For the last weeks I have been working on a quite large update package that will soon need some testing...
...no, don't get that excited yet. It's that nothing big and major (technically it is, but not that big from user's point of view), and it's actually been previewed already.
The major upcoming changes are:
- ability to create secondary techstops (preview (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg196218.html#msg196218))
- and completely new airport selection interface for route opening (preview (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg198780.html#msg198780))
The techstop update required a rebuild / checking of many core features and functions, and the new interface for choosing airports required some serious work too. The plan is to implement both of these to the current v.1.3 game engine - but since the changes are very big, I wish to test them properly before putting them into 'production'. Since I cannot test everything myself, I've decided to run a small test scenario (open beta theme).
This test game will run under v.1.31 core, but (as mentioned) when the testing is completed it will be merged with v.1.3 games. Participating in the test is free, feedback is expected. Game will have very short days, and also a very short duration (max ~7 days real time).
THE TEST SCENARIO IS NOW OPEN. * Cost to join is 2 credits (flat fee). It will be refunded when the game is complete. Requirement for refund is that you are still a member of the game world when it closes down.
* Includes 10 minute days, $100 million start cash. Please get as many planes and routes as you can, with base airports too.
* Please focus testing on the interface of opening new routes.
* Please test routes with and without techstops. Also try out routes that are payload or runway restricted, either at main airports or at techstop airports.
* The second techstop option is not yet available in the interface, I am still working on that.
* There will be bugs, since major parts of the code has changed on these functions. Please report bugs on the bugs forum, and please notify clearly that it's about the test scenario.
* Please post all other comments to this thread. Game does not have own forums (or alliance or press release functions).
* Disclaimer: This is a test. Game may be shut down at any point. (also note that the live game clock may not work properly due to fast game speed, not a bug)
Since (as someone comented), I can fly to the moon on a 764 (with a tech stop), I will participate in this one...
I will see if I can fly from LAX to LHR on a Q400...
Count me in!
Don
If I have never been a beta tester before, am I allowed to participate? If so, I would like to.
Regards, Sean
I'll try my very hardest to break something! ;)
I will do it.
Quote from: sami on February 13, 2012, 09:55:11 PM
THE TEST SCENARIO IS NOW OPEN.
* Cost to join is 2 credits (flat fee). It will be refunded when the game is complete. Requirement for refund is that you are still a member of the game world when it closes down.
* Includes 10 minute days, $100 million start cash. Please get as many planes and routes as you can, with base airports too.
* Please focus testing on the interface of opening new routes.
* Please test routes with and without techstops. Also try out routes that are payload or runway restricted, either at main airports or at techstop airports.
* The second techstop option is not yet available in the interface, I am still working on that.
* There will be bugs, since major parts of the code has changed on these functions. Please report bugs on the bugs forum, and please notify clearly that it's about the test scenario.
* Please post all other comments to this thread. Game does not have own forums (or alliance or press release functions).
* Disclaimer: This is a test. Game may be shut down at any point. (also note that the live game clock may not work properly due to fast game speed, not a bug)
Has the optional extra turn-around time been integrated in the scheduling screen? That's pretty nice...
Is this the feedback thread as well, or is there one somewhere else?
Quote from: Ilyushin on February 14, 2012, 03:37:22 PM
Has the optional extra turn-around time been integrated in the scheduling screen? That's pretty nice...
Um, wha?
Quote from: BobTheCactus on February 14, 2012, 03:37:55 PM
Is this the feedback thread as well, or is there one somewhere else?
Here
Quote from: sami on February 14, 2012, 04:29:45 PM
Um, wha?
Here
I figured it'd be hard to understand...
When you set a turn around time at turn around settings, this time gets 'integrated' in the schedule of the aircraft now, it seems... It edits the 'earliest dep time'.
But now I double checked and it's not like that. I am sleepy, excuse me, lol.
ok!
I am disappointed that the new interface does not display the times at which the plane lands/takes off at the tech stop airport. Since that time is important (it can't be between 0000 and 0500), it would be really great if we could know before we've bought slots.
First bug:
The scheduling screen does not display the names of the airports being stopped at next to "via"
Quote from: BobTheCactus on February 14, 2012, 04:39:15 PM
I am disappointed that the new interface does not display the times at which the plane lands/takes off at the tech stop airport. Since that time is important (it can't be between 0000 and 0500), it would be really great if we could know before we've bought slots.
Yes it does like already in current version. Just hover over the (i) icon while in editor.
Or when at 'route information' (overview) page, click on the lines (route legs) in "routing" line.
Second message, 'via' bug fixed.
Just a little thing. Is it possible to edit routing once an flight has been created?
Trying to fly silly routes and spotted you can't seem to change the routing after a flight has been created.
Looks good so far. As far as secondary techstops, only 1 tech stop is possible on the way to the destination, and 1 on the way back, correct?
Quote from: DaveP1991 on February 14, 2012, 05:16:51 PM
Just a little thing. Is it possible to edit routing once an flight has been created?
Trying to fly silly routes and spotted you can't seem to change the routing after a flight has been created.
You mean that once route is visible in Route Management?
No.
But the new system actually does make that easier to make in the future, at least in regards of techstops. (at least there was a rq of removing techstops in route edit view and this can be technically implemented much easier now)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 14, 2012, 05:21:56 PM
Looks good so far. As far as secondary techstops, only 1 tech stop is possible on the way to the destination, and 1 on the way back, correct?
As mentioned, the interface is not done for this yet. Will be possible to have 2 techstops between each route leg (even with 3-leg routes later on .. btw 3 leg routes will follow only format A-B-C-A in the future, with of course the techstops possible in every segment).
Technically it's possible to have unlimited number of techstops between each leg, but limited to 2 per leg for practical (/ realism) reasons.
However you can access it already directly from the URL ... www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Open/ICAOdep/ICAOarr/ICAOts1,ICAOts2/ICAOts2,ICAOts1/?go=1
=> www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Open/EFHK/LEMD/ESKN,EPGD/EPGD,ESKN/?go=1 (goes directly to editor)
(= departure icao / arrival icao / techstop icao on outbound flight, separated by comma / techstop icao on return flight, separated by comma)
Here's a nice 10 hour sector (one way, ATR-72 ..) to you ... :P
Quote from: sami on February 14, 2012, 05:23:07 PM
You mean that once route is visible in Route Management?
No.
But the new system actually does make that easier to make in the future, at least in regards of techstops. (at least there was a rq of removing techstops in route edit view and this can be technically implemented much easier now)
Fair enough.
Quote from: sami on February 14, 2012, 05:23:07 PM
Technically it's possible to have unlimited number of techstops between each leg, but limited to 2 per leg for practical (/ realism) reasons.
Could it be made possible in the JA worlds, its still going to be an issue in the JA worlds, (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/history-1950-1959/public/en_us) has flights in the '50s from London to Joburg with 5 intermediate stops using a Comet.
One minor cosmetic thing . . .
The "confirm routing" selection does not seem to be aligned with anything in particular using Safari on Windows:
Actually, if it does not involve transporting passengers, I don't think it adds any realism to enable more than one techstop.
Very few routes operate with even one in reality, let alone two.
Imho, adding a second tech stop to the game as it is right now is only an incentive for players to spam longer routes with 737/320s to push players using larger planes over the edge.
Which is, after all, even more unrealistic than the second tech stop in itself.
Quote from: saftfrucht on February 14, 2012, 06:17:27 PM
Actually, if it does not involve transporting passengers, I don't think it adds any realism to enable more than one techstop.
Very few routes operate with even one in reality, let alone two.
The sim can be played in 1950.
Check the routes back then..
Quote from: saftfrucht on February 14, 2012, 06:17:27 PM
Actually, if it does not involve transporting passengers, I don't think it adds any realism to enable more than one techstop.
Very few routes operate with even one in reality, let alone two.
I've flown a modern flight with two (DXB-BKK-SYD-CHC) on a 77W although they are not technically pure tech stops they do happen still. In theory Sami could you use the URL to add as many tech stops as you want or is two the limit of the system?
Then Jet Age needs to run on another version. I see this as a serious problem, there are already some players (no namedropping from my side, a lot of people will know who I am talking about anyway) who "exploit" tech stops in such a way and it will not become better by adding this feature, which, plainly said, serves absolutely no purpose in game worlds like Modern Times since there are planes that are capable of flying every route imaginable nonstop.
Quote from: DaveP1991 on February 14, 2012, 06:46:17 PM
I've flown a modern flight with two (DXB-BKK-SYD-CHC)
I don't doubt you have, I know there are routes with multiple stops, but almost all of these routes need Fifth Freedom to work, and since Fifth Freedom has been patched out of the game, it is totally pointless to add the possibility for more tech stops.
It is true, back in the day, a Europe-Tokyo run for example made 3 or even more stops due to range limits of the aircraft. But the times when most of the passengers on those routes were booked to the final destination and these stops were mostly pure tech stops are long gone, so in game worlds like Modern Times were there are planes with excessive range plus no Fifth Freedoms from the games side, I see this feature as a serious threat to the fairness on long haul routes.
Quote from: saftfrucht on February 14, 2012, 06:48:05 PM
Then Jet Age needs to run on another version. I see this as a serious problem, there are already some players (no namedropping from my side, a lot of people will know who I am talking about anyway) who "exploit" tech stops in such a way and it will not become better by adding this feature, which, plainly said, serves absolutely no purpose in game worlds like Modern Times since there are planes that are capable of flying every route imaginable nonstop.
Not true, there is definitely still a need for tech stops in Modern Times, runway requirements that limit fuel load/weight etc. To many reasons to name, but they are still needed.
Quote from: saftfrucht on February 14, 2012, 06:48:05 PM
Then Jet Age needs to run on another version.
This feature will be available in every game world.
But as mentioned, techstops beyond one stop won't probably be any use in modern games.
Quote from: saftfrucht on February 14, 2012, 06:48:05 PM
and since Fifth Freedom has been patched out of the game, it is totally pointless to add the possibility for more tech stops.
Technical stopovers and 5th freedom are not related in any way. You do not carry / drop passengers at the refuelling airports.
Okay then, I ask you to present a single route that needs two tech stops due to runway length. There are none, because it is logically impossible.
If I want to fly from New York to Jorge Newberry in Argentina, a 777 can do the job, but cannot land there due to the shortness of the runway. If i have it land somewhere in Urugay and then hop to Jorge Newberry, it's not a problem (I don't know if the 777 can actually ever land in Jorge Newberry, but thats not the point).
Where would the need for a second tech stop fit in? Nowhere, thats where.
Quote from: sami on February 14, 2012, 06:55:31 PMtechstops beyond one stop won't probably be any use in modern games.
They will, thats the point I'm trying to make. It may not be profitable, but players with alot of money in the background will be able (and judging from past behaviour of some, no doubt will use this possibility) to hurt players and drive them from certain routes or even into bankruptcy if they are already on the edge.
Quote from: saftfrucht on February 14, 2012, 06:56:50 PM
Okay then, I ask you to present a single route that needs two tech stops due to runway length. There are none, because it is logically impossible.
Read what I wrote previously, pls... The sim is usable from 1950s onwards. Back then multiple stops were widely utilized and that's why this update is made.
Under no circumstances will "old" and "modern" games run under different rules or versions. Especially since the long term goal is to make very long worlds that span from 1950 to 2020s, and due to other (technical) inconveniences.
(This is not a debate topic for this feature. It will be made and implemented .. since it is already made and there is a clear need for it in the "big picture" and long term plans - any debate should have been made months ago in the features forum.)
Quote from: saftfrucht on February 14, 2012, 06:48:05 PM
Then Jet Age needs to run on another version. I see this as a serious problem, there are already some players (no namedropping from my side, a lot of people will know who I am talking about anyway) who "exploit" tech stops in such a way and it will not become better by adding this feature, which, plainly said, serves absolutely no purpose in game worlds like Modern Times since there are planes that are capable of flying every route imaginable nonstop.
It is not a question of tech stops but frequency. Tech stops are independent of frequency. With this update in mind, I made this feature request:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,38007.msg202922.html#new
(which apparently you already found).
There were some issues with pax loads per leg of a flight (I intend to test that) which hopefully will be fixed in this build. This updates add a lot of flexibility, and streamlined user interface...
I like the airline timetable under the airline's information page-great for quick reference and, in my opinion, a great added feature!
The new scheduling interface is quicker and easier to use, but I have found one major issue with it that, for me, will make life more difficult. It is no longer possible to ctrl+click to open the open route screen in a new window. For most of my scheduling, 7 day or not, I will open a tab for each destination I intend on serving and then, for 7 day scheduling, at least, arrange them from Monday-Sunday then begin opening the routes and assigning them to aircraft. With this update, and the elimination of the ability to open new scheduling tabs, I will have to go through the whole search function to open a tab for each destination thus adding clicks and time to the process.
Is there any way to fix this, Sami?
Don
My only complaint is with the opening new route feature. I'm using safari on windows and when I receive a list of airports I can fly to from my base, I try to open a new tab for each destination by right clicking the green arrow. However this takes me right back to the beginning of the open a new route feature. This is creating a lot of unnecessary difficulty for me as I'm trying to 7 day schedule planes.
Quote from: jetwestinc on February 14, 2012, 07:28:16 PM
Is there any way to fix this, Sami?
Tested and a bit hard.
Since the "confirm routing" is a submit-button (similar to "post" here in forum) and browser cannot do ctrl+click to new tab on those. Recommend to open 1 route, then use the 'copy this route to next day' fnction (visible in the "OK route is now created" window)
Quote from: connorc17 on February 14, 2012, 07:44:09 PM
My only complaint is with the opening new route feature. I'm using safari on windows and when I receive a list of airports I can fly to from my base, I try to open a new tab for each destination by right clicking the green arrow. However this takes me right back to the beginning of the open a new route feature. This is creating a lot of unnecessary difficulty for me as I'm trying to 7 day schedule planes.
This should work now.
could i also participate in this beta
rafa
Quote from: rafseb on February 14, 2012, 08:19:05 PM
could i also participate in this beta
172 open spots still left.
I am probably doing something stupid because this is not what this beta testing is about but when choosing base airport during game starting, there was no auto-carrying of the selected base airport to the startup page. As far as I remember when I selected an airport there should have been a button to close the popup and carry the 4-letter code of the airport to the startup page. I somehow couldn't manage to do that and typed the 4-letter code manually.
Time zone and airport size does not reset when canceling stopover.
If I select a view schedule in new aircraft it does not allow me to add routes I added early. I am going to try to recreate a few more times.
this is probably too much to ask in this stage (beta-testing) of development but selecting of tech stops could have been fancier. For example it may suggest me a list of airports that are near the great circle arc and near the max range of my aircraft (or near halfway between airports). Also, there can be a warning if the airport couple selected are normally unreachable without a tech stop. What I am imagining is something like:
Departure airport: EHAM
Destination airport: LGIR
Warning!!! Your Fokker 50 (max range 540 nm) may only fly this route (1339 nm) with 2 tech stops. First stop may be on for example LJLJ, LJPZ or LIPQ. Second stop may be on for example LATI or LYTV.
EDIT: I assumed multiple tech stops were included but it seems only 1 tech stop is possible. Am I doing sth wrong? I tried to do EHAM-LJLJ*-LATI*-LGIR-LATI*-LJLJ*-EHAM but failed to do so.
EDIT2: I just saw your earlier post. Doing it manually via address bar.
EDIT3: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Open/EHAM/LGIR/LJLJ,LATI/LYTV,LIPQ/?go=1 worked ok. Will UI be changed to accomodate this style?
another thing: with tech stops being increased to 2, it is quite hard to adjust timing when one of the tech stops have a curfew. As of now the only method I can find is manually calculating. In the route open page where the distances between legs are displayed, the curfews of airports (if exists) and the time of techstop can also be displayed (in red if it hits a curfew).
Quote from: sami on February 14, 2012, 08:09:10 PM
This should work now.
Just tried and I'm getting the same result. My issue was the same as jetwestinc's. Would switching browser's help or is this problem applicable to all browsers?
Edit: Just kidding! Tried it again and it works! Thanks Sami!
another thing: When user selects a tech stop airport for outbound flight, there should be an option to select the same for the inbound leg instead of finding the same airport once again since most of the time the tech stops will be the same stops both ways.
EDIT: also in the same page one cannot know if the selected stop is good for the range of a plane or not. the distance between each leg can be shown in this page instead of the next page (instead of the page where we select time and airplane etc).
Also when the user sees the range was a little too much, it should be possible to edit the techstop from that page (the page where we select time and airplane etc). If returned with the back button of the browser, it goes all the way back where we select base and destination. It becomes a clickfest.
Not sure if this is a bug but when I am choosing an airport to open a route to, if I scroll down to the bottom of the page and then go to the next page, the airport that was at the bottom of the first page is also at the top of the next page.
Quote from: connorc17 on February 14, 2012, 10:47:59 PM
Just tried and I'm getting the same result. My issue was the same as jetwestinc's. Would switching browser's help or is this problem applicable to all browsers?
Edit: Just kidding! Tried it again and it works! Thanks Sami!
Still having the same problem after clearing my cache. when I ctrl+click the green check instead of opening a new tab it stays with the same screen.
Don
I am not sure if this is a problem on my end, of if the test server is somehow bandwidth limited, but when I do a simple selection on Open Route:
Starting LAX,
continent Europe
range 5250-5750
Large Airports
It seems to load the list, it is shown grayed out, and the "Loading" spinner keeps spinning... Spinning never ends.
And yes, I refreshed...
Moving on, opened the route with URL to bypass the airport selection. Quick comment on fonts on route opening / editing screen. They are much harder to read. Big cosmetic change for the worse. The old font does not take any more space, but it is a lot more readable.
Clicking confirm on create route gives me the endless spinner again. Something must be going on that is is not allowing me to access any of the screens. Worked ok at home, IE9, "direct" connection to Internet.
Office, IE8, going through proxy/firewall = no go
Re: Route Timetable
Nice feature, but I think it is going to take forever to load the airline stats. I think something should be built in to disable loading if it exceeds certain size, and user would be prompted to reload completely (optionally).
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 15, 2012, 07:15:22 AM
Moving on, opened the route with URL to bypass the airport selection. Quick comment on fonts on route opening / editing screen. They are much harder to read. Big cosmetic change for the worse. The old font does not take any more space, but it is a lot more readable.
Exactly the same fonts as before (??).
Quote from: sami on February 15, 2012, 08:50:02 AM
Exactly the same fonts as before (??).
The fonts on the old system are more "bold". Bot exactly bold. Maybe i should say it differently, on the new font, the lines making up the letters or symbols are thinner. I am looking side by side. The difference is obvious with the naked eye, more visible with a magnifying glass.
at work cant get onto the route planning screen when i click to open the list of airports all i get is a constant spinner and faded airports.
Quote from: nice1two on February 15, 2012, 01:23:10 PM
at work cant get onto the route planning screen when i click to open the list of airports all i get is a constant spinner and faded airports.
I get the same issue at work. Thanks for confirming / reproducing it.
AWS 1.3 works just fine for me at work (earlier firewall/proxy issues disappeared for me completely). AWS 1.31 route opening airport selection and "Confirm" button on route create / edit gives me the endless spinner thing...
Something must have changed in the way data is transferred in the newest version...
No, it is IE incompatibility bug. (ie8?). Need to investigate
Quote from: diskoerekto on February 14, 2012, 10:45:35 PM
another thing: with tech stops being increased to 2, it is quite hard to adjust timing when one of the tech stops have a curfew.
Hover mouse over the blue (i) icon in editor,next to each leg's flight time.
Quote from: jetwestinc on February 15, 2012, 02:05:25 AM
Still having the same problem after clearing my cache. when I ctrl+click the green check instead of opening a new tab it stays with the same screen.
right click -> open new tab. By browser behaviour the ctrl-click seems to be in this case the same as regular click, for some reason.
Quote from: ARASKA on February 14, 2012, 11:34:21 PM
Not sure if this is a bug but when I am choosing an airport to open a route to, if I scroll down to the bottom of the page and then go to the next page, the airport that was at the bottom of the first page is also at the top of the next page.
Fixed.
Quote from: diskoerekto on February 14, 2012, 10:58:44 PM
If returned with the back button of the browser, it goes all the way back where we select base and destination. It becomes a clickfest.
Added a link to top right corner for this in editor. Also the 'return' button at end of form does the proper back effect now.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 15, 2012, 09:11:38 AM
The fonts on the old system are more "bold". Bot exactly bold. Maybe i should say it differently, on the new font, the lines making up the letters or symbols are thinner. I am looking side by side. The difference is obvious with the naked eye, more visible with a magnifying glass.
The fonts and their size and their boldness is completely identical to previous version in all aspects in the editing screen. (FF and IE9 tested)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 15, 2012, 07:19:58 AM
Clicking confirm on create route gives me the endless spinner again. Something must be going on that is is not allowing me to access any of the screens. Worked ok at home, IE9, "direct" connection to Internet.
Office, IE8, going through proxy/firewall = no go
IE8 issues should be fixed. Needs a cache clear.
I have a small issue too, but since it is not a bug I think it's best to place it here. When I look at my own airline page and go to the brand new route timetables tab I can view all my routes currently flying. I noticed my base airport (LHR) is in the list too, but it has a new tab to every destination I'm flying to (one tab for LHR-JFK, the next tab for LHR-ORD). I my opinion this doesn't look too nice. Might it be possible to to list all your destinations ex base airport(s) under one tab, with the different destinations onder sub-tabs. Something like:
London Heathrow
to: New York JFK
1234567 RA001 etc
1234567 RA003 etc
to: Chicago O'Hare
1234567 RA005 etc
to: Dubai
1234567 RA007 etc
Hope you get what I mean :P
I think it gets a lot clearer when adding this!
Oh and maybe this has been discussed, but if if range is the reason for this feature then wouldn't it make more sense to make a routing that goes like, for example an LHR to JFK flight as follows: EGLL-EGNT-BIKF-KJFK-BIKF-EGNT-EGLL
Because now you can't increase the range further then in V1.3...
Regards,
Dutch
Browser IE8
- The airport selection on open route no longer has the endless spinner
- from airport selection, list, open in new tab does not work. The URL on the check icon to select the route has only Games/Routes not a specific Games/Routes/ABC/XYZ
- Confirm on editing/creating a route still has the endless hourglass. The route does created, but the next screen is never returned...
- I don't know if this was planned to fix, but my route LAX FCO, that is pax limited by weight, has both legs of the trip the same pax capacity. Even though one leg is 1 hour longer than the other.
I will check some pax limited tech stop routes with tech stops next.
(solved: the route lost its slots)
Route:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/View/814/
is not showing up on the Globe (supply demand graph). All the routes were created without ever getting the confirmation (next screen) back (was stuck of the endless loading animation). The one above was the first one I created. Maybe the server did not fully create the route originally. The next 5 routes show up correctly on the chart.
The Routes with a stop over do not show up in route specific marking campaign.
Quote from: sami on February 15, 2012, 03:07:17 PM
right click -> open new tab. By browser behaviour the ctrl-click seems to be in this case the same as regular click, for some reason.
This no longer works anymore...
It would be nice to have the globe (or 2 globe) icons for demand pop available when origin and destination are selected (to make it easier to see where to place the tech stop).
Joe
I'm not sure if this is a bug, but I've not seen it before. For a 0:00 night curfew, it shows both 0 and 24.
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2F2chkqo.png&hash=977b77b601c562de62ae3a27292c0e4b6076ce09)
Just a note, the 'Route Timetables' on the airline information page would be great to view in chronological order.
Creating route A-T-B-A, I end up with A-T-B-A (good)
Creating route A-B-T-A, I end up with A-T-B-A (bad)
Route A-B is beyond the rang of the full load, so it is limiting pax
Route A-T-B is not limiting pax (good)
Route B-A is limiting pax (good)
B-A takes over 1 hour longer to fly than A-B. So max pax load on A-B should be more than B-A. They are equal (Not so good).
Interesting observation:
Tab 1 open in MT6
Tab 2 open in MT6
I change game in Tab 2 to Test Server
When I perform actions in Tab 2, I am on Test server
When I perform actions in Tab 1, I am in MT6
When I open a new Tab 3 from Tab 2 (Test Server), Tab 3 is in Test Server
When I open a new Tab 4 from Tab 1 (MT6), Tab 4 is in Test Server. New tab takes the last server logged into setting.
This is on IE9.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 16, 2012, 01:12:43 AM
Interesting observation:
You cannot have multiple worlds open at the same time in same browser, different tabs or no.
Hi Sami
I know this was raised earlier by Jumboshrimp but can't see latest on it looking back thru posts.
Loading... on confirming Open Route is still happening. Route is created okay and can be scheduled. Running with IE8.
Try to schedule a flight from KIAD (IAD) to MWCB (CYB) with a 738. The runway is 1829 M at CYB and my aircraft needs 1850M at MTOW. It says the the aircraft can't fly this route but it should be a restricted to less PAX not all out can't do.
Maybe I am missing something.
Demand between those cities is 10pax p/d, and since you are limited to operate twice the demand it is not possible with a 738 (I honestly don't see the point of opening up that route :P)
Quote from: Dutchgliders on February 16, 2012, 04:34:22 PM
Demand between those cities is 10pax p/d ... (I honestly don't see the point of opening up that route )
Well that's not the point at all in this test world. (to make profits or similar)
Quote from: terminalwander on February 16, 2012, 03:40:44 PM
Try to schedule a flight from KIAD (IAD) to MWCB (CYB) with a 738. The runway is 1829 M at CYB and my aircraft needs 1850M at MTOW. It says the the aircraft can't fly this route but it should be a restricted to less PAX not all out can't do.
You cannot fly 737 to that airport at all (due to size), it's not even listed there if you check again...
You cannot fly 737 to that airport at all (due to size), it's not even listed there if you check again...
[/quote]
My bad. I forget a 737 is a large aircraft. I will Keep looking.
Any Ideas on the Marketing problem?
Airport slots seem to be very random at the current date, KJFK-29, KMSP-43, KORD-69, not important to me but does not look acurate for the current date.
Also having the same problem with IE8 with non stop loading icon upon route confirmation, works fine on the same PC with Safari.
Quote from: psw231 on February 17, 2012, 12:25:11 AM
Airport slots seem to be very random at the current date, KJFK-29, KMSP-43, KORD-69, not important to me but does not look acurate for the current date.
Remember slots start at 50% and grow to 200% of real world values during the first 5(?) years in AWS so perhaps this is why it looks strange to you.
Anti monopoly warnong for PSW Airways on the KJFK-KIAH route, I am running 4/321 with 185 seats each=740 seats total, demand shows up for me at 514-679, also when in route planning screen none of my flights are listed at the bottom of the page although there are stats in route management for this route.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 16, 2012, 01:07:10 AM
Creating route A-T-B-A, I end up with A-T-B-A (good)
Creating route A-B-T-A, I end up with A-T-B-A (bad)
Did you use the direct URL (probably the cause) or the airport selector?
Quote from: psw231 on February 17, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Anti monopoly warnong for PSW Airways on the KJFK-KIAH route, I am running 4/321 with 185 seats each=740 seats total, demand shows up for me at 514-679, also when in route planning screen none of my flights are listed at the bottom of the page although there are stats in route management for this route.
The warnings are correct, and have not changed, so check again pls.
Quote from: sami on February 17, 2012, 04:39:26 PM
Did you use the direct URL (probably the cause) or the airport selector?
I used the user interface. I created the routes both ways, but in both cases I ended up with A-T-B-A route. I did not try with direct URLs.
yes, ok, saw it too now.
Remainder of reported bugs will be fixed hopefully tomorrow and the last couple of missing features will be added on monday by latest.
Quote from: sami on February 17, 2012, 06:05:12 PM
yes, ok, saw it too now.
Remainder of reported bugs will be fixed hopefully tomorrow and the last couple of missing features will be added on monday by latest.
Is the different pax load based on flight time going to be part of this? I think it probably would make sense, since with more flexible tech stops, players could fine tune their routes to maximize efficiency.
Also, there were some issues of how flights with tech stops going across the date line were reported:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34238.0.html
Quote from: psw231 on February 17, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Anti monopoly warnong for PSW Airways on the KJFK-KIAH route, I am running 4/321 with 185 seats each=740 seats total, demand shows up for me at 514-679, also when in route planning screen none of my flights are listed at the bottom of the page although there are stats in route management for this route.
Ignore this post as flown route was KJFK-KHOU which explains all of the above.
Are alliances not activated in this game?
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 15, 2012, 07:52:15 PM
- from airport selection, list, open in new tab does not work. The URL on the check icon to select the route has only Games/Routes not a specific Games/Routes/ABC/XYZ
- Confirm on editing/creating a route still has the endless hourglass. The route does created, but the next screen is never returned...
- I don't know if this was planned to fix, but my route LAX FCO, that is pax limited by weight, has both legs of the trip the same pax capacity. Even though one leg is 1 hour longer than the other.
1) url bug fixed
2) should be ok now
3) not planned, would be a bit complicated.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 16, 2012, 01:07:10 AM
Creating route A-T-B-A, I end up with A-T-B-A (good)
Creating route A-B-T-A, I end up with A-T-B-A (bad)
fixed.
..so seems to be the last of bugs mentioned in this thread now.
Just have noticed this morning (PST) that while planning routes the destination aerodrome is taking a lot longer to load than I've ever seen before. Everything else is quick as usual except for that.
Quote from: sami on February 18, 2012, 04:48:17 PM
1) url bug fixed
Something about the quick opening to the new tab does not work correctly. Ctrl Click or Mouse Wheel Click, that normally open a new tab, instead consider the click to be a regular click (hence, we stay in the same tab).
However, explicit way of doing it (Right click on the icon, and selecting Open Link in new tab) does work.
Immediately after creating a route, links such as:
Leg 1: KLAX - CYFB - LIRF
Leg 2: LIRF - KLAX
don't open the details of the individual legs.
However, when I open a route by clicking on the schedule, viewing one of the routes in a new tab, the above links do work.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 16, 2012, 01:07:10 AM
Creating route A-T-B-A, I end up with A-T-B-A (good)
Creating route A-B-T-A, I end up with A-T-B-A (bad)
Works now. And passenger limits for A-T-B-A vs. A-B-T-A also work correctly here, in 1.31 (fixed from 1.3).
I can't re-test the IE8 issues until later...
New issue I came across:
In 1.3, a tech stop route shows the tech stop on the map that is part of the demand graph pop up. The tech stop(s) don't appear on the new 1.31.
After choosing both techstops when you click either "change selection" a new "add technical stopover" appears for both techstops instead of only one for the modified leg.
EDIT:
Mistake, it happens when you have opened possible airport lists for both techstops without choosing one.
Yesterday there were like 200 737 classics still available. Today, they've all been scrapped except about 10.
Very realistic! And most of them weren't even 15 years old.
Quote from: Ilyushin on February 19, 2012, 03:37:59 PM
Yesterday there were like 200 737 classics still available. Today, they've all been scrapped except about 10.
Very realistic! And most of them weren't even 15 years old.
All you need is 1 if you are really testing the new interface...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 19, 2012, 06:07:47 PM
All you need is 1 if you are really testing the new interface...
Ok.
And now?
:')
I re-tried the IE8 confirm issue, and it is ok now.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 18, 2012, 08:16:07 PM
Something about the quick opening to the new tab does not work correctly. Ctrl Click or Mouse Wheel Click, that normally open a new tab, instead consider the click to be a regular click (hence, we stay in the same tab).
However, explicit way of doing it (Right click on the icon, and selecting Open Link in new tab) does work.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 18, 2012, 08:52:29 PM
New issue I came across:
In 1.3, a tech stop route shows the tech stop on the map that is part of the demand graph pop up. The tech stop(s) don't appear on the new 1.31.
This is the only 2 issues I am aware of at this point.
currently trying to open route, using google chrome is searching for europe fine but when i select a destination just says loading constantly
Not a bug in the new version per se, but in the past 24 hours I had reserved a 717 with just over an year remaining until D check and it disappeared while I was fiddling with loans and configurations (even though I don't think I spent 3 minutes doing that). Today the was back, D check having been done, and at a price that is 10% less what it was prior to the D check. The lessor would probably want to recoup the outlay for the check. The global statistics page still shows "In use - 4" and "Scrapped - 14" for a total produced of 18, will have to see what happens when the 717 is delivered.
Also, in the native symbian s.60 browser on my E66 the game menu text is displayed in white on pale blue background and the individual aircraft pages are virtually unreadable because of misaligned columns. I realize that this is a problem with the browser and not with the tested version (and that the easiest solution by far is to simply use Opera mini or some other browser), but since I wasn't able to test the new version properly in the last few days because of this, I put it here.
Quote from: nice1two on February 20, 2012, 09:28:09 AM
currently trying to open route, using google chrome is searching for europe fine but when i select a destination just says loading constantly
same thing happened to me with chrome
Looks like there is fuel cost calculation error somewhere.
I'm flying (single) Tu-204-100 from EGSS to RJAA in 4 different ways, utilizing it almost fully (9 hours doing nothing + 5 hours A check, rest of the week is inflight):
1.
Leg 1: EGSS - UWGG - UNKL - RJAA => fuel cost ~60k (according to route info charts)
Leg 2: RJAA - PACD - CYFB - EGSS => fuel cost ~90k
2.
Leg 1: EGSS - UWGG - UNKL - RJAA => fuel cost ~65k
Leg 2: RJAA - UNKL - UWGG - EGSS => fuel cost ~65k
3.
Leg 1: EGSS - UOOO - RJAA => fuel cost ~70k
Leg 2: RJAA - UOOO - EGSS => fuel cost ~70k
4.
Leg 1: EGSS - CYFB - PACD - RJAA => fuel cost ~95k
Leg 2: RJAA - UNKL - UWGG - EGSS => fuel cost ~60k
Total weekly fuel cost estimate (according to aircraft page): ~300k
I am flying another tu204 to KEWR via CYYT, with almost full 24h break during the week.
Fuel cost per leg: ~40k
Total weekly fuel cost estimate: ~500k
500k for fuel to KEWR but only 300k to RJAA doing 'around the globe' trips? Something doesn't add up.
Are you saying that the fuel is calculated by origin and destination airports (and ignoring actual routes taken through tech stops)?
If it is just the difference in figures for outward and return journey then consider prevailing winds and various payloads change the fuel needed per trip.
There is random factor too, I can take a closer look on the actual figures later on.
Quote from: alexgv1 on February 20, 2012, 07:53:58 PM
Are you saying that the fuel is calculated by origin and destination airports (and ignoring actual routes taken through tech stops)?
If it is just the difference in figures for outward and return journey then consider prevailing winds and various payloads change the fuel needed per trip.
I'm saying that the cost of fuel to fly 3000nm route with 1 tech stop seems higher than the cost of fuel to fly 5000+ nm route with 2 tech stops (not only longer but more takeoffs) ;-). In my case outward and return journey are in some cases completely different, so differences are expected.
Could be that it's only the estimate from "my aircraft" that is wrong though - it predicts 300k weekly fuel cost, but manually adding the costs yields 600k+ (just one leg is 100k in one case!).
However, it seems more or less correct for my EGSS-KEWR route and my weekly losses from EGSS-RJAA route are consistent with estimates.
Trying to open a route with technical stop
then trying to increase the time for the default turnaround
when the time comes to create (copy) the route for the same or the next day then you have to adjust the turnaround time again and again (turnaround time resets to default on each copy)
This issue doesn't appear when you copy flights to routes without technical stops
------------------------------
at this time not even the creation of a route tih technical stop doesn't work correctly
I create the route with tech stop but on scheduling the route appears to have a shorter time
Possibly something is worked on right now (by sami?)
Step by step example on that please
trying to create the root EGGL (LHR) at 22:50 to Melbourne, YMML (MEL) with a tech stop at VYMD with A340
turnaround time set to 7:10 hours
1. when I schedule the plane then on scheduler the flight seem to be shorter than the normal one ( I have 2 same flights on the same plane ex WWWA in case you can see my flights)[/s]
(yesterday though this was working properly- I created similar flights)
the problem reproduced to both chrome and firefox
It seems there is a miscalculation in the code and instead of having a flight of 2+ days in total , the system looses one whole day (so it leaves you more time in scheduler to plan a new flight lol)
2. Also when I try to create a copy of the flight for the next day or even the same day then each time I need to readjust the turnaround time to 7:10 since on each copy of the flight the turnaround time resets to default of the plane. Tried that without tech stop and it works. With tech stop you have to adjust the turnaround time on each copy
some more details for the 2 issues
1. at first image we can see 3 exactly same flights in scheduler. as you can see , the third one misses one day on the diagram (possibly because it starts on 22:50 and somehow there is a miscalculation somewhere in the code.
Flight details EGGL (LHR) at 22:50 to Melbourne, YMML (MEL) with a tech stop at VYMD with A340
2. On second issue, we create the above flight and set the turnaround time at 430 minutes (7:10 hours), well beyond the default turnaround time as defined in the settings.
When we create a copy of this flight (for the same or the next day) then the turnaround time is not copied. Instead we see the default again
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 18, 2012, 08:16:07 PM
Ctrl Click or Mouse Wheel Click, that normally open a new tab, instead consider the click to be a regular click (hence, we stay in the same tab).
It's a browser issue, but I added now a crude fix to it .. it tries to detect if you click on the airport link with ctrl button down, and if detected it opens a new window (or tab if set so in browser settings). Not tested outside Firefox yet.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 18, 2012, 08:22:50 PM
Immediately after creating a route, links such as:
Leg 1: KLAX - CYFB - LIRF
don't open the details of the individual legs.
OK.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 18, 2012, 08:52:29 PM
In 1.3, a tech stop route shows the tech stop on the map that is part of the demand graph pop up. The tech stop(s) don't appear on the new 1.31.
Should not appear in first place.
Quote from: MA831 on February 20, 2012, 12:07:58 PM
Not a bug in the new version per se, but in the past 24 hours I had reserved a 717 with just over an year remaining until D check and it disappeared while I was fiddling with loans and configurations (even though I don't think I spent 3 minutes doing that).
The plane can only disappear from the market if the 3 minute window was used.
Quote from: nice1two on February 20, 2012, 09:28:09 AM
currently trying to open route, using google chrome is searching for europe fine but when i select a destination just says loading constantly
Works just fine here with Chrome, clear the cache.
Quote from: teamwork on February 21, 2012, 09:20:32 AM
2. Also when I try to create a copy of the flight for the next day or even the same day then each time I need to readjust the turnaround time to 7:10 since on each copy of the flight the turnaround time resets to default of the plane. Tried that without tech stop and it works. With tech stop you have to adjust the turnaround time on each copy
OK.
Quote from: teamwork on February 21, 2012, 09:20:32 AM
1. when I schedule the plane then on scheduler the flight seem to be shorter than the normal one ( I have 2 same flights on the same plane ex WWWA in case you can see my
OK.
Quote from: sami on February 21, 2012, 07:40:30 PM
It's a browser issue, but I added now a crude fix to it .. it tries to detect if you click on the airport link with ctrl button down, and if detected it opens a new window (or tab if set so in browser settings). Not tested outside Firefox yet.
Would be awesome if that could work in Opera too... maybe not even the CTRL-Click, but the "right click --> Open in new Tab" kind of thing, as that used to be really good...
currently I need to go a pretty crazy way, which is to enter departure and destination airport in the URL-Line and press Shift-Enter to open that in a new tab... the priorly described (or CTRL-Click) would make life a lot easier, and routes opening/planning much more efficient and less time consuming.
-----------
Yet I must call this beta a great success in terms of design and usability. As a feature to coming games I'd like to bring up an older idea of mine again: speed servers with 10 (or if that is too fast 20) minute game days for faster walkthrough, as usually the first couple of years into a game are pretty boring as there is nothing much to do, except for waiting.
Additionally I'd like (for easier maths) to call back (as asked for by many people many times before my break) the 30 minute game days (no need for discussion, just bringing up the thought again, so it does not get forgotten ;) ) .
One last point (something I made you crazy with long ago, dear Mr. Puro) when is the "long" game world going to be scheduled? Can we expect that through 2012, or is it worth taking a longer break until 2X00?!
Cheers
Quote from: T8KE0FF on February 15, 2012, 09:34:16 PM
I'm not sure if this is a bug, but I've not seen it before. For a 0:00 night curfew, it shows both 0 and 24.
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2F2chkqo.png&hash=977b77b601c562de62ae3a27292c0e4b6076ce09)
Just a note, the 'Route Timetables' on the airline information page would be great to view in chronological order.
That is purely random ;) not only one pair of Airports having that... consider it for the sake of variety :)
Don't people just middle mouse button click to open in a new tab rather than ctrl+left mouse button... Do people only have two buttoned mouses or can it just not be configured in their browsers?
Quote from: alexgv1 on February 21, 2012, 11:23:25 PM
Don't people just middle mouse button click to open in a new tab rather than ctrl+left mouse button... Do people only have two buttoned mouses or can it just not be configured in their browsers?
Always when I use middle mouse button (which is my mousewheel) I pull down half the page... so I stay conservative ;) might be that others have the same problem
For info - I haven't had time to finish the interface on choosing the second techstop, but will attempt to do that during weekend.
I know it's a bit late, but it says the quick beta will be ending soon and that I cannot join - is it truly ending or will you be extending it? :D
Cheers,
ICEcold
Quote from: ICEcold on February 24, 2012, 02:07:49 AM
I know it's a bit late, but it says the quick beta will be ending soon and that I cannot join - is it truly ending or will you be extending it? :D
Cheers,
ICEcold
Sami has never extended a game world in the history of this page... IIRC it has some technical issues, so don't expect it to happen!!
I'm not 100% shure if this have been said earlier, but when I created A-B-C-A route, it doesn't show the actual route in my route map.
It is around the world -route from Narita to Washington via Jomo Kenyatta.
Is it a bug that in Jan 2010 that only the 787-8 has been announced and niether the 787-3/9 has been?
None of the A350 versions are to be seen yet either.
Sad to see this world actually come to an end - i guess its because its one of the few were i could get in early and establish myself at a large airport
In terms of bugs, the only real one i have noticed is that when trying to create a route (by clicking on the green tick) it can sometimes stay on Loading for ever. I dont think its a cache issue as if i go into another game world it works fine, I have tried on different OS/Browser combinations and when the issue happens it seems to stick around for a while.
Loving the small numbers & 10min days. It does make the game more interesting for the newer players :)
Quote from: markj23 on February 28, 2012, 07:06:20 AM
Loving the small numbers & 10min days. It does make the game more interesting for the newer players :)
Agree :D
Can't wait for the next game with 10min days and more start-up money ;)
Quote from: Meicci on February 26, 2012, 10:30:20 AM
I'm not 100% shure if this have been said earlier, but when I created A-B-C-A route, it doesn't show the actual route in my route map.
It is around the world -route from Narita to Washington via Jomo Kenyatta.
Done to avoid spamming of the route maps. Used to be like that in the "Airport Route Maps" and I assume it has been moved to the Airline's one as well. I kinda like that :)
Quote from: psw231 on February 27, 2012, 08:32:30 AM
Is it a bug that in Jan 2010 that only the 787-8 has been announced and niether the 787-3/9 has been?
None of the A350 versions are to be seen yet either.
Only Aircraft actually becoming available before the game ends are announced/able to order. Since the game is only going another 5 mths ingame it is pretty understandable why none of these have yet come up.
That the -8 is the only of the 787 series is simply due to the random release dates of the aircraft (modified to be +/-18mths around the real world one --> can be anywhere in a 3 year diameter around that day, which can lead to these distortions)
Quote from: alin2s1 on February 28, 2012, 06:42:21 PM
Agree :D
Can't wait for the next game with 10min days and more start-up money ;)
Wait for the next Beta. Speed servers had been discussed pretty a while ago, and IIRC been declined.
Quote from: markj23 on February 28, 2012, 07:06:20 AM
Sad to see this world actually come to an end.
Indeed, sad it is!! Always loving the betas :)
Quote from: markj23 on February 28, 2012, 07:06:20 AM
It does make the game more interesting for the newer players :)
Have you yet tried the "beginners world"-scenario?! That should fit the needs of newer players well :)
I hope I could help!
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on February 28, 2012, 10:43:59 PM
Have you yet tried the "beginners world"-scenario?! That should fit the needs of newer players well :)
Yep, but it really takes a few goes in a real game world to understand the mistakes your making and realise how the bigger players do it. And for me it doesn't help that im on the other side of the world so timezone differences really dont help in the big 500-600 player game worlds - you lose out in the sense you cant get into the bigger bases as most decent slots/routes are already getting hammered etc.
So thats why i think smaller worlds, faster game times and shorter games - ie a month (real world) would suit better. Maybe tiered versions of the games could work. Something like
Advanced
30min days
Starting Cash Factor x1
Intermediate
20min days
starting cash factor x5
Limited to 2 games before having to play advanced
Beginner
10min days
starting cash factor x10
Limited to 3 games before having to play intermediate
Some other rules could be tweaked a little, but it gives natural progression through the game and the shorter game worlds and more starting cash gives the beginners the instant reward that most are looking for.
Quote from: markj23 on February 29, 2012, 11:58:38 PM
Yep, but it really takes a few goes in a real game world to understand the mistakes your making and realise how the bigger players do it. And for me it doesn't help that im on the other side of the world so timezone differences really dont help in the big 500-600 player game worlds - you lose out in the sense you cant get into the bigger bases as most decent slots/routes are already getting hammered etc.
So thats why i think smaller worlds, faster game times and shorter games - ie a month (real world) would suit better. Maybe tiered versions of the games could work. Something like
Advanced
30min days
Starting Cash Factor x1
Intermediate
20min days
starting cash factor x5
Limited to 2 games before having to play advanced
Beginner
10min days
starting cash factor x10
Limited to 3 games before having to play intermediate
Some other rules could be tweaked a little, but it gives natural progression through the game and the shorter game worlds and more starting cash gives the beginners the instant reward that most are looking for.
I really like that you come up with ideas, maybe copy-paste that part into the "Feature Request" part of the forum.
You are actually lucky that you have the BW scenarios, when I started AWS 2.5yrs ago I was in the big bad games immediately after the demo. Took me 5 BKs to get my first airline running (from MLA with about 10 planes in the end) and after I got some Ideas from the game I tried LHR, which from then on was nearly always my main hub.
My suggestion to you is pretty easily makeable:
Read all the topics about newcomer strategies (Curse's FAQ is also decent), and maybe write down core parts of that [by hand gives the brain the best memory effect ;) ]
Get into a game and search for some nice class 3 or 4 airport and try to get a small airline running profitably (mind not to take too small planes as these will be your undertakers) and work it out to make cash.
Once you got that done try an airport a bit larger and use larger planes as well, maybe start some Long Haul routes.
When you got that managed well, after some experiments to maximize efficiency (such as 7-day-scheduling, etc.) and you feel self confident for a big one, go for that and try. If it won't work out the first time try to find out what your problem was (and don't blame competition, that is by far not your biggest enemy at first) and fix it.
If you want help, don't hesitate to ask via PM.
cheers,
Jona L.
The current game world system just isn't enough. For experienced players it is, because they always have a good start, and enjoy the "cruise"-part of the game, because it ain't so hectic.
But for us who doesn't always get a good start, 3-4 month games are annoyingly long. Now, when the test server ended, I have to wait for over 2 months to start a new airline (I personally hate JA, so don't point that out please).
All the airports, where I would like to build up an airline, are taken in current game worlds with at least two big airlines already in there. So only thing I can do is to wait for a restart, unfortunately.
Are there anyone else who enjoys only (or mostly) the first years of a game world? For me, the best thing in AWS is the start, and after that, things get boring. 1-2 month game worlds with a little faster days (20-25mins) would be absolutely perfect in my opinion.
Game world extended to 2020.
Quote from: alexgv1 on March 01, 2012, 02:47:48 PM
Game world extended to 2020.
Wow, nice. But the time seems to be stuck now at 23:59.
Quote from: Meicci on March 01, 2012, 03:53:15 PM
Wow, nice. But the time seems to be stuck now at 23:59.
...And the day length has set at 90 minutes...
Extended, but not for general use, just for my testing...
It might be a good idea to open a "game forum" for the test server, so that we can keep track of issues individually, without having to go through number of pages of this thread...
Quote from: sami on March 01, 2012, 09:17:53 PM
Extended, but not for general use, just for my testing...
:( Too bad, we already started ordering new planes :))
Just noticed a problem in the new route page when you scrolling the pages the last airport on the page is the first on the next page.
Hope you understood me.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 01, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
It might be a good idea to open a "game forum" for the test server, so that we can keep track of issues individually, without having to go through number of pages of this thread...
There are no issues remaining, apart for the check of fuel consumption on techstops, so no need.
Anyway - as a general note. I am lacking a bit behind on my schedules and have not done the 2nd stop selection yet. But hopefully soon, and then I can probably extend the game a bit and make it run again for a few days. Will inform here.
The interface for selecting the 2nd techstop is now done.
Quote from: sami on March 03, 2012, 06:03:53 PM
The interface for selecting the 2nd techstop is now done.
Looking good so far :)
Quote from: chiveicrook on February 20, 2012, 07:17:31 PM
Looks like there is fuel cost calculation error somewhere.
I'm flying (single) Tu-204-100 from EGSS to RJAA in 4 different ways, utilizing it almost fully (9 hours doing nothing + 5 hours A check, rest of the week is inflight):
Tested as follows:
- calculation randomization off (no allocation for variable routes or winds).
- A320
- 1: EGLL-EPGD-EGLL
- 2: EGLL-EDDK*-EPGD-EDDK*-EGLL
- 3: EGLL-EDDK*-LIMJ*-EGPD-EDDK*-LIMJ*-EGLL
Before calculation, database shows that route 1 leg 1 (egll-epgd) would have fuel usage of 3163kg. Route 2 leg 1 (egll-eddk-epgd) will have fuel usage of 7075kg and route 3 leg 1 (egll-eddk-limj-epgd) shows 12730kg (the data is pre-calculated with "optimum" route).
Processed 7 days in the game and looked up route history: avg fuel usage for route 1 leg 1 was $1600, and for route 2 leg 1 $3500, and route 3 leg 1 $6200. Seems to be correct. With random factors in calculation turned on it's roughly the same (route 3 leg 1 avg fuel burn for 7 days is $6400).
This is the last issue to be checked in my mind, so the system is going live very soon now.
Sami, is it just me or does the new route opening system feel sluggish? Im not sure how else to describe it but it definitely seems to take longer to respond than the old method.
Try with the mobile version, http://mobi.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Open
Most likely the 'fancy flag dropdown' menu what is causing it. However no tester reported of that, and works fine here too.
Hi Sami,
I asked about this before but in what way can you increase the range of an airplane with the new stopover function?
regards,
Dutch
Um, what?
Quote from: Dutchgliders on March 04, 2012, 04:51:58 PM
Hi Sami,
I asked about this before but in what way can you increase the range of an airplane with the new stopover function?
regards,
Dutch
Taking into account flight time to increase the range in one direction did not happen AFAIK, if that's what you mean. It would have upset too many routes, IMO. But it would be a good idea to implement it in the next version.
Was the marketing ever fix? I could never do route marketing on routs with a stop over.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 04, 2012, 05:33:06 PM
Taking into account flight time to increase the range in one direction did not happen AFAIK, if that's what you mean. It would have upset too many routes, IMO. But it would be a good idea to implement it in the next version.
From what I understand this function was to increase the range planes in e.g. the jet age can fly.
If this is not the case, then am I to understand that it is purely for the sake of lay out (job done btw)?
If the jet age thing is true, then I wonder how can this increase the range of an AC?
regards,
Dutch
Quote from: Dutchgliders on March 07, 2012, 08:40:46 PM
From what I understand this function was to increase the range planes in e.g. the jet age can fly.
If this is not the case, then am I to understand that it is purely for the sake of lay out (job done btw)?
If the jet age thing is true, then I wonder how can this increase the range of an AC?
regards,
Dutch
2 tech stops increase the range compared to 1 tech stop.
3 Credits added to all participants according to the "rules" posted in first message.
Quote from: sami on March 12, 2012, 12:51:56 PM
3 Credits added to all participants according to the "rules" posted in first message.
So does that mean we can safely bankrupt (and leave) from this game world now?
Thanks