B717 was called MD-95 before Boeing grabbed it. As far as I know it has the same cockpit, avionics and other systems. It would help many AWS airlines a lot if they could buy B717s and MD-90s and consider them being in the same group. Just a suggestion.. PRETTY PLEASE!! :D
I gotta agree on this one. I stick with the MD-80s usually because the MD-87 is part of the same group and allows for easier service on smaller routes, in reality the MD-90 and 717 are part of the same family and placing them as such would make them competitive against the MD-80 series and allow greater flexibility with the MD-90.
They are and should be but they aren't. Same reason ppl deal with the dash 8 q made by bombardier being different from those made by dehaviland.
Might be too hard/annoying to put two aircraft of technically different manufacturers into the same fleet group.
Partial commonality.... the answer. Got to be my number one feature request, if we ever figure out a way to implement it properly 8)
Quote from: alexgv1 on August 11, 2012, 09:59:27 AM
Partial commonality.... the answer. Got to be my number one feature request, if we ever figure out a way to implement it properly 8)
Oh yes... E145 has 75% parts commonality with the earlier E120 too... :))
alas, I think I sense a '[-]' heading for that idea.... :(
They're different aircrafts commonality wise in the real life so I see no reason why they should be the same fleet type in AWS. Some time ago Blue1 replaced MD90s with B717s and it took a lot of time to re-train the pilots and crews. Just to give an example from the real life.
Quote from: mtnlion on August 11, 2012, 11:33:05 AM
They're different aircrafts commonality wise in the real life so I see no reason why they should be the same fleet type in AWS. Some time ago Blue1 replaced MD90s with B717s and it took a lot of time to re-train the pilots and crews. Just to give an example from the real life.
That is staff training commonality, but there are many levels such as brique said the parts is one. That's why it should be broken down. And of course the differences training of MD90->B717 is less costly and shorter than a new type rating onto another aircraft completely different such as A320.
Quote from: mtnlion on August 11, 2012, 11:33:05 AM
They're different aircrafts commonality wise in the real life so I see no reason why they should be the same fleet type in AWS. Some time ago Blue1 replaced MD90s with B717s and it took a lot of time to re-train the pilots and crews. Just to give an example from the real life.
I don't believe they're that different commonality wise, at least not more than an MD-87 and an MD-81. The training the pilots and crews had to do in Blue1, they would have to do with any different version of the same ship. Same thing if they went from a A321 to A318 for example.
Quote from: AndreBue on August 11, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
The training the pilots and crews had to do in Blue1, they would have to do with any different version of the same ship. Same thing if they went from a A321 to A318 for example.
As per my information, the main types (ie. DC-9, MD-80, MD-90, B717) are all considered different airplane types when it comes to pilot certification. And you need to undergo a type conversion course if you swap between these "main types". (or actually not sure if MD-90 was still counted as MD-80 there, but anyway, that is the principle)
And on the other hand I could fly a mix of any of the small Airbuses during the same work day even (318,319,320,321) and then hop and fly big Airbus on the next day (330/340). Hence baby-Busses are in same fleet, and Douglases not. Another difference may be (have not checked) the cruise speed.
Maintenance and parts commonality is only partly modelled by this, as others have noted. (actually perhaps an idea of "commonality percentage" is not a bad idea, like saying "A320 series has 20% maintenance commonality and 80% training commonality towards 330/340 fleet" .. but who'd is to figure out the numbers then.. and how to apply them to calculations?!)
Okay, gotcha.. :)
Although I know that pilots can fly the different aircraft within the DC-9 series, MD-80 series, and MD-90 series within the same day like within the A320 group. And since the B717 actually is an MD-95, I figured it belonged in the MD-90 group. (My father was a pilot on DC-9, MD-80, MD-90 before)
Maybe the percentage thing is something you could work on (cause I'm sure you have nothing else to do ::) ) before the next world opens?
Quote from: sami on August 11, 2012, 02:38:33 PM
Maintenance and parts commonality is only partly modelled by this, as others have noted. (actually perhaps an idea of "commonality percentage" is not a bad idea, like saying "A320 series has 20% maintenance commonality and 80% training commonality towards 330/340 fleet" .. but who'd is to figure out the numbers then.. and how to apply them to calculations?!)
It's a tough job, but we are sure you could do it :)
but as a small offering : perhaps something on the lines of a fixed percentage 'commonality bonus' for operating a 2nd fleet from the same manufacturer, to reflect parts commonality?
How to apply them to commonaliy calculations wouldn't be too hard, and it could be built into a brand new, more intuitive commonality model, too. I'd cheerfully crunch numbers for that.
How do decide what % overlap there should be in each category between particular groups, that I don't know.
Quote from: Sanabas on August 11, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
How to apply them to commonaliy calculations wouldn't be too hard, and it could be built into a brand new, more intuitive commonality model, too. I'd cheerfully crunch numbers for that.
How do decide what % overlap there should be in each category between particular groups, that I don't know.
The only way to get real numbers would be by contacting real airlines I guess.. or the manufacturers themselves.
Quote from: Sanabas on August 11, 2012, 03:43:28 PM
How to apply them to commonaliy calculations wouldn't be too hard, and it could be built into a brand new, more intuitive commonality model, too. I'd cheerfully crunch numbers for that.
How do decide what % overlap there should be in each category between particular groups, that I don't know.
Thus my notion of a 'bonus' for brand loyalty to offset the existing penalty for starting a different fleet group. It would reflect common parts, tools, working methods, manufacturer-related training, parts inventory systems and supply chains being established already.
So, if it is reduced to just deciding how much of a bonus is applicable between a manufacturers fleet groups (and few seem to get above 3 groups anyway), it shouldn't be that much of a grind gathering the relevant numbers. Or we can just go for something like a simple 50% reduction in the commonality penalty when adding a further fleet from same manufacturer?
Quote from: brique on August 11, 2012, 04:13:08 PM
Thus my notion of a 'bonus' for brand loyalty to offset the existing penalty for starting a different fleet group. It would reflect common parts, tools, working methods, manufacturer-related training, parts inventory systems and supply chains being established already.
So, if it is reduced to just deciding how much of a bonus is applicable between a manufacturers fleet groups (and few seem to get above 3 groups anyway), it shouldn't be that much of a grind gathering the relevant numbers. Or we can just go for something like a simple 50% reduction in the commonality penalty when adding a further fleet from same manufacturer?
I like this concept. It might finally convey some sort of benefit to operators of unusual aircraft such as myself. I'd love a "You're seriously sticking with Tupolev?" discount. ;)
Wouldnt say the Boeing 717 and Md-90 are the perfect example for commonality,
While they are the same family, they have different avionics, power plant and handling
Meaning that many of the bonuses that come with commanility aren't really there
When Boeing took over the project 13 major systems were redesigned to meet Boeing standards
However Saudi did retrofit their Md-90 with Honeywell displays to make their cockpits
Near identical to the 717 (Idea for future?)
I agree with the idea of partial commonality, particularly on the 757/767 models,
In terms of finding a percentage which commanility is based on can be by power plant, avionics,
Similar systems etc? Each similar system could be 5% commonality etc, means the A320 family can have a small benefit On the A340 etc
Quote from: Skycet on August 18, 2012, 11:20:23 AM
Wouldnt say the Boeing 717 and Md-90 are the perfect example for commonality,
While they are the same family, they have different avionics, power plant and handling
Meaning that many of the bonuses that come with commanility aren't really there
When Boeing took over the project 13 major systems were redesigned to meet Boeing standards
However Saudi did retrofit their Md-90 with Honeywell displays to make their cockpits
Near identical to the 717 (Idea for future?)
I agree with the idea of partial commonality, particularly on the 757/767 models,
In terms of finding a percentage which commanility is based on can be by power plant, avionics,
Similar systems etc? Each similar system could be 5% commonality etc, means the A320 family can have a small benefit On the A340 etc
The powerplant of the aircraft is covered by the engine commonality, and the handling of the aircraft has nothing to do with commonality costs. I'm curious which 13 systems were redesigned? Do you have link so I can read up on it?
I see that some aircraft types in "game" belongs to the fleet group of another type, for example the Viking Air Twin Otter belongs to the de Havilland Canada DHC-6 fleet group. So putting a Boeing 717 in the McDonnell Douglas MD-90 fleet group should be technically straight forward.
The question if it belongs there or not, it seems like people are divided. My opinion is that it belongs there. It's an MD-95. I don't believe it's more different from an MD-90, than a DC-9 Super 80/MD-81 is different from an MD-87 (Which is in the same fleet group).
Quote from: Skycet on August 18, 2012, 11:20:23 AM
Wouldnt say the Boeing 717 and Md-90 are the perfect example for commonality,
While they are the same family, they have different avionics, power plant and handling
Meaning that many of the bonuses that come with commanility aren't really there
When Boeing took over the project 13 major systems were redesigned to meet Boeing standards
However Saudi did retrofit their Md-90 with Honeywell displays to make their cockpits
Near identical to the 717 (Idea for future?)
I agree with the idea of partial commonality, particularly on the 757/767 models,
In terms of finding a percentage which commanility is based on can be by power plant, avionics,
Similar systems etc? Each similar system could be 5% commonality etc, means the A320 family can have a small benefit On the A340 etc
Saudi is the only carrier that ordered MD-90's as they were intended to be sold (they were NOT retrofitted, they were delivered with the glass). Delta was the major driver towards the older style avionics as they wanted commonality with their recently delivered MD-88's (which they took 120 of (1988-1992) just before placing a 16 firm and 100+ options for the M90). In the early 90's before McD decided they were going to sell themselves to Boeing, the intention was to have the same glass in the MD-11, MD-90 and MD-95 (Saudi wanted commonality with the MD-11, not the MD-95). The MD90-50 was also on the table to stretch the 90-30 to close to 200 pax. They could then sell the MD-90/95 as a whole family, effectively matching the Airbus and Boeing mix for capacity and performance.
This is one of those scenarios where the line between reality and a simulation should be blurred a bit - based on original spec and marketing intentions, they are the same fleet group, period. The marketing comparison line up should look something like this -
B717-200 = B737-600 = A318
B717-300 = B737-700 = A319
MD90-30 = B737-800 = A320
MD90-50 = B737-900 = A321
And yes, I know the 717-300 and MD90-50 never launched thus would likely not get added to AWS...
What about placing MD-90 and MD-95/Boeing 717 in the MD-80 fleet commonality group?
MD-88 and MD-90 are almost the same aircraft, they even have the same cockpit. The only big difference is that the MD-90 is longer than the MD-88 (and the powerplant, but that's already covered in engine commonality). There's probably less differences between MD-88 and MD-90, than between MD-88 and MD-81. MD-81 is just a larger DC-9 with a more modern cockpit.
The way commonality works now, you have to set a hard line between aircraft model commonalities. It would really make the MD-80/MD-90 series more viable and a better competitor to the others if they were put in the same group. Even the Boeing 737 classics come with different cockpits. The early ones had the option of the traditional B707/B727/B737 cockpit instead of modern EFIS panels.
Unless Sami introduces a smoother more advanced commonality system that includes factors like cockpit and manufacturer, I really wish that the MD-80/MD-90/MD-95 were in the same group.
Please, either put the MD-90 and B717 together in one group, or put MD-80 and MD-90/B717 in one group?
Quote from: [SC] Andre on March 03, 2013, 08:43:19 PM
What about placing MD-90 and MD-95/Boeing 717 in the MD-80 fleet commonality group?
One thing you have to be aware of is that there is only 1 production line per fleet group (unless that is chaged as well). So all of these types would be fighting for space on one single production line...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 03, 2013, 08:59:23 PM
One thing you have to be aware of is that there is only 1 production line per fleet group (unless that is chaged as well). So all of these types would be fighting for space on one single production line...
Until Sami introduces AWS South Carolina ;D
Actually, serious question; will/does the 787 have two production lines or perhaps in increased build rate to compensate if it's just a single line? (in-game obviously...)
Quote from: pascaly on March 04, 2013, 12:25:34 AM
Until Sami introduces AWS South Carolina ;D
Actually, serious question; will/does the 787 have two production lines or perhaps in increased build rate to compensate if it's just a single line? (in-game obviously...)
Well, there is only one order queue, but there can be several physical production lines feeding it. Sami just have some hard coded upper limit for how many can be in order queue per month. There is some flexibility downward, but 787, just like any other order queue has a hard cap, and no matter how many orders are placed, no matter how many years into the future the line is full, the cap does not budge...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 03, 2013, 08:59:23 PM
One thing you have to be aware of is that there is only 1 production line per fleet group (unless that is chaged as well). So all of these types would be fighting for space on one single production line...
No, they don't. :) Different aircraft types can be put in the same fleet commonality group. There are examples of that already in the game. For example the Viking Air Dash-6 is in the deHavilland Dash-6 group. Production lines and commonality groups are two separate things.
I agree with Schro that the lines between simulation and real world should be blurred a bit.
I'm sure there are benefits by operating an all Airbus fleet in real life, commonality, crew training etc. But for someone based at a smaller airport with SOME international demand, it would make absolutely no sense in AWS to introduce a new fleet type just to serve those routes. And that doesn't make any sense to me because right now the airlines based at large airports have the ultimate advantage. They can add more fleet types before they can operate 100+ AC of each type and get away with the added commonality cost. Or at least to a certain extent. And the airlines based at smaller airports can't serve their destinations with LH demand because they can't operate more than a few AC capable of flying long distances.
A penalty within each size category would make more sense and make the game more strategic. Sure the 737/A320 families are great airplanes and most players try to get them, but you have those who place orders for BOTH. Because their demand is in the sub 3000nm market where it would make sense to fly two or even three different types in the same category.
So you see smaller companies with 10-20 of each AC because the wait times are so long and they desperately need new AC for growth. If players were forced to pick one type it would make AC such as DC-9/MD or even 1-11s a more viable option just because they are available and a larger fleet could be built faster.
So maybe a system where you are allowed to have 1 type per category would make more sense for the sake of the game?
So you could look at a small airline with a fleet of say:
4 - A330
15 - B737
10 - CRJ
10 - Saab 2000
And if you surpass a total of 50 AC you are considered a "big airline" and would only be allowed to operate 3 types in total. My argument is that it would make slot hogging harder, it would make it possible for a player to specialize in serving the regional market and MAYBE level the playing field a bit.
just my 2 cents
QuoteAnd that doesn't make any sense to me because right now the airlines based at large airports have the ultimate advantage. They can add more fleet types before they can operate 100+ AC of each type and get away with the added commonality cost. Or at least to a certain extent
Yes, they have the demand advantages, and if somehow they've managed to monopoly it, it'll be a cash cow
And they get away with the added commonality cost (if any) because they make large enough money to compensate for the penalty, not because they have more than 100 A/C each type
More A/C per fleet will, of course, keep the commonality cost per frame down. However, the more fleets and A/C they have, the higher penalty they have to take
How much do you pay for commonality with 15 B737, 10 CRJ, and 10 Saab? Probably 100K/piece/month ~ 3.5M?
Now if you add 4 A330, how much it will become? 5M in total, I guess?
For me, when I had ~100 A/C, then moment I introduced 4th fleet, my commonality jumped from 9M to 13M (an increase of 44%)
At 252 A/C, it was 33M vs 123 M (272 % increase)
At the moment, I have 762 A/C, and 85M in commonality cost. It'll jump to 652M with a single Saab added. Yes, no mistake, 670% increase. The more fleets and A/C added after that, the much higher penalty it is
Conclusion: it is the small airline that don't get affected much by commonality penalty, so please live happily with the 3 fleets system
Quote from: Mr.HP on August 08, 2013, 05:34:51 AM
Yes, they have the demand advantages, and if somehow they've managed to monopoly it, it'll be a cash cow
And they get away with the added commonality cost (if any) because they make large enough money to compensate for the penalty, not because they have more than 100 A/C each type
More A/C per fleet will, of course, keep the commonality cost per frame down. However, the more fleets and A/C they have, the higher penalty they have to take
This is where you and I see it differently. Knowing that you can add more types early on when planning ahead and making a strategy allows the airline to fly very mixed metal to cash in on the most profitable routes. You also get slots.
If the penalty already came at the second type in same size category it would be harder to make money flying both 737 and MD-90.
Quote from: Mr.HP on August 08, 2013, 05:34:51 AM
How much do you pay for commonality with 15 B737, 10 CRJ, and 10 Saab? Probably 100K/piece/month ~ 3.5M?
Now if you add 4 A330, how much it will become? 5M in total, I guess?
For me, when I had ~100 A/C, then moment I introduced 4th fleet, my commonality jumped from 9M to 13M (an increase of 44%)
At 252 A/C, it was 33M vs 123 M (272 % increase)
At the moment, I have 762 A/C, and 85M in commonality cost. It'll jump to 652M with a single Saab added. Yes, no mistake, 670% increase. The more fleets and A/C added after that, the much higher penalty it is
And again, you set out to get as many AC as possible, without the possibility of adding so many new AC fast would cripple your chances of fast dominance.
In reality, when you look at how fast the airlines grow it's hardly very realistic at all. Now I know it's a game and all, but the growth is simply so unrealistic that it somewhat kills the game.
Quote from: Mr.HP on August 08, 2013, 05:34:51 AM
Conclusion: it is the small airline that don't get affected much by commonality penalty, so please live happily with the 3 fleets system
So by your reasoning all players should want the system that allows for your unrealistic growth?
It's bulls*** that the 4th fleet doesn't hurt a small airline. And a small airline would be hard pressed to make enough of a profit where the 4th added wouldn't affect the profits.
I'm also guessing that the 1m extra you pay pr week is a p*** in the ocean compared to what your profits per week.
All I'm saying is that I would want a 300000% cost increase on adding a second fleet in the same size category. It would slow down the growth and make other metal a more viable option.
I gotta agree here with Andre, the differences in design between the MD-80, MD-90, and 717 are less than those of the IL-12 and 14, 707 and 720, DC-8-10 vs DC-8-62 or even the Do-328 and 328 Jet. I would propose the the very least complete commonality between the MD-90 and 717 which is what has prevented me in past games from flying the two, and at least partial commonality (would require new feature) between the MD-80 and 90 series. Considering how the game is already formatted and how other fleet types are addressed, I would say the 80 and 90 both deserve to be in the same fleet group.
On a side note since I cannot get a response from Sami, I would also take this moment and push for complete commonality between the TU-104, 110, and 124 fleets because based on official technical reports their cruise speeds overlap and AWS has speeds of some aircraft towards the maximum estimated cruise speed and not the centre of the cruise speed range which would allow commonality.
OK, I didn't clearly get what you were saying
However, I still want to say that AWS is pretty much balance right now. Mega airline get hurt more if they cross the border, and small airline still get away with quite a few fleets. What else can you ask to penalize mega airline anymore?
If you say we should change to penalize the second fleet of the same size, then does it mean an airline can operate with 4 different class without any penalty? Then, it doesn't really make much difference toward the mega airlines. They are all experience players, and will have another strategy easily. And by having 4 size A/C, not a single routes will be spared from them, and no chance at all to new airline to start at a crowded airport with small A/C at thin ignored routes
Please search commonality points in feature request. If do it but I'm on a cell phone
Quote from: Mr.HP on August 08, 2013, 03:09:52 PM
OK, I didn't clearly get what you were saying
However, I still want to say that AWS is pretty much balance right now. Mega airline get hurt more if they cross the border, and small airline still get away with quite a few fleets. What else can you ask to penalize mega airline anymore?
If you say we should change to penalize the second fleet of the same size, then does it mean an airline can operate with 4 different class without any penalty? Then, it doesn't really make much difference toward the mega airlines. They are all experience players, and will have another strategy easily. And by having 4 size A/C, not a single routes will be spared from them, and no chance at all to new airline to start at a crowded airport with small A/C at thin ignored routes
I somewhat agree, but if you get penalised to death by adding a second same-class AC then it wouldn't allow you to do dual orders of say 737 and A320. That WOULD slow down the growth. And orders would have to be consolidated towards one AC type. Where other options would be more viable due to delivery dates.
I don't believe navigating around the order process would be as easy as you make it out to be.
In truth, the game rewards those without a job and spend a lot of time playing the game. Like the former F5'ers.
You might get away with a lot of the added fixes and patches if some deeper features were implemented from the get go.
Like the fix for the F5/refresh issue, it was more of a patch than a proper fix. A proper fix would be to allow people to use brokers and order used planes and get offers when the AC came available. To me, that is a fix. The ban + new "call the used market" feature is more of a patch than anything.
Not that I've been playing every single gameworld for the past few years but I've been here for a few years and it's quite disturbing how little the game has changed over the course of years.
Even today, cargo, commonality and the used market are frequent topics on these forums.
To be crass, the game should've been overhauled with the help of a couple of experienced game developers to bring something new to the table.
The best games throughout the history have been games that have enabled poor ones and experienced ones to enjoy em and experience the same level of enjoyment/fun/etc...
I like this game, but the methods have become predictable and once you have figured out how it works you play by the rules of the game-engine rather than human response. A problem that nearly killed ID software and Doom when it was on its peak.
Again, i don't disagree with you entirely.