Hello!
By now I have gotten seriously pead off by some business methods being used at the moment.
As you can see in the screenshot, "sleak76" CEO of British World is using A320/21 aircraft on a route of 8 hrs length (in this case LHR-JFK) which is in fact a sin towards the skies over the Atlantic. The most used air routes in the world being crowded by Short Haul Jets... what is this? A joke? If it is one, it is a bad one.
For the record: In MT#5 you see about 50-60 A320/21 aircraft fly out of LHR to East-Coast-USA each day and another 20 into the middle east. Only by that company, haven't see others in this game to it to LHR yet though.
He is not the only one doing it, he just now gave the fire to light the gunpowder by doing that even more than anyone I have seen it do before.
This method has seen an incredible increase with the introduction of the new slot system. Though I don't blame the system as main factor, however it does contribute, but what I blame is the overrated and thus misused frequency feature. Either a harsh cut in that one or the introduction of ETOPS restriction (which would not solve this problem on routes to Middle East from Europe) could mean an end to this. For me, using B777 and A330/40 aircraft on such routes, this is getting by far too much.
I'd like to hear comments and opinions please.
cheers,
Jona L.
No comment. I've said my fill on this topic.
Last time I asked what ETOPS certain planes were, I got this response:
Quote from: Curse on August 19, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
I don't care.
I play AirwaySim and don't work for an aircraft manufacturer or an airline in real life who is interested in such things.
If you want to have something exactly like in real life, I suggest joining it. In 99 of 100 cases it's directly out of your door. It also has huge multiplayer parts and if you become your own African dictator, you can eventually forbid 757 in your country.
Adding ETOPS might solve some problems but add more. In my mind it would make AWS less accessible to some newer players. To people with a passing interest in aircraft and maybe just in AWS for the business simulation ETOPS is a meaningless acronym. And then IRL there is nothing to stop someone flying an A321 across the Atlantic, look at a map of ETOPS 180 which the A320 family have...
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.crikey.com.au%2Fplanetalking%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F06%2FIAH-AKL-180.jpg&hash=3377b4da0fe17886f22e56dcca0e0476fe5b9a52)
Crosses the Atlantic fine.
I think long haul aircraft need to have a coded advantage over short haul aircraft, no matter what the factors are in the game world, coded into the game over a certain distance johnny pax should prefer a B777 or A380 over an A320 or B737-900 over a certain distance.
It appears this all roots back to how one wins through frequency.
For instance, I am now losing market share to someone flying Saabs 600nm.
Perhaps there should be a max number of flights between A and B where the number is decided by a scale (and there's a different scale for int'l flights)... If under X nm distance then Y A/C.
Quote from: swiftus27 on September 08, 2011, 03:45:13 PM
Perhaps there should be a max number of flights between A and B where the number is decided by a scale (and there's a different scale for int'l flights)... If under X nm distance then Y A/C.
That I like, I could see how that may work.
The solution is simple: seat quality. If you are on a 7 hour flight from JFK to LHR, passengers should have premium seats. An A321 can seat 220Y in high density config or 140Y in premium config. Passengers on routes 5-8 hours should be coded to have a HEAVY preference towards premium seat aircraft (0-2 hours high desnity, 2-5 standard, 8+ hours luxury). This would give the A321 operators a choice of flying 220 seats at 50% LF or 140 seats at 100% LF. At the end of the day, it's going to be very difficult for them to turn a profit with only 140 passengers on a 200 seat airplane.
This could also be effected if any in flight stuff was ever introducted. You can fit better and bigger everything on a B777 than you could on an A320 and still return a profit. I'm thinking IFE and galley's and the like.
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 08, 2011, 03:58:11 PM
This could also be effected if any in flight stuff was ever introducted. You can fit better and bigger everything on a B777 than you could on an A320 and still return a profit. I'm thinking IFE and galley's and the like.
another good idea.
1.4?
Massive up front costs are a deterrent only (the slot cost increase). Airlines in this game are going to pay 2 million for a 200nm slot because once they got it, they got it. It slows people down, but they get past it quickly.
Quote from: swiftus27 on September 08, 2011, 03:27:19 PM
No comment. I've said my fill on this topic.
Last time I asked what ETOPS certain planes were, I got this response:
[Quote from Curse]
That is Curse's opinion, who cares for that?!
Quote from: LemonButt on September 08, 2011, 03:54:25 PM
The solution is simple: seat quality. If you are on a 7 hour flight from JFK to LHR, passengers should have premium seats. An A321 can seat 220Y in high density config or 140Y in premium config. Passengers on routes 5-8 hours should be coded to have a HEAVY preference towards premium seat aircraft (0-2 hours high desnity, 2-5 standard, 8+ hours luxury). This would give the A321 operators a choice of flying 220 seats at 50% LF or 140 seats at 100% LF. At the end of the day, it's going to be very difficult for them to turn a profit with only 140 passengers on a 200 seat airplane.
I disagree and I agree...
I disagree on the seat quality, though I'd say we should individually choose the seating pitch and width instead of having fixed qualities, thus giving us more variability and more options. I think if you compare real life airlines' seats to the seats in AWS no airline uses higher than "Standard" seats, at least in Y class, no matter of the distance.
Anyhow I agree, that it should be hard to make cash on an A321 if flown over a certain distance.
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 08, 2011, 03:35:14 PM
Adding ETOPS might solve some problems but add more. In my mind it would make AWS less accessible to some newer players. To people with a passing interest in aircraft and maybe just in AWS for the business simulation ETOPS is a meaningless acronym. And then IRL there is nothing to stop someone flying an A321 across the Atlantic, look at a map of ETOPS 180 which the A320 family have...
I didn't know they already had the 180mn ETOPS.... darn then :P
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 08, 2011, 03:35:14 PM
I think long haul aircraft need to have a coded advantage over short haul aircraft, no matter what the factors are in the game world, coded into the game over a certain distance johnny pax should prefer a B777 or A380 over an A320 or B737-900 over a certain distance.
Definitely something we could use well. I highly support that thinking.
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote
I disagree and I agree...
I disagree on the seat quality, though I'd say we should individually choose the seating pitch and width instead of having fixed qualities, thus giving us more variability and more options. I think if you compare real life airlines' seats to the seats in AWS no airline uses higher than "Standard" seats, at least in Y class, no matter of the distance.
The reason they don't have the upgraded seats is because there are a fixed number of slots at JFK/LHR and thus a fixed number of competing flights. In AWS, the competition is virtually uncapped with the slot growth scheme, which is why seat quality (width + pitch) should be a major factor. Also IRL, an airline can't just walk into an airport and take 80% of the slots on a first come/first served basis. Airport authorities don't want a monopoly because it increases ticket prices and reduces passengers going through the airport. The only other alternative is to limit slots on a per airline basis to push players towards maximizing their resources by flying bigger planes to more destinations versus smaller planes with more frequency to fewer destinations.
As a new player, I often have a "pie in the sky" strategy, but I am easily confused with the equation "What plane do I use on such a demand/distance"... I am reading this thread and I do not see what the issue is, and I don't know what ETOPS means. -=sigh=-
It would be nice to have a guide that helps the newcomers with airplane choices. Something like "on a short distance (less than 600nm) and a demand of less than 100 pax a day, you would look into a plane that has a fuel consumption of less than x/hour, or a prop plane." or "On a high demand route with long distance, you should look at the seating capacity and xyz factor."
I am not looking for a guide that would say "if the route is less than 500nm and you have a demand of 50-100 use a Dash-8", I am looking at what would be the key factors to assist us in making smart decision.
I had to declare bankruptcy because I was using 4 different types of 767 on short routes, so my fleet commonality sucked ( I thought all 767 would be the same commonality, I was veddy veddy wrong).. And I think that while I was making smart route decisions, I was making poor plane decisions. =(
I'll keep on reading...
Quote from: Shleds on September 08, 2011, 05:27:32 PM
As a new player, I often have a "pie in the sky" strategy, but I am easily confused with the equation "What plane do I use on such a demand/distance"... I am reading this thread and I do not see what the issue is, and I don't know what ETOPS means. -=sigh=-
ETOPS stands for Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. Basically it defines how long a given two engined aircraft such as a B777 or A330 can fly should one engine give out. It mostly (possibly only) matters on routes over water. For example an aircraft with a ETOPS-180m rating (most modern Western jets) can fly over water as long as they are within a 180 minute flight on one engine from the nearest airport.
Quote from: Shleds on September 08, 2011, 05:27:32 PM
It would be nice to have a guide that helps the newcomers with airplane choices. Something like "on a short distance (less than 600nm) and a demand of less than 100 pax a day, you would look into a plane that has a fuel consumption of less than x/hour, or a prop plane." or "On a high demand route with long distance, you should look at the seating capacity and xyz factor."
Thats a good idea, I don't think the current FAQs cover it in that detail at all.
Quote from: Shleds on September 08, 2011, 05:27:32 PM
I had to declare bankruptcy because I was using 4 different types of 767 on short routes, so my fleet commonality sucked ( I thought all 767 would be the same commonality, I was veddy veddy wrong).. And I think that while I was making smart route decisions, I was making poor plane decisions. =(
I thought the 767s are all the same group?
Shelds, all 767s do have the same commonality.
BUT Their engines might not be the same, in which case they would have an additional commonality cost for the engine (which in truth is relatively minor).
Using 767s on short routes is not a good use, because of their long turn around times. For short routes nothing really beats the 737/A320 series. Although going smaller to the E195 type of aircraft can also work.
767s are all in the same fleet group.
Really only the MD80s, 37s, 47s and A320s really have the multiple fleet types... not including the Dash 8 stuff.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 08, 2011, 03:13:04 PM
Hello!
By now I have gotten seriously pead off by some business methods being used at the moment.
As you can see in the screenshot, "sleak76" CEO of British World is using A320/21 aircraft on a route of 8 hrs length (in this case LHR-JFK) which is in fact a sin towards the skies over the Atlantic. The most used air routes in the world being crowded by Short Haul Jets... what is this? A joke? If it is one, it is a bad one.
For the record: In MT#5 you see about 50-60 A320/21 aircraft fly out of LHR to East-Coast-USA each day and another 20 into the middle east. Only by that company, haven't see others in this game to it to LHR yet though.
He is not the only one doing it, he just now gave the fire to light the gunpowder by doing that even more than anyone I have seen it do before.
This method has seen an incredible increase with the introduction of the new slot system. Though I don't blame the system as main factor, however it does contribute, but what I blame is the overrated and thus misused frequency feature. Either a harsh cut in that one or the introduction of ETOPS restriction (which would not solve this problem on routes to Middle East from Europe) could mean an end to this. For me, using B777 and A330/40 aircraft on such routes, this is getting by far too much.
I'd like to hear comments and opinions please.
cheers,
Jona L.
1) Is the name "British World" ok to be used in this game? British World Airlines was a real-world airline: Photo of British World B733 and B752 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-World-Airlines/Boeing-757-23A/0178344/L/&sid=8a856b55cccdc2b58e5e62da53cebbf1)
2) You yourself used B733s on multiple frequencies between MAN and the East Coast USA and East coast of Canada against my B752/B763/B772 in DOTM 4...
Quote from: swiftus27 on September 08, 2011, 05:41:06 PM
Really only...A320s....have the multiple fleet types
Again, do they? I thought A318, 19, 20 and 21 were the same. Or is the A320-100 its own fleet?
Thank you all for the info. The depth of the game mechanics here fascinates me, although I have not yet developed a good grasp on all of them.
I just saw the costs of staff training associated with all the engines I had, and it is most likely what brought me down, and I had 15 year leases on all of the 767's thinking that if I lowered my monthly payments, it would help me in the long run, but all those D checks coming in really hurt me.
All MD8x are the same group, same thing with the A318 to A321 (any sub-variant).
And yes D checks are bad, I would only do them on rare aircraft that you need to keep or owned aircraft, otherwise don't do it and return to lessor.
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 08, 2011, 05:54:17 PM
Again, do they? I thought A318, 19, 20 and 21 were the same. Or is the A320-100 its own fleet?
sorry, brain fart... I was thinking about something different.
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 08, 2011, 03:58:11 PM
This could also be effected if any in flight stuff was ever introducted. You can fit better and bigger everything on a B777 than you could on an A320 and still return a profit. I'm thinking IFE and galley's and the like.
Ironically this whole sim has left out the most important part of the airline business. Passengers. Passengers in this game are meaningless little numbers that account to our LF's. They have no major personalities, no preferences, and no holidays. One of the biggest features should be stuff like, seating arrangments, seat comfort (more in-depth than the kindergarden system seating configurator in play now), IFE, meals, lighting. Ticket prices should make a MUCH higher impact than they do right now. Ticket prices are the most important thing in the world it seems like in real life. If Delta is flying a route for 129 and United is flying the same route for just a dollar less, and they both have the same ammenities, I'm flying United. Even if you shave 10 bucks off ticket prices in this game, your barely get a few more passengers.
Also, how's this for ETOPs, this guy just gained 8 awesome points. https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Info/Airline/654/#
Why is it a 'misuse' of the frequency feature to fly lots of a321s on routes they are well suited for?
What constitutes 'proper use' of the frequency feature?
Didn't 1.3 tweak the frequency bonus anyway, so that beyond ~5 flights/day, it makes no difference?
In my opinion, characterizing a competitor's business model as a "joke" and as "hogging" is not consistent with the rules of AWS. I would respectfully suggest that you review the Etiquette of Playing (https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Playing) rule:
Quote...you are of course free to manage your airline in the way you see the best and employ the best tactics you have learned but always keep in mind that you must be friendly and polite to other members, and also of course stick to the rules and terms set by the administration.
According to the description of the frequency feature (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg165612.html#msg165612) , "on 4000pax/day route the min. interval is 15 mins between two flights." So for LHR<>JFK (at 4260 pax/ day), flying 12 sectors by A321 is well within the rules. Even if your competitor was flying more frequently, they would pay the price in passengers.
I'm sure that your intention here is not solely to disparage your competition, but you seem to have incorporated quite a few different ideas in your post.
- If you are requesting changes to the AWS model so that aircraft usage is more closely resembled the real world, you might want to start a new thread focused on that one idea.
- If you are requesting refinements to the frequency feature to further limit frequencies, a new thread may also be in order.
- If you are looking for recommendations, try using the right equipment for each route. The simulated passengers prefer to travel on smaller aircraft. In AWS 1.3. a 777 might just be too large for LHR<>JFK (and LHR<>LIS).
- If you are requesting that ETOPS rules be implemented, I believe that would belong in the Feature Requests (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/board,4.0.html) discussion.
Hope that helps!
Boch
Quote from: broadbander on September 08, 2011, 05:43:46 PM
1) Is the name "British World" ok to be used in this game? British World Airlines was a real-world airline: Photo of British World B733 and B752 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-World-Airlines/Boeing-757-23A/0178344/L/&sid=8a856b55cccdc2b58e5e62da53cebbf1)
2) You yourself used B733s on multiple frequencies between MAN and the East Coast USA and East coast of Canada against my B752/B763/B772 in DOTM 4...
@ 1) No idea, dunno the airline, sami/sigma/EYguy must judge that
@ 2) These were all-C/F-jets to fill demand that was unfilled, and too small for a bigger plane. My main fleet there were B757.
Quote from: Shleds on September 08, 2011, 05:27:32 PM
It would be nice to have a guide that helps the newcomers with airplane choices. Something like "on a short distance (less than 600nm) and a demand of less than 100 pax a day, you would look into a plane that has a fuel consumption of less than x/hour, or a prop plane." or "On a high demand route with long distance, you should look at the seating capacity and xyz factor."
There is "swiftus' guide for newbies" and "Curse's Basic FAQ available on the general forums (sticky topics at top), so this guide already exists.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 08, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Why is it a 'misuse' of the frequency feature to fly lots of a321s on routes they are well suited for?
What constitutes 'proper use' of the frequency feature?
Didn't 1.3 tweak the frequency bonus anyway, so that beyond ~5 flights/day, it makes no difference?
a) It is improper, as planes like B767, B777, B747 and A330/340 and A300 were designed for these routes and A320 or B737 family are designed for shorter routes, like domestic and shorthaul but not for 3000NM intercontinental traffic. And the frequency feature supports this, that is why I keep up my fight for a 0% bonus for each flight you add.
b) Proper use is when there is a relation between seats supplied per flight vs. seats demanded and If you fly 120 seats (which is about a 3-class config in A321) on a route with >5000Pax/day demand that it is not proper. If you fly 707 with 150 seats on LHR-JFK in the 60ies I don't complain because it is the biggest you can get, but if you use a plane of that size in 2010 then you just have not heard the shot...
c) Not enough the only tweak was to punish real airline business (Long Haul) for the sake of supporting something that in real life is only there because Long Haul finances it. (I am speaking of short haul and domestic hops, might be different in the US though as they have a way bigger domestic market then we do in Europe)
The frequency limit is calculated based on the average daily seats, which still is suited for planes of the size of an ATR72 even on long haul routes.
Quote from: boch on September 08, 2011, 09:13:43 PM
In my opinion, characterizing a competitor's business model as a "joke" and as "hogging" is not consistent with the rules of AWS. I would respectfully suggest that you review the Etiquette of Playing (https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Playing) rule:
According to the description of the frequency feature (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg165612.html#msg165612) , "on 4000pax/day route the min. interval is 15 mins between two flights." So for LHR<>JFK (at 4260 pax/ day), flying 12 sectors by A321 is well within the rules. Even if your competitor was flying more frequently, they would pay the price in passengers.
I'm sure that your intention here is not solely to disparage your competition, but you seem to have incorporated quite a few different ideas in your post.
- If you are requesting changes to the AWS model so that aircraft usage is more closely resembled the real world, you might want to start a new thread focused on that one idea.
- If you are requesting refinements to the frequency feature to further limit frequencies, a new thread may also be in order.
- If you are looking for recommendations, try using the right equipment for each route. The simulated passengers prefer to travel on smaller aircraft. In AWS 1.3. a 777 might just be too large for LHR<>JFK (and LHR<>LIS).
- If you are requesting that ETOPS rules be implemented, I believe that would belong in the Feature Requests (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/board,4.0.html) discussion.
Hope that helps!
Boch
Are you trying to explain to me how that stuff here works?!
I am telling you nicely now, that I surely do know these rules, and etiquettes. I do also know the frequency rules, I do as well know that most people don't manage to survive with one of the greatest plane in history (B777). Also I tell you, that I had a stressful day today, meaning I am in a bad mood already, + being p*ssed off about A321 trans-Atlantic (as said in first post), so better not try to be a cleverass here.
I did this post for the reason to see how the community's position on A321 across the Atlantic is, while showing my position toward it as well. The sections you "analyzed" are true in parts (not going to comment any further). If in AWS 1.3 a B773 trans-Atlantic is inferior to an A321 on the same route, than it probably does not deserve the predicate "Simulation" but to prove you wrong I lead in market share because I still have more flights than him each day, while using normal sized planes for that route.
Hello
For the records, British Airways is making a transatlantic flight IRL with an A318. (true story). The plane is configured with business class seating only, and is marketed with the motto "feeling like a private plane".
The flight is from LHR to JFK, via a tech stop in Shannon, Ireland. If it's possible IRL with a A318, why would it be impossible in this game with A321 ?
Moreover, I see many small a/c at my base airport IRL doing transatlantic flights (I work at CDG). These B737 or A320s from Delta or AA are always looking strange, but here they are !
However, I admit that A332 or B773 are the best "reasonable" a/c for such flights in our current mind. This is exactly the reason why the B787 was developed. It is a small plane (around 200 pax in premium airline config) and designed for long-distance profitability.
Food for thought
PS : This was not said because Sleak is in my alliance. It's simply because I believe these small planes have a great potential. However, I do not believe in their future on this business model.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 08, 2011, 09:18:00 PM
a) It is improper, as planes like B767, B777, B747 and A330/340 and A300 were designed for these routes and A320 or B737 family are designed for shorter routes, like domestic and shorthaul but not for 3000NM intercontinental traffic. And the frequency feature supports this, that is why I keep up my fight for a 0% bonus for each flight you add.
'It is improper' is usually just code for 'this shouldn't be allowed because I don't like it'. Seems like it is here, too. If the a320/737 were only designed for shorter, domestic routes, then why did airbus/boeing offer them with a MTOW that allowed them to fly close to 3000NM? If the planes are designed well enough to be that flexible, why shouldn't airlines take advantage of that fact?
Quoteb) Proper use is when there is a relation between seats supplied per flight vs. seats demanded and If you fly 120 seats (which is about a 3-class config in A321) on a route with >5000Pax/day demand that it is not proper. If you fly 707 with 150 seats on LHR-JFK in the 60ies I don't complain because it is the biggest you can get, but if you use a plane of that size in 2010 then you just have not heard the shot...
So, would you also have strong objections to somebody flying E-jets on a busy, near 2000NM route that also have a competitor's 747? Because I know that one actually happens in real life. There are also <100 seat planes flying regularly on one of the busiest routes in the world, one that has nearly 70 flights per day overall.
Quotec) Not enough the only tweak was to punish real airline business (Long Haul) for the sake of supporting something that in real life is only there because Long Haul finances it. (I am speaking of short haul and domestic hops, might be different in the US though as they have a way bigger domestic market then we do in Europe)
So any RL airline not flying LH isn't in the 'real airline business', and must only be in business because a 'real airline' is financing them? ::)
One tweak was to lower the ticket premium for flights defined as LH, hence the 77x/a34x being tougher to use. But one tweak was also to lower the bonus from frequency, so that if 2 airlines supply 100% of demand, one with 20 flights, one with 10, the market share should be 50/50. Makes sense to me, no frequency bonus at all doesn't make sense, because convenience does matter. An airline that offers a morning & evening flight will get more business than one that offers the same number of overall seats but only flies once a day at lunchtime. Extreme frequency bonuses don't make sense either, one flight every 2 hours is going to be just about as good as 6 smaller flights every 20 minutes.
One way to fix it is to have a full bonus up to say 3 flights per day, then slowly scale it back until the 11th flight simply adds seating capacity, and 11 200 seat flights will get you the same overall sales as 10 220 seat flights. A potentially better, more complicated way to fix it (which would also help with flying routes that justify 3 flights/week, like those out of various bits of Africa) would be to remove all frequency bonuses, but split the weekly demand into blocks of maybe 4-8 hours, and allow unserviced demand to overflow to other sections within the same week. That'd mean a 60 pax/day route would support 2xweekly 767 flights, and it'd mean if airline A offers a flight every 2 hours from 0600-0000, and airline B offers a flight every 30 minutes from 1900-0000, then instead of 50-50 split thanks to 10 planes each, there'd be a roughly 50-50 split for the evening demand, but airline A would get 100% of the morning peak, the lunchtime & afternoon demand. That'd fix the problem nicely, and it would also work equally well with city-based demand & connecting pax when they arrive. I'd split shorthaul flights into smaller blocks than LH flights, too. Maybe 4/day vs 2/day.
You'd still lose out roughly 65/35 on a route that supports your 1 a34x a day to a competitor who flies a morning & evening a320 on the same route, but I don't have a problem with that.
QuoteThe frequency limit is calculated based on the average daily seats, which still is suited for planes of the size of an ATR72 even on long haul routes.
That's a different thing entirely. If the frequency bonus has been capped or offers diminshing returns (which I remember Sami saying it has), then there needs to be a frequency limit to stop people flying multiple planes at the same time. Changing the limit & treating nearby flights as single entities just makes it easier/harder to reach the bonus cap. As for LH ATRs, I do think one thing that needs tweaking is the penalty for a tech-stop when there is a competitor flying non-stop, and also some preference for the overall flight time. Even if it makes my Moscow-Beijing F100 flights no longer viable.
QuoteI am telling you nicely now, that I surely do know these rules, and etiquettes.... Also I tell you, that I had a stressful day today, meaning I am in a bad mood already, + being p*ssed off about A321 trans-Atlantic (as said in first post), so better not try to be a cleverass here.
Someone politely suggests that the tone of your OP & calling a competitor's practices 'hogging' & 'a joke' is a bit harsh, and you respond by threatening him? If you're already in a bad mood, maybe that's an indicator that your OP could have been over the top, and someone pointing it out could be seen as a reminder to calm down a bit, rather than as an incitement to go even further? If you do know the rules about etiquette & politeness, then why do you ignore them in the OP and that recent post?
This is a good conversation guys, let's just tone down the personal comments. Let's just forget the words "hog and "joke" were used by the OP, call it a lesson learned, and drop that particular subject altogether because outside of that there's the potential for a value-added discussion here. I don't want to have to lock this down if that subject escalates as its headed.
And if you have an issue with someone's airline name, there's a reporting mechanism within the game to report it. Outside of the initial creation there's, literally, nothing that can be done until a report is issued by someone into the system.
Personally I don't know one plane from another...most look the same to me except some have props and the rest are small, big or bigger planes :-)
Therefore if I am incorrectly using planes that do not suit a route in real life, sorry but I am only playing a game.
I look at the demand, the distance, the money I have and go search for a plane to suit while keeping an eye on fleet types, etc so that my costs don't go up (something I have only found out by playing this game as I would not have thought about that previously).
When I started playing I leased Yaks, because they looked cool, fuel usage didn't mean anything to me...lesson # 1
I then leased planes because there were plenty of the same type ....lesson # 2
and unfortunately the list goes on and on :-(
The point being that some of us buy tickets to get from A to B and the type of plane doesn't mean anything.....the ticket price, service, and hostesses mean a lot more :-)
But I do enjoy games that involve strategy and this game has it in spades...so if the game allows me to fly a 20 seater plane 5000nM and I can still turn a very good profit so that I could expand then I would do it.....just can't find that plane on the market yet though.
Regards Darryl
I just would like to point out that BA flies twice a day from LCY to JFK with an A319 configured in an all business class set up. So I would say that it is not impossible to fly an A321-200 across the pond! :)
Btw, I reckon that this issue about frequency should be analized quite in depth because operating a/c of the A318 category is the exception, not the rule, when talking about crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
Even what Lemonbutt said is correct, but rather tha using premium seats, it is a matter of legroom, IFE and on board service which cannot be categorized under the "premium seating" consideration...
Btw, if Jona and Curse have argued, please guys, keep it in a private conversation. The forum is getting more and more like a kindergarten! ;)
Quote from: Kadachiman on September 09, 2011, 12:15:22 AM
Personally I don't know one plane from another...most look the same to me except some have props and the rest are small, big or bigger planes :-)
Therefore if I am incorrectly using planes that do not suit a route in real life, sorry but I am only playing a game.
I look at the demand, the distance, the money I have and go search for a plane to suit while keeping an eye on fleet types, etc so that my costs don't go up (something I have only found out by playing this game as I would not have thought about that previously).
When I started playing I leased Yaks, because they looked cool, fuel usage didn't mean anything to me...lesson # 1
I then leased planes because there were plenty of the same type ....lesson # 2
and unfortunately the list goes on and on :-(
The point being that some of us buy tickets to get from A to B and the type of plane doesn't mean anything.....the ticket price, service, and hostesses mean a lot more :-)
But I do enjoy games that involve strategy and this game has it in spades...so if the game allows me to fly a 20 seater plane 5000nM and I can still turn a very good profit so that I could expand then I would do it.....just can't find that plane on the market yet though.
Regards Darryl
You are the perfect example of why I would watch out for moving AWS to hyper-realism. We could also introduce funded pilot training, fines for passenger refused entry to their destination nations, ETOPS and all the rest but it would get rid of a lot of people.
Rather than adding more and more anal features as Frogiton has said passengers need to be more detail and be affected more by a lot more factors rather than just frequency.
Quote from: EYguy on September 09, 2011, 07:32:52 AM
I just would like to point out that BA flies twice a day from LCY to JFK with an A319 configured in an all business class set up. So I would say that it is not impossible to fly an A321-200 across the pond! :)
Btw, I reckon that this issue about frequency should be analized quite in depth because operating a/c of the A318 category is the exception, not the rule, when talking about crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
Even what Lemonbutt said is correct, but rather tha using premium seats, it is a matter of legroom, IFE and on board service which cannot be categorized under the "premium seating" consideration...
Btw, if Jona and Curse have argued, please guys, keep it in a private conversation. The forum is getting more and more like a kindergarten! ;)
Curse never said a word here.
Kindergarten? I doubt that kindergarten children write such long essays :P
It is indeed right, that the A318 goes LCY-JFK via Shannon and return is nonstop, but the demand is by far lower than LHR-JFK, thus I never said anything about it.
The thing with CDG is, that also IRL there are plenty of slots available, thus they don't limit anything. IRL BAA, the operator of LHR and some other airports in UK, requires that for these flights a certain size of plane is required, which CDG maybe doesn't.
@Kadachiman: This is actually supposed to be a simulation, which is not the same as a game, though they all make fun :)
I am neither talking of passenger preferences than of airline usage of certain planes. I know most people don't look at the a/c type, though I make the educated guess, that those are a minority on these forums.
@ Sigma: I used strong words with the intention to create more and stronger response. I see the wind here is blowing from a different side than the one I expected. I am sorry if this topic goes another way than you wish (I do notice this touch in the topic as well). I apologize for my aggression in the reply to "Boch".
@Sanabas:
I used the word "improper" in response to your question what I would consider as such, and not use as a code for anything.
I am not saying these planes shouldn't fly that range, or not trans-Atlantic*, just use them on routes that fit their size better (e.g. LHR - Halifax is demand for a 738 or 739ER).
[* I might have used unclear words, what I do mean is high demand roues between major airports, flying from secondary airports (e.g. STN) into US-airports where your demand is about 150-200 you can surely use those.]
I indeed have strong objections against EMB195 on high demand routes in such distances. I suggest 757 or 767 sized aircraft on such a route (or larger).
About the airline ops:
Some airlines like Southwest or Ryanair don't do long haul operations, but these two examples run the wholly different business model LCC.
MOST (not all) big airlines such as BA, AF or LH use long haul to finance the domestic hops, as these usually are less revenue bringing. Airlines like "Contact Air" or "Mesa airlines" run contract services for big airlines, providing regional service for the big airlines, while operating profitable as bigger airlines can finance these contracts thanks to LH income. This is highly different in the US where most revenue is generated on the HUB to HUB flights and the Airport - HUB legs are financed by the HUB-HUB flights. These regional services are mandatory though, as they provide some of the high-paying pax for longer routes.
You misunderstood the part about the ATRs a bit though. What I meant was that the frequency cap (number of flights/day at which a further flight is no more bonus) is so high, that you can run ATRs on that route without reaching the limit. Even if the route is a 4000NM route the limit can never be reached.
About the etiquette:
The player came across trying to explain this forums to me, while I chose the location for this topic on purpose as there are enough feature requests about slots, aircraft, ETOPS, IFE, etc. thus no further are needed. Anyhow, as said above I apologized for my strong words against him.
Furthemord I didn't see it as a reminder to calm down but as a try to bring this discussion in another direction, and to provocate by the arrogance of the one
feeling superior.
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 09, 2011, 09:14:30 AMI used the word "improper" in response to your question what I would consider as such, and not use as a code for anything.
But it seems like you call it improper simply because you, personally, don't like the idea of high demand routes not being flown by the biggest planes available. Because you don't like the fact that your competitor is using an effective business model that you don't like.
QuoteI indeed have strong objections against EMB195 on high demand routes in such distances. I suggest 757 or 767 sized aircraft on such a route (or larger).
And yet it does actually happen IRL. Again, if the plane is well designed enough to be that flexible, why shouldn't an airline take advantage of that? If an a32x is an effective aircraft for one 3000 nm route, I don't see why it's not also an effective aircraft for another 3000 nm route, just because that 2nd route is busier. It's just as fast as an a34x/77x, it's just as comfortable, it seems like the main objection is an aesthetic one.
QuoteYou misunderstood the part about the ATRs a bit though. What I meant was that the frequency cap (number of flights/day at which a further flight is no more bonus) is so high, that you can run ATRs on that route without reaching the limit. Even if the route is a 4000NM route the limit can never be reached.
That's wrong though. You seem to be confusing the number of flights you can have without interval penalties with the number of flights that will still give you a frequency bonus. Before I quit MT5, I was flying Q400s/CRJs from Sydney to Melbourne. I had flights leaving every 10 minutes, with no penalty for short intervals. That allows ~100 flights/day, but I was certainly not getting more bonuses from added frequency with my ~40 flights/day. The cap is not as high as it was prior to 1.3, and certainly appears reachable. I still think the frequency system could be done better, I outlined the basics of how I'd do it in my last post. I could happily design a more in-depth version.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 09, 2011, 10:40:04 AM
But it seems like you call it improper simply because you, personally, don't like the idea of high demand routes not being flown by the biggest planes available. Because you don't like the fact that your competitor is using an effective business model that you don't like.
And yet it does actually happen IRL. Again, if the plane is well designed enough to be that flexible, why shouldn't an airline take advantage of that? If an a32x is an effective aircraft for one 3000 nm route, I don't see why it's not also an effective aircraft for another 3000 nm route, just because that 2nd route is busier. It's just as fast as an a34x/77x, it's just as comfortable, it seems like the main objection is an aesthetic one.
That's wrong though. You seem to be confusing the number of flights you can have without interval penalties with the number of flights that will still give you a frequency bonus. Before I quit MT5, I was flying Q400s/CRJs from
Sydney to Melbourne. I had flights leaving every 10 minutes, with no penalty for short intervals. That allows ~100 flights/day, but I was certainly not getting more bonuses from added frequency with my ~40 flights/day. The cap is not as high as it was prior to 1.3, and certainly appears reachable. I still think the frequency system could be done better, I outlined the basics of how I'd do it in my last post. I could happily design a more in-depth version.
I am sorry, if that lead to some misunderstatement but I can asure you, that it was used as I said, and not implying anything.
A320family is neither as fast (.79 vs. .82 on A330/40, and .85 on B777, additionally A320 uses a lower flight level resulting in an even lower GS), nor is it as comfortable, headspace, overhead storage and seating width are a lot smaller then on widebodies; also flying characteristics of A320 are less stable than the heavier (thus harder to influence) widebodies, resulting in less comfort.
I don't say they shouldn't take advantage but I do say that it is unrealistic to fly them on those highest demand routes you can find in these ranges. (as said in previous post)
As I use decent sized planes I seem never to reach the limits, nor does my competition seem to do so, thus I can only conjecture that it is so high, that it is not reachable.
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Kadachiman on September 09, 2011, 12:15:22 AM
Personally I don't know one plane from another...most look the same to me except some have props and the rest are small, big or bigger planes :-)
Therefore if I am incorrectly using planes that do not suit a route in real life, sorry but I am only playing a game.
I look at the demand, the distance, the money I have and go search for a plane to suit while keeping an eye on fleet types, etc so that my costs don't go up (something I have only found out by playing this game as I would not have thought about that previously).
I think this goes to the heart of Jona's argument and that of alot of others - it's how we view this game. Some of us take it quite serious, and play it like a "Real Life Simulation". Others play it more as a "Game". No one is right or wrong and really it's both, and has to be. The game would be a whole lot less exciting i'm sure if one wasn't able to be sustainably able to fly from Auckland to Cancun (must be lots of Rugby fans there). In the absence however of a passenger model that will stop "improper" use of aircraft, there's nothing wrong with playing the game in the way it allows it, regardless of whether someone likes it or not. If your business model is strong enough to compete against someone that does that, then more power to you. Personally I like the realism, and am very particular about which aircraft grace my fleet, and usually in an emotional rather than rational sense.
If passengers don't mind tech stops interrupting their sleeps on the red eyes and being cramped, then that's the reality of this world...
Quote from: swiftus27 on September 08, 2011, 03:45:13 PM
It appears this all roots back to how one wins through frequency.
For instance, I am now losing market share to someone flying Saabs 600nm.
Perhaps there should be a max number of flights between A and B where the number is decided by a scale (and there's a different scale for int'l flights)... If under X nm distance then Y A/C.
That is
exactly the reason I have gone to A321 over the atlantic.
If this game favors frequency more than capacity, then I had no choice but to dump 321's to routes of 3,000nm and less.
I like the earlier game versions where capacity did have an impact on results of MS. Since this game doesnt, then what other options does one have to survive?
Quote from: Sanabas on September 09, 2011, 10:40:04 AM
But it seems like you call it improper simply because you, personally, don't like the idea of high demand routes not being flown by the biggest planes available. Because you don't like the fact that your competitor is using an effective business model that you don't like.
So what? The guy has a solid argument. He might not understand or know all the underlying causes and reasons to why a 320 family AC or a 737 family AC is NOT suited for IRL transatlantic operations but he gets the basics of it and his point is spot on.
There are several real life reasons to why flying transatlantic with a 321/320 series doesn't make any sense.
One in particular is, 320 and 321 are NOT ETOPS rated. 319ACJ/LR are however.
I agree with many of you that introducing too many realistic features will drive away many players. But ETOPS are ETOPS. A very important and a very real issue. Comparable to range of an AC. Either it can make it or it can't.
That being said, Airlines with 10 different fleets can still survive because they have so many of each type that MX cost doesn't really matter anymore. You might need more than 2-3 types to accomodate the business model suggested by OP.
If your main fleet is based on A320s for domestic, Q400 for short-haul and 757s for lower demand international routes, you'd be s*** out of luck if you wanted to add a fleet of 5-8 330s. In REAL life the added MX cost for the 3rd and 4th type wouldn't be such a big difference. It might give you an added training cost for all mx personel, and many mechanics are checked out to work on more than one type of AC.
My point is, you don't need to add a bunch of rules to make the game more realistic. Rather remove a few, such as the commonality punishment.
Then you could fly whatever type you want....
Quote from: tm07x on September 11, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
So what? The guy has a solid argument. He might not understand or know all the underlying causes and reasons to why a 320 family AC or a 737 family AC is NOT suited for IRL transatlantic operations but he gets the basics of it and his point is spot on.
There are several real life reasons to why flying transatlantic with a 321/320 series doesn't make any sense.
One in particular is, 320 and 321 are NOT ETOPS rated. 319ACJ/LR are however.
I agree with many of you that introducing too many realistic features will drive away many players. But ETOPS are ETOPS. A very important and a very real issue. Comparable to range of an AC. Either it can make it or it can't.
Personally, I couldn't give a rats about ETOPS, it's an acronym I first heard maybe a month ago. Interesting for RL, not so much for this game for me. From a gameplay/programming perspective, having the route planner need to create & measure zigzag paths based on ETOPS ranges rather than simple great circle routes which can be automatically calculated from an airport's co-ordinates seems like a lot of hassle for very little benefit. Paticularly when there's much more benefit to be had from 4 other big gameplay/programming challenges (cargo/freq bonus/connecting pax/city based demand). From a factual perspective, a quick bit of research says that a320s DO have an ETOPS 120 rating, and can do LHR-NE USA on a great circle route if an airline wants to use them for that.
Adding ETOPS won't even be a band-aid solution for the issues with frequency bonuses & tech stops being irrelevant. It will cause significantly more hassle. To fix frequency issues, it needs to be done via a change to the game mechanics for filling demand. That is something I'd like to see.
QuoteMy point is, you don't need to add a bunch of rules to make the game more realistic.
I agree, and I think ETOPS is one of those rules that doesn't need adding.
I totally agree with you. I'm just stating facts here. Point is, the A321 can't make a trans-cont flight with normally expected payloads. At maximum payload, the range of a 321-200 is aprox. around 2400nm. Fwiw max range and ETOPS don't always correlate. Doesn't matter if you can meet etops and don't have the range to get to your destination if there is some head-wind. Thus isn't the A321 a realistic plane for transatlantic operations.
Now, like I said, I agree with you, enforcing more rules isn't the way to go here. Even enforcing an ETOPS rule or code doesn't bring any solution to the problem. There are too many un-real life like scenarios in this game to ever make it real. In what world do 300 or 600 airlines start operations on the same day?
Unfortunately, and this is my opinion only, this game doesn't offer enough options for different strategies, which would make the game more enjoyable (I believe) for more players.
If there were fewer and more clear cut rules that were easy to understand, the strategy would make a difference from the get go.
IMO there should be no base limitation, I do think a type limitation based on # of AC is healthy. No airline can operate with 10 different planes having one of each. It mimics real life in a good way and makes you pick a strategy, you can go for long hauls, regional or whatever type airline you want. and potentially become the biggest regional airline in the game. if that's what your strategy is.
Or running an LLC, where price becomes more important than seat comfort and what not. At the end of the day, demand is based on price and price alone. If flying was free everybody would fly, people fly with airlines that offer lower cost but don't offer the same service or quality.
removing the used marked entirely would also be more beneficial, because right now people who F5 and spend ungodly amounts of time monitoring the used market get rewarded significantly. it's redundant, unfair and so far away from real life as you get.
in reality any airline in the world can get their hands on any used equipment they want.
bottom line, I believe in a system made for different strategies and types of operation vs strangling us players with more rules.
this is still an MMO and people should get rewarded for knowing how to play, not how actively they press F5 or take advantage of the code and game engine.
Quote from: tm07x on September 11, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
My point is, you don't need to add a bunch of rules to make the game more realistic. Rather remove a few, such as the commonality punishment.
I disagree on that one. It IS a BIG cost jump for airlines to have fleets of different groups (IMO a contributing factor to Air Berlin's financial crisis (and hopefully soon BK)). There should however (as often feature requested) be part-commonalities such as B757 - B767 ones, or B737classics -B737NG ones, that would reduce gaps if you use these partly-commonal aircraft types. Adding 5 B744 to a fleet consisting of a couple of different Airbus types (say A300, A320 and A330) would be a hell of a lot of cost for the airline.
To list a few points: You need different parts, and replacements in storage for smaller maintenances thus need more storage which means more cost for maintaining the storage house, you need more mechanics for the new types, otherly trained pilots, more CC staff (a CC may only be certified for 3 a/c types), etc.
Quote from: sleak76 on September 10, 2011, 09:23:37 PM
I like the earlier game versions where capacity did have an impact on results of MS. Since this game doesnt, then what other options does one have to survive?
It was even worse formerly, where there was no limit at all (now it is only a lot too high) and not the time-gap requirement. If you had 10 flights departing at the same time you still won over someone with 5 flights spread over the day.
What I preferred about previous games though, was that you could easier lock an airport slot-wise and thus stop the usage of such small planes, because people needed to fill demands with the few slots they had or they found.
Quote from: tm07x on September 11, 2011, 08:04:45 AM
Unfortunately, and this is my opinion only, this game doesn't offer enough options for different strategies, which would make the game more enjoyable (I believe) for more players.
Talking about the difference of a game and a simulation - There are people searching for realism (such as me and seemingly you), and there are people who search for a simple way of entertaining themselves (I feel entertained by it as well, just I need realism in such stuff), and I think these people are the majority here (at least the loudest shouters, as we have in this topic).
Maybe splitting these groups into different scenarios: "Normal" and "Realistic" ones would be a probable solution but one that would result in additional cost, which is not yet being covered...
Quote from: tm07x on September 11, 2011, 08:04:45 AM
IMO there should be no base limitation, I do think a type limitation based on # of AC is healthy. No airline can operate with 10 different planes having one of each. It mimics real life in a good way and makes you pick a strategy, you can go for long hauls, regional or whatever type airline you want. and potentially become the biggest regional airline in the game. if that's what your strategy is.
+1 on no base limit (I'd prefer no limit on number of bases AND number of aircraft at a base);
Why block players to kill themselves? I think this is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, and make it a bit more challenging to stay profitable.
Quote from: tm07x on September 11, 2011, 08:04:45 AM
Or running an LLC, where price becomes more important than seat comfort and what not. At the end of the day, demand is based on price and price alone. If flying was free everybody would fly, people fly with airlines that offer lower cost but don't offer the same service or quality.
Price should indeed become more relevant, same as seating quality, so that a crappy seat requires a low price to get filled, and that people pay more for a better seat. I disagree that price alone makes the demand for three reasons: a) Consider travellers for companies who HAVE to fly, and when company pays it will be rather Lufthansa then Ryanair; b) People who travel in a higher class (C or F) cannot fly most of the LCCs as they don't offer such; last but not least c) people (like me) who care more for service and quality prefer airlines as Lufthansa to Ryanair anyways.
Also in the end, if you fly RYR and buy all the stuff that you get for free on normal carrier (such as DLH) (23Kg of Baggage; 2 drinks and a Sandwich on SH / 4 drinks and warm meal (or breakfast or dinner, up to time and direction of travel); reserved seats (on RYR you have free choice); and the Taxi/Train into the town you actually want to go to) you will be cheaper to fly DLH or other "Full" carrier than to fly RYR.
Quote from: tm07x on September 11, 2011, 08:04:45 AM
removing the used marked entirely would also be more beneficial, because right now people who F5 and spend ungodly amounts of time monitoring the used market get rewarded significantly. it's redundant, unfair and so far away from real life as you get.
in reality any airline in the world can get their hands on any used equipment they want.
Indeed, airlines can get to any aircraft they want ILFC, Boeing, Airbus and many more offer a lot of used planes for leasing and buying off them.
F5ing and Auto Refreshing have been made a lot harder (as it feels for a non-F5er), and will be nearly fully tweaked by the new feature (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg176340.html#msg176340) in that regard.
cheers,
Jona L.
So you don't have any further arguments, or why did you stop replying?!
It was going on so well.... now the power is out, I feel the urgency to write a lot at the moment, so give me reasons to do so :)
Quote from: EYguy on September 09, 2011, 07:32:52 AM
Btw, if Jona and Curse have argued, please guys, keep it in a private conversation. The forum is getting more and more like a kindergarten! ;)
I have not and will not participate in this thread. It would be nice if it's not always I who all fingers point to when it's about who flamed around or made swiftus cry.
;)
Quote
[16:00:29] schro: You got quoted by swiftus in it
[16:01:02] schro: then one of the mods told you to stop flamebaiting
[16:01:41] Curse: I'm this awesome, I get warned for threads I'm not actually posting in
Quote from: Jona L. on September 09, 2011, 11:56:09 AM
A320family is neither as fast (.79 vs. .82 on A330/40, and .85 on B777, additionally A320 uses a lower flight level resulting in an even lower GS), nor is it as comfortable, headspace, overhead storage and seating width are a lot smaller then on widebodies; also flying characteristics of A320 are less stable than the heavier (thus harder to influence) widebodies, resulting in less comfort.
The A320 series is wider than the 707/727/737/757, two of which types have been used in regular transatlantic service. As a general rule, the A320 is more comfortable from a passenger experience perspective than the Boeings.
Quote from: tm07x on September 11, 2011, 08:04:45 AM
I totally agree with you. I'm just stating facts here. Point is, the A321 can't make a trans-cont flight with normally expected payloads. At maximum payload, the range of a 321-200 is aprox. around 2400nm. Fwiw max range and ETOPS don't always correlate. Doesn't matter if you can meet etops and don't have the range to get to your destination if there is some head-wind. Thus isn't the A321 a realistic plane for transatlantic operations.
The 321-Neo should be able to do transcons and short transatlantic flights when it launches.
The true difficiency in my mind is that headwinds are not factored when computing range. The A321-200 can do eastbound US transcons all day long, its just the westbound that gives it trouble (as flight times can differ 2 hours between the two directions). For this reason, you'll see MD83s and MD88s flying west coast to Hawaii in the game, when they'd end up in the ocean a few hundred miles away in real life....
Quote from: Jona L. on September 08, 2011, 09:18:00 PM
a) It is improper, as planes like B767, B777, B747 and A330/340 and A300 were designed for these routes and A320 or B737 family are designed for shorter routes, like domestic and shorthaul but not for 3000NM intercontinental traffic. And the frequency feature supports this, that is why I keep up my fight for a 0% bonus for each flight you add.
I don't think there is any reason to call using planes for routes it wasn't "designed" for improper. An airline should utilize its assets in the best way to maximize its profit for its shareholders. If this means that A321's should be flying TATL with a stop in Iceland, then so be it, but when you look at the real world, the beancounters have determined that it is not the best course of action to maximize the company's profit.
The reason the "improper" use is so popular is that it is far more profitable to fly large narrowbodies on long haul as they offer similar per-seat economics as widebodies from an operational perspective while costing about half as much per seat from a leasing/purchasing perspective. If this change needs to be made, why not entice players with better economics for more "proper" use?
Quote from: Curse on September 12, 2011, 02:38:17 PM
I have not and will not participate in this thread. It would be nice if it's not always I who all fingers point to when it's about who flamed around or made swiftus cry.
;)
Why am I getting pulled back into this thread??
You shouldn't have been warned.
Just realize when I asked the same question in a previous thread, you gave me a completely douchebaggy response.
Quote from: swiftus27 on September 12, 2011, 04:13:51 PM
Why am I getting pulled back into this thread??
You shouldn't have been warned.
Just realize when I asked the same question in a previous thread, you gave me a completely douchebaggy response.
Keep it on topic, boys, clear that in PMs (quoting only swiftus, because of simplicity, as the use of the forums is crap on a mobile device)
Quote from: schro on September 12, 2011, 03:58:25 PM
The A320 series is wider than the 707/727/737/757, two of which types have been used in regular transatlantic service. As a general rule, the A320 is more comfortable from a passenger experience perspective than the Boeings.
The 321-Neo should be able to do transcons and short transatlantic flights when it launches.
The true difficiency in my mind is that headwinds are not factored when computing range. The A321-200 can do eastbound US transcons all day long, its just the westbound that gives it trouble (as flight times can differ 2 hours between the two directions). For this reason, you'll see MD83s and MD88s flying west coast to Hawaii in the game, when they'd end up in the ocean a few hundred miles away in real life....
I don't think there is any reason to call using planes for routes it wasn't "designed" for improper. An airline should utilize its assets in the best way to maximize its profit for its shareholders. If this means that A321's should be flying TATL with a stop in Iceland, then so be it, but when you look at the real world, the beancounters have determined that it is not the best course of action to maximize the company's profit.
The reason the "improper" use is so popular is that it is far more profitable to fly large narrowbodies on long haul as they offer similar per-seat economics as widebodies from an operational perspective while costing about half as much per seat from a leasing/purchasing perspective. If this change needs to be made, why not entice players with better economics for more "proper" use?
The point about the 707 is, that at it's time it was the biggest plane available (besides DC-8 being about equally sized) thus nothing else COULD have been used. Also the demand in those times were lower, thus no too big need to fly larger planes.
Admitted B757 is a point, but I think swiftus will agree with me, that they are the ultimate medium-long-haul route busters. Though they are a bit larger than A321 ;) at least in AWS.
I disagree about their comfort heavily! As a regular customer to DLH's short haul fleet I must say that 733/5 and CRJ7/9, even their AT42/72s BEAT their A320. Germanwings A319 are less comfy than RYR's 738 (which are both in all HD).
Your point about the TUSA flights tells enough already... So I say: model in the winds and crashes, and let them fall into the ATL or the PAC (talking of MD8X to Honululu) ;D - enough cynism -
Talking of A321 NEO is a different topic though. Though the problem is the same actually, but we shouldn't speculate about a plane that is not in AWS so far (IIRC).
Well, why they shouldn't use them: 40% esthetically reasons, 40% because unrealistic (as named above more than often) and 20% because it is just not kind towards people trying to run a serious airline.
Cheers,
Jona L.
okay, will alllll of this conversation something needs to be decided:
1. Do you go for more realism?
2. Do you continue as-is with the current setup?
We can debate all day about the ancillaries.
3. You play the game with what the developer has given you
If the fuel consumption of a 747SP drops significantly below that of a A321-200 in V1.4 ... then we will all be F5..ing the Boeing used market instead of the Airbus used market ;D
Quote from: Kadachiman on September 13, 2011, 01:04:39 PM
3. You play the game with what the developer has given you
Isnt that the same as #2?
Yea I guess it's close to a 2
Basically what I am saying is ...if the developer changes the game...then I and many others will change their strategies to suit....as to me this is a game.
I can't ever see myself taking this on as a Real Life Sim ...and comparing plane XYZ in this game with it's real life counterpart is pointless....as wayyyyyy to many variables are not taken into account to make me think of it as a Sim.
To me it will always be...a really great strategy game...it could be trains instead of planes..as long as it has enough playable parts to it to make it interesting..it's good by me.
Quote from: swiftus27 on September 13, 2011, 12:48:29 PM
okay, will alllll of this conversation something needs to be decided:
1. Do you go for more realism?
2. Do you continue as-is with the current setup?
We can debate all day about the ancillaries.
1. YES for sure I want such, or stop calling it AWS and call it AWG (Sim = Simulator = NOT a game --> so call it a game, if it isn't realistic)
2. I basically have to because as of today AWS is the best offer on the market, but I would leave immediately if there was an offer with more realism even at a higher price.
Quote from: Kadachiman on September 13, 2011, 01:04:39 PM
3. You play the game with what the developer has given you
If the fuel consumption of a 747SP drops significantly below that of a A321-200 in V1.4 ... then we will all be F5..ing the Boeing used market instead of the Airbus used market ;D
3. See reasoning of "2."
Nice you admit F5ing, so actually a good reason not to talk to you but nonetheless will end my resoning on your post (and by then not reply to you as an F5er anymore).
Anyhow, you should GET REAL we don't talk of B747SP vs. A321 as they aren't operated at the same time (okay, B747SP might be used by some 3rd-world countries still, but I think Olympic ceased operations anyways (will need some time for you guys to understand))
My point is a B744 (about 2x the size of the 747SP) or B773 (same size) or at least an A300/330 sized plane (--> ~1.4x the size with ~30-40% of fuel usage or B747SP) [All about 2-3 decades newer than 747SP] versus A321.
Which is about the difference between an DHC-6-300 and a B737-800, and the DHC-8 user would be hated if he used the plane on a 700PAX/day route, so why can't I hate the ones using A321 on 5500pax/day routes?!
END of post....
Jona L.
P.S. I think we are hitting a spot here... I have my point (with good reasons) and you have your points (with quantitative reasons)
Nice you admit F5ing, so actually a good reason not to talk to you but nonetheless will end my resoning on your post (and by then not reply to you as an F5er anymore).
I'm actually not an F5er Jona, it was merely a phrase I used as I have seen it used here often.
You can check with Sami if you want and you will find that I have NEVER used F5, I rely on the refresh the page button, and have NEVER received the 'refresh too many times screen' that others have mentioned.
Anyway, yes I understand your frustrations as I would probably be a bit peeved as well if I understood the world of planes and the SIM didn't fit in with my understanding.
So you have a fair enough point, but we are coming at this discussion from different angles ;)
PS - I actually have respect for you as a player as you run one of the biggest and more efficient airlines in all game worlds I have seen, so hopefully over time your opinion of me will change. :-[
Quote from: Kadachiman on September 13, 2011, 11:31:13 PM
Nice you admit F5ing, so actually a good reason not to talk to you but nonetheless will end my resoning on your post (and by then not reply to you as an F5er anymore).
I'm actually not an F5er Jona, it was merely a phrase I used as I have seen it used here often.
You can check with Sami if you want and you will find that I have NEVER used F5, I rely on the refresh the page button, and have NEVER received the 'refresh too many times screen' that others have mentioned.
Anyway, yes I understand your frustrations as I would probably be a bit peeved as well if I understood the world of planes and the SIM didn't fit in with my understanding.
So you have a fair enough point, but we are coming at this discussion from different angles ;)
PS - I actually have respect for you as a player as you run one of the biggest and more efficient airlines in all game worlds I have seen, so hopefully over time your opinion of me will change. :-[
Well, it was a) a little poke ( :P ) and b) rather to knock out your arguments right away...
Anyhow, when I came here I had only few knowledge about planes and a bit more about economics. It took me about 6mth to get into the business and now (after >2yrs) I kindof need new challenges, and the current state is a) too easy and b) not simulative enough for ME, I know there are people who don't play here for the sake of simulations, but for the sake of enjoyment (which for me is the same). I also know that we come from different angles, I feel the headwind in this post, and it showed me that I am neither alone, nor in the majority with my opinion. I hope that more people will join my p.o.v. though.
Well, yes, I do pretty well run most of my airlines and in most cases I care for things that don't even matter much in AWS (such as fleet commonality which is in my eyes only 15% as strong as it should be, thus airlines running only 2 fleet types get not rewarded enough). But I think the well commonalized fleet gives me more strength in times of fuel spikes...
Your airline(s) never stroke my eyes, thus I have no opinion of you at all, so nothing to become changed.
cheers,
Jona L.
I think ETOPS would be cool and there was a little discussion in feature requests. Sami said it wasnt feasible because:
Quote from: samiThis isn't a feasible request since 1) we are not modeling airways, flight routes or anything in such way. The route is always a great circle route, added with some extras to cover the routings & vectors
Pity for me because I think realism on the operations side would be a welcomed challenge.
Quote from: alexgv1 on September 14, 2011, 05:30:06 PM
Pity for me because I think realism on the operations side would be a welcomed challenge.
I do agree the operations now is just too simple, introducing more detail would hard for Sami but it could bring a lot of challenge and interest here.
And if the competition model/algorithm improves, it would be great. ;)
Quote from: Jona L. on September 13, 2011, 09:13:09 AM
Well, why they shouldn't use them: 40% esthetically reasons, 40% because unrealistic (as named above more than often) and 20% because it is just not kind towards people trying to run a serious airline.
I think this is a poor choice of words. My DotM airline is a serious one. I've put a lot of effort into it, and I'm very serious about reaching some of the goals I've set for myself in terms of revenue, number of destinations, etc. I'm also flying ATRs 2000 nm, F100s 3000+ nm, a320s 5000 nm, and 757s 4000 nm direct and 7000+ with tech stops. I'm serious about reaching my goals, I'm not serious about conforming only to what I think real airlines do. If anything, I'm serious about seeing what I can do that may not be practical for real airlines. I like how complicated my route map looks.
The implication that anyone running an airline on a model different to the one you want isn't playing seriously is one that makes it much easier to unilaterally dismiss your other views.
Quote+1 on no base limit (I'd prefer no limit on number of bases AND number of aircraft at a base);
Why block players to kill themselves? I think this is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, and make it a bit more challenging to stay profitable.
What happens to people who don't want to build a multi-billion dollar airline, or who start the game 5 years later than everyone else? Currently, the worst that can happen is a bigger airline opens a base at their airport, and can stick 100 planes there. 100 planes isn't enough to fill most big airports, it still leaves plenty of scope for non-monster airlines to operate. Allowing the monster airlines to fill as many airports as they can acquire planes for will remove most of that.
Quote
2. I basically have to because as of today AWS is the best offer on the market, but I would leave immediately if there was an offer with more realism even at a higher price.
Admittedly the price is a LOT higher, but if you want 100% realism, then why not just start your own airline? It doesn't matter how realistic a simulation game gets, it's still going to be a game.
Quote from: alexgv
Pity for me because I think realism on the operations side would be a welcomed challenge.
I agree that the operations being more of a logistical challenge would certainly increase my interest. I just don't think ETOPS will help with that, as it won't change operations at all, you'll still simply need to check if a plane can fly route x, and how many pax it can carry, same as now. All that needs to be changed is the algorithm that assigns pax, which shouldn't be hard to do from a gameplay perspective, may or may not be difficult from a programming perspective. Split the demand into smaller blocks of time, allow them to carry over into other blocks, keep the penalties for land/takeoff at night, increase the preference for quicker flight time, increase the preference for no tech stop. No more problems with frequency bonuses, routes that fly 2-3 x a week become viable, and setting up your schedule takes more thought & planning.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 16, 2011, 03:15:15 AM
I think this is a poor choice of words. My DotM airline is a serious one. I've put a lot of effort into it, and I'm very serious about reaching some of the goals I've set for myself in terms of revenue, number of destinations, etc. I'm also flying ATRs 2000 nm, F100s 3000+ nm, a320s 5000 nm, and 757s 4000 nm direct and 7000+ with tech stops. I'm serious about reaching my goals, I'm not serious about conforming only to what I think real airlines do. If anything, I'm serious about seeing what I can do that may not be practical for real airlines. I like how complicated my route map looks.
This is exactly what I aim against, in real life no airline would do that because it is a) completely unprofitable to do so and b) barely any passenger would stay aboard an ATR for 8hrs and more including a tech-stop. And I want AWS to give back the figure - meaning: in AWS there should be the same as in real life "designed optimums" (as of Real Life B777-200LR was designed to fly 10000NM routes and is designed to be most efficient on 8000NM+ flights, in AWS if you'd use it on such routes you'd be of the doomed).
Quote from: Sanabas on September 16, 2011, 03:15:15 AM
The implication that anyone running an airline on a model different to the one you want isn't playing seriously is one that makes it much easier to unilaterally dismiss your other views.
Just because I shot off all your yet brought up arguments you reduce it to the personal factor now? Certificate of Poverty!
I do not call other airlines unserious blindly, just those (as yours) that misuse some features that were built in for other reasons (e.g. the small plane preference of PAX to save smaller airlines). I do accept other business models of course, as long as they don't a) misuse features; b) slot-limit an airport without a necessity (e.g. A321 out of LHR to US destinations) and c) remain in a frame that can be called realistic.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 16, 2011, 03:15:15 AM
What happens to people who don't want to build a multi-billion dollar airline, or who start the game 5 years later than everyone else? Currently, the worst that can happen is a bigger airline opens a base at their airport, and can stick 100 planes there. 100 planes isn't enough to fill most big airports, it still leaves plenty of scope for non-monster airlines to operate. Allowing the monster airlines to fill as many airports as they can acquire planes for will remove most of that.
Option a) Start the game at day one (24hrs time for that ;) )
Option b) Learn to play, I joined JetAge#2 (the second "#2" JetAge) 65% through into a filled HND and became a top-20 airline before the end of the game...
Option c) Choose smaller airport?! Of Course the first page of airports in the world (sorting by size) is full after 5 yrs. You shouldn't try to start in LHR after 5yrs unless there was a big BK (leading us to next option)
Option d) Wait for a big airline to BK (happens more often than you may think, so many players have "real life commitments" [The right people know what I mean, the others don't need to know what this hints at])
Quote from: Sanabas on September 16, 2011, 03:15:15 AM
Admittedly the price is a LOT higher, but if you want 100% realism, then why not just start your own airline? It doesn't matter how realistic a simulation game gets, it's still going to be a game.
It is on my planned tasks for my life, yet I am only 18, and not yet through the 13yrs of school we have in Germany, to follow a Master-Study of Logistics. Also I am planning to work for the only really good airline in the world [Lufthansa] first, before I will show Willie Walsh how to rule LHR :P ; seriously I am planning to run an airline in the coming future, maybe not LHR but you will see, and in case I am still here I will let you know :)
cheers,
Jona L.
I won't comment on most of this stuff, but I'd like to point out a potential compromise.
What if Sami added another level of games beyond the "full worlds"? He could set the difficulty at "Very Hard", and incorporate ETOPS and unlimited bases in these scenarios and these scenarios only. That way, the more advanced players can play by the real-world rulebook, and the everyone else can still explore game worlds like the ones we have today.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 16, 2011, 02:29:34 PM
This is exactly what I aim against, in real life no airline would do that because it is a) completely unprofitable to do so and b) barely any passenger would stay aboard an ATR for 8hrs and more including a tech-stop. And I want AWS to give back the figure - meaning: in AWS there should be the same as in real life "designed optimums" (as of Real Life B777-200LR was designed to fly 10000NM routes and is designed to be most efficient on 8000NM+ flights, in AWS if you'd use it on such routes you'd be of the doomed).
Just because I shot off all your yet brought up arguments you reduce it to the personal factor now? Certificate of Poverty!
I do not call other airlines unserious blindly, just those (as yours) that misuse some features that were built in for other reasons (e.g. the small plane preference of PAX to save smaller airlines). I do accept other business models of course, as long as they don't a) misuse features; b) slot-limit an airport without a necessity (e.g. A321 out of LHR to US destinations) and c) remain in a frame that can be called realistic.
Nothing personal about it. I'm just pointing out that after you used (and later apologised for) pejorative language in your OP, you're doing it again, this time saying that airlines who pay more attention to game mechanics than exactly what happens in real life aren't serious. If you want to say that the way I run my airline shouldn't be viable because you don't like it, no worries. There are things I'm doing that I don't think should be viable. But if you want to say my airline is a joke/I'm not taking the game seriously because you don't like the way I run it, that is going to be counter-productive, that is going to make me for one respect you far less.
Flying an ATR with decent quality seats 1800 NM on a route with 40 pax demand is something I don't have a problem with. Flying 3 daily ATRs (9 hrs+ with a tech stop) from UUEE-LEMD, and getting almost 60% of the market when my competitors are flying 1 daily MD82 and 1 daily 737-200 (6 hours direct) and getting 20% of the market each, that shouldn't happen. But as long as it does, I'll keep doing it.
I want some of the game mechanics to change, I've explained how I'd do it. I don't think insulting airlines who effectively use some of the game mechanics I don't like is a useful way to go about trying to get those mechanics changed.
QuoteOption a) Start the game at day one (24hrs time for that ;) )
Option b) Learn to play, I joined JetAge#2 (the second "#2" JetAge) 65% through into a filled HND and became a top-20 airline before the end of the game...
Option c) Choose smaller airport?! Of Course the first page of airports in the world (sorting by size) is full after 5 yrs. You shouldn't try to start in LHR after 5yrs unless there was a big BK (leading us to next option)
Option d) Wait for a big airline to BK (happens more often than you may think, so many players have "real life commitments" [The right people know what I mean, the others don't need to know what this hints at])
I know how to play, thanks. Come and join DOTM at a near 100% full UUEE, my airline's only been there just under 6 years, you've still got 8+ years gametime to make a top 20 airline if you're good enough. :P
The other options miss the point. I'm not talking about those players who want to build a massive airline. I'm talking about those players who want to run a smaller airline, who want to meet certain goals rather than just be as big as possible. LHR will have 2-3 big airlines HQed there, of course starting there 5 years in isn't going to be a great idea. But with unlimited bases and unlimited planes at bases, many smaller airports will have a big airline with an effective HQ there, and they won't be viable starting points either. Rather than having to worry about a big airline turning up with 100 planes, they have to worry about a big airline turning up with 250 planes and flooding all their routes. To use DOTM as an example, UBBB & UTTT are currently viable (though challenging) places to start an airline, they both have 70 of my planes based there, but there's no way for me to bring more capacity, there's no way for me to bring smaller planes if a competitor airline appears. Remove that restriction, and they'd be far less viable places to start because I'd already have more planes at them, and I'd be able to respond far better to what a competitor does. It's a gameplay change that will help make being a very large airline more viable, and being a smaller/regional/newer airline much less viable. It'll be even more pronounced when it's in a very long game world. It decreases flexibility of business plan, and again seems only based on personal preference.
As for option d, I assume that's a thinly veiled shot an DanDantes. Made in a post where you're complaining about me getting personal. ;)
If you want to be constructive, how about explaining exactly what changes you'd implement to achieve the results you want? So far, all I've seen is we should remove all restrictions on number of bases/number of planes, that we should add ETOPS (which will only change the range of planes, won't do a thing to address issues like my Moscow-Madrid flights) and that any bonuses for frequency should be removed entirely. So presumably pax demand will be filled purely based on number of seats supplied, modified by CI/RI and having flights at night. If I'm not correct about that, then please explain how you want pax to be assigned to planes. If I am correct, then please explain how you'd fix some of the very unrealistic things that model would introduce, such as making the best way to fill a route like EGLL-EGCC be with 2 daily a380s carrying 750+ pax each?
Or tell me what problems you see/what things you agree with when it comes to what I proposed earlier in the thread.
Quote from: RushmoreAir on September 16, 2011, 04:18:30 PM
I won't comment on most of this stuff, but I'd like to point out a potential compromise.
What if Sami added another level of games beyond the "full worlds"? He could set the difficulty at "Very Hard", and incorporate ETOPS and unlimited bases in these scenarios and these scenarios only. That way, the more advanced players can play by the real-world rulebook, and the everyone else can still explore game worlds like the ones we have today.
Though I like the suggestion I have to ask: What's the point of adding this stuff if only the 10% of top-players would use it?! Though I'd like to see more being done for the long term players than for the newcomers, as that took majority over the last year (at least it feels like it, and I've been talking to enough people who feel the same).
But thanks for your idea, Rushmore :) I appreciate that some people actually come with possible solutions.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 17, 2011, 03:05:58 AM
Nothing personal about it. I'm just pointing out that after you used (and later apologised for) pejorative language in your OP, you're doing it again, this time saying that airlines who pay more attention to game mechanics than exactly what happens in real life aren't serious. If you want to say that the way I run my airline shouldn't be viable because you don't like it, no worries. There are things I'm doing that I don't think should be viable. But if you want to say my airline is a joke/I'm not taking the game seriously because you don't like the way I run it, that is going to be counter-productive, that is going to make me for one respect you far less.
Flying an ATR with decent quality seats 1800 NM on a route with 40 pax demand is something I don't have a problem with. Flying 3 daily ATRs (9 hrs+ with a tech stop) from UUEE-LEMD, and getting almost 60% of the market when my competitors are flying 1 daily MD82 and 1 daily 737-200 (6 hours direct) and getting 20% of the market each, that shouldn't happen. But as long as it does, I'll keep doing it.
I want some of the game mechanics to change, I've explained how I'd do it. I don't think insulting airlines who effectively use some of the game mechanics I don't like is a useful way to go about trying to get those mechanics changed.
Well, I am not saying it is wrong what you do, and it is surely okay, that you use the game mechanics, just there is a point where it comes to an overuseage as an example one could take the anti-terror laws of UK during IRA times, which was just overused, tough it was a good mechanic. This is basically the same, an overuse of a thing that is in basic cleverly thought and senseful.
My main point is anyhow less that one (in this case you) overuses it but that it works out. It is simply unrealistic that it works, thus my point is: make it impossible to do impossible things here. Even the rise in slot cost doesn't help anymore, as those airlines too soon make enough money to cover this. And since the latest tweak in the LH income (was discussed earlier) a long-haul airline cannot cover these cost any near that fast.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 17, 2011, 03:05:58 AM
I know how to play, thanks. Come and join DOTM at a near 100% full UUEE, my airline's only been there just under 6 years, you've still got 8+ years gametime to make a top 20 airline if you're good enough. :P
a) I don't play USSR/former USSR states, neither to I play any country east of the German-German border and west of China (with the exception of countries south of the Himalaya (e.g. Dubai; India; etc.)
b) I don't play from airports under class 5 and from lower than 2nd page of whole world listing.
c) I dislike the current DotM
Quote from: Sanabas on September 17, 2011, 03:05:58 AM
The other options miss the point. I'm not talking about those players who want to build a massive airline. I'm talking about those players who want to run a smaller airline, who want to meet certain goals rather than just be as big as possible. LHR will have 2-3 big airlines HQed there, of course starting there 5 years in isn't going to be a great idea. But with unlimited bases and unlimited planes at bases, many smaller airports will have a big airline with an effective HQ there, and they won't be viable starting points either. Rather than having to worry about a big airline turning up with 100 planes, they have to worry about a big airline turning up with 250 planes and flooding all their routes. To use DOTM as an example, UBBB & UTTT are currently viable (though challenging) places to start an airline, they both have 70 of my planes based there, but there's no way for me to bring more capacity, there's no way for me to bring smaller planes if a competitor airline appears. Remove that restriction, and they'd be far less viable places to start because I'd already have more planes at them, and I'd be able to respond far better to what a competitor does. It's a gameplay change that will help make being a very large airline more viable, and being a smaller/regional/newer airline much less viable. It'll be even more pronounced when it's in a very long game world. It decreases flexibility of business plan, and again seems only based on personal preference.
As for option d, I assume that's a thinly veiled shot an DanDantes. Made in a post where you're complaining about me getting personal. ;)
They don't miss the point, as you were talking of smaller airlines, which don't need to occupy an airport like LHR or CDG but can surely be happy with TXL, ARN, KUL, SYD, etc. - Stop talking about small airlines, or accept that my point is right.
What you say about "d)" is just your interpretation, which can be wrong or right, I will not comment.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 17, 2011, 03:05:58 AM
If you want to be constructive, how about explaining exactly what changes you'd implement to achieve the results you want? So far, all I've seen is we should remove all restrictions on number of bases/number of planes, that we should add ETOPS (which will only change the range of planes, won't do a thing to address issues like my Moscow-Madrid flights) and that any bonuses for frequency should be removed entirely. So presumably pax demand will be filled purely based on number of seats supplied, modified by CI/RI and having flights at night. If I'm not correct about that, then please explain how you want pax to be assigned to planes. If I am correct, then please explain how you'd fix some of the very unrealistic things that model would introduce, such as making the best way to fill a route like EGLL-EGCC be with 2 daily a380s carrying 750+ pax each?
Or tell me what problems you see/what things you agree with when it comes to what I proposed earlier in the thread.
Admitted, ETOPS is maybe not as much of a solution as I hoped for but for example would prohibit A320/21 or B737NG over the pond thus fix my issue on that.
I do follow the removal of these techniques, though I must row back on the frequency a bit, as I didn't yet think of these short legs (I normally use EGLL-EGCC only as a gap-filler on my Long Hauls, and don't fly SH from LHR).
So let my conclude my wishes/ideas:
Remove fully base and a/c per base limits;
Reduce frequency bonus in different levels: >500NM 1flt/75PAX; 501-1000NM 1flt/150PAX; 1001-2000NM 1flt/225PAX; 2001-3500NM 1flt/300PAX; >3501NM 1flt/350PAX
With these (yet only basic (thus to be a bit adjusted) limits you would still not make a B763ER unprofitable on a route from LHR to EZE, but don't let it win over a B77W. And on the other side if using a 450 seater on a 300NM route would be beaten 6:1 by someone fly 75 Seaters (e.g. AT75/DHC-8-Q400) and planes like an AT75 could still fly on a 1800NM route (probably even profitably), just it won't win any more than a B762 which would be in the same freq. limit and (as proposed by a/c producers) is more "suitable" (as in "planned to be used for") for these routes.
That from my side, I hope that the idea finds its friends (and if not the part about the bases, maybe at least the part about the freq-bonus).
cheers and a nice day,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
Well, I am not saying it is wrong what you do, and it is surely okay, that you use the game mechanics, just there is a point where it comes to an overuseage as an example one could take the anti-terror laws of UK during IRA times, which was just overused, tough it was a good mechanic. This is basically the same, an overuse of a thing that is in basic cleverly thought and senseful.
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry, you are publicly comparing ATRs and narrowbodies flying where you don't want them to a multiple decade terrorist campaign and the laws to stop it.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
Admitted, ETOPS is maybe not as much of a solution as I hoped for but for example would prohibit A320/21 or B737NG over the pond thus fix my issue on that.
Well it wont, both the A320/1 and B737NG both have ETOPS180 which will cross the Atlantic.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
So let my conclude my wishes/ideas:
Remove fully base and a/c per base limits;
What, so the huge airlines can open more and more bases and push out more and more airlines? In MT5 I've recently had a big airline open at my base but I can take so solace from the fact that I will be able to always have more a/c operating than him. With a suggestion like that someone could get very big at Heathrow, then move to Gatwick with 100+ a/c, Manchester and so on. You would end up with a small number of absolutely massive airlines.
[/quote]
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 17, 2011, 03:05:51 PM
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry, you are publicly comparing ATRs and narrowbodies flying where you don't want them to a multiple decade terrorist campaign and the laws to stop it.
Okay, harsh comparison, but I was in time pressure and didn't find any better that soon, though I think it fits. Political Correctness is neither my strength nor do I aim for it, thus I might sound a bit too straight ahead, but I say what I think which, IMHO, is a good thing.
To explain my example more in depth: The law was supposed to help fighting the terrorism in the UK/Northern Ireland, and it would have been at least not the worst option, but it was turned into such due to misuse of the law by the police. Same as frequency rule and small aircraft preference, these were supposed to be helping smaller airlines compete more effectively against big airlines. But if a big airline uses these techniques than it is (in my eyes) a misuse or an use that was not supposed by it's creator. Which IS comparable to the Anti-Terror-Laws of the UK.
(Which doesn't mean that I support Terrorism, the IRA or any such party or group!!!)Quote from: Dave4468 on September 17, 2011, 03:05:51 PM
Well it wont, both the A320/1 and B737NG both have ETOPS180 which will cross the Atlantic.
Someone earlier said they weren't, anyhow they are as a research showed, thus ETOPS (which I believed so far would not apply for A320family/B737classic/NG) is the wrong strategy to solve the problem. The part of my post you did NOT quote gives a new idea on that though.
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 17, 2011, 03:05:51 PM
What, so the huge airlines can open more and more bases and push out more and more airlines? In MT5 I've recently had a big airline open at my base but I can take so solace from the fact that I will be able to always have more a/c operating than him. With a suggestion like that someone could get very big at Heathrow, then move to Gatwick with 100+ a/c, Manchester and so on. You would end up with a small number of absolutely massive airlines.
Sounds great to me :) PLUS: it would not only be LGW and MAN, but thanks to EU it would be FRA, CDG, AMS, FCO, MAD, MUC, CPH, ARN, etc.... though some of these airports might bring big airlines up as well, that would be a bit more of competition ;)
ALSO: With the current model, the 4th base (even with 100 a/c) will hardly make any cash, due to the staffing system adding INSANE cost... so it would basically be a good means to let some airlines "overgrow" and commit suicide thereby.
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 06:49:35 PM
Okay, harsh comparison, but I was in time pressure and didn't find any better that soon, though I think it fits. Political Correctness is neither my strength nor do I aim for it, thus I might sound a bit too straight ahead, but I say what I think which, IMHO, is a good thing.
To explain my example more in depth: The law was supposed to help fighting the terrorism in the UK/Northern Ireland, and it would have been at least not the worst option, but it was turned into such due to misuse of the law by the police. Same as frequency rule and small aircraft preference, these were supposed to be helping smaller airlines compete more effectively against big airlines. But if a big airline uses these techniques than it is (in my eyes) a misuse or an use that was not supposed by it's creator. Which IS comparable to the Anti-Terror-Laws of the UK.
(Which doesn't mean that I support Terrorism, the IRA or any such party or group!!!)
Yea, still its an atrocious example, PC or not.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 06:49:35 PM
Someone earlier said they weren't, anyhow they are as a research showed, thus ETOPS (which I believed so far would not apply for A320family/B737classic/NG) is the wrong strategy to solve the problem. The part of my post you did NOT quote gives a new idea on that though.
Well the bit I quoted said that you thought that ETOPS would stop A320 and B737s crossing the Atlantic, it won't.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 06:49:35 PM
Sounds great to me :) PLUS: it would not only be LGW and MAN, but thanks to EU it would be FRA, CDG, AMS, FCO, MAD, MUC, CPH, ARN, etc.... though some of these airports might bring big airlines up as well, that would be a bit more of competition ;)
It's a ridiculous idea. A game world where a single airline could dominate in LHR, FRA, CDG and AMS would be terrible. The same would be seen in the USA, a big airline could conceivably control JFK, EWR, LAX and ATL. It would be back to the days of "King Without A Crown" or whatever it was called. And for someone who promotes realism can you realistically say that we could see BA or LH as the biggest airline in every big airport of Europe. Of course not, the EU and various monopoly groups would stop it. IIRC BA and IB had enough problems merging.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 06:49:35 PM
ALSO: With the current model, the 4th base (even with 100 a/c) will hardly make any cash, due to the staffing system adding INSANE cost... so it would basically be a good means to let some airlines "overgrow" and commit suicide thereby.
But they wont. A player who could afford 100 aircraft at a fourth base wouldn't collapse due to size if they already had at least 100 aircraft at each other base.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
I appreciate that some people actually come with possible solutions.
Who is this a shot at?
QuoteWell, I am not saying it is wrong what you do, and it is surely okay, that you use the game mechanics, just there is a point where it comes to an overuseage as an example one could take the anti-terror laws of UK during IRA times, which was just overused, tough it was a good mechanic. This is basically the same, an overuse of a thing that is in basic cleverly thought and senseful.
My main point is anyhow less that one (in this case you) overuses it but that it works out. It is simply unrealistic that it works, thus my point is: make it impossible to do impossible things here. Even the rise in slot cost doesn't help anymore, as those airlines too soon make enough money to cover this. And since the latest tweak in the LH income (was discussed earlier) a long-haul airline cannot cover these cost any near that fast.
As Dave said, this is a poor choice of example. As I said, I also don't think some of the things I am doing should be viable. What I objected to is the way you categorise anybody doing those things as 'not a serious airline', and imply they're ruining things for serious airlines like yours.
Quotea) I don't play USSR/former USSR states, neither to I play any country east of the German-German border and west of China (with the exception of countries south of the Himalaya (e.g. Dubai; India; etc.)
b) I don't play from airports under class 5 and from lower than 2nd page of whole world listing.
c) I dislike the current DotM
Maybe if you learned to play, you could build a successful airline somewhere outside that narrow range?
QuoteThey don't miss the point, as you were talking of smaller airlines, which don't need to occupy an airport like LHR or CDG but can surely be happy with TXL, ARN, KUL, SYD, etc. - Stop talking about small airlines, or accept that my point is right.
Your point is wrong (and a step away from realism), as Dave also points out. It's not the fact that a smaller airline 'shouldn't be allowed' to use LHR, or 'should be happy' with a smaller airport. The point is that what you propose will mean those other airports also cease to be viable, and that a big airline opening a base at your hub will no longer just mean you've got some challenging times from the 100 extra planes, but that you're in big trouble as 250 smaller planes can turn up.
QuoteAdmitted, ETOPS is maybe not as much of a solution as I hoped for but for example would prohibit A320/21 or B737NG over the pond thus fix my issue on that.
I do follow the removal of these techniques, though I must row back on the frequency a bit, as I didn't yet think of these short legs (I normally use EGLL-EGCC only as a gap-filler on my Long Hauls, and don't fly SH from LHR).
As mentioned earlier, it wouldn't fix 'your issue' at all.
QuoteSo let my conclude my wishes/ideas:
Remove fully base and a/c per base limits;
A really bad idea, for multiple reasons already mentioned.
QuoteReduce frequency bonus in different levels: >500NM 1flt/75PAX; 501-1000NM 1flt/150PAX; 1001-2000NM 1flt/225PAX; 2001-3500NM 1flt/300PAX; >3501NM 1flt/350PAX
With these (yet only basic (thus to be a bit adjusted) limits you would still not make a B763ER unprofitable on a route from LHR to EZE, but don't let it win over a B77W. And on the other side if using a 450 seater on a 300NM route would be beaten 6:1 by someone fly 75 Seaters (e.g. AT75/DHC-8-Q400) and planes like an AT75 could still fly on a 1800NM route (probably even profitably), just it won't win any more than a B762 which would be in the same freq. limit and (as proposed by a/c producers) is more "suitable" (as in "planned to be used for") for these routes.
Superficially a decent idea, but would still mean that the best plane for routes like LHR-CDG, SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE, HND-ITM, HND-FUK, HND-CTS, etc would be 100+ 75 seat planes in some cases. Realistic? Irrelevant because you don't fly SH?
It also ignores things like tech stops, aircraft speed, etc. To pick examples from my own routes again, 3 daily F100s flying 2500 NM with a tech stop would split 50-50 with somebody flying 2 daily a320s direct. Which shouldn't happen.
Doesn't add anything to the logistical challenge of organising a schedule, either. All it really does is make bigger planes the best choice for busy LH routes out of LHR.
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 17, 2011, 07:03:23 PM
Well the bit I quoted said that you thought that ETOPS would stop A320 and B737s crossing the Atlantic, it won't.
That is why I mentioned that there was more than what you quoted.
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 17, 2011, 07:03:23 PM
It's a ridiculous idea. A game world where a single airline could dominate in LHR, FRA, CDG and AMS would be terrible. The same would be seen in the USA, a big airline could conceivably control JFK, EWR, LAX and ATL. It would be back to the days of "King Without A Crown" or whatever it was called. And for someone who promotes realism can you realistically say that we could see BA or LH as the biggest airline in every big airport of Europe. Of course not, the EU and various monopoly groups would stop it. IIRC BA and IB had enough problems merging.
Okay, the bomb this was planned to be didn't explode as I wished for it to do. Seems like sarcasm is what only few people have heard here... my example just shows how unrealistic the current system is. And as you said: it is ridiculous, that is why I want things to change. (I am not [yet] talking of changes to that system, as in MT#5 the top-20-cap was removed for the first time, and it is uncertain if it will remain open). {I'd love it if LH was the worlds biggest airline though, so that a good airline would be in charge for once :) }
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 17, 2011, 07:03:23 PM
But they wont. A player who could afford 100 aircraft at a fourth base wouldn't collapse due to size if they already had at least 100 aircraft at each other base.
Why does it happen so often?! And you should know, as you are in WL where this happens extraordinarily often (at least more often if you leave away small airlines at which this didn't hint). Already happened to some of my mates in earlier games, that 70 a/c at a base didn't finance the cost of it, even the first one. This all in all only works when you do it for the sake of expansion, but financially, this is just decreasing your growth rate.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 18, 2011, 03:25:00 AM
Who is this a shot at?
Quote from: RushmoreAir on September 16, 2011, 04:18:30 PM
I won't comment on most of this stuff, but I'd like to point out a potential compromise.
What if Sami added another level of games beyond the "full worlds"? He could set the difficulty at "Very Hard", and incorporate ETOPS and unlimited bases in these scenarios and these scenarios only. That way, the more advanced players can play by the real-world rulebook, and the everyone else can still explore game worlds like the ones we have today.
It hinted hereat, as he actually had a constructive idea, which I indeed appreciate.
No shot at anyone!
Quote from: Sanabas on September 18, 2011, 03:25:00 AM
As I said, I also don't think some of the things I am doing should be viable. What I objected to is the way you categorise anybody doing those things as 'not a serious airline', and imply they're ruining things for serious airlines like yours.
Well, as you say: "don't think some of the things I am doing should be viable" This is a decent portion (40%) of what I talk about: simply they shouldn't be and that should be modeled in.
The way I call them could be discussed for hours and hours, and we'd still be jumping on one spot. It is partly to show my displease and disrespect for 120-seaters on routes like LHR-JFK (talking of current times, where 707 is by far not the largest plane anymore). Anyhow as for calling them non-serious or not shouldn't be subject of this topic, as this is not the
subject we talk about (to remind you: we talk about game mechanisms that should or shouldn't be changed by now).
Quote from: Sanabas on September 18, 2011, 03:25:00 AM
Maybe if you learned to play, you could build a successful airline somewhere outside that narrow range?
I don't play USSR/former USSR because I hate it (same as I hate AN/TUP/IL/YAK); And I don't start at small airfields, as I aim for multi-billion dollar enterprises, and not for a 20-plane-mini-carrier.
My dislike for DotM is just a personal thing, which has nothing to do with ability to play or not.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 18, 2011, 03:25:00 AM
Your point is wrong (and a step away from realism), as Dave also points out. It's not the fact that a smaller airline 'shouldn't be allowed' to use LHR, or 'should be happy' with a smaller airport. The point is that what you propose will mean those other airports also cease to be viable, and that a big airline opening a base at your hub will no longer just mean you've got some challenging times from the 100 extra planes, but that you're in big trouble as 250 smaller planes can turn up.
They shouldn't use LHR (at least, I am sure there are also others) for the reason of SLOTS, in current MT#5 someone flies 14x DH8D [Bom. Dash-8-Q400] daily between BRU and LHR, using 98 slots which could be done (and is done by me) with only 8 daily B738/9 using only 56 slots and in the end supplying (slightly) more capacity. This is a problem specially known in LHR, because slots there used to be and will always remain a rare good. And if you wish to operate a small airline, you don't need an airport of that size, because by the time you filled the regio demand you are a big airline and thus missed your goal.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 18, 2011, 03:25:00 AM
A really bad idea, for multiple reasons already mentioned.
For this same is valid as what I commented on Dave's post.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 18, 2011, 03:25:00 AM
Superficially a decent idea, but would still mean that the best plane for routes like LHR-CDG, SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE, HND-ITM, HND-FUK, HND-CTS, etc would be 100+ 75 seat planes in some cases. Realistic? Irrelevant because you don't fly SH?
It also ignores things like tech stops, aircraft speed, etc. To pick examples from my own routes again, 3 daily F100s flying 2500 NM with a tech stop would split 50-50 with somebody flying 2 daily a320s direct. Which shouldn't happen.
I already said within that, that these were subject to adjustment and most certainly a bit of refinement. Probably it should also be based on the demand on these routes. I will think of something towards that and post it here later. (Probably, if not in feature requests)
Quote from: Sanabas on September 18, 2011, 03:25:00 AM
Doesn't add anything to the logistical challenge of organising a schedule, either. All it really does is make bigger planes the best choice for busy LH routes out of LHR.
It is supposed to make bigger planes the best choice on LH in general, not only from LHR. From a PAX's perspective they are better as well, due to more service, (usually) more comfort, and -due to heavier weight- lying in the air more softly than an A321 which would easier be thrown left-right-up-down by heavy winds, etc. Also in the bigger planes you have a larger cabin, meaning that you don't have to be a "vertically challenged"-person (trying to be PC this time), or walk with your head down in order not to hit the ceiling.
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 18, 2011, 03:24:36 PM
That is why I mentioned that there was more than what you quoted.
What, to make it less obvious you had made a fool of yourself?
Quote from: Jona L. on September 18, 2011, 03:24:36 PM
Okay, the bomb this was planned to be didn't explode as I wished for it to do. Seems like sarcasm is what only few people have heard here... my example just shows how unrealistic the current system is. And as you said: it is ridiculous, that is why I want things to change. (I am not [yet] talking of changes to that system, as in MT#5 the top-20-cap was removed for the first time, and it is uncertain if it will remain open). {I'd love it if LH was the worlds biggest airline though, so that a good airline would be in charge for once :) }
Rule of the Internet #307: Sarcasm doesn't work when typed. Don't do it. You say it is ridiculous yet you are the very person advocating it.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 18, 2011, 03:24:36 PM
Why does it happen so often?! And you should know, as you are in WL where this happens extraordinarily often (at least more often if you leave away small airlines at which this didn't hint).
Cool, I didn't know I joined WorldLink, I doubt WorldLink know I joined Worldlink. But there you go NorgeFly, I'm now in Worldlink.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 18, 2011, 03:24:36 PM
Already happened to some of my mates in earlier games, that 70 a/c at a base didn't finance the cost of it, even the first one. This all in all only works when you do it for the sake of expansion, but financially, this is just decreasing your growth rate.
You are advocating the ability to base hundreds at aircraft at each base, with the huge profits that can be made in AWS they would be able to support themselves.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 18, 2011, 03:24:36 PM
They shouldn't use LHR (at least, I am sure there are also others) for the reason of SLOTS, in current MT#5 someone flies 14x DH8D [Bom. Dash-8-Q400] daily between BRU and LHR, using 98 slots which could be done (and is done by me) with only 8 daily B738/9 using only 56 slots and in the end supplying (slightly) more capacity. This is a problem specially known in LHR, because slots there used to be and will always remain a rare good. And if you wish to operate a small airline, you don't need an airport of that size, because by the time you filled the regio demand you are a big airline and thus missed your goal.
Cry me a bloody river. You're a big boy now, I'm pretty sure someone flying some DH8Ds is not going to hurt you. And remember (this may come as a shock to you) LHR is not the only airport in the world. Perhaps for said carrier in BRU the DH8D is far more suitable for them at their base and Heathrow is just a particularly big route that they fly but not worth them adding a second, third or fourth fleet group. Until I got bored I was playing at Bonn and flying F100s to LHR, not for frequency purposes but because they were suitable for Bonn and I wanted to fly LHR. A little more Googling will anger you, I've found evidence of F50s, DH8Ds, ERJs and BAe146s all scheduled to fly into LHR in real life, so its not totally unrealistic.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 18, 2011, 03:24:36 PM
...and -due to heavier weight- lying in the air more softly than an A321 which would easier be thrown left-right-up-down by heavy winds...
Interestingly this isn't true, I was talking to a pilot a few days ago who explained, and I'm paraphrasing this, that larger aircraft, due to their larger wings, surfaces and the like are more affected by wind and turbulence than smaller ones.
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 18, 2011, 03:54:24 PM
Interestingly this isn't true, I was talking to a pilot a few days ago who explained, and I'm paraphrasing this, that larger aircraft, due to their larger wings, surfaces and the like are more affected by wind and turbulence than smaller ones.
You must remember that larger aircraft (by weight) have larger inertia (resistance to change in motion) hence a wind of the same force would cause a larger disturbance to a smaller aircraft. In fact the larger control surfaces on the large aircraft would also help overcome it. This is good as larger aircraft (by wingspan) do have larger oscillation modes like Dutch Roll so it is correct in that sense. Unfortunately I would not say that a commercial pilot is really a great indisputable source on these matters, for it is beyond the scope of their knowledge (you don't have to be
that smart to be a pilot).
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 18, 2011, 03:54:24 PM
Cool, I didn't know I joined WorldLink, I doubt WorldLink know I joined Worldlink. But there you go NorgeFly, I'm now in Worldlink.
Whoops, mixed you withe Daveos :P sorry to both of you, was my bad. But it doesn't change the rest of my point: happens to the more often then to the rest :P
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 18, 2011, 03:54:24 PM
You are advocating the ability to base hundreds at aircraft at each base, with the huge profits that can be made in AWS they would be able to support themselves.
Well, 70 aircraft was not really enough, if they weren't operating at an average of 1.5M/week each... For 100 it looks like a bit less is needed, but still barely possible to make a base break even, thus you NEED more planes there to keep it running well. (Or adjust the cost, so that it actually stands in a relation*)
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 18, 2011, 03:54:24 PM
Cry me a bloody river. You're a big boy now, I'm pretty sure someone flying some DH8Ds is not going to hurt you. And remember (this may come as a shock to you) LHR is not the only airport in the world. Perhaps for said carrier in BRU the DH8D is far more suitable for them at their base and Heathrow is just a particularly big route that they fly but not worth them adding a second, third or fourth fleet group. Until I got bored I was playing at Bonn and flying F100s to LHR, not for frequency purposes but because they were suitable for Bonn and I wanted to fly LHR. A little more Googling will anger you, I've found evidence of F50s, DH8Ds, ERJs and BAe146s all scheduled to fly into LHR in real life, so its not totally unrealistic.
Always when I name myself a "big boy" I get banned, so for the record: I wasn't the one giving me the name this time ;D
Well, also from BRU you could at operate B737 as main fleet which would make DH8D obsolete... anyhow, he also operates them out of FRA which suffers less from slot-scarcity, but still is too big for that size of planes. With the earlier slot-model (which was only 3/4 of what we have now by the end of the game) people doing that would have been called "Slot hoggers" (hence why I used the term in my OP).
Again for the record (may it be forgiven as you are no German): The Airport is called "Köln/Bonn" and is actually in Köln (to be exact in Köln-Wahn). Bonn was just added to show it was the airport of the BRD-Capital before fall of Berlin-Wall. If we were super-correct, the airport is actually named: "Köln/Bonn Konrad Adenauer Airport" (named after first German chancellor).
F100 still is a lot larger (105 vs. 65 Y|C seating) than a DH8D, and for Köln/Bonn more suited as that is smaller than BRU as well.
Yeah, that evidence is true, and as well is a shame in general and an infamy of BAA to allow such.
[/quote]
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 18, 2011, 03:54:24 PM
Interestingly this isn't true, I was talking to a pilot a few days ago who explained, and I'm paraphrasing this, that larger aircraft, due to their larger wings, surfaces and the like are more affected by wind and turbulence than smaller ones.
As Alex (who is studying Aeronautics actually) pointed out one needs more force to affect it (because there is more mass to be moved) and it can easier be brought back into calm/normal position.
Cheers,
Jona L.
*= I did a feature request about opening "double bases" a while ago LINK (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31165.0.html)
P.S.:
Quote from: alexgv1 on September 18, 2011, 09:37:34 PM
(you don't have to be that smart to be a pilot).
LOL!! ;D
Quote from: Jona L. on September 12, 2011, 01:25:13 PM
So you don't have any further arguments, or why did you stop replying?!
It was going on so well.... now the power is out, I feel the urgency to write a lot at the moment, so give me reasons to do so :)
talking to me mate? :) no I simply agree with you. I really had nothing to add....
All I can say, no rules is always the way to go. Punishments for too many types if you don't have enough of each type are good ways of "teaching" them right from wrong. :)
Quote from: tm07x on September 19, 2011, 04:51:16 PM
talking to me mate? :) no I simply agree with you. I really had nothing to add....
All I can say, no rules is always the way to go. Punishments for too many types if you don't have enough of each type are good ways of "teaching" them right from wrong. :)
Was rather to my friends trying to argue me out, but thanks for your appreciation :)
Just a bit to add to this....I think the cost of bases has been adjusted somewhat. I remember back in ATB, when bases were first introduced, it cost me a huge sum of money in increased staffing. Now (MT5 and DOTM2) the staff hit seems to be far less. In MT5, my second base cost me less than a 5% jump in staffing costs and my fleet commonality hit there (with 72 frames based) is just shy of $1 mil/month. In DOTM2, I have maxed out bases. The fourth base did not seem to cost any more than the first in staffing increases, just the extra management to run the new facility. In fact, due to the relative size of the carrier vs. when the first base opened, my staff costs increased less for the fourth base than the second.
Just an observation in my part....
Don
Just staying on subject, and probable been spoken before but if not...
Isn't ETOPS also company based IRL, meaning you have to prove reliable company organisation (maintenance, operations, flight department/procedures and so on) and is not given just because you have an a/c that can fly the distance.
Quote from wikipedia:
"Secondly, an operator who conducts ETOPS flights must satisfy his own country's aviation regulators about his ability to conduct ETOPS flights. This is called ETOPS operational certification and involves compliance with additional special engineering and flight crew procedures on top of the normal engineering and flight procedures. Pilots and engineering staff must be qualified and trained for ETOPS. An airline with extensive experience operating long distance flights may be awarded ETOPS operational approval immediately, others may need to demonstrate ability through a series of ETOPS proving flights."
Like the idea though but might be to much realism for some.
I really like your ideas. Some of them are a rifinement of what I have been posting...
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
So let my conclude my wishes/ideas:
Remove fully base and a/c per base limits;
Definitely. It protects big airline from competition. An airline with 300+ aircraft at its HQ can't really be challenged by a challenger with 100 aircraft. The incumbent already have a slight edge (due to the pax allocation slightly favoring airlines at its HQ), another advantage in that the challenger's costs go up by opening a second base. On top both of these advantages, limiting the challenger to 100 aircraft tilts the scales completely in favor of inumbent.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 17, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
Reduce frequency bonus in different levels: >500NM 1flt/75PAX; 501-1000NM 1flt/150PAX; 1001-2000NM 1flt/225PAX; 2001-3500NM 1flt/300PAX; >3501NM 1flt/350PAX
With these (yet only basic (thus to be a bit adjusted) limits you would still not make a B763ER unprofitable on a route from LHR to EZE, but don't let it win over a B77W. And on the other side if using a 450 seater on a 300NM route would be beaten 6:1 by someone fly 75 Seaters (e.g. AT75/DHC-8-Q400) and planes like an AT75 could still fly on a 1800NM route (probably even profitably), just it won't win any more than a B762 which would be in the same freq. limit and (as proposed by a/c producers) is more "suitable" (as in "planned to be used for") for these routes.
That from my side, I hope that the idea finds its friends (and if not the part about the bases, maybe at least the part about the freq-bonus).
cheers and a nice day,
Jona L.
I really like this idea. I originally thought that just removing frequency bonus over certain distance (~3000nm) would do it. But your suggestion is much better and goes much farther.
So basically, the airline would still get "credit" for frequency, but up to the point (based appropriateness of aircraft for given distance).
Quote from: Sanabas on September 18, 2011, 03:25:00 AM
Superficially a decent idea, but would still mean that the best plane for routes like LHR-CDG, SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE, HND-ITM, HND-FUK, HND-CTS, etc would be 100+ 75 seat planes in some cases. Realistic? Irrelevant because you don't fly SH?
It also ignores things like tech stops, aircraft speed, etc. To pick examples from my own routes again, 3 daily F100s flying 2500 NM with a tech stop would split 50-50 with somebody flying 2 daily a320s direct. Which shouldn't happen.
Doesn't add anything to the logistical challenge of organising a schedule, either. All it really does is make bigger planes the best choice for busy LH routes out of LHR.
I think your examples are not really relevant to what Jona is trying to achieve. Let's take an example:
SYD-MEL, 381nm, 10,000 pax:
Under Jona's system you could get max credit (for frequency) of 10,000 / 75, which is 133. But there is already a hard AWS limit of 80x / day flights, so 133 max credit for frequency is irrelevant.
Let's look at some more realistic examples:
EWR-FLL (Newark, Fort Lauderdale), 926nm, 4000 pax
Under Jona's system you could get max frequency credit of 4000 / 150 = 26. That means, if you fly 40x 100 pax e-jet, you don't get credit of full 40, only get credit for 26 of those flights. If you fly a more appropriate 738 or 320, you pretty much get a full credit.
EWR-LAX, 2127nm, 2700pax.
Max credit you can get is 2700 / 300 = 9. So you can safely fly 9x / day by A300, 767, A330 and not be blown out of the water. An operator flying 18x 320 can still do that, but he will get credit for only 9 of them
Quote from: jetwestinc on September 19, 2011, 06:22:04 PM
Just a bit to add to this....I think the cost of bases has been adjusted somewhat. I remember back in ATB, when bases were first introduced, it cost me a huge sum of money in increased staffing. Now (MT5 and DOTM2) the staff hit seems to be far less. In MT5, my second base cost me less than a 5% jump in staffing costs and my fleet commonality hit there (with 72 frames based) is just shy of $1 mil/month. In DOTM2, I have maxed out bases. The fourth base did not seem to cost any more than the first in staffing increases, just the extra management to run the new facility. In fact, due to the relative size of the carrier vs. when the first base opened, my staff costs increased less for the fourth base than the second.
Just an observation in my part....
Don
I have not opened a 2nd base yet in MT5, but it is a good idea to take a screen shot to know what exactly is going on. Maybe you did not notice much of a hit due to low wages in China, but what we really need to know is what was the increase in staff requirements (percentage-wise) from opening the base. IIRC, in MT4, it was around 40% from ground based staff, and no increase to aircraft based staff, resulting in overall cost increase of arount 35% for personnel.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 20, 2011, 01:44:17 AM
I think your examples are not really relevant to what Jona is trying to achieve.
Sure they're relevant. If his primary complaint is that what happens on busy LH routes isn't realistic enough for his taste, seems relevant to point out the related realism issues that it doesn't fix.
QuoteLet's take an example:
SYD-MEL, 381nm, 10,000 pax:
Under Jona's system you could get max credit (for frequency) of 10,000 / 75, which is 133. But there is already a hard AWS limit of 80x / day flights, so 133 max credit for frequency is irrelevant.
Let's look at some more realistic examples:
EWR-FLL (Newark, Fort Lauderdale), 926nm, 4000 pax
Under Jona's system you could get max frequency credit of 4000 / 150 = 26. That means, if you fly 40x 100 pax e-jet, you don't get credit of full 40, only get credit for 26 of those flights. If you fly a more appropriate 738 or 320, you pretty much get a full credit.
EWR-LAX, 2127nm, 2700pax.
Max credit you can get is 2700 / 300 = 9. So you can safely fly 9x / day by A300, 767, A330 and not be blown out of the water. An operator flying 18x 320 can still do that, but he will get credit for only 9 of them
Still, for any <500 nm route with up to 6000 pax per day, the optimum way to fly will be to flood it with ATRs. For any route of 2000-2750 nm, 3/6/9/12 f100s with a tech stop will split the market 50-50 with 2/4/6/8 a320s flying direct. Moscow-Madrid, my 3 daily ATRs with a tech stop will split the market 50-50 with my competitors MD-82. For any low demand route, there'll no longer be any benefit from having a morning & evening flight over having one flight daily.
The suggestion is ok for the few things it would help, but it's really a superficial bandaid solution that won't do anything for the underlying problems, and will cause a few problems of its own. I think there's a much more elegant & effective way to do it.
QuoteDefinitely. It protects big airline from competition. An airline with 300+ aircraft at its HQ can't really be challenged by a challenger with 100 aircraft. The incumbent already have a slight edge (due to the pax allocation slightly favoring airlines at its HQ), another advantage in that the challenger's costs go up by opening a second base. On top both of these advantages, limiting the challenger to 100 aircraft tilts the scales completely in favor of inumbent.
More importantly, it protects small airlines from being squashed by competition. The benefit of that outweighs the perceived problems caused by lack of ability to have fullblown wars between 2 huge airlines. For those who put realism above all, how many RL examples are there of a very large airline being driven out of its home base by another large airline using it as a major hub?
No plane limits in bases is something to bring out occasionally for scenarios, where players are warned that being small will result in being squashed. I'd be interested to see how it went, I expect it'd be extremely tough to startup 30% through the game. It's not something that should happen in normal gameworlds.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 20, 2011, 01:52:37 AM
I have not opened a 2nd base yet in MT5, but it is a good idea to take a screen shot to know what exactly is going on. Maybe you did not notice much of a hit due to low wages in China, but what we really need to know is what was the increase in staff requirements (percentage-wise) from opening the base. IIRC, in MT4, it was around 40% from ground based staff, and no increase to aircraft based staff, resulting in overall cost increase of arount 35% for personnel.
I don't have a screen shot, but my salaries increased about $1.2 million a week and at that point my weekly salaries were around $15 million. My math was a bit off, but that is still less than 10% increase, and my weekly expenses were in the $150 million range at that point, so the increase as a percentage of total expenses was under 1%. Currently, my expenses are about on par with that of my HQ on a per aircraft basis (within about 5%, and with 1/4 the aircraft numbers).
Don
Quote from: Sanabas on September 20, 2011, 03:54:48 AM
Sure they're relevant. If his primary complaint is that what happens on busy LH routes isn't realistic enough for his taste, seems relevant to point out the related realism issues that it doesn't fix.
Still, for any <500 nm route with up to 6000 pax per day, the optimum way to fly will be to flood it with ATRs
It has always been. Jona's solution will not improve that over the rule that Sami already put in place, to limit max number of flights per day (80?) and 15 min minimum spread between flights would limit you anyway to some extend. I don't think Jona is proposing getting rid of those, so there would be no change from the current system.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 20, 2011, 03:54:48 AM
For any route of 2000-2750 nm, 3/6/9/12 f100s with a tech stop will split the market 50-50 with 2/4/6/8 a320s flying direct.
So it is limiting the power of the frequency. Isn't that good? Frequency is really the only competitive tool, which is why it is (ab)used so much. Other things should amount to more (speed, quality of seating etc). Right now, it is kind of like the stars in the sky not being visible during the daytime, since sun overwhelms them. If you could dim the sun, other objects in the sky would become visible. Same with freqency. If you dim it somewhat, maybe other variables (that are already in place) might become more relevant.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 20, 2011, 03:54:48 AM
Moscow-Madrid, my 3 daily ATRs with a tech stop will split the market 50-50 with my competitors MD-82. For any low demand route, there'll no longer be any benefit from having a morning & evening flight over having one flight daily.
The suggestion is ok for the few things it would help, but it's really a superficial bandaid solution that won't do anything for the underlying problems, and will cause a few problems of its own. I think there's a much more elegant & effective way to do it.
The thresholds could be tweaked somewhat. But you may have a good example there. What's wrong with MD-82 getting 50% of the market vs. 3 ATRs with tech stops? Isn't that more realistic than MD-82 getting 25% under the current rule, where frequency is the one variable to rule them all?
Quote from: Sanabas on September 20, 2011, 03:54:48 AM
More importantly, it protects small airlines from being squashed by competition. The benefit of that outweighs the perceived problems caused by lack of ability to have fullblown wars between 2 huge airlines. For those who put realism above all, how many RL examples are there of a very large airline being driven out of its home base by another large airline using it as a major hub?
No plane limits in bases is something to bring out occasionally for scenarios, where players are warned that being small will result in being squashed. I'd be interested to see how it went, I expect it'd be extremely tough to startup 30% through the game. It's not something that should happen in normal gameworlds.
It is extremely tough to startup 30% through the game as is, since that is the time of the game where you can't get aircraft.
As far as small airlines getting smashed, it is not really 100 aircraft limit that is protecting them. Small airlines are small because they did not fiture out a way to grow profitably, A lot of them go out of business on their own, or can be toppled be 10-20 aircraft on their most profitable routes.
On the other hand, you have large airlines destroying themselves by opening a 2nd (3rd, 4th) base, because they miscalculate the cost of opening basis. Opening a base is a huge money loser (except in markets with dirt cheap labor costs). Lifting the 100 aircraft limit gives airlines a chance to break even, or possibly make profit on the new base.
As far as a possibility of an airline growing to 2000 aircraft (4x500), that is next to impossible with the aircraft delivery rates what they are. Maybe with 10 fleets. But running 4 basis with 10 fleets - the costs would just overwhelm such an airline.
If small airlines are such a huge concern, this rule sentences them to remain small forever. It denies them possibility to grow huge, to be the number 1 airline in the game. Suppose you start at a medium sized airport that can support 75 aircraft, and you do that masterfully. You own all your aircraft, and you are printing money. Can you become the #1 airline? No you can't. Because your next base limits you to 100... You may never be able to make it to top 20 because of the 100 aircraft limit.
Quote from: jetwestinc on September 20, 2011, 04:27:40 AM
I don't have a screen shot, but my salaries increased about $1.2 million a week and at that point my weekly salaries were around $15 million. My math was a bit off, but that is still less than 10% increase, and my weekly expenses were in the $150 million range at that point, so the increase as a percentage of total expenses was under 1%. Currently, my expenses are about on par with that of my HQ on a per aircraft basis (within about 5%, and with 1/4 the aircraft numbers).
Don
Hmm... Interesting. Maybe the the cost overhead was changed after all in v1.3. I hope somebody opening a new base can give us the exact figures...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 20, 2011, 06:02:16 AM
It has always been. Jona's solution will not improve that over the rule that Sami already put in place, to limit max number of flights per day (80?) and 15 min minimum spread between flights would limit you anyway to some extend. I don't think Jona is proposing getting rid of those, so there would be no change from the current system.
So it is limiting the power of the frequency. Isn't that good? Frequency is really the only competitive tool, which is why it is (ab)used so much. Other things should amount to more (speed, quality of seating etc). Right now, it is kind of like the stars in the sky not being visible during the daytime, since sun overwhelms them. If you could dim the sun, other objects in the sky would become visible. Same with freqency. If you dim it somewhat, maybe other variables (that are already in place) might become more relevant.
The thresholds could be tweaked somewhat. But you may have a good example there. What's wrong with MD-82 getting 50% of the market vs. 3 ATRs with tech stops? Isn't that more realistic than MD-82 getting 25% under the current rule, where frequency is the one variable to rule them all?
Sure, it's a slight improvement over the current system. But it doesn't do a thing about the underlying problems, it still has plenty of problems of its own, it also seems too complicated for minimal benefit, as the pax assigning algorithm now needs multiple extra steps, to check route length & route demand first to determine optimal plane size, then count the number of planes, then assign pax. It's a bandaid solution, a very slight improvement. I don't see the point of making that sort of effort to program in an incremental bandaid solution, when it'd be much better to spend the effort on a solution that doesn't just dim he sun a little, but gives you a highly-effective set of adjustable sunglasses. It is very possible to design a more flexible system that can apply to all routes, and will still work when we get connecting pax, city based demand, etc.
QuoteIt is extremely tough to startup 30% through the game as is, since that is the time of the game where you can't get aircraft.
As far as small airlines getting smashed, it is not really 100 aircraft limit that is protecting them. Small airlines are small because they did not fiture out a way to grow profitably, A lot of them go out of business on their own, or can be toppled be 10-20 aircraft on their most profitable routes.
On the other hand, you have large airlines destroying themselves by opening a 2nd (3rd, 4th) base, because they miscalculate the cost of opening basis. Opening a base is a huge money loser (except in markets with dirt cheap labor costs). Lifting the 100 aircraft limit gives airlines a chance to break even, or possibly make profit on the new base.
As far as a possibility of an airline growing to 2000 aircraft (4x500), that is next to impossible with the aircraft delivery rates what they are. Maybe with 10 fleets. But running 4 basis with 10 fleets - the costs would just overwhelm such an airline.
In DOTM, I'm up to 500+ planes in 6 years, despite starting late, in a less than huge airport, (SVO), with 70, 70, 47 planes at my bases, using basically 5 fleets. I reckon 2000 planes is very doable in 10 years with 4 big airports to base in and 10 production lines to use. I also checked fleet commonality when dropping from 7 fleets to 6. The drop in monthly costs for the 6 remaining fleets was negligible, the big saving was the ~5 million/month commonality would cost for my sole remaining DC10. That's something I've checked repeatedly, and it seems that if you can have 20+ aircraft in each fleet, it doesn't matter much how many fleets you have.
Some small airlines are small because they want to be, or because they're new. Your line of argument seems to have a similar feel to Jona's, that if you're not trying to be a multi-billion dollar airline, you're not being serious about the game.
QuoteIf small airlines are such a huge concern, this rule sentences them to remain small forever. It denies them possibility to grow huge, to be the number 1 airline in the game. Suppose you start at a medium sized airport that can support 75 aircraft, and you do that masterfully. You own all your aircraft, and you are printing money. Can you become the #1 airline? No you can't. Because your next base limits you to 100... You may never be able to make it to top 20 because of the 100 aircraft limit.
As does this. There's more ways to count '#1 airline' than how huge you can get. Removing restrictions on number of bases, number of planes is one that basically tells anyone starting in a size 4 or 5 airport that the only way to play is to aim to be as huge as possible. Fine for an occasional scenario, really bad idea for general gameplay.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 20, 2011, 07:26:32 AM
Sure, it's a slight improvement over the current system. But it doesn't do a thing about the underlying problems, it still has plenty of problems of its own, it also seems too complicated for minimal benefit, as the pax assigning algorithm now needs multiple extra steps, to check route length & route demand first to determine optimal plane size, then count the number of planes, then assign pax. It's a bandaid solution, a very slight improvement. I don't see the point of making that sort of effort to program in an incremental bandaid solution, when it'd be much better to spend the effort on a solution that doesn't just dim he sun a little, but gives you a highly-effective set of adjustable sunglasses. It is very possible to design a more flexible system that can apply to all routes, and will still work when we get connecting pax, city based demand, etc.
I agree with that. With connecting pax (v2.0?), connecting on the same airline should probably be the strongest influence, when we have the time of day (v3.0), arriving at 1200, you would not be able to transfer to 1100 flight (obviously), and what comes closest should have a very strong influence (even if it is a different airlne). But we are still far from there...
Quote from: Sanabas on September 20, 2011, 07:26:32 AM
In DOTM, I'm up to 500+ planes in 6 years, despite starting late, in a less than huge airport, (SVO), with 70, 70, 47 planes at my bases, using basically 5 fleets. I reckon 2000 planes is very doable in 10 years with 4 big airports to base in and 10 production lines to use. I also checked fleet commonality when dropping from 7 fleets to 6. The drop in monthly costs for the 6 remaining fleets was negligible, the big saving was the ~5 million/month commonality would cost for my sole remaining DC10. That's something I've checked repeatedly, and it seems that if you can have 20+ aircraft in each fleet, it doesn't matter much how many fleets you have.
First, aircraft, you are in 12th year, with about half of the max players, so the used market must be decently supplied.
DOTM is still under 1.2. In 1.3, incremental cost from 3 to 4 fleets is huge, much bigger than before. If you add 6 smaller incremental increases to 1 huge one, you are looking at serious drain in cash.
Another thing is competition. You can't assume the same no-competition environment present in most airports. A lot of big airlines currently settle for 1 or 2 basis. Because the people running big airlines know there is not much money in extra basis. Now, if these players knew thay can make a serious dent in an extra base, more big airlines would be doing it, and more would fail due to competition. And competition is one thing that is lacking currently, IMO. Just out of curiousity, what percentage of your routes have a serious competition?
Anyway, with competition, the profit margins would shrink. With lower profit margins, cash will be limiting your growth.
And if more airlines see extra basis worthwhile, more players will be competing for the same number of production lines, so the aircraft delivery rate will be even more of a limit. 14 years into the game, there would still be things for big airlines to achieve, they would not be quitting out of boredom.
And there may be another reason to compete: If there is a vigorous competition between alliances, a player in one alliance may be opening a base at a base of opposing alliance with chance of a reward of a better score for an alliance, even if the move may not be the most profitable for that player...
Quote from: Sanabas on September 20, 2011, 07:26:32 AM
Some small airlines are small because they want to be, or because they're new. Your line of argument seems to have a similar feel to Jona's, that if you're not trying to be a multi-billion dollar airline, you're not being serious about the game.
Not really. I played MT4 in extremely low maintenance mode. I picked an airport with high international demand, low domestic (US) demand, so that I would not have to go crazy scheduling to 300 somestic destinations. I never opened 2nd base...
Quote from: Sanabas on September 20, 2011, 07:26:32 AM
As does this. There's more ways to count '#1 airline' than how huge you can get. Removing restrictions on number of bases, number of planes is one that basically tells anyone starting in a size 4 or 5 airport that the only way to play is to aim to be as huge as possible. Fine for an occasional scenario, really bad idea for general gameplay.
Under the current rules, starting at less than 4 or 5 basically means you are giving up on being in top 10, or even top 20 in total pax, ASK, RPK, sales etc. Because you are not going to get there with 400 aircraft, and you may die well before you get to 400 because of the overhead cost of 3 extra bases. So if you want to build a mega airline, you have to start at size 5 airport. Then you have 7 airlines starting out at many of the largest airports, with only 1 or 2 surviving first 3 years... A lot of these airlines would be better off starting at smaller airports, with still having a chance to grow big.
The current rule actually pushes people into size 5 airports.
Okay, haven't been here for well 24hrs and thanks to JumboShrimp (meant positively ;) ) there has some more activity in here. NICE!!
JS, I loved your examples because that is exactly what I was being after! You just found the ideal words for it :)
Also, a 10,000/day demand route of >1000NM is pretty rare (except for Asia, SA and some few AU routes, where you will usually be slot restricted by the time you'd have filled one route with ATRs (despite filling a 10,000 PAX route with 50 seaters on -say- 5 daily rotations would still mean you'd need... CALCULATOR!! ...40 ATR42s --> about 20 months to get delivered. + for 200 rotations you'd get beaten by the 15 minute gap requirement (96 is mathematically the limit) thus it would be pretty dumb to do this (not talking of the slot cost being in the millions for each week (--> bankruptcy before you reach half of that)).
And also as I said about my numbers: They were just taken VERY roughly and thus subject to refinement, so with some strikings and addements one might figure out a good plan.
{As for all of you guys interested: gimme a shout on Skype (meaning write to me) [name: jona.lauterjung] so we can discuss our points faster and maybe formulate a collective Feature Request in that regard :) }
As you said , JS (sorry for using the short term but it is mid of the night...), it is tough to start so late through (--> as I suggested: wait for a big BK and then move in)
Another thing towards JS: you already pointed out the versions these novelties will come in, what is missing though: time when the new versions come and the delays we saw on 1.3 will mean we can't expect 2.0 or even 3.0 any sooner than 2020 ;D :P
I don't think there is much more to add, as JS shares most of my points and said many good things yet. If I come across more in the past posts I will write a new post :)
cheers and a good evening/night/morning (wherever you are on this wide planet :) )
Jona L.
Quote from: Gleipner on September 19, 2011, 08:47:09 PM
Just staying on subject, and probable been spoken before but if not...
Isn't ETOPS also company based IRL, meaning you have to prove reliable company organisation (maintenance, operations, flight department/procedures and so on) and is not given just because you have an a/c that can fly the distance.
....
Like the idea though but might be to much realism for some.
Yes the aircraft must be certified to a particular ETOPS, but for the company to operate them under ETOPS it must also be approved by having the right SOPs and crew training in place.
Quote from: alexgv1 on September 20, 2011, 09:32:30 PM
Yes the aircraft must be certified to a particular ETOPS, but for the company to operate them under ETOPS it must also be approved by having the right SOPs and crew training in place.
well, you took what I was going to say... I thought it was finally time for me to come in, but alas, you beat me to it
Quote from: alexgv1 on September 20, 2011, 09:32:30 PM
Yes the aircraft must be certified to a particular ETOPS, but for the company to operate them under ETOPS it must also be approved by having the right SOPs and crew training in place.
Does that mean that if I woke up tomorrow and bought a B777 and started Dave Airways I couldn't actually operate it over the pond despite it being easily in range?
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 20, 2011, 09:41:03 PM
Does that mean that if I woke up tomorrow and bought a B777 and started Dave Airways I couldn't actually operate it over the pond despite it being easily in range?
No you wouldn't be able to, well not at least for a while until you had everything in place, SOPs and pilots with the correct training. So you wouldnt be able to in one day, but eventually yes.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 20, 2011, 08:29:43 AM
I agree with that. With connecting pax (v2.0?), connecting on the same airline should probably be the strongest influence, when we have the time of day (v3.0), arriving at 1200, you would not be able to transfer to 1100 flight (obviously), and what comes closest should have a very strong influence (even if it is a different airlne). But we are still far from there...
Sure, but being far from that is no reason to make a suboptimal change to mechanics now, requiring another change later. I sketched out a model earlier in this thread, I've thought about it a bit more the last couple of days, I could cheerfully sit down and work out a detailed model. I think it's more flexible that what Jona suggested, improves everything his does plus some more stuff, and doesn't cause as many issues. It'll also transfer over to city based demand/connecting pax relatively easily, I think. It'll still have anomalies, but I don't think anywhere near as many. I also don't think it would be that intensive from a programming standpoint. But I'm a maths geek, not a programmer, so I could be wrong on that last one.
QuoteFirst, aircraft, you are in 12th year, with about half of the max players, so the used market must be decently supplied.
I was in the 8th year when I started. The a320 production line was solidly booked for a couple of years, and even now, I haven't seen a 2750 range a320 stay in the used market longer than a week. (Partly because I keep taking them, as I still need 50+ more of the things ;)) Other planes were more available, and the primary reason I have over 100 F100s now isn't that I decided they were the best plane for what I wanted, but purely down to them being the only viable option from a used & new availability standpoint.
QuoteDOTM is still under 1.2. In 1.3, incremental cost from 3 to 4 fleets is huge, much bigger than before. If you add 6 smaller incremental increases to 1 huge one, you are looking at serious drain in cash.
Actually, in MT5, I was up to 4 fleets (a300, 757, q400, CRJ) before I quit, and I tested it then, too. The commonality jump for existing fleets wasn't that big, it was the new one plane fleet that wasn't economical until more planes arrived. Next gameworld, I will be getting in on day 1 for the 2nd time ever, and staying until game end for the first time ever (not counting my current DotM). I will make sure I closely document fleet commonality costs, staffing costs for new bases, etc, as I grow. I treat this game at least partially as an RPG, so may as well make a proper thread for my airline, and explicitly record what happens with some of these gameplay mechanics.
QuoteAnother thing is competition. You can't assume the same no-competition environment present in most airports. A lot of big airlines currently settle for 1 or 2 basis. Because the people running big airlines know there is not much money in extra basis. Now, if these players knew thay can make a serious dent in an extra base, more big airlines would be doing it, and more would fail due to competition. And competition is one thing that is lacking currently, IMO. Just out of curiousity, what percentage of your routes have a serious competition?
Anyway, with competition, the profit margins would shrink. With lower profit margins, cash will be limiting your growth.
And if more airlines see extra basis worthwhile, more players will be competing for the same number of production lines, so the aircraft delivery rate will be even more of a limit. 14 years into the game, there would still be things for big airlines to achieve, they would not be quitting out of boredom.
Yeah, there'd be more competition. I don't think lower cash will be a big issue, I think there'd be more competition in the medium term, but long term, there'd be even fewer airlines still around as those who want big airlines but lose out quit the gameworld. I think a test scenario that allows unlimited bases/unlimited planes is a good idea, see how it shakes out and what happens. I'd certainly participate. I just don't think it will work for normal worlds.
I don't think aircraft delivery will be much more of an issue from those in on day 1, I think it will be a bigger issue for anybody joining later.
As for my airline, I have very little competition, and on at least a couple of routes, the competition has given up and picked an easier route. However, I have the equivalent of competition (sort of), as there are a lot of routes which only have 50% LF, because I'm flying to (almost) every destination within 6000 NM that offers at least 80 pax per day, and everything beyond 6000 NM with 100 pax per day, primarily with 767s and 757s. I also have higher marketing and staff costs because of the sheer number of destinations. I only have 8? (St Pete, LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG, Dublin, Rome, Milan) routes that support more than 2 daily flights, and most only have 1. I could be much more streamlined and get better profit margins. I also think I've expanded far enough to actually hurt my overall profit, hard to tell until I get around to fixing up my semi-dismantled f100 schedule. But I've decided not to worry so much about company value or overall profit, I instead want to be as big as possible while still being profitable. There aren't many jobs in post-breakup Russia, but we employ nearly 100,000 people. :laugh:
QuoteAnd there may be another reason to compete: If there is a vigorous competition between alliances, a player in one alliance may be opening a base at a base of opposing alliance with chance of a reward of a better score for an alliance, even if the move may not be the most profitable for that player...
Yeah, I'd like more ingame competition between alliances. Might reduce the amount of outside game sniping that's been going on. Not a fan of that at all. Might have to start my own alliance next game.
QuoteNot really. I played MT4 in extremely low maintenance mode. I picked an airport with high international demand, low domestic (US) demand, so that I would not have to go crazy scheduling to 300 somestic destinations. I never opened 2nd base...
Not sure what you mean. I assume this was somewhere like JFK or Honolulu, and ended up a very large airline. It's still possible to build a low-maintenance, very large airline if you get the right base. Though what would happen to your low maintenance airline if someone else arrives with 200+ a320s/737s/757s?
But what your posts seem to imply, and Jona's posts make explicit, is that those airlines who start in say a purely domestic US airport, or who only want to be a highly profitable, 100 plane operation out of LHR, or who want to be an ATR-only airline, or anything else that isn't after max company value/max revenue/max RPK/max pax, isn't a serious airline, doesn't deserve the same respect as those huge airlines, and shouldn't be taken into consideration when looking at how to improve gameplay mechanics.
QuoteUnder the current rules, starting at less than 4 or 5 basically means you are giving up on being in top 10, or even top 20 in total pax, ASK, RPK, sales etc. Because you are not going to get there with 400 aircraft, and you may die well before you get to 400 because of the overhead cost of 3 extra bases. So if you want to build a mega airline, you have to start at size 5 airport. Then you have 7 airlines starting out at many of the largest airports, with only 1 or 2 surviving first 3 years... A lot of these airlines would be better off starting at smaller airports, with still having a chance to grow big.
The current rule actually pushes people into size 5 airports.
The current rule only pushes people who want a mega airline into big size 5 airports. Do you really think that if plane limits are removed, anyone is going to start in a size 3 or 4 airport and generate enough of a profit base to then move into a size 5 airport and try and take it over? Especially when the airline in that size 5 airport can respond by opening a base in the size 3/4 hub of their challenger, and flood it?
I'd be interested to see which airports you thought were viable places to start that, too. Off the top of my head, the best size 3 & 4s from a profit per plane perspective would be the ones that are the biggest airport in a small country with lots of LH demand, like Mauritius, Reunion, Male, Baku, various Carribean Islands. But none of them offer the chance to base somewhere bigger. I'd guess the only viable options would be size 3 or 4 US airports, or maybe small European countries once the EU is up & running. I think it'd be a big challenge though.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 20, 2011, 06:04:18 AM
Hmm... Interesting. Maybe the the cost overhead was changed after all in v1.3. I hope somebody opening a new base can give us the exact figures...
I just closed down my Kiev base in DotM, so it's 1.2, not 1.3. Still interesting data though. The base had 47 medium planes, and the Kiev staff were costing me ~9.5 million/month according to the bases tab.
Bases tab had monthly staff costs of: 142 mill SVO, 21.8 Baku, 20.9 Tashkent, 9.5 Kiev. Personnel required overall was 89,762
Closed the base, and the 9.5 Kiev staff costs were added to SVO, Baku & Tashkent remained unchanged. Personnel required now 71,659
Fired the staff, which has killed morale. >< Not sure what it's done to company image, dashboard still says 89, guess it'll drop when the day changes.
However, staff costs are now 118.3 SVO, 19.7 Baku, 18.7 Tashkent. Office rent & commonality penalties unchanged.
By closing a base that had 9.5 million in staff costs, my required payroll has actually dropped by nearly 38 million.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 03:55:23 PM
Not sure what it's done to company image, dashboard still says 89, guess it'll drop when the day changes.
Indeed it did. All the way down to 46.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 04:13:06 PM
Indeed it did. All the way down to 46.
Luckshot you did, that it didn't fall deeper, though you should monitor it further on.
Also a staff morale of -100 (or around that) will lead to many delays/cancellations due to "unmotivated staff" --> even worse for your CI!!
Jona, clean up your language and tone, or this thread will be locked.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 21, 2011, 04:16:24 PM
The point is that small aircraft preference and frequency f*cking (term used within different alliance and general AWS chats on skype, due to good players hating this stuff) already support those little companies withe their <200 seat-micro-planes too well. Those goddamn A321 are just completely overrated on the transatlantic routes and thereby support that guy (who has about the same amount of a/c in LHR as I do) too well, though he has a decent amount of B772/3 he COULD use on the route. (So he wouldn't even add fleet types by using them!!)
Again with the sweeping (and incorrect) generalisations, again with the insults towards other airlines. Can you please try and stick to being constructive, and stop using 'good players hate this/only bad players use this tactic/they're playing this game the WRONG WAY' as though it supports your argument?
QuoteGameplay mechanics should be more leveled instead of so much tending to one side (the n00b/small airline side in this case*). I request a radical change because in the end only few of what is requested (meaning a weaker change) is performed, so I try to achieve a leveling and not actually as much as I demand. (same as when people call on strike, they demand a lot more than they actually want, so that in the end they get as much as they wanted, while looking like compromising.
Your request isn't very radical. My objection certainly isn't based on it being too radical, my objection is based on it not being very effective, and on there being a much better way to do it.
Quoteb) This just shows what ridiculous cost it is to run bases in this game, and I bet (and in this point you can't prove me wrong) that the A320s there (even if it would've been 100) would NEVER make in all the cash they cost you by running the base.
Actually, I can prove you wrong. But doing it conclusively would require me closing down one of my other bases to do so, which won't happen unless I decide to quit the gameworld.
Can certainly give a convincing estimate.
Tashkent has 14 a320s, 28 757s, 14 767s, 14 F100s. Previous week's profit was ~4 million for the f100, 5.6 for the 767, 6 for the a320, 17 for the 757. All of them are at ~80% LF. All 70 planes are leased, eating into each plane's profits. All up, that's ~130 million per month profit. Rent + Staff + Office space are about 23 million per month. Even if the company-wide markup on staff is 30%, more than double what it was for my 4th base, the overall cost for the base is still in the range of 60 million per month, leaving 70 million pure profit. Even if it was just a320s making 3 million per group of 7 per week, that's over 80 million a month, well ahead of 25 million in explicit costs and 35 million for the staff % increase.
Baku has 35 each of a320 & 767, the numbers come out similarly. 400k-600k per plane per week x 70 x 4 = ~140 million per month profit. If I owned the planes, it'd climb to 200 million per month. My entire staff + office space + commonality penalties only total 170 million a month. My 2 bases ARE increasing my overall profit.
*edit*Sorry, I made a small mistake with the above calculations. I didn't count the commonality costs for the aircraft at a base. I need to, because if I didn't have the base, I wouldn't have the planes, and so wouldn't be paying commonality costs for them. 98 a320s cost me ~28 million a month, so Baku's 35 = 10 million. 94 767s cost 38 million, Baku's 35 = 14 million. Call it 25 million overall, on top of a maximum of 60 million in explicit staff costs & penalty costs to staff/commonality. That's 85 million a month in cost, still far less than the 140 million a month profit I make with 70 leased planes. To reiterate, My 2 bases ARE increasing my overall profit.
I want a new gameworld to start, I want to document my expansion, and the costs involved, properly. :P*/edit*
If you want to give an overview of your base's cost in MT5 to support an argument that they won't be profitable, probably should give an overview of the base's profit as well. Please tell me what the approximate total weekly profit is for your 105 Frankfurt based planes.
QuoteLuckshot you did, that it didn't fall deeper, though you should monitor it further on.
Why? It's a one-off drop for firing staff. Marketing will now bring it back up. A good player should know that.
Quote from: sami on September 21, 2011, 06:17:30 PM
Jona, clean up your language and tone, or this thread will be locked.
Post deleted, sorry!
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 06:21:58 PM
Again with the sweeping (and incorrect) generalisations, again with the insults towards other airlines. Can you please try and stick to being constructive, and stop using 'good players hate this/only bad players use this tactic/they're playing this game the WRONG WAY' as though it supports your argument?
My constructiveness is yet to point a problem and offer a solution, and if you try to say the problem is no problem, that it is not my fault.
You say it is not a problem and hide behind "I don't always want to run a multi-billion-dollar"-lie because you are PART of the problem I point out. You do exactly what I try to get rid of. Even though you say something else, yet the ultimate "win" is to be biggest, worthiest, and most awesome airline -accept it or not.
And if you want to play a small airline, let big airlines be big. As I said previously, small airlines are well enough and in my eyes a lot over-protected.
What you say: "though it supports your argument" is in my eyes just your try to make my argumentation fall because yours is not working.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 06:21:58 PM
Your request isn't very radical. My objection certainly isn't based on it being too radical, my objection is based on it not being very effective, and on there being a much better way to do it.
Then why you make such a big blow out of it?!
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 06:21:58 PM
Actually, I can prove you wrong. But doing it conclusively would require me closing down one of my other bases to do so, which won't happen unless I decide to quit the gameworld.
Can certainly give a convincing estimate.
Tashkent has 14 a320s, 28 757s, 14 767s, 14 F100s. Previous week's profit was ~4 million for the f100, 5.6 for the 767, 6 for the a320, 17 for the 757. All of them are at ~80% LF. All 70 planes are leased, eating into each plane's profits. All up, that's ~130 million per month profit. Rent + Staff + Office space are about 23 million per month. Even if the company-wide markup on staff is 30%, more than double what it was for my 4th base, the overall cost for the base is still in the range of 60 million per month, leaving 70 million pure profit. Even if it was just a320s making 3 million per group of 7 per week, that's over 80 million a month, well ahead of 25 million in explicit costs and 35 million for the staff % increase.
Baku has 35 each of a320 & 767, the numbers come out similarly. 400k-600k per plane per week x 70 x 4 = ~140 million per month profit. If I owned the planes, it'd climb to 200 million per month. My entire staff + office space + commonality penalties only total 170 million a month. My 2 bases ARE increasing my overall profit.
Which values did you take?! You should know that the different views (aircraft financial overview/general financial overview/dashboard view/etc.) always give back different values, and I was referring to the base you closed (if your values were for real), and 47 a/c should barely make the staffing cost back in and don't pay for the initial base opening cost, or the commonality cost or the running cost. You just don't see it in the different views. You can only see that if comparing the pre- and post-base opening results, etc. (takes a lot of time).
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 06:21:58 PM
If you want to give an overview of your base's cost in MT5 to support an argument that they won't be profitable, probably should give an overview of the base's profit as well. Please tell me what the approximate total weekly profit is for your 105 Frankfurt based planes.
So, mr. cleverass: where do you find such an income page? right: THERE IS NONE!! (feature requested multiple times yet and still not built in, though very important)
And I can't be bothered to add up 105 planes...
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 06:21:58 PM
Why? It's a one-off drop for firing staff. Marketing will now bring it back up. A good player should know that.
Well, give it a try... yet I did it once and it failed, and I learned from that, that one should never close a base without opening a new one to put the staff to. And you should never fire staff, especially not in these vast amounts because it takes the most important instrument off you: CI. But why am I telling you, you want a small airline, so you don't need to use techniques that big airlines use....
And the tone is a bit more rough this time, because I begin to get p*ssed off by having to explain the same stuff over and over again, just because someone wants a small airline and is actually producing the problem I point out (though in another game world, but doesn't matter as long as too many people do it).
And for the record this is the softest variant of saying it I can choose. If I'd say what I really think and feel in this regard, I'd have been banned 4 pages ago.
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 21, 2011, 08:06:24 PM
You say it is not a problem and hide behind "I don't always want to run a multi-billion-dollar"-lie because you are PART of the problem I point out. You do exactly what I try to get rid of. Even though you say something else, yet the ultimate "win" is to be biggest, worthiest, and most awesome airline -accept it or not.
I'll be not accepting that. Running the world's biggest multi-billion airline is not the ultimate win. In a sandbox game such AWS the ultimate win is what the player makes it. For you it might be the super airline, for me I just want a decent sized stable airline. I know of one player who, while totally capable of running the super airline wants to just run a small aircraft operation from a provincial UK airport. The win is what the player wants it to be.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 21, 2011, 08:06:24 PM
Which values did you take?! You should know that the different views (aircraft financial overview/general financial overview/dashboard view/etc.) always give back different values, and I was referring to the base you closed (if your values were for real), and 47 a/c should barely make the staffing cost back in and don't pay for the initial base opening cost, or the commonality cost or the running cost. You just don't see it in the different views. You can only see that if comparing the pre- and post-base opening results, etc. (takes a lot of time).
Well frankly it seems a legitimate analysis that works. If Sanabas has done that maths and used the same section each time then it works.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 21, 2011, 08:06:24 PM
So, mr. cleverass: where do you find such an income page? right: THERE IS NONE!! (feature requested multiple times yet and still not built in, though very important)
And I can't be bothered to add up 105 planes...
Well then we will never know. At the risk of sounding dense surely it would be some fairly simple maths to get just a vague value. Or does everything need to be presented on a plate?
Quote from: Jona L. on September 21, 2011, 08:06:24 PM
And the tone is a bit more rough this time, because I begin to get p*ssed off by having to explain the same stuff over and over again, just because someone wants a small airline and is actually producing the problem I point out (though in another game world, but doesn't matter as long as too many people do it).
No, I'm sorry but this needs to be called up, you've brought up a contentious issue and people disagree with you, without you yourself coming up with the same numbers that others are coming up with this will just carry on. And lets be frank, an airline with multiple bases with as many aircraft as being counted above can barely be counted as small.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 21, 2011, 08:06:24 PM
And for the record this is the softest variant of saying it I can choose. If I'd say what I really think and feel in this regard, I'd have been banned 4 pages ago.
Calm down dear, just because not everyone wants to or is running a 300 aircraft airline from the big airports of Europe there is no need to get your knickers in a twist.
I'm not here to take sides at all, but why do we have so many people who have a goal to be confrontational?
This really shouldn't be that big of a deal to be going back and forth all the way to page 5 now. Pretty much people have spoken their mind on this. Come to a conclusion, consensus, or just agree to disagree.
In the end it is all up to Sami's coding prowess.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 21, 2011, 08:06:24 PM
My constructiveness is yet to point a problem and offer a solution, and if you try to say the problem is no problem, that it is not my fault.
You say it is not a problem and hide behind "I don't always want to run a multi-billion-dollar"-lie because you are PART of the problem I point out. You do exactly what I try to get rid of.
I assume German's your first language, not English. But do you even take the time to read other posts? Nowhere have I said that frequency is not an issue that needs fixing. I have explicitly said that it IS an issue. I have explicitly said that some of the stuff I do shouldn't be viable. The problem IS a problem. I have proposed a way to fix it.
What I am saying is that your solution is no solution. It doesn't fix the problem, it merely makes it a little bit less of a problem in some cases. I say it is better to actually fix the problem.
What I am saying is that your diatribes are not reasons to change anything, and betray the fact you're not interested in game balance, all you're interested in is having things set up optimally for your preferred type of airline. I think your attitude and your posts are counter-productive, and can only make it harder to get a good solution for frequency issues implemented.
QuoteEven though you say something else, yet the ultimate "win" is to be biggest, worthiest, and most awesome airline -accept it or not.
Again, that's your subjective value judgement. Again, it shows a contempt for anyone who doesn't agree.
QuoteWhat you say: "though it supports your argument" is in my eyes just your try to make my argumentation fall because yours is not working.
You give very little evidence, make very few coherent points. You give a lot of abuse. You post as though the abuse constitutes a reason for the system to change. It's not. It's counter-productive. If you stop doing it, if you stick to being constructive and as objective as possible, we can have a much more interesting conversation.
QuoteThen why you make such a big blow out of it?!
For the reasons I've already stated. Because it's a bad solution. Your idea addresses something that I agree is a problem. It just doesn't address it very well. There's a much better way to fix those problems. The way you present it is extremely poor, and will cause readers (certainly me) to lose respect for you, to simply ignore what you say. So when there are good points made, they won't get noticed.
QuoteWhich values did you take?! You should know that the different views (aircraft financial overview/general financial overview/dashboard view/etc.) always give back different values, and I was referring to the base you closed (if your values were for real), and 47 a/c should barely make the staffing cost back in and don't pay for the initial base opening cost, or the commonality cost or the running cost. You just don't see it in the different views. You can only see that if comparing the pre- and post-base opening results, etc. (takes a lot of time).
So, this time you imply I'm a liar, too?
The 47 planes at Kiev were not paying for the increased overhead, you're correct. I didn't say they were.
But you said 70 a320s also wouldn't be able to pay for the increased overhead. This is incorrect. As I showed you. As I said, I am a maths geek, I know how to pull actual info out of the displays without waiting months to get an approximation from my overall profit numbers. What I took was the weekly profit for each plane, that is revenue minus (maintenance+insurance+route fees+fuel+leasing cost), to get a monthly figure. That figure is approximately $2 million per month per a320. 70 a320s, approximately $140 million. The only major costs not included in there are staffing, office rent & fleet commonality. (I did ignore minor expenses like engine commonality, alliance fees, C & D checks, any change to marketing. They're all negligible.) When I add in staffing & commonality costs, the base is clearly paying for itself, something you say can't be done with just 70 a320s. Those numbers are proof it can be done, that 70 decent sized planes are enough to make a 2nd & 3rd base increase overall profit.
QuoteSo, mr. cleverass: where do you find such an income page? right: THERE IS NONE!! (feature requested multiple times yet and still not built in, though very important)
And I can't be bothered to add up 105 planes...
Just because you're incapable of analysing the data doesn't mean the information isn't there.
I can be bothered to add up 105 planes. Or 70, in my case. The information is readily available, even if it's not on the income statement as an easily digestible single figure. If you can be bothered to post a screenie of the 'my aircraft' page in financial view for Frankfurt, and repost the numbers or a screenie of your bases page, and post a screenie of your fleet commonality page, I'll tell you approximately how much profit/loss you're making by operating your Frankfurt base, compared to closing it and getting rid of the 105 planes.
QuoteWell, give it a try... yet I did it once and it failed, and I learned from that, that one should never close a base without opening a new one to put the staff to. And you should never fire staff, especially not in these vast amounts because it takes the most important instrument off you: CI. But why am I telling you, you want a small airline, so you don't need to use techniques that big airlines use....
Where did I say I want a small airline? I'd get very bored, very quickly. I don't see the point of doing it. BUT, I don't assume my preferred airline is everyone's. I don't preach that anybody doing things differently to me is wrong, or not serious. I don't make contemptuous posts about how they operate.
I'd rather my knowledge of gameplay mechanics came from actually testing things myself, or from someone whose view I can trust, rather than dogmatic statements from someone like you. You did it once and failed? Big deal. I see no reason I shouldn't try to do it and succeed.
I took a one-off hit to morale for all the categories I fired, from 100 down to 20ish in most cases, route strategies dropped to 6, cabin crew only dropped to ~90. That is causing increased delays thanks to unmotivated staff, but it's not an unacceptable number. Morale has improved a few points in all those staff categories in the ~10 days since the base was closed. My CI took a one-off hit, from 89 to 46, thanks to the firings. It will now increase thanks to the marketing budget. The delays aren't significant enough to offset that increase. It's up to 49 already. The negative consequences from firing staff are outweighed by the $10 million a week I save by not paying them.
QuoteAnd the tone is a bit more rough this time, because I begin to get p*ssed off by having to explain the same stuff over and over again, just because someone wants a small airline and is actually producing the problem I point out (though in another game world, but doesn't matter as long as too many people do it).
And for the record this is the softest variant of saying it I can choose. If I'd say what I really think and feel in this regard, I'd have been banned 4 pages ago.
I am not producing the problem, I am simply using the existing gameplay mechanics to my advantage. The problem is in the mechanics, the solution is to adjust the mechanics. The problem is not the players who are using the gameplay mechanic to their advantage, the solution is definitely not to abuse those players. I want the gameplay mechanics changed. I'll continue to use all gameplay mechanics available to help me as much as possible, even the ones I don't like, even the ones that are completely unrealistic.
Speaking of unrealistic, the post you deleted suggests you have ~400 planes, mostly widebodies, in a gameworld that's ~8 years old. What airline has ever grown from a startup of a few million dollars at a rate of 1 plane per week for 8 years? It's an abuse of the gameplay mechanic for buying aircraft. It shouldn't be allowed. It should be banned. People like you are ruining things for serious airlines that want to grow at a realistic pace.
Change buying aircraft to frequency/aircraft size, and that's the core of your 'argument'. If you think it's valid in one case, why wouldn't it be valid in both cases? I say it's not valid in either case, and the thread would be a much better place if you stopped using it.
If someone wants a small airline (I don't), that's their perogative. Good luck to them. They should be able to do it. If someone wants to run a profitable, 100 plane airline out of LHR and is good enough to do it, again, good luck to them. The game mechanics should be as flexible as possible, allow many different business models to be feasible.
Quote from: swiftus27 on September 21, 2011, 09:09:13 PM
I'm not here to take sides at all, but why do we have so many people who have a goal to be confrontational?
This really shouldn't be that big of a deal to be going back and forth all the way to page 5 now. Pretty much people have spoken their mind on this. Come to a conclusion, consensus, or just agree to disagree.
In the end it is all up to Sami's coding prowess.
It's not my goal to be confrontational, it's just a side effect of being stubborn, and not being willing to let things slide. http://xkcd.com/386/ ;)
I'll post my idea again, if needed I'll take it to a new thread. I have no coding prowess, I think I've got some game design prowess though, and I don't think the coding required is too horrible.
I think most people agree that frequency bonuses are currently a problem. 3 ATRs with a tech stop should get far less than 50% when competing with a single a320 flying direct. They currently get 75% of the market. There are plenty of other examples.
However, frequency does matter IRL. A morning and evening flight with 150 seats each should do better than a single, daily 300 seat flight, even on LH routes. 8 well spaced flights should do better than 2 flights with 4 times the capacity on shorthaul routes.
Low demand routes, particularly LH, also have issues. RL routes that have say 2 767 flights a week have ~50 pax demand daily in AWS, and so they're not viable. In DotM, Kiev has 5% LH demand. But I couldn't find a single viable LH route to fly. Other threads have complained about this problem.
My idea would address all these things.
Split the week into blocks. For LH, maybe 3 daily blocks, 0500-1100, 1100-1700, 1700-2300. For domestic and SH, smaller time periods. If it's viable from a calculation time/processing power standpoint, vary the block size for SH according to demand, 3 daily for a low demand route, right up to 36 blocks of 30 minutes each for very busy corridors. I'd probably say something like <200 pax = 3 blocks, 200-600 = 4 blocks of 4.5 hours, 600-1000 = 6 blocks of 3 hours, 1000-2000 = 12 of 1.5, 2000-4000 = 18 of 1, 4000+ = 36 of 30 min. For LH, 3 blocks for <1500 pax, 6 blocks for >1500 pax. If that's too hard, then just a blanket 6 blocks of 3 hours for SH/domestic, 3 blocks of 6 hours for LH. 2300-0500 will also be a single block for all flights.
No frequency bonuses. Keep the penalty for flights being too close together, but make the threshholds available in the manual. Pax will prefer to fly in their block, and will take a flight if it's available. If there are no flights/all the flights are too full, a large % of pax will take flights in a nearby block. For LH, pax will fly in blocks up to a week after they wanted to go. Flights that take off or land between 2300-0500 will get a LF penalty, scaled by how close they are to 0200. So a 430 flight won't be hit as hard as a 0145 flight. Flights that have a tech stop will get a small LF penalty, too. First penalty will be smaller for LH, tech stop penalty won't be applied for LH. HD seats will still be heavily penalised for 3 hour+ flight time.
When pax have more than one flight to choose from, along with the preference for CI, RI, plane image, seat type, they will also have a strong preference for no tech stop, and a preference for flight time. 20 minutes difference, very small preference. 3 hour difference like on my Moscow-Madrid route, very large preference. I'm undecided about a stronger preference for price, it's more realistic but I think it causes gameplay issues. If price is more strongly preferred, then there needs to be a cap on how far below default prices can go, same as there is for plane sales. I'd put it at maybe 20%. Otherwise big airlines with enough cash on hand can fly a route free to hurt competitors.
With no competition, a slow flight with a tech stop will still get 90+% of available pax willing to fly it.
So, how will this affect things? No more benefit to flying a320/737s LH, except on <300 pax routes that can be reached without a tech stop. On anything bigger than 600 daily LH pax, 200 seat planes will be just as good as anything smaller. More than 900 daily, and 300 seaters are as good as anything else, provided you spread out the schedule. For SH, anything above 400 daily pax will have 100 seats be as good as anything smaller, really busy routes will have 150 seat 727/737/a320/etc be as good as anything else, again assuming you spread out the schedule properly.
For low demand routes of 50 pax daily, 2 weekly 767 flights will now get ~80% LF, making smaller airports, whether it's Kiev or Khartoum, more viable, and it will mean more viable routes to fly from every airport.
Once we get connecting pax, city based demand, things would work exactly the same way, with the smaller blocks of time that can bleed into each other.
This would fix the current issues with much smaller planes flooding a route, it would still give a benefit to those who make the effort to schedule things very well, 3 well spaced a320s will get most of the pax against a daily, 2500 nm a340 flight. I can't see any major problems with it from a gameplay standpint. If anyone else can, please point them out, I'll try and fix them. Biggest issue I can see people might object to is 757s will still be great for transatlantic flights up to 4000 nm, and LH flights in the 7000-8000 nm range where a 767 needs to tech stop too, but when they have 201 seats and 3890 range vs a 210 seat 767, I don't think there's any way to change that other than to hardcode a strong dislike for LH 757 flights. Which would be a bad idea.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 10:35:54 PMBiggest issue I can see people might object to is 757s will still be great for transatlantic flights up to 4000 nm, and LH flights in the 7000-8000 nm range where a 767 needs to tech stop too, but when they have 201 seats and 3890 range vs a 210 seat 767, I don't think there's any way to change that other than to hardcode a strong dislike for LH 757 flights. Which would be a bad idea.
Thoughts?
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, very sensible and could really work very well. Espcially the ability for routes with small daily demands but demand enough to add up to a few flights a week.
The above is something I've thought about before and once again I'll put forward my "solution". 757s do fly trans-Atlantic, Continental flew from Newark to Bristol with one for example but they should be stopped from getting the frequency bonus over more realistic aircraft. My solution is that IRL a widebody is simply larger thus more can be put in them, I'm thinking amenities, everything from proper IFE and big galleys to the showers and bars that some airlines put on A380s, these are things that just cannot be done to a narrowbody. In the short term this could be done by just some arbitary coding that makes 767/330s and bigger preferable over say 2000NM when compared to a 757 or other narrowbodies. In the future we could actually have the amenities be something we could control.
Seat Quality, pricing, RI, Jet/Prop preference, flight duration are all currently a joke imho.
The win is through frequency.
I have said my fair share elsewhere. 757s win, 777s suck. In games there are 10x as many 57s as 77s while in real life the opposite is true for LH flights.
Quote from: Pilot Oatmeal on September 20, 2011, 09:59:48 PM
No you wouldn't be able to, well not at least for a while until you had everything in place, SOPs and pilots with the correct training. So you wouldnt be able to in one day, but eventually yes.
Might this be a new feature? Say you add another thing like CI, CQ (Company Quality) or something like that, and if you don't have above a certain score you can't fly ETOPS. Say at least 25-30 to start and as your CQ goes higher the better ETOPS rating you would earn. CQ would be based on e.g. a/c condition, maint. preformed, staff moral and such. Might be a little bit of a limiting factor at the start of each GW but would be a nice challenge.
As for frequency misuse whining, spotted ATR's flying a 11000 pax/day route. Sure this is just a schedule emergency solution but still... WTF?!
Quote from: Gleipner on September 23, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
Might this be a new feature? Say you add another thing like CI, CQ (Company Quality) or something like that, and if you don't have above a certain score you can't fly ETOPS. Say at least 25-30 to start and as your CQ goes higher the better ETOPS rating you would earn. CQ would be based on e.g. a/c condition, maint. preformed, staff moral and such. Might be a little bit of a limiting factor at the start of each GW but would be a nice challenge.
As for frequency misuse whining, spotted ATR's flying a 11000 pax/day route. Sure this is just a schedule emergency solution but still... WTF?!
That could help limit the explosive growth at the start of games. Not a bad idea.
Quote from: Gleipner on September 23, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
Might this be a new feature? Say you add another thing like CI, CQ (Company Quality) or something like that, and if you don't have above a certain score you can't fly ETOPS. Say at least 25-30 to start and as your CQ goes higher the better ETOPS rating you would earn. CQ would be based on e.g. a/c condition, maint. preformed, staff moral and such. Might be a little bit of a limiting factor at the start of each GW but would be a nice challenge.
As for frequency misuse whining, spotted ATR's flying a 11000 pax/day route. Sure this is just a schedule emergency solution but still... WTF?!
Then if the CQ present, should it be related to staff training cost. Such as the relationship of CI and marketing cost? ;D
Quote from: Dave4468 on September 20, 2011, 09:41:03 PM
Does that mean that if I woke up tomorrow and bought a B777 and started Dave Airways I couldn't actually operate it over the pond despite it being easily in range?
Technically you could if you had your AOC etc, but until you were approved to operate under ETOPS, you would have to fly a non ETOPS route: staying within the 60 minute circles of alternate airports flying through Scotland, Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland and down the Eastern Seaboard to fly Westbound across the pond.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 02:26:45 AM
Actually, in MT5, I was up to 4 fleets (a300, 757, q400, CRJ) before I quit, and I tested it then, too. The commonality jump for existing fleets wasn't that big, it was the new one plane fleet that wasn't economical until more planes arrived. Next gameworld, I will be getting in on day 1 for the 2nd time ever, and staying until game end for the first time ever (not counting my current DotM). I will make sure I closely document fleet commonality costs, staffing costs for new bases, etc, as I grow. I treat this game at least partially as an RPG, so may as well make a proper thread for my airline, and explicitly record what happens with some of these gameplay mechanics.
My savings when going from 4 to 3 was 73%.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 02:26:45 AM
Yeah, there'd be more competition. I don't think lower cash will be a big issue, I think there'd be more competition in the medium term, but long term, there'd be even fewer airlines still around as those who want big airlines but lose out quit the gameworld. I think a test scenario that allows unlimited bases/unlimited planes is a good idea, see how it shakes out and what happens. I'd certainly participate. I just don't think it will work for normal worlds.
And there should be a new game world starting for those airlines half way through the existing game world. I think AWS should provide the most fun for most players. If things down't work out up to 1/2 way point, there should be a new game world starting.
Just for comparison, in MT5 here are some stats on number of aircraft in service
Top 1 airline = Bottom 198 airlines combined
Top 2 airines = Bottom 254 airlines combined
Top 3 airines = Bottom 280 airlines combined
of total of 429 airlines.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 02:26:45 AM
I don't think aircraft delivery will be much more of an issue from those in on day 1, I think it will be a bigger issue for anybody joining later.
As for my airline, I have very little competition, and on at least a couple of routes, the competition has given up and picked an easier route.
Which is my point. Later in the game, the only one who can offer competition is strong airline that can fight it out with you on several routes. Right now, a strong airline can compete with you from its HQ, but there is not much point in competing from 2nd, 3rd, 4th base if you are limited by number of aircraft there. Why not pick only routes with no competition from new bases for highest profit. Hence, no compeition on vast majority of routes, and a lot of cash from profits. More competition, less profits, slower growth rate...
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 02:26:45 AM
Yeah, I'd like more ingame competition between alliances. Might reduce the amount of outside game sniping that's been going on. Not a fan of that at all. Might have to start my own alliance next game.
Well, right now, with 100 aircraft limit, you can't touch an establish airline at its HQ, flying some 300+ aircraft. So right now, big airlines go to smaller market, bash some smaller players... I don't see much fun in that. It would be much for fun if 2 of the top 10 airlines from different alliances decided to fight it out. With 100 aircraft, you can't do that.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 02:26:45 AM
Not sure what you mean. I assume this was somewhere like JFK or Honolulu, and ended up a very large airline. It's still possible to build a low-maintenance, very large airline if you get the right base. Though what would happen to your low maintenance airline if someone else arrives with 200+ a320s/737s/757s?
Well, it was IAD, and the point is that nobody could touch me there with 70 aircraft (MT4 limit) or 100 aircraft (MT5 limit). With 200+ aircraft? Well, that would be competition.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 02:26:45 AM
But what your posts seem to imply, and Jona's posts make explicit, is that those airlines who start in say a purely domestic US airport, or who only want to be a highly profitable, 100 plane operation out of LHR, or who want to be an ATR-only airline, or anything else that isn't after max company value/max revenue/max RPK/max pax, isn't a serious airline, doesn't deserve the same respect as those huge airlines, and shouldn't be taken into consideration when looking at how to improve gameplay mechanics.
No, I did not mean that. What I meant is that with 100 aircraft limit, an airline starting at airport below top 20 is precluded from ever becoming one of the top 3 airlines in number of different categories. I have no problem with people playing different types of airlines. I just have a problem with the fact that if an airline starts in Wichita Kansas, it can never be #1 revenue airline. And that is purely due to game mechanics (100 per base limit).
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 02:26:45 AM
The current rule only pushes people who want a mega airline into big size 5 airports. Do you really think that if plane limits are removed, anyone is going to start in a size 3 or 4 airport and generate enough of a profit base to then move into a size 5 airport and try and take it over? Especially when the airline in that size 5 airport can respond by opening a base in the size 3/4 hub of their challenger, and flood it?
Why not? There are a lot of airlines in top 20 airports that are fragile.
Quote from: Sanabas on September 21, 2011, 02:26:45 AM
I'd be interested to see which airports you thought were viable places to start that, too. Off the top of my head, the best size 3 & 4s from a profit per plane perspective would be the ones that are the biggest airport in a small country with lots of LH demand, like Mauritius, Reunion, Male, Baku, various Carribean Islands. But none of them offer the chance to base somewhere bigger. I'd guess the only viable options would be size 3 or 4 US airports, or maybe small European countries once the EU is up & running. I think it'd be a big challenge though.
There are lot of Size 3, Size 4 airports (and Size 5 airports below Top 20) in major markets of US, Europe, Japan, China, Brazil, Australia, Russia, where you would want to move to the top airport at some point.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 09, 2011, 05:52:46 AM
My savings when going from 4 to 3 was 73%.
I'm not sure if things changed from 1.2 to 1.3, or if it's different with huge fleets. In DotM, my savings going from 6 fleets to 5 was ~1%. I'll keep recording changes as my fleet group numbers change. In JA, going from 1 to 2 was a 100% increase, 2 to 6 resulted in a 178% increase. I'm at 4 fleets now, but haven't run the numbers yet.
QuoteAnd there should be a new game world starting for those airlines half way through the existing game world. I think AWS should provide the most fun for most players. If things down't work out up to 1/2 way point, there should be a new game world starting.
Yeah, I don't think that's a bad idea. Though might be hard to do with very long gameworlds.
QuoteWell, it was IAD, and the point is that nobody could touch me there with 70 aircraft (MT4 limit) or 100 aircraft (MT5 limit). With 200+ aircraft? Well, that would be competition.
Still not sure what you meant originally. You said it was possible to build a low maintenance, big airline if you found the right base. Fair enough. But with the ability of someone else to put 200+ planes there, you'd lose that ability, if you wanted to survive, it would no longer be low maintenance. It still seems like the original implication was that anyone not trying to be right at the top of things like revenue or CV isn't being serious.
QuoteNo, I did not mean that. What I meant is that with 100 aircraft limit, an airline starting at airport below top 20 is precluded from ever becoming one of the top 3 airlines in number of different categories. I have no problem with people playing different types of airlines. I just have a problem with the fact that if an airline starts in Wichita Kansas, it can never be #1 revenue airline. And that is purely due to game mechanics (100 per base limit).
How will that change if the 100 per base limit is removed? An airline that has one base in Wichita & 3 big bases elsewhere won't be able to be ahead in those categories against an airline that has 300 planes each in JFK, ATL, ORD & LAX. Or the same in LHR, AMS, FRA & CDG.
Any airline that doesn't start in a country that allows you 4 big bases will never have a chance to be top 3 in those categories. Anyone whose primary goal is to be top 3 for those things will be forced to start in Japan, USA, UK (or Europe for MT). Anyone who bases in HK, Singapore, Australia, UAE, USSR, Canada, France, all of South America & Africa, etc will be precluded from being right at the top of those stats, purely because they don't have access to the same volume of demand as those in the big 3 areas do.
The problem I see is again the implied view that the 'winner' is the airline with the most revenue, the biggest CV. That the only really serious airlines are those trying to 'win'. Even if you subscribe to that view, removing the 100 plane limit won't increase the number of viable starting locations that have a chance of 'winning'. It will actually decrease them, as areas with only 1 or 2 huge airports no longer have that option. They can still grow huge, but they can't challenge the top 3, top 5 or top 10. In DotM, I'm based in Moscow. I'm comfortably top 10 for revenue, about 70% of #1's, I think I'd be top 10 for CV if I didn't start 8 years late. But that's about as big as I can get, I've practically filled SVO, and have 70 planes each at Tashkent & Baku. I could try and stick 70 planes in Domodedovo and compete with the airline based there, but it's not worth the hassle for me, and I couldn't do much to dent the profits of the airline there already.
Remove the plane limit, and I could get somewhat bigger, I could expand a bit at my two subsidiary bases, and I could keep dumping planes at Domodedovo and try and bully the successful, slightly smaller airline based there into bankruptcy. The others in the top 15 airlines, going down to about 50% revenue of number 1, are 4 in the US, 2 in the UK, 2 in France, 1 each in Singapore, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Germany. Remove the limit, and the UK, US & Japanese carriers suddenly have huge growth potential from where they are currently, Canada, France, Spain, Germany & myself have some extra growth potential, but will likely slide down the list, and the other 2 airlines that are currently top 15 for revenue, currently above 50% of #1 revenue, have no extra expansion potential. For players who only want to 'win', all those airports are no longer viable. If you have a problem with an airline that starts in Wichita never able to be #1 for revenue, do you also have a problem with an airline starting in AMS, SIN, HKG, never being able to do it either?
QuoteWhy not? There are a lot of airlines in top 20 airports that are fragile.
Yeah, but are those fragile airlines going to get destroyed by someone coming in from a size 3 airport, or a less fragile airline arriving from a top 20 airport?
QuoteThere are lot of Size 3, Size 4 airports (and Size 5 airports below Top 20) in major markets of US, Europe, Japan, China, Brazil, Australia, Russia, where you would want to move to the top airport at some point.
I'm still curious as to which ones. I'll be interested to see if there are any airlines in the top 50 or so of CV & revenue after a couple of years of JA that started in a smaller airport, that would give you the chance to move into a major airport later.
I'm not opposed to the idea of trying a much more cutthroat gameworld, with far less restrictions on number of bases, and number of planes in bases. I'd play it, I think it'd be fun. I'd also be interested in one that had fictional openskies agreements, in order to level the playing field a bit, so that along with a US or Europe based player having access to 4 really big airports, we could also see a SE Asian monster based in HK, Singapore, KL & Taipei, and a Middle Eastern player in Dubai, Bahrain, Doha & Saudi Arabia. I just think it's a bad idea for regular gameworlds, as it makes other, non monster, airline types less viable, and leaves anyone who has successfully built up their airline to control their size 4 or non major size 5 homebase vulnerable to being invaded by a bigger airline with a bigger warchest and more resources. I don't think that increases the fun, I don't think that will increase player retention. Particularly if it's someone who has struggled to learn the game, has finally got a successful airline running somewhere like Cleveland, only to see it disappear because a major airline brings 300 planes.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
I'm not sure if things changed from 1.2 to 1.3, or if it's different with huge fleets. In DotM, my savings going from 6 fleets to 5 was ~1%. I'll keep recording changes as my fleet group numbers change. In JA, going from 1 to 2 was a 100% increase, 2 to 6 resulted in a 178% increase. I'm at 4 fleets now, but haven't run the numbers yet.
There is only one huge leap, from 3 to 4. When I went from 5 to 4, the savings were small, similar to what you saw from 6 to 5. It is interesting to look at it the other way. If the savings from 3 to 4 is 73%, than increase from 3 to 4 is 100/27 = 3.7. In another words, adding a single aircraft of fleet 4 will increase your cost by factor of 3.7.
You can survive in the current gameworlds when you have almost no competition, but I don't think you can make it while facing serious competition. It would not be a bad idea to repeat where I was going with this:
The limit for airlines growth will be competition and delivery rate of aircraft. (if the basing limits were removed).
Competition will force you to be within 3 fleet types (or you may go under), and when limited to 3 fleet types, there is only so many aircraft that you can get within a game world.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
How will that change if the 100 per base limit is removed? An airline that has one base in Wichita & 3 big bases elsewhere won't be able to be ahead in those categories against an airline that has 300 planes each in JFK, ATL, ORD & LAX. Or the same in LHR, AMS, FRA & CDG.
The airline based in Wichita does not need 3 big bases in order to become #1 in revenue or CV. All it needs (in most game worlds) is one other big base, say ORD. Until yesterday, I was #1 in sales in MT5 with a single base at ORD. So the Wichita based airline would have maybe 150 in Wichita, and 650 at ORD. You can't really expect a lot more aircraft than that in a competitive world.
You can get 12 aircraft per year x 18 years x 3 production lines, which is 648 aircraft. Maybe you can get some on used market for total of ~800.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
Any airline that doesn't start in a country that allows you 4 big bases will never have a chance to be top 3 in those categories. Anyone whose primary goal is to be top 3 for those things will be forced to start in Japan, USA, UK (or Europe for MT).
Of course, the country you are in will be a limiting factor. But you can do really well from what would seem are very unlikely countries. In MT5, airline #3 in company value is from Iran. Turkey, Brasil, Australia, China, Russia, even UAE, Saudi Arabia, India have more potential.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
Anyone who bases in HK, Singapore, Australia, UAE, USSR, Canada, France, all of South America & Africa, etc will be precluded from being right at the top of those stats, purely because they don't have access to the same volume of demand as those in the big 3 areas do.
You think that because you are assuming that there will be 5 an airlines with 2000 aircraft each. Well, that is a wrong assumption, and as long as you keep maintaining it, this will go in circles. Because you are assuming the same level (lack) of competition, and unlimited aircraft.
Suppose you do have a base at JFK. How long do you suppose you will be the only one there, with no competition, when you may have 20 strong airlines in the US, with combined ability to open 80 basis? Once you have a serious competitor at JFK, and your LFs are in 50s, you can't go growing elsewhere.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
The problem I see is again the implied view that the 'winner' is the airline with the most revenue, the biggest CV. That the only really serious airlines are those trying to 'win'.
I keep saying that no, I don't mean that, and you keep saying that I do mean that.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
Even if you subscribe to that view, removing the 100 plane limit won't increase the number of viable starting locations that have a chance of 'winning'. It will actually decrease them, as areas with only 1 or 2 huge airports no longer have that option. They can still grow huge, but they can't challenge the top 3, top 5 or top 10. In DotM, I'm based in Moscow. I'm comfortably top 10 for revenue, about 70% of #1's, I think I'd be top 10 for CV if I didn't start 8 years late. But that's about as big as I can get, I've practically filled SVO, and have 70 planes each at Tashkent & Baku. I could try and stick 70 planes in Domodedovo and compete with the airline based there, but it's not worth the hassle for me, and I couldn't do much to dent the profits of the airline there already.
Suppose the airlines are distributed in the same way the airline revenue is distributed. Now take the big countries, from which you can achieve #1 pax, revenue or CV: US, EU, China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, India, Turkey, South Africa, Australia, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Thailand - you probably have 90% of airline revenue, hence 90% of airlines.
You keep looking for Turkmenistans, Albanias, HKG, SIN that would be unaffected by the removal of the limit... Well, if you base in one of the countries, you would be unaffected by that limit. So there, the strawmen is dead now.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
Remove the plane limit, and I could get somewhat bigger, I could expand a bit at my two subsidiary bases, and I could keep dumping planes at Domodedovo and try and bully the successful, slightly smaller airline based there into bankruptcy. The others in the top 15 airlines, going down to about 50% revenue of number 1, are 4 in the US, 2 in the UK, 2 in France, 1 each in Singapore, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Germany. Remove the limit, and the UK, US & Japanese carriers suddenly have huge growth potential from where they are currently,
Yes, but they would have new competition that could kill them. Why does not in real life the US have 1 airline with 5000 aircraft? Growth potential is certainly there. Instead, there are 5 to 10 majors, all one fuel spike away from bankruptcy. That is what I would like to re-create in AWS.
Here is another example: I have an airline based at ORD. #2 airline in ASK, RPK is in LAX. I just opened a base there at LAX. You would think a huge growth potential. But all of that potential is already served by my competitor. The potential is only for reduced LFs, reduced profitability, thinner profit margins as more capacity is deployed. With the current limit, the best I can do is slow my competitor down somewhat with 100 aircraft. Without the limit, we could both self destruct, and suddenly both LAX and ORD are wide open...
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
Yeah, but are those fragile airlines going to get destroyed by someone coming in from a size 3 airport, or a less fragile airline arriving from a top 20 airport?
With competition, all airlines, especially those in top 20 would become fragile.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
I'm still curious as to which ones. I'll be interested to see if there are any airlines in the top 50 or so of CV & revenue after a couple of years of JA that started in a smaller airport, that would give you the chance to move into a major airport later.
There is a trade-off between growth (revenue, pax) and CV. There are 2 airlines in MT5 that have an excellent chance of being #1 in CV, one is based in Iran, the other is based in South Africa. Since their growth is limited by the size of those market, they invest resources not in pax growth, but in CV growth. Being at ORD, I am in a way pushed to grow, which means lower profit margins, and slower CV growth. I don't think I have a chance to make it to top 3 of CV because of the constant growth.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 04:43:06 AM
I'm not opposed to the idea of trying a much more cutthroat gameworld, with far less restrictions on number of bases, and number of planes in bases. I'd play it, I think it'd be fun. I'd also be interested in one that had fictional openskies agreements, in order to level the playing field a bit, so that along with a US or Europe based player having access to 4 really big airports, we could also see a SE Asian monster based in HK, Singapore, KL & Taipei, and a Middle Eastern player in Dubai, Bahrain, Doha & Saudi Arabia. I just think it's a bad idea for regular gameworlds, as it makes other, non monster, airline types less viable, and leaves anyone who has successfully built up their airline to control their size 4 or non major size 5 homebase vulnerable to being invaded by a bigger airline with a bigger warchest and more resources. I don't think that increases the fun, I don't think that will increase player retention. Particularly if it's someone who has struggled to learn the game, has finally got a successful airline running somewhere like Cleveland, only to see it disappear because a major airline brings 300 planes.
Well, in another thread, actually a feature request, I asked for easier scenarios for those who are not quite ready for a cuttroat competition. What I see as a problem is that a lot of inexperienced players are thrown into the current, somewhat cutthroat worlds. Sami spends inordinate time trying to make it easier for inexperienced players to survive in these worlds. Still they don't (see my stats below of how many players are struggling with less than 10 aircraft).
The same rules and limits that (unsuccessfully) prop up inexperienced players - these rules frustrate experienced players.... Which is why I think there should be 2 different levels of game worlds, or new gameworlds starting halfway through the game of existing gameworld. For example, MT5 just passed halfway point. There should be a new, MT6 world that would give some players in MT5 to move to and start fresh. There are potential players for this game era who are on the sidelines, and they have to wait 2-3 months for another MT world.
In real world, businesses try to cater to customers offering instant gratification. In AWS, you need to wait 3 moths for your gratification if you want to play in a fresh MT world... That's a lot of potential revenue that is lost...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 11, 2011, 07:34:23 AM
There is only one huge leap, from 3 to 4. When I went from 5 to 4, the savings were small, similar to what you saw from 6 to 5. It is interesting to look at it the other way. If the savings from 3 to 4 is 73%, than increase from 3 to 4 is 100/27 = 3.7. In another words, adding a single aircraft of fleet 4 will increase your cost by factor of 3.7.
Jumping from 2 to 6 was a smaller increase than that, though. You're saying that the jump from 3 to 4 nearly quadrupled your costs, but I had the jump from 2 to 6 not quite triple them.
When I had 17 planes across 2 fleets, my 9 c46s cost me 84k per month in commonality costs. With 21 planes in 6 fleets, it was 234k. I now have 62 planes across 4 fleets, and my 9 c46s are costing me 175k per month. My jump from 2 to 4 is a little over 100%, maybe a little less since I think every new plane brings a slight jump to all fleets (again, haven't double-checked that in JA yet, did notice it in DotM). So the jump from 3 to 4 was certainly far less than the 270% increase from 27 to 100.
QuoteYou can survive in the current gameworlds when you have almost no competition, but I don't think you can make it while facing serious competition. It would not be a bad idea to repeat where I was going with this: The limit for airlines growth will be competition and delivery rate of aircraft. (if the basing limits were removed).
Competition will force you to be within 3 fleet types (or you may go under), and when limited to 3 fleet types, there is only so many aircraft that you can get within a game world.
I think that's wrong, but it's only instinct. I think the additional profits from using say 6 production lines will more than offset the increased expenses from the extra fleets.
QuoteThe airline based in Wichita does not need 3 big bases in order to become #1 in revenue or CV. All it needs (in most game worlds) is one other big base, say ORD. Until yesterday, I was #1 in sales in MT5 with a single base at ORD. So the Wichita based airline would have maybe 150 in Wichita, and 650 at ORD. You can't really expect a lot more aircraft than that in a competitive world.
But all game worlds now have the aircraft limit for bases. It's simply not possible to have two big base airports. But again, it's just instinct, hard to tell exactly how it would shake out without actually having a gameworld without limits.
QuoteYou can get 12 aircraft per year x 18 years x 3 production lines, which is 648 aircraft. Maybe you can get some on used market for total of ~800.
Of course, the country you are in will be a limiting factor. But you can do really well from what would seem are very unlikely countries. In MT5, airline #3 in company value is from Iran. Turkey, Brasil, Australia, China, Russia, even UAE, Saudi Arabia, India have more potential.
You think that because you are assuming that there will be 5 an airlines with 2000 aircraft each. Well, that is a wrong assumption, and as long as you keep maintaining it, this will go in circles. Because you are assuming the same level (lack) of competition, and unlimited aircraft.
Suppose you do have a base at JFK. How long do you suppose you will be the only one there, with no competition, when you may have 20 strong airlines in the US, with combined ability to open 80 basis? Once you have a serious competitor at JFK, and your LFs are in 50s, you can't go growing elsewhere.
Yep. Not so much assuming lack of competition, but assuming that once the competition shakes out, there will be airlines with 1200+ aircraft. I think all those places do have lots of potential for being a very successful airline. I just don't think they have the potential to outdo whoever comes out in front in those big 3 areas.
QuoteI keep saying that no, I don't mean that, and you keep saying that I do mean that.
I think we're talking past each other on that one. It's all good, I'll drop it.
QuoteSuppose the airlines are distributed in the same way the airline revenue is distributed. Now take the big countries, from which you can achieve #1 pax, revenue or CV: US, EU, China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, India, Turkey, South Africa, Australia, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Thailand - you probably have 90% of airline revenue, hence 90% of airlines.
You keep looking for Turkmenistans, Albanias, HKG, SIN that would be unaffected by the removal of the limit... Well, if you base in one of the countries, you would be unaffected by that limit. So there, the strawmen is dead now.
If I base in HKG or SIN or AMS now, I have a chance to be #1 for revenue, CV, etc. Remove the base limit, and I don't. If you think it's unfair that an airline based in Wichita can't be #1 for revenue, why wouldn't it be unfair that an airline based in HKG can't be #1 in revenue?
You said that the current gameplay mechanics almost force those who want to be #1 in revenue to base in a top 20 airport. I say that if you removed the base limits, the gameplay mechanics will force those who want to be #1 in revenue to base in the US, Japan, or UK. I think the strawman is the idea that removing the base limits gives those who want to be #1 in revenue more options.
Removing the base limits is a good idea if you want more cutthroat competition, more big airlines failing spectacularly, more scope for serious competition between huge airlines, or between alliances as a whole. I think all those are good reasons to have a gameworld without base limits. I just don't think giving players more starting options to try and reach #1 revenue is a valid reason.
Actually, thinking about it some more, I think you're sort of right. I think that anyone who starts in Wichita, or HKG, or Australia, or all sorts of other places will be giving up on the idea of being #1 in revenue. But starting in Wichita, or any other size 3 or 4 airport, won't preclude you from becoming a relatively large, successful airline. If your goal is to be the really, really huge airline that I think a couple will turn into, you'll have less options than now. If you want to be the highly profitable, 5-600 plane airlines that end up near the top of revenue lists now, you'll have about the same options. If you just want to be large & successful, without being too worried exactly where you end up ranking, you'll have a lot more options. Regardless of size, and outside of essentially 1 airport countries, you'll likely have to deal with more continuous competition, rather than the current model of a huge fight to start (as I'm having in JA), but if you emerge from that successful, you've got no more real worries.
QuoteYes, but they would have new competition that could kill them. Why does not in real life the US have 1 airline with 5000 aircraft? Growth potential is certainly there. Instead, there are 5 to 10 majors, all one fuel spike away from bankruptcy. That is what I would like to re-create in AWS.
Here is another example: I have an airline based at ORD. #2 airline in ASK, RPK is in LAX. I just opened a base there at LAX. You would think a huge growth potential. But all of that potential is already served by my competitor. The potential is only for reduced LFs, reduced profitability, thinner profit margins as more capacity is deployed. With the current limit, the best I can do is slow my competitor down somewhat with 100 aircraft. Without the limit, we could both self destruct, and suddenly both LAX and ORD are wide open...
With competition, all airlines, especially those in top 20 would become fragile.
There is a trade-off between growth (revenue, pax) and CV. There are 2 airlines in MT5 that has an excellent chance of being #1 in CV, one is based in Iran, the other is based in South Africa. Since their growth is limited by the size of those market, they invest resources not in pax growth, but in CV growth. Being at ORD, I am in a way pushed to grow, which means lower profit margins, and slower CV growth. I don't think I have a chance to make it to top 3 because of constant growth.
Again, I think it would be good to have gameworlds with that increased competition. I think it would be bad to have that for all gameworlds, I think it would make it far harder to run a smaller airline, I think it would be far harder to start partway through, I think there would be more cases of a small-medium airline being bullied into bankruptcy by a major airline.
QuoteWell, in another thread, actually a feature request, I asked for easier scenarios for those who are not quite ready for a cuttroat competition. What I see as a problem is that a lot of inexperienced players are thrown into the current, somewhat cutthroat worlds. Sami spends inordinate time trying to make it easier for inexperienced players to survive in these worlds. Still they don't (see my stats below of how many players are struggling with less than 10 aircraft).
The same rules and limits that (unsuccessfully) prop up inexperienced players - these rules frustrate experienced players.... Which is why I think there should be 2 different levels of game worlds, or new gameworlds starting halfway through the game of existing gameworld. For example, MT5 just passed halfway point. There should be a new, MT6 world that would give some players in MT5 to move to and start fresh. There are potential players for this game era who are on the sidelines, and they have to wait 2-3 months for another MT world.
In real world, businesses try to cater to customers offering instant gratification. In AWS, you need to wait 3 moths for your gratification if you want to play in a fresh MT world... That's a lot of potential revenue that is lost...
I don't substantially disagree with any of that. I'd probably do it a bit differently though. Like having a gameworld where airlines are limited to maybe 250 planes. Having another plane limits at bases removed. I'd still like one like that with some fictional openskies agreements. Or with some fictional, uniform, smaller slot totals. A beginnerish world that can be seen by those who aren't in it, also with more detail visible, would be good, it's much easier to answer questions from people if you can actually see what they're doing. I'd certainly like to see more gameworlds running at once, so that the wait for a new world is shorter.
I'd really like to see the frequency issue fixed, using something like what I outlined earlier.
I don't think our positions are all that different.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 08:54:38 AM
Jumping from 2 to 6 was a smaller increase than that, though. You're saying that the jump from 3 to 4 nearly quadrupled your costs, but I had the jump from 2 to 6 not quite triple them.
When I had 17 planes across 2 fleets, my 9 c46s cost me 84k per month in commonality costs. With 21 planes in 6 fleets, it was 234k. I now have 62 planes across 4 fleets, and my 9 c46s are costing me 175k per month. My jump from 2 to 4 is a little over 100%, maybe a little less since I think every new plane brings a slight jump to all fleets (again, haven't double-checked that in JA yet, did notice it in DotM). So the jump from 3 to 4 was certainly far less than the 270% increase from 27 to 100.
It didn't seem much when number of aircraft is small. But I have the figures for the time my airline had 371 aircraft. Reduction was from 111M to 30M when going from 4 to 3. That's 20M profit at that stage of the game. I still had competition, and 20M per week, 1 billion per year was real money. There aer airlines doing well with > 3 fleet types, but those airlines have no competition. The bottom line is competition and > 3 fleet tpes don't mix very well.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 08:54:38 AM
I think that's wrong, but it's only instinct. I think the additional profits from using say 6 production lines will more than offset the increased expenses from the extra fleets.
While you are starting, and all the routes are unserved, you may very well be right. But once the routes are filled, and your LFs start to decrease, you have to make a decision. Going with > 3 becomes riskier... Just take my example. $20M profit lost of about of about $70M potential at that time. My actual profit was $50M. So if I was wasting 29% of profits with the 4th type, one way to look at it is that 106 of 371 aircraft was flying profit-less...
At the same time, those profit-less a/c was keeping the competition down, but with evenly matched competitors, the one who is more profitable will always outlast the less profitable one.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 08:54:38 AM
Yep. Not so much assuming lack of competition, but assuming that once the competition shakes out, there will be airlines with 1200+ aircraft. I think all those places do have lots of potential for being a very successful airline. I just don't think they have the potential to outdo whoever comes out in front in those big 3 areas.
It is possible that you may end up with 1200+ airline. Well, you can already have it today with ATL + 3 bases, or LHR + 3 bases. But don't forget the alliances. A big, fat inefficient airline with 1200+ aircraft with some 8 fleet types suddenly has a big bullseye on him. A couple of efficient players from competing alliance can bring that airline down...
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 08:54:38 AM
If I base in HKG or SIN or AMS now, I have a chance to be #1 for revenue, CV, etc. Remove the base limit, and I don't. If you think it's unfair that an airline based in Wichita can't be #1 for revenue, why wouldn't it be unfair that an airline based in HKG can't be #1 in revenue?
First of all, I disagree. HKG and SIN are today, and would remain excellent aiports for #1 in CV. Remember growth vs. CV. Although in last few games I played, the players did not quite make it to #1, they were in top 5 IIRC. I think I could do it (reach #1 in CV at those airports), and you just gave me an idea for a low maintenance airline if I chose to run another one in the future.
Now of course, the pax and revenue potential at HKG and SIN is fixed in AWS (without connecting traffic) so you pretty much are passing on those categories when chosing a base there.... But I don't think the game should lock you out of this competition when you are starting in a major market, and you happened to start from aircraft below top 10.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 08:54:38 AM
You said that the current gameplay mechanics almost force those who want to be #1 in revenue to base in a top 20 airport. I say that if you removed the base limits, the gameplay mechanics will force those who want to be #1 in revenue to base in the US, Japan, or UK. I think the strawman is the idea that removing the base limits gives those who want to be #1 in revenue more options.
Removing the base limits is a good idea if you want more cutthroat competition, more big airlines failing spectacularly, more scope for serious competition between huge airlines, or between alliances as a whole. I think all those are good reasons to have a gameworld without base limits. I just don't think giving players more starting options to try and reach #1 revenue is a valid reason.
So we have a disagreement then. I look from year 2000+, where EU is in effect, plus a few major countries. Those major market have some 90% (my estimate) of 3, 4, 5 airports none would be locked out of competition. I just counted ~250 large (size 5) airports. Probably 90% of them are in the major markets. I am not even counting size 4 and 3, of which there could be another 500. So you may have 90% of 750 airports or some 675 airports that may be in position to grow to be #1 in revenue, pax, CV. Right now, you have 10 or 20 airports with this potential.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 08:54:38 AM
Actually, thinking about it some more, I think you're sort of right. I think that anyone who starts in Wichita, or HKG, or Australia, or all sorts of other places will be giving up on the idea of being #1 in revenue. But starting in Wichita, or any other size 3 or 4 airport, won't preclude you from becoming a relatively large, successful airline. If your goal is to be the really, really huge airline that I think a couple will turn into, you'll have less options than now. If you want to be the highly profitable, 5-600 plane airlines that end up near the top of revenue lists now, you'll have about the same options. If you just want to be large & successful, without being too worried exactly where you end up ranking, you'll have a lot more options. Regardless of size, and outside of essentially 1 airport countries, you'll likely have to deal with more continuous competition, rather than the current model of a huge fight to start (as I'm having in JA), but if you emerge from that successful, you've got no more real worries.
Again, I think it would be good to have gameworlds with that increased competition. I think it would be bad to have that for all gameworlds, I think it would make it far harder to run a smaller airline, I think it would be far harder to start partway through, I think there would be more cases of a small-medium airline being bullied into bankruptcy by a major airline.
I don't substantially disagree with any of that. I'd probably do it a bit differently though. Like having a gameworld where airlines are limited to maybe 250 planes. Having another plane limits at bases removed. I'd still like one like that with some fictional openskies agreements. Or with some fictional, uniform, smaller slot totals. A beginnerish world that can be seen by those who aren't in it, also with more detail visible, would be good, it's much easier to answer questions from people if you can actually see what they're doing. I'd certainly like to see more gameworlds running at once, so that the wait for a new world is shorter.
I'd really like to see the frequency issue fixed, using something like what I outlined earlier.
I don't think our positions are all that different.
Another idea for an easy scenario would be to turn it into a solitaire, where only 1 airline can be at 1 airport. I think a lot of airlines would benefit from going through a full cycle, from tiny, medium and large ailine. Some parameters such as starting money and fuel prices, availability of used aircraft could be set to easy level. I think players can learn a lot by experimenting. When their airlines crash before they reach 10 aircraft, that may not necesserily be the best learning scenario for many...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 11, 2011, 11:37:16 AM
It didn't seem much when number of aircraft is small. But I have the figures for the time my airline had 371 aircraft. Reduction was from 111M to 30M when going from 4 to 3. That's 20M profit at that stage of the game. I still had competition, and 20M per week, 1 billion per year was real money. There aer airlines doing well with > 3 fleet types, but those airlines have no competition. The bottom line is competition and > 3 fleet tpes don't mix very well.
I'd really, really like a stack more data about the changes in commonality costs. You had 3 to 4 more than triple costs, I had 2 to 4 barely double them. I'm going to buy some random planes in DotM, see what happens. I've currently got 5 fleets: 152 a320s = 40.8 million, 116 ATR = 16 million, 98 757 = 35 million, 100 767 = 39.7 million, 72 f100 = 15.8 million. I just ordered 1 EMB110, will see what happens when it arrives, then work my way up to 12 or so fleets. I might work down to 1 fleet after that, and BK. I want the data more than I want the final 8 RL weeks of the airline running itself.
QuoteAnother idea for an easy scenario would be to turn it into a solitaire, where only 1 airline can be at 1 airport. I think a lot of airlines would benefit from going through a full cycle, from tiny, medium and large ailine. Some parameters such as starting money and fuel prices, availability of used aircraft could be set to easy level. I think players can learn a lot by experimenting. When their airlines crash before they reach 10 aircraft, that may not necesserily be the best learning scenario for many...
Yeah, that'd be a good experiment, too. I don't know without seeing the way they're built in detail, but seems like a lot of people are really, really conservative when starting up, which leaves them with just a couple of planes 12 months in, which means minimal revenue & too much overhead. We're 13 months into JA, and more than 100 airlines have 7 or less planes. 50+ have 4 or less. I'm sure some of them started late, but I just opened the stats of 10 airlines with 1 or 2 planes, and 6 of them joined the world on day 1. Maybe the next beginner guide/FAQ thread should be a step by step guide to going from 0-20 planes?
Maybe I could work down to 1 fleet for the data, then BK and spend the last 6 gameyears writing a startup guide.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 11, 2011, 12:27:40 PM
I'd really, really like a stack more data about the changes in commonality costs. You had 3 to 4 more than triple costs, I had 2 to 4 barely double them. I'm going to buy some random planes in DotM, see what happens. I've currently got 5 fleets: 152 a320s = 40.8 million, 116 ATR = 16 million, 98 757 = 35 million, 100 767 = 39.7 million, 72 f100 = 15.8 million. I just ordered 1 EMB110, will see what happens when it arrives, then work my way up to 12 or so fleets. I might work down to 1 fleet after that, and BK. I want the data more than I want the final 8 RL weeks of the airline running itself.
Yeah, that'd be a good experiment, too. I don't know without seeing the way they're built in detail, but seems like a lot of people are really, really conservative when starting up, which leaves them with just a couple of planes 12 months in, which means minimal revenue & too much overhead. We're 13 months into JA, and more than 100 airlines have 7 or less planes. 50+ have 4 or less. I'm sure some of them started late, but I just opened the stats of 10 airlines with 1 or 2 planes, and 6 of them joined the world on day 1. Maybe the next beginner guide/FAQ thread should be a step by step guide to going from 0-20 planes?
Maybe I could work down to 1 fleet for the data, then BK and spend the last 6 gameyears writing a startup guide.
It may not work the same way when you have a really small number of aircraft. Something like staffing is an example of that. There is a break for small airlines on staffing when starting up. There may be a similar break for fleet commonality when airline is small. There is a player in MT5 how has more aircraft than my airline (he is #1 in this category, I am #2) and he is seeing similar figures as I do. Actually, I see it over and over. I have a bunch of orders in fleet group #4, and I sell those. When they arrive on Wednesday, the same second as crew training charge hits, my cost goes from up from $8M to $50M for that week:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34322.0.html
Another thing is that this is new to v1.3. There was a jump to 4th fleet in 1.2, but it was
much smaller than in 1.3
I don't think 60 planes is small enough to get any sort of discount, if one exists. If I did have a discount when I only had 17 planes, that'd make the increase to my current 4 fleets even bigger.
I think I'll be able to get rid of my c46 fleet before my first DC-8 turns up, so I'll see what the change from 4 to 3 is then, probably with a fleet around 80 planes when I do it.
Any chance of a before & after screenie of your commonality page? I'm curious if the different fleets have the same percentage jump, and just how much the single plane fleet costs.
Ok, here:
Ouch. And yeah, 255% increase for all 3 fleets, they're almost identical, within $12,000 of each other.
I'm guessing it's even worse now? (your sig says 674 planes, the screenie says 376)
I agree a jump like that is a bit over the top, and I'm certainly curious as to why I saw a much smaller increase. I want an offline version so I can run tests on the game mechanics to try and pull out some underlying formulae. :P
I wonder if aircraft size is a factor? I have 1 small, 1 medium, 2 large fleets. In MT5, I didn't record numbers, but I'm sure things didn't triple, and I had 2 medium, 1 large, 1 v.large fleet. You have 2 large, 2 v.large there, yeah? Maybe the big jump is triggered by having a 2nd v.large, or a 4th large or bigger.
Yeah, the cost increase is huge now...
As far as fleet types and aircraft sizes, I don't think that's it. Another player in our alliance has 2 large 1 medium and he is seeing the same increases...
Sorry to be a pain, but can you please record before & after numbers for the next delivery, now that you're at nearly 700 planes? I want to know if the cost increase is significantly higher or lower than 255%, or if it's near-identical.
No problem, will do.
Here it is. Saying that it is excessive is putting it very mildly. Yet another newb protection mechanism gone bunkers. It is no longe a fleet commonality, where having more aircraft in common saves money, it is now just a penalty for large airlines.
The concept is that if Southwest bought and parked a Cesna and Beechcraft, overnight, their costs for all the 737s would skyrocket....
The real way to implement fleet commonality would kill some inexperienced newbs, so instead we go on this tangent...
Im gunna be honest and blunt here. I think that this add on will make the game more complicated and cause more problems than are already there. Im very sure that members will come out and whine about the added difficulty.
What you guys are proposing seems extremly complicated... I cant eaven read through this thread because its so long and confusing ;D
idk my 2 cents
Quote from: Monk Xion on October 11, 2011, 11:51:18 PM
Im gunna be honest and blunt here. I think that this add on will make the game more complicated and cause more problems than are already there. Im very sure that members will come out and whine about the added difficulty.
What you guys are proposing seems extremly complicated... I cant eaven read through this thread because its so long and confusing ;D
idk my 2 cents
Which one? This thread has multiple ideas proposed. I don't think removing the 100 aircraft limit would change the complexity at all.
I think my proposal for fixing the frequency issue will add to the complexity for someone who wants to really optimise things, but anybody going to that effort should already be building successful airlines, and so won't have major issues. For someone who is new/doesn't understand or pay attention to game mechanics, I don't think it will be harder. The same rules of thumb as now will still apply, i.e. don't put flights closer together than 1 hour, if possible spread them out evenly, such as 1 morning, 1 evening, pick an airport with minimal competition, don't try and jump in at LHR or similar unless you know what you're doing.
Quote from: JumboShrimpNo problem, will do.
Thanks for that. And the numbers are indeed interesting. With 372 planes, you had a uniform 255% increase. With 680 planes, you've got a uniform 576% increase. The commonality penalty is apparently growing exponentially with fleet size, rather than linearly. I wonder is that's working as intended? I think we should add this one to bug reports and/or feature requests.
If the commonality penalty is going to be simple, I think it should be that if given fleets cost a, b, c, d, e, f per month, then having 1 fleet will cost $a. 2 fleets cost $1.5a, $1.5b. 3 fleets cost $2a, 2b, 2c. 4 fleets cost $2.5a, 2.5b, 2.5c, 2.5d, etc. Could tweak those numbers if necessary, to increase the jump at certain points. But the important thing is that if the jump from 3 fleets to 4 adds 25%, or 50%, or doubles costs with 100 overall planes, then the jump from 3 to 4 should do the same when you have 300, 500, 1000 planes. It shouldn't be a case of doubling at 100 planes, more than tripling at 372 planes, and jumping to nearly 7 times the price at 680 planes. It looks like each new plane adds ~1% to the penalty. With 372 planes, you paid 355% of the 3 fleet price for 4 fleets. With 680 planes, you paid 676% of the 3 fleet price for 4 fleets. Which would mean with 60 planes, I paid ~160%, which seems consistent with my figures for 2 & 4 fleets.
I also think it's time to start a thread to collect more data from anyone willing to provide it.
A while back in JA #5, I decided to cancel the leases on my 3 DC-4s, partly to see what the impact on the commonality costs was going to be, but mostly because I was going to do it anyway and transferred the routes to planes that better fit with my near-term (1-2 year) plans.
So the numbers (note they exclude the impact on the engines, as it is likely minimal given that the DC-4 and DC-6 are on the same type) ...My 3 DC-4s were costing me 165,903 a month before I killed them. At the time, I had 12 DC-6, 13 Nord, 8 Viscounts, who's commonality expenses dropped from 777,804 to 646,185 for a savings of 131,619 in addition to the 165,903 direct savings.
In this case, with about 30 aircraft, going from 3 fleet types to 4 fleet types bumps up the commonality across all fleets by 20%. I have the raw numbers, but the increase percentage was largely uniform across the three types.
As an aside, I am soon to be expanding back to 4 types and will post the change as soon as that happens (with 12 hours real time).
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 11, 2011, 01:34:45 PM
Another thing is that this is new to v1.3. There was a jump to 4th fleet in 1.2, but it was much smaller than in 1.3
I just dismantled my airline in DotM. As I dropped down from 542 planes across 5 fleets, every ~30 planes was reducing all fleets by a couple of percent. The drop from 5 to 4, at 470 planes, made about 3.5% difference.
From 4 to 3, at 316 planes, was a huge drop. The 4 fleet costs were 287% of the 3 fleet costs, also near-identical for each fleet. That's in line with 1.3, assuming the % increase grows as the overall fleet does. One new a320 or f100 would add $9 million a week to maintaining my ATR, 757 & 767 fleets.
I didn't have enough cash on hand to terminate all the leases and get down to 2 fleets.