AirwaySim

The GW#3 will end in about a month, and would like to ask if you prefer a scenario to start from the 1950s again or simply do a repeat of the standard "Modern Times" scenario, ie. ~4-6 months from 2000-2025 or that way.

The latter will be initially more popular but then we would have three modern scenarios running at the same time which isn't desirable really, as the big idea is to have 4 major games running that are well enough spaced to have each of them in different era.

Any opinions on this?

The 1950s please.. I had a bad start in GW4 because I didnt know how to play :(
I think the long term game are attractive to all player.

The problem with Early Era is that demand is very limited and everyone and their mother piles in at the start of a new scenario to take part in the landrush.  Thus the reason why my favorite scenario is DOTM starting in 1975.  There is plenty of demand and the tough economic conditions and plane availability (DC-10 is king) keeps things in check, making the landrush viable for most players versus every airport ending up with zero slots and every route being oversupplied.

My vote is DOTM :)

DOTM!

One of the most fun parts of playing AWS to me is the land rush in a more modern era, either DOTM or MT. Its always full of surprises to see which regulars park themselves at which airports and how the matchups shake out. That simply has not happened in the 2 long game worlds so far. I also think MT scenarios should start ~1995ish to ensure that the MD-90 is a viable alternative (as it is often out of production in 2000).

Since the MT worlds run so slow anyway (from a minutes per day perspective), having them spaced 5-10 game years apart will make them feel like totally different eras....

Early Era gets my vote, as it is great concept in being able to start an airline at the very beginning of Commercial aviation and see it all the way through.

Yes the Early Era demand is low etc however it appears that at least 50% of airlines will go BK prior to the normal DOTM age anyway so those that want to play DOTM can start then, maybe a little bit disadvantaged compared to those that survived through the Early Era, but that also gives them another game challenge

1950 - 2030(2035) to make changes to 787, A350 etc. necessary and not just an option (2025) or a no go (2019).

Ending a game in 2019 just makes people to sit things out with old aircraft because the gameworlds ends anyways.





Scenarios like Modern Times or DotM then could be something like EuroChallenge with fast speeds?

Quote from: CUR$E on April 16, 2014, 04:10:08 PM
1950 - 2030(2035) to make changes to 787, A350 etc. necessary and not just an option (2025) or a no go (2019).

Ending a game in 2019 just makes people to sit things out with old aircraft because the gameworlds ends anyways.


Scenarios like Modern Times or DotM then could be something like EuroChallenge with fast speeds?

Totally agree with this approach

The 'normal' game should be 1950 - 2030
The previous MT, DOTM, etc can be the mini scenarios

Exactly, 1950 is the best option to normal worlds. New era is better for quick worldss.

50s  :)

1950-2030 , lets go for it)

A new Modern Times gets my vote. It has long been the most popular world and will be the biggest money maker for you, Sami.

The 80 year game worlds are fun, but way too tedious when it comes to fleet replacement. TBH, I will not play in another long world until this feature request (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49069.0.html) is programmed in. Serious playability issues arise when a player must spend many hours rescheduling to new types multiple times each game instead of actually running their airline.

Just my 2 cents...

Don

I vote 1990s-2030s

If we have another 1950s-2020s game world, we'll be creating identical worlds running at different times. MT is the only type of scenario I've played and I can't imagine I'll have enough time to do fleet replacements etc as has been mentioned above with the faster rates of time. If people want the longer game worlds, they have their choice in a current offering, but personally I don't want to lose the 1990s-2020s game worlds that are 35mins/day.

Quote from: AUpilot77 on April 16, 2014, 09:28:03 PM
If we have another 1950s-2020s game world, we'll be creating identical worlds running at different times.

And this is exactly the aim really in the long run.

Though none of them is identical since players are not the same, economy is not the same etc. Only what is same are the years the game spans over.

It would be cool if you could unveil at least the basic settings ("hard economy" , "high fuel prices") or even the whole settings after a gameworld has ended. :)

I get why you don't display them anymore when a gameworld starts, of course, but at the end there's nothing to hide anymore, or?

I too would vote for 1950-2030, that would be great so there would be a real point of ordering next generation aircraft.

Quote from: sami on April 16, 2014, 09:35:27 PM
And this is exactly the aim really in the long run.

Though none of them is identical since players are not the same, economy is not the same etc. Only what is same are the years the game spans over.

That would make sense and I suppose I'd support that, but would there be enough demand in the 1950s to support 500-700 players wanting to join in the new world?  I'll be honest I haven't looked at the current game world running these years but the typical MT scenario (which is what will be replaced by the new one) is typically flooded with nearly the maximum amount of players at the beginning.  The 1990s are perfect for this because the used market has tons of DC-9s, MD-80s, 737s, A320s and lots of decent long-haul aircraft (with sufficient demand to cover nearly 700 airlines with those aircraft).

Indeed, one viable option would be to start it from 1980s or 90s to give more demand, and then the world would be in sync with others (will not have three modern worlds at the same time).

But have to check it a bit closer soon.

Defo another MT please.

Perhaps starting in the early 90's or 80's.

The issue I see with the very long worlds is the 100 a/c base limit being a real pain in the a$$ over such a long time frame. For those who base in the hubs it's no problem, but for those who HQ in smaller airports it's a much bigger issue ( in GW3 i'm in KPIT and i'm massively limited ).

No-one wants GW's where it's a hub or bust, so the lesser time frames support a more varied play style I think...

Quote from: Captim on April 17, 2014, 06:51:04 PM
Defo another MT please.

Perhaps starting in the early 90's or 80's.

The issue I see with the very long worlds is the 100 a/c base limit being a real pain in the a$$ over such a long time frame. For those who base in the hubs it's no problem, but for those who HQ in smaller airports it's a bigger issue ( in GW3 i'm in KPIT and i'm massively limited ).

No-one wants GW's where it's a hubs or bust, so the lesser time frames support a more varied play style I think...

Yes, would love a gameworld with instead of 3 bases with 100 aircraft each max you can have unlimited bases with an aggregate of 300 aircraft across all bases plus ABCBA routes.  This would make smaller airports much sexier as many bases cannot support 7 big aircraft, but collectively multiple bases can.  Thus, you can fly those handful of longhaul routes without figure out what the heck to do with the extra unscheduled time.

Quote from: LemonButt on April 17, 2014, 08:14:10 PM
Yes, would love a gameworld with instead of 3 bases with 100 aircraft each max you can have unlimited bases with an aggregate of 300 aircraft across all bases plus ABCBA routes.  This would make smaller airports much sexier as many bases cannot support 7 big aircraft, but collectively multiple bases can.  Thus, you can fly those handful of longhaul routes without figure out what the heck to do with the extra unscheduled time.

That's a nice point. To take that on i'd go further in view of the staffing penalty you'd be hit with under the current system.

Say three extra bases with 100 a/c, or four with an 80 a/c limit...

The way the lost cost airlines are poliferating across Europe and the US I see this a very realistic expansion of the game rules...

I think there was a "mini base" thread, or something that way, in the features forums. (and that indeed is something that should be done, the current base structure is meant for big carriers)

A new Modern Times gets my vote

80's/90's start would be great

Virtually the only world I have ever played has been MT games.  I do not want to join games half way through at the point where the era interests me.  Extra long games are OK for those that want to play them, but the option of the shorter 25 year games should be retained for those not wanting to either play a full 50 year game, or join a 50 year game half way through. MT games have historically been the most populated worlds, AWS needs them. I will have tricky choice to make if the next game is not a MT world, however I am hoping I wont have to make that choice as there will be another MT game.   

Something like MT with a further "end of the world"  :'( As others have said, experimenting with the modern types adds to the excitement and makes you wonder, "who knows if...."  ;)

Thanks and regards,

MT, long formats tend to be boring... If possible keep 2-3 scenarios on the long format and 3-4 on the short one.

Modern Times ... as someone else said, maybe with a further ënd of the world" would be interesting!

Very happy modern era ended up winning! :)

Yes well, this still isn't a democracy  ;)

..but vote results are noted. Details a bit later (to keep you on your toes.. hehe...).

It's more like a draw and, to be honest, it was even then when longtime gameworld had some votes more. There was never a real gap between, hence why I still like my idea with DoTM and MT as "challenge"-gameworlds. ;)

But yeah, no democracy of course.

I enjoy the long worlds as well, but I have precisely -zero- desire to waste upwards of 60 hours of time tediously rescheduling 200+ aircraft worth of flights during fleet transition and as such GW4 is the last long world I will participate in until we have the ability to swap schedules to a different aircraft type.

I hope the next game is Modern Times/ Air Travel Boom era with a start no earlier than ~1990.

Just my 2 cents.

That's correct, the one or other helpful game mechanic would make things way easier... I can't even imagine what people without browser shortcuts for next tab etc. do.

Quote from: JetWestInc on April 26, 2014, 09:45:21 PM
I enjoy the long worlds as well, but I have precisely -zero- desire to waste upwards of 60 hours of time tediously rescheduling 200+ aircraft worth of flights during fleet transition and as such GW4 is the last long world I will participate in until we have the ability to swap schedules to a different aircraft type.

I hope the next game is Modern Times/ Air Travel Boom era with a start no earlier than ~1990.

Just my 2 cents.

Same for me...
I'll finish GW1, but no long worlds for me untill I can reschedule more efficiently....

1998-2030 would be optimum (especially if the 787-10/777X could be added....)

Echo the comments on the horrible horrible job it is to move largescale prop timetimables to jet ones. It's not a game anymore, and it caused me to stop playing AS for a while.

A MT type scenario is needed, but one that can include the F100/F70 please. They are out of production in the current build, this forces the game into the 737/A320 family axis, the production lines for these go insane and eaten by the biggest carriers stifling competition.

Agree that adding the 77X in particular and pushing a few years further would be good as well....

Can someone gather a small list on missing modern prototype stage models? (777x, and the rest....)

Quote from: sami on April 27, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
Can someone gather a small list on missing modern prototype stage models? (777x, and the rest....)

ERJ 175 E2
ERJ 190 E2
ERJ 195 E2
COMAC C919
Irkut MS21-200
Irkut MS21-300
Irkut MS21-400
NG Aircraft Fokker 120NG
Boeing 787-10
Boeing 777-8
Boeing 777-9

Think that should cover it. I already put up a feature request for the 787-10 and E2 a while back...

Cheers

EDIT:
The topic for the 787-10: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,47706.msg265789.html (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,47706.msg265789.html)
And for the ERJ E2: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,47680.0.html (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,47680.0.html)


COMAC C919 information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919)
Irkut MS21 information: http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/civil/ms-21/ (http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/civil/ms-21/)
NG Aircraft Fokker 120NG Information: http://www.rekkof.nl/ (http://www.rekkof.nl/)
B777X information: http://www.newairplane.com/777x/ (http://www.newairplane.com/777x/)

Rekkof is only a vehicle for government subsidy-fraud. It will never produce anything material let alone a flying aircraft, I don't think it should find it's way into the game.

They already have a F100 at Woensdrecht, waiting to be rebuild to a F120 demonstrator. Adding several frames, new wings, cockpit, engines, etc.

OutBack Airlines votes for Modern Era.

Quote from: NovemberCharlie on April 27, 2014, 04:10:17 PM
They already have a F100 at Woensdrecht, waiting to be rebuild to a F120 demonstrator. Adding several frames, new wings, cockpit, engines, etc.

Well obviously they have to have something to show to get millions of Euros in government subsidies. Rekkof has already received tens of millions from the government of Brazil as well as from the Netherlands, probably some more.
Nothing material has been produced by this company despite its age of over 10 years. The only thing that's known are some fantasy specs. The Rekkof management are subsidy trolls and are screwing over the tax payers in both their home country and abroad.
I have to say, they are kind of brilliant. They are managing to collect all this money with a concept that every one in the aviation business knows can not work as there is no demand for it, the market for the size of it is overrun, shrinking (as the sweet spot moves north toward 150 seaters) and the company lacks the equity base to even start producing parts. So theoretically, they should not get any money as it's obvious that its going to be lost eventually. But they still do. Wow. Chapeau.

Anyway, long story short, this aircraft has nothing to do in the game. The 777X is nothing more than some specs on paper either, but at least those are realistic specs and the aircraft they belong to is actually being developed by a serious company with serious capital.

Not to mention 250+ orders from rich arab sheiks :p

Quote from: saftfrucht on April 27, 2014, 08:27:39 PM
Well obviously they have to have something to show to get millions of Euros in government subsidies. Rekkof has already received tens of millions from the government of Brazil as well as from the Netherlands, probably some more.
Nothing material has been produced by this company despite its age of over 10 years. The only thing that's known are some fantasy specs. The Rekkof management are subsidy trolls and are screwing over the tax payers in both their home country and abroad.
I have to say, they are kind of brilliant. They are managing to collect all this money with a concept that every one in the aviation business knows can not work as there is no demand for it, the market for the size of it is overrun, shrinking (as the sweet spot moves north toward 150 seaters) and the company lacks the equity base to even start producing parts. So theoretically, they should not get any money as it's obvious that its going to be lost eventually. But they still do. Wow. Chapeau.

Anyway, long story short, this aircraft has nothing to do in the game. The 777X is nothing more than some specs on paper either, but at least those are realistic specs and the aircraft they belong to is actually being developed by a serious company with serious capital.

Bash Fokker all you want but you have to admit they invented glass fiber reinforced aluminum. Which is the material the Airbus uses for the fuselage of the A380. The 787 uses a different but similar material (CFRP if i recall correctly).

Fokker and Rekkof have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

But... but... they share the same letters! ;)

Quote from: saftfrucht on April 29, 2014, 08:26:14 AM
Fokker and Rekkof have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Lol i misread it the entire time.

I guess Rekkof is the evil twin of Fokker.

The next game world will be a "medium length" world, so it will start near the 1990s/2000s region and continue as long as possible.

Details will be posted later; I will need to calculate the optimal start time for it in relation to other scenarios, and also work on some fixes and adding aircraft data. (on that note, if someone is lacking things to do, I'd welcome data collection on the prototype models discussed earliers. PM me for details on what data is needed for each a/c model).

Any news about possible start date?

Quote from: sami on April 29, 2014, 08:29:06 PM
The next game world will be a "medium length" world, so it will start near the 1990s/2000s region and continue as long as possible.

Details will be posted later; I will need to calculate the optimal start time for it in relation to other scenarios, and also work on some fixes and adding aircraft data. (on that note, if someone is lacking things to do, I'd welcome data collection on the prototype models discussed earliers. PM me for details on what data is needed for each a/c model).

I was on holidays during easter so lot of stuff piled up, but back in business now, so stay tuned.