's just imagine there would be no aircraft limit;
Tokyo Narita could base up to 180 aircraft at the moment, even the DC-10 fleet I have there could be extended to 84 or 91 aircraft. But the demand increases very fast, so if I would be able to, I could base up to 600-700 aircraft till game world end - same for Osaka Itam (Kansai) and later for Naha.

You asked about things that stop airlines - I can tell you what stopped me, but I think you already know it. At first it were the very expensive slots - I spent ~70% of profit in slots and only 30% in aircraft till the break through after 6-10 ingame month. Next thing that stopped me was the aircraft limit and it's the final limit that is not extended.


But now create a new example and no, this is for sure not a "worst case that never will happen".

Imagine in MT#5 some player, let's call him Purse, starts at Atlanta. That there is no slot limit is a nice thing and the 70 aircraft limit made shure, Purse will never open a base at a Top20 airport even he could, because 70 aircraft are not enough to establish some serious domestic route network and even an international limit would be hard to fill up just 25%.
But now there is nearly no slot restriction and on important airports on different continents Purse has lots of friends who could give them slots at airports around his.

What exactly could happen?
Purse knows the game very well, so he don't hesitate and orders different kind of aircraft. His three bases will be Chicago O'Hare, Los Angeles and Dallas - Fort Worth.

A total number of 3000+ aircraft in service was only a wet dream? Not anymore. It's possible and the few players with enough time and effort and maybe skill could and will do this. Yet alone because it's maybe a one time chance - like unlimited slots in DotM#2 what was unfortunately not published before (or our example guy Purse would be at Heathrow and not somewhere in Asia).


Again, not the thing an average player can and will do. And as you for sure know I really like this idea, it's like birthday and Christmas and the second I discovered AWS in one gameworld. But I like this game too much to just enjoy this and not say what extreme consequences this will have.



That's an exciting statement. When exactly changed WorldLink the policy to threat players with alliance kick when they don't share routes or give slots away (happend to me in Jet Age #2 and Air Travel Boom #1?). And when WorldLink stopped to create HQ and bases lists (that were made for Jet Age #2, ATB#1, DoTM #1 (or 2?) and an early MT?

No offense, but I'm a bit surprised from which side such statements are made - however, I know you in person, oggie84, has never threaten me to do so. Simply sort things out that are near first and not the one that are far away.

If both players stick to their strategy and if it's a good strategy and the airport offers enough opportunities, it could be great and very successful.

Def could see that happening if somebody took extreme amounts of time to plan out their airline. This is the #1 reason as to why I avoid basing at big airports - there will always be fights with other airlines and I do not want to deal with that stress. I prefer to base at airports with good demand that most players skip over b/c they dont know what kinda demand there is from them.

Quote from: Curse on July 08, 2011, 06:34:31 PM
Seriously, sami, this will end in a blood bath.

Is that not the idea? No longer will airlines in the very top airports be protected by the security of basing and aircraft limits and even the frequency factor to some extent. Now they will get some real competition which will most likely slow their grow, not expodentially increase it. Airline fleets will have to be much more refined to increase airline efficiency and ultimately better profits than his/her competitor(s) in the long war of attrition.  I very much doubt any airline will end up with 3000+ aircraft as like JumboShrimp said, delivery rate will be the limiting factor and the need to not have as many aircraft types to be successful.

If competition is in full swing on every single route with 2-5 airlines, you simply wouldn't get away with having 4-5 fleet types, especially if one or more of your competitors has only 2-3 types. In effect, you simply wouldn't get loads of aircraft of several types simply because other people will be ordering these to. The 'old' way to get around that would be to order another type aswell but are you seriously going to risk that if these restrictions are lifted and competition is everywhere?

To top it off, i've not even mentioned the fuel price yet which will undoubtedly reach over $1000 after the first 10 years if we go on the past ATB's and MT's where it always went upto between $1000-$1500 in the years 2010-2020, further increasing the need for efficiency.

Let's give it a go for at least one game world. If it goes horribly wrong, which i seriously doubt it will, i'll hold my hands up and say i was wrong. It's here in black and white anyway. We can always go back to the drawing board and revise the restrictions. Otherwise we'll never know what needs to be done for the game to improve further if we don't 'test' these ideas.

It took James Dyson many years and hundreds of prototypes before he perfected the Dyson vacuum cleaner and even then no manufacturer would launch his product so he did it himself with his own money and look where he is today. Slightly off topic there but you get my point about how things are meant to progress.

Quote from: oggie84 on July 08, 2011, 07:16:24 PM
If competition is in full swing on every single route with 2-5 airlines, you simply wouldn't get away with having 4-5 fleet types, especially if one or more of your competitors has only 2-3 types. In effect, you simply wouldn't get loads of aircraft of several types simply because other people will be ordering these to. The 'old' way to get around that would be to order another type aswell but are you seriously going to risk that if these restrictions are lifted and competition is everywhere?

One thing I wonder about: As far as I know, there were no changes from 1.2 to 1.3 in adding a new fleet type.  In 1.2, the extra fleet types make some difference, but they are not exactly crushing.

In MT4 (1.2), I went for a super efficient airline, going from 5 fleet types early on, down to 4, 3 and eventyally 2 fleet tyes.  I was looking at the fleet commonality charges before and after, and as I said, changes were relatively small.  So going the other way is not necessarily gong to be crushing.  5 aircraft of 5 fleet types, 1 in each might, but once you get to 50-100 range, it is something that can be overcome.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 08, 2011, 07:35:06 PM
One thing I wonder about: As far as I know, there were no changes from 1.2 to 1.3 in adding a new fleet type.  In 1.2, the extra fleet types make some difference, but they are not exactly crushing.

In MT4 (1.2), I went for a super efficient airline, going from 5 fleet types early on, down to 4, 3 and eventyally 2 fleet tyes.  I was looking at the fleet commonality charges before and after, and as I said, changes were relatively small.  So going the other way is not necessarily gong to be crushing.  5 aircraft of 5 fleet types, 1 in each might, but once you get to 50-100 range, it is something that can be overcome.

I see what you mean, however it was more in reference to other airlines having more streamlined fleets. If they operate less types than you, even by two, they're surely going to survive alot better in a highly competitive environment with extremely high fuel costs. Low LF's, very slim profit margins.

I'm not sure how much competition you had when your airline was going through the transition or even before it. You did say 95% of your routes were competiton free. Now how would you have faired with 5 fleet types with competiton on practically every single route meaning your profit margins are very slim and those extra costs involved in extra fleet types would surely have had a massive impact if we were to have no restrictions on aircraft limits in secondary bases and long queues in production lines?

EDIT: I think another point that has been missed is that profits will not be as much in the long term if competition is extremely high at most airports. This would therefore slow the rate of expansion in any case and on top of that, the less ordering of new aircraft because of this. Correct me if my thinking is wrong...

Quote from: oggie84 on July 08, 2011, 07:16:24 PM
Is that not the idea? No longer will airlines in the very top airports be protected by the security of basing and aircraft limits and even the frequency factor to some extent.

Maybe this is what you want, as someone who has experience and understands the game. But for a newbie who has a tough enough time right now with bigger airlines coming to their airports with 70 aircraft, it will be crushing to have them show up and flood routes with frequency. Since frequency is the only pseudo-competition, removing this limit is essentially declaring all newbie airlines bankrupt before they even start. Not everyone has 16 hours a day to stare at a computer screen like Purse, and there needs to be some kind of protection for those who want to have a good time and play a game. This is the majority of Sami's clientele, and if he removes this limit, I am positive that not only newbies, but experienced members with less time, will flee.

I do have a question to ask about the MT 5. Are there any a/c that even make a profit once the fuel costs hit 1000+? Is it only props or extremly packed jets? IM wondering this because I am trying to plan for the airline that i am going to make in MT5 ;D

Quote from: Monk Xion on July 08, 2011, 08:41:34 PM
I do have a question to ask about the MT 5. Are there any a/c that even make a profit once the fuel costs hit 1000+? Is it only props or extremly packed jets? IM wondering this because I am trying to plan for the airline that i am going to make in MT5 ;D

Bigger planes, like A330, A340, B777, and A306 make cash - you need stregnth in numbers to make up for the high fuel...

Quote from: BobTheCactus on July 08, 2011, 08:43:29 PM
Bigger planes, like A330, A340, B777, and A306 make cash - you need stregnth in numbers to make up for the high fuel...

Ok good. I use A300-600's a lot in San Juan. I make 1 mil a week off of them. I assume that they have high density seating?

Quote from: Monk Xion on July 08, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
Ok good. I use A300-600's a lot in San Juan. I make 1 mil a week off of them. I assume that they have high density seating?

They work best on short dense routes, in HD. They make money, but nothing spectacular.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 08, 2011, 06:55:31 PM
I believe I had some 800 aircraft in ATL in MT3, plus another 140 in 2 bases.

I know, I had over 1000+ aircraft at KLAX without bases and DanDante had over 1200 aircraft out of KORD.

There's still a difference between 1000+ aircraft and 3000+ aircraft.

Quoteand aircraft delivery rate will be the new limiting factor.

I don't think so. Please understand I'm not going to get too deep into details and maybe I'm wrong but especially you (along with 2-3 others) should exactly know what I write about.

QuoteAnother result will probably (hopefully) be more competition.

I never started at an airport with less than five competitors. Half of the time there was one guy that was able to survive and run a small airline along with me, most of the time people failed.

If you reached a specific point competition should not bother you or your airline or at least should give you the financial base to react.

QuoteIf I look at my airline in MT4, I am flying competition free on maybe 95% of the routes, with LFs in stratosphere.

That's a luxury I never had. Where are you in MT#4? I'm still looking for a good base for MT#5 and at the moment I really think about joining a major European airport. Wasn't based there before and Japan is more boring than Los Angeles, something I have not foreseen :/

QuoteLifting some of these limits will introduce more competition.

Yeah, hundreds of skilled people that were just to bored to show up at major airports in the past will appear. No, seriously. As you PM with me I think you PM with some other people as I do and as I will not join their base they will simply not join mine. Simply because consequences are no special secret.

QuoteYou never know, your fictional Purse character in ATL may get some competition from another strong player at his HQ in ATL.

Purse is a smart guy and will, maybe, not show up at Atlanta. Maybe he will base at Heathrow or Tokyo or Sao Paulo. And I'm sure he received a similar message from lots of people maybe as well as from you :)

QuoteWith slots going to 200% later in the game, ATL can support 2 x 800 aircraft in a deathmatch and LFs in the 40s....

150% as far as I know. :) However, fights at Atlanta aren't won with some girly strategy to catch all slots at people at Heathrow, Tokyo (pre DotM) and other airports used to do it.

Quote from: oggie84 on July 08, 2011, 07:16:24 PM
Is that not the idea? No longer will airlines in the very top airports be protected by the security of basing and aircraft limits and even the frequency factor to some extent. Now they will get some real competition which will most likely slow their grow, not expodentially increase it.

Sorry oggie, but you think from the wrong side. Normally the big airlines at big airports are this big because people have simply more time to play AWS and fail not this often. I know there are exceptions and as far as I know everywhere in AWS is laughed at such airlines.


It's like a soccer game. If FC Barcelona plays against some random british third league team, they will probably win. If the referee changes the rules from 11 player to 30 player, the random third league team will not be able to beat Barcelona. In fact they will be totally destroyed by not only 11 uber players, it's a full 30 men army.


So no, I don't fear this one guy based out of Nancy in his first real game world because he opens a base later at Heathrow. And I don't fear DanDante or JumboShrimp or Quinoky or schro or some other uberplayer because of previous said communications. But what's with that new guy operating out of Manchester very successful? What exactly is his strategy when I join there, supported by unlimited money out of EGLL money printers? Or this above average guy out of a well known alliance that struggled a bit at the start because his daughter was ill and he had to take care of her?

Remember alliances are not allowed to go after people (what in fact would make it possible to "kill" an airline). And I will not say it's impossible that these big airlines fail - everybody failed in the past, this happened to me, to you, to carrisi, to Brock and everybody else. But that's not common end.

QuoteAirline fleets will have to be much more refined to increase airline efficiency and ultimately better profits than his/her competitor(s) in the long war of attrition.

It's MT. You have unlimited demand out of the big airports, destroying an airline in the first weeks/month isn't easy and, to be honest, simply sucks. Everybody wants to have fun in this game.

QuoteI very much doubt any airline will end up with 3000+ aircraft as like JumboShrimp said

Sounds like a bet :)

QuoteIf competition is in full swing on every single route with 2-5 airlines,

That's why I prefer to have more aircraft than my competitor. Makes it harder to cover all routes for him. Don't know if there's a good alternative strategy to this...

Quoteyou simply wouldn't get away with having 4-5 fleet types

That's mainly a problem in the US due to high staff costs. And, honestly, staff costs are the factor that make me think about my real strategy (that I'm not going to describe here), not commonality.

QuoteIn effect, you simply wouldn't get loads of aircraft of several types simply because other people will be ordering these to.

That's correct if you the average guy. The past has shown that people that are online very often get much more from the aircraft cake than others, to name examples DanDantes DC-9 and DC-10 (early game) DotM, my DC-10 growth in DotM (150 aircraft in ~2 game years from the used market) or DC-8 in JA#2 (260 after 3 years of airline operation) or THIs 737classic in ATB (500+ in 5? game years).

My whole statement is based on people that represent not the average AWS players. It's not a statement about who's "better" (simply because there is no better in AWS), it's about sami's question what could happen. Believe me, I like the idea of unlimited slots (1.3 change), unlimited demand (Modern Times scenario), unlimited aircraft (very attractive used market in MT#5, lots of open production lines and lots of very good aircraft models, not as DoTM where you have one long-haul jet model for 10 years) and maybe unlimited base possibility (maybe 1.3) and aircraft slots at bases (maybe 1.3).

QuoteThe 'old' way to get around that would be to order another type aswell but are you seriously going to risk that if these restrictions are lifted and competition is everywhere?

Every gameworld is a risk. It would be easy to base at Port Moresby or Scandinavia, build a small airline out of props and earn endless points for the alliance I maybe have - no risk, not much time to invest, solid thing.

Honestly I would much more prefer to build up an airline with thousands of aircraft and very attractive bases and get busted in a fuel spike or by competition than running a smooth and thin airline in the average field. Not just because the game world will last for 10 month or so and I for sure don't know what happens the next month, also because this would be much more fun.

Usually gameworlds are boring after 3-4 years ingame when you maxed out your base airport and your three bases with demand or aircraft... this one would offer more fun for those people.

QuoteTo top it off, i've not even mentioned the fuel price yet which will undoubtedly reach over $1000 after the first 10 years if we go on the past ATB's and MT's where it always went upto between $1000-$1500 in the years 2010-2020, further increasing the need for efficiency.

Again: I don't plan for a time that far in the future. The most cool thing at AWS for me and most people I speak to is the start and the first years. Not the boring aircraft supervision what comes when the routes are served - especially in a game world where new aircraft like A350 or 787 appear not early enough to be able to replace old ones. This point might change in game worlds that last 1950-2050, but sami pointed out it starts 1998-2002 (like always) and will last 20 years.

QuoteLet's give it a go for at least one game world.

I would really enjoy that. It's like you found a money cheat - good for you, but you will tell the administration so they can fix the problem. If they don't do, not your fault.

QuoteIt took James Dyson many years and hundreds of prototypes before he perfected the Dyson vacuum cleaner and even then no manufacturer would launch his product so he did it himself with his own money and look where he is today. Slightly off topic there but you get my point about how things are meant to progress.

Take Howard Hughes. He nearly bankrupted himself with the movies he made (mainly Hell's Angels), the aircraft he loved to construct (XF-11, H-4) and TWA. A good idea doesn't mean everything will go well and just because you can doesn't mean you must. However, I pointed out enough I would like such a gameworld and I think I explained my concerns in detail. At the end it's sami who has to decide what to do and I'm sure he finds enough good points in this thread for every point of view.

Quote from: Curse on July 08, 2011, 09:12:41 PM
I know, I had over 1000+ aircraft at KLAX without bases and DanDante had over 1200 aircraft out of KORD.

I was in ATL, and I actually converted a whole bunch of routes in 300 pax range to A333s.  You probably know which ones I am talking about that you can get away with doing that.  Without doing that, my aircraft count at ATL would have been higher.  My smallest aircraft was A321 - if I am not counting some 10-20 smaller A320 aircraft...

BTW, I can believe that about LAX.  If you are going to serve all of the international demand, plus a ton of East Coast demand, that uses up aircraft quickly....

Quote from: Curse on July 08, 2011, 09:12:41 PM
There's still a difference between 1000+ aircraft and 3000+ aircraft.

That's like running 3 demanding airlines simultaneously.  I don't think many players have time for that...

Quote from: Curse on July 08, 2011, 09:12:41 PM
I never started at an airport with less than five competitors. Half of the time there was one guy that was able to survive and run a small airline along with me, most of the time people failed.

LOL.  I left one small airline alone in MT3 in ATL.  I called him "Token".

Quote from: Curse on July 08, 2011, 09:12:41 PM
If you reached a specific point competition should not bother you or your airline or at least should give you the financial base to react.

Things will be different.  There were 3 ways the protection of a strong incumbent will be weakened:
1. Once you kill early competition, only weak new competitor could challenge you.  (Top 20 basing).  Now a strong competitor can open a base at your HQ to challenge you
2. There were no slot for the competitor (usually).  That will change with extra slots later in the game.
3. Competitior could only field 70 aircraft.  That may chage if the limit is lifted.

I personally did not get into heavy competition on competitive routes against competitors who I realized were invincible (Top 10-20 strong airlines).  Under the new rules, nobody is really invincible...

Quote from: Curse on July 08, 2011, 09:12:41 PM
That's a luxury I never had. Where are you in MT#4? I'm still looking for a good base for MT#5 and at the moment I really think about joining a major European airport. Wasn't based there before and Japan is more boring than Los Angeles, something I have not foreseen :/

I was at IAD.  I picked it because of limited time I had to devote to the game.  It turned out to be even more of a gem than I thought.  I did not open any other basis, and still left about 10-15% demand unfilled (due to time constraints), and I ended up in top 3 in ASK and RPK.

I find US the most fun place to play, because you have enough slots at the airports.  So if somehow get busy in RL, and am unavailable to play for some time (as it happened in MT4), I can still get back at the competition, because there are still slots available.  I can use them better than they can, and eventually win...

Quote from: Curse on July 08, 2011, 09:12:41 PM
Again: I don't plan for a time that far in the future. The most cool thing at AWS for me and most people I speak to is the start and the first years. Not the boring aircraft supervision what comes when the routes are served - especially in a game world where new aircraft like A350 or 787 appear not early enough to be able to replace old ones. This point might change in game worlds that last 1950-2050, but sami pointed out it starts 1998-2002 (like always) and will last 20 years.

I wonder what happened to the idea of rolling scenarios, where a game world starts in 1950s and keeps going...  Players can drop in, drop out...

Quote from: BobTheCactus on July 08, 2011, 08:36:41 PM
Maybe this is what you want, as someone who has experience and understands the game. But for a newbie who has a tough enough time right now with bigger airlines coming to their airports with 70 aircraft, it will be crushing to have them show up and flood routes with frequency. Since frequency is the only pseudo-competition, removing this limit is essentially declaring all newbie airlines bankrupt before they even start. Not everyone has 16 hours a day to stare at a computer screen like Purse, and there needs to be some kind of protection for those who want to have a good time and play a game. This is the majority of Sami's clientele, and if he removes this limit, I am positive that not only newbies, but experienced members with less time, will flee.

You are assuming that new players are bad players, and that they can't learn the game.  A lot of the players really play a solitaire game.  These changes will make this more of a multiplayer game.  And that's really the best way to learn the game, to face competition....

Quote from: BobTheCactus on July 08, 2011, 08:36:41 PM
Since frequency is the only pseudo-competition, removing this limit is essentially declaring all newbie airlines bankrupt before they even start.

I can tell you the Frequency in V1.3 will NOT be king as in V1.2. I have got several routes where I am flying F100's with 105 seats and the routes demand is approx 1500 pax per day, I also have competition from another airline, and he has far less flights than I do and is using a higher capacity aircraft yet it is roughly split 50/50 between us so although my frequency is higher, is not the killer as it was as in V1.2. Another example is LHR, I fly there with a few 757's maybe 4 flights a day Jona L is using something bigger (747s I think) and there is a 3rd airline using maybe DC10s for good measure, yet the spread between the 3 airlines is roughly the same give or take a few %.  So I think the days of the Big Fish coming in and flooding the route with 200% demand which is within the rules and making the smaller guy bankrupt is now hopefully a thing that is designated to the history book of AWS.

Ok, fine.

I think we should try it for one gameworld, and when the results are disastrous, then we can never do it again.

But it doesn't hurt to try.

I wish y'all good luck.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 08, 2011, 10:25:09 PM
That's like running 3 demanding airlines simultaneously.  I don't think many players have time for that...

Same thing as now. People who have time but no average skill are in the Top50, people who don't have time are not even they have skill. It's just the difference that's bigger because average guy tried his best in the former gameworlds and didn't reach the limits, while some players are now not limited after 2, 3 or 5 game years, they can expand much longer if they want.

QuoteThings will be different.  There were 3 ways the protection of a strong incumbent will be weakened:
1. Once you kill early competition, only weak new competitor could challenge you.  (Top 20 basing).  Now a strong competitor can open a base at your HQ to challenge you
2. There were no slot for the competitor (usually).  That will change with extra slots later in the game.
3. Competitior could only field 70 aircraft.  That may chage if the limit is lifted.

1) In my experience there will be a moment where a good player - means somebody who isn't going to crash his airline himself - will join your protected Top20 airport and is able to get pax from your side. Doesn't mean he get's bigger than you, but I never had a gameworld where this hasn't happened.
2) As you pointed out often enough not a problem in US domestic. When slots at JFK or LAS are gone, there are 1000 other airports to fly to.
3) Have never based at a >Top20 airport, so no experience.

However, none of these points is making me think I face problems that haven't occurred before. I don't think you or somebody with similar skill thinks "cool, I have this 800+ aircraft airline and I search a new base... shall I take the one and compete with RandomNewb#11 or the other one and compete Curse?". Result #2 would be like a Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29). In the first second it sounds like fun but after a minute you realise you would simply nuke your own ass.

Quote from: Curse on July 09, 2011, 12:00:51 AM
Same thing as now. People who have time but no average skill are in the Top50, people who don't have time are not even they have skill. It's just the difference that's bigger because average guy tried his best in the former gameworlds and didn't reach the limits, while some players are now not limited after 2, 3 or 5 game years, they can expand much longer if they want.

Actually, you have a point.  It is not like running 3 good sized airlines simultaneously, it is more like playing 4 5-year games back to back.

Quote from: Curse on July 09, 2011, 12:00:51 AM

However, none of these points is making me think I face problems that haven't occurred before. I don't think you or somebody with similar skill thinks "cool, I have this 800+ aircraft airline and I search a new base... shall I take the one and compete with RandomNewb#11 or the other one and compete Curse?". Result #2 would be like a Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29). In the first second it sounds like fun but after a minute you realise you would simply nuke your own ass.

I personally would choose to compete with Purse ;)  :P

Quote from: Curse on July 09, 2011, 12:00:51 AM
However, none of these points is making me think I face problems that haven't occurred before. I don't think you or somebody with similar skill thinks "cool, I have this 800+ aircraft airline and I search a new base... shall I take the one and compete with RandomNewb#11 or the other one and compete Curse?". Result #2 would be like a Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29). In the first second it sounds like fun but after a minute you realise you would simply nuke your own ass.

Would it not be even worse if you could only do it with 70 aircraft aswell  ;) Even more pointless to do it then....You might aswell give those 70 aircraft to your competitor and say "Here, these are yours, you'll practically 'own' them anyway"  ;)

Heck, why not scrap basing altogether and go back to ABCBA routing. You'll annoy the competitor even more that way rather than giving your competition 'freebies' to go after...

Quote from: oggie84 on July 09, 2011, 01:00:05 AM
Would it not be even worse if you could only do it with 70 aircraft aswell  ;) Even more pointless to do it then....You might aswell give those 70 aircraft to your competitor and say "Here, these are yours, you'll practically 'own' them anyway"  ;)

Heck, why not scrap basing altogether and go back to ABCBA routing. You'll annoy the competitor even more that way rather than giving your competition 'freebies' to go after...

Well, I tell everyone who asks (and even those who don't ask) that bases (with 70 aircraft limit) are only for fun, not for profit.  Players will make less money after they open the base, and wait until the base is pretty much full (with 70 aircraft) before they see the same profits as they had before they opened the base (if ever).

Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 09, 2011, 01:13:24 AM
Well, I tell everyone who asks (and even those who don't ask) that bases (with 70 aircraft limit) are only for fun, not for profit.  Players will make less money after they open the base, and wait until the base is pretty much full (with 70 aircraft) before they see the same profits as they had before they opened the base (if ever).

That's a problem with US staff salary. In Japan my three DotM bases are great - not only because of demand, I just have to pay much less than in the US for people (what are the main factor making bases expensive).

also, will the new game worlds bring back thru flights.. so that you can connect via a two segment flight... more realistic...

Question, maybe this has been asked or brought up in other areas.. but, here it goes.. will you allow airlines to merge with one another or buy another out.??
example, say within an alliance there are two players, one no longer wants to play or can not play and the other is willing to take over the airline, but would need to merge it into that current airline. If both players agree, would we be able to merge airlines together? Thus, more realistic to real world developments....of coarse, they would need to be based out of the same country and/or region..

Quote from: FAA-man on July 09, 2011, 05:40:08 AM
Question, maybe this has been asked or brought up in other areas.. but, here it goes.. will you allow airlines to merge with one another or buy another out.??

No.

Quote from: FAA-man on July 09, 2011, 05:36:02 AM
also, will the new game worlds bring back thru flights.. so that you can connect via a two segment flight... more realistic...

No.


Full feature list: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.0.html
Short feature list: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31973.0.html

The test scenario has been now closed with the opening of the first 'real' 1.3 scenario.

congrats on 1.3

Will we be getting those 2 credits refunded?

I think they just were refunded in the last few mins  ;)