Comment thread for AirwaySim's updates and previews
All updates, changes and fixes to the simulations are announced at the forums in their own Changelog (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.0.html)thread. There are also own threads for early previews of future features and changes related to the website and forums.
To keep the announcements organized the thread is locked for new replies and comments, so please use this general forum's thread instead for all comments, questions and feedback about the changes. If you spot actual errors or some of the changed features won't work, then please post a separate bug report (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/board,3.0.html).
Links
Changelog (game): https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.0.html
Previews: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58864.0.html
Changelog (website/forums): https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,54937.0.html
On the big cargo update item.....
While I see the efforts to simplify the complicated topic of cargo to make it easier for the players, there's still a few obtuse things that don't really make sense in my mind. The one that sticks out the most is the requirement to pre-partition the plane's available cargo space into a particular type. Given that I'd expect demand and competition to be somewhat lumpy, it's really not possible to pick the "most optimum" configuration in advance between Light Cargo and Standard Cargo, assuming both types can be flown within a given plane. Sure, there will be some generalities for planes that are inherently more volume restricted vs more weight restricted, but that's more of a granular decision at flight time as to which cargo to load.
So, as a player, I would want my "staff" to select the optimal load of cargo to take on for a plane that has X passengers, Y payload capability and Z cargo capability and not have to balance that myself. Of course, there's the issue of pricing at that point as well - perhaps that's the differentiator between the categories that says what type actually gets loaded.
I'm a little worried reading that passenger baggage amount, which is said to vary according to flight length, is dependent on aircraft size class, not actual flight range.
I fear this will further make the medium/large twinjet gap larger (BAC1-11 vs DC-9 for example), and also hurts things like the short range 747 variants, and short-haul configured large airliners in general.
Quote from: schro on September 04, 2015, 05:11:38 PM
So, as a player, I would want my "staff" to select the optimal load of cargo to take on for a plane that has X passengers, Y payload capability and Z cargo capability
I've considered that too, and it would be probably too heavy to calculate every time. (but this is still a possible option though)
Quote from: Elouda on September 05, 2015, 10:05:39 AM
I'm a little worried reading that passenger baggage amount, which is said to vary according to flight length, is dependent on aircraft size class, not actual flight range.
The cargo capability needs to be known beforehand, so it cannot be tied to the flight time. And anyways the difference in the bag amount between medium and large classes isn't that big, the average calculated weight difference is 1-2kg/pax (and large planes have larger cargo holds, so the few extra bags won't be a limiting factor). (the bags vs. aircraft size is a very minor thing in the big picture)
I'm really looking forward to the Cargo update!
I don't mind having to allocate cargo space for the different cargo categories on each aircraft. I'm guessing we'll see what kind of cargo there's most of on each route so that we can configure the aircraft accordingly? Also, I like it when it's more up to me how the airline develops. I like having options and being able to use different strategies.
But if you decide to go for the allocating partitions option, could you make the cost of reconfiguring the cargo space very low.. or free? I think free would make the most sense, since in the real world you don't really have to change the aircraft itself to carry light, standard, or heavy cargo. (I know pallets aren't included in the cargo model.)
I have a question regarding prices. Will we be able to adjust the price of the cargo (tickets) like we do with pax tickets? I think that would make sense. I know you're working on a new pricing system, but until then it would be great if we could adjust the cargo price like we do with the different Y/C/F tickets.
Question about the market share charts (route planning, and airport info pages) ... Two separate charts, one for pax and one for cargo, or some single combined chart of both of these?
Another question. How should the world events affecting pax demand affect cargo levels? (I think it's unnecessary to edit the events to include a separate cargo demand modifier)
Quote
could you make the cost of reconfiguring the cargo space very low.. or free?
Yes
Quote
Will we be able to adjust the price of the cargo (tickets) like we do with pax tickets?
Yes
Quote from: sami on September 07, 2015, 05:02:44 PM
Question about the market share charts (route planning, and airport info pages) ... Two separate charts, one for pax and one for cargo, or some single combined chart of both of these?
Another question. How should the world events affecting pax demand affect cargo levels? (I think it's unnecessary to edit the events to include a separate cargo demand modifier)
I think if it's not too much work, it would be nice to see cargo market share in seperate charts. Especially since there will most likely be people running a cargo only airline. If it's a lot of work to make it happen, then one chart for both would work as well.
I think world events affecting pax should affect cargo the same way. Of course things like the bird flu wouldn't necessarily halt pure cargo flights, but since most of the world's cargo is flown in the belly of passenger jets.. it would have an effect on that. I don't know if it's possible to let pure cargo planes escape the effects of such events.
I think they should have separate Market Shares.
As for world events, only those that make sense should apply to both, ie stock market crashes yes, flu outbreak no.
Any chance the A330-800neo and -900neo can be included soon? More info is available on them than the 777-8X and -9X.
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a330family/spotlight-on-a330neo/
338 - 7500nm range, 339 6550nm. Identical cabin layouts to the 332 and 333 respectively but 14% improved fuel burn. The 330neo will share a type rating the 350 as well!
Regarding cargo
What happens when you're flying slightly beyond the nominal range of a plane (for instance a L1011-500 on a 5500Nm journey) and are thus limited by pax (which is ok). Does this mean that you will not be able to carry any cargo on that flight? Or would the cargo be limited in a similar way to the pax?
(ie. Total Cargo space available on the long flight - [Pax weight and pax bag weight with number of pax reduced as per existing calculations] - cargo space/weight penalty for overshoot of nominal range = range limited cargo capacity or something like that)
And what about frequency battle? I mean two flights on the same time? It shouldn't affect cargo as much as it affecting passengers now?
Hey Sami,
couple of quick questions:
1) -basically same as EAS66's question, just more understandable-
If I fly a plane on a route beyond the nominal range, but due to demand/competition/etc. I don't fill up the PAX cabin, and thus have "open space". Will cargo be transported, or will the system assume, that because I am above nominal range, there is no space for cargo?
2) Which size class can carry which cargo?
As far as I was able to deduce from your preview post:
- small a/c = no cargo
- medium a/c = light cargo
- large a/c = medium + standard cargo
- very large a/c = medium + standard cargo
Leaving "heavy cargo" marked as CAO (Cargo aircraft only) - Is that correct?
3) As visible on your screenshots, will cargo supply by other airlines be visible by class, or is it just visible due to "admin status"? Configurations (i.e. passenger demand by class) is hidden from other airlines, so I assumed that cargo would be treated the same. Which will be the case?
Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work! Great to see there is good progress being made, and that CBD is slowly being put to use :)
cheers,
Jona L.
Pax comes first and then cargo is loaded. If you have a range of 1000 nm with full passenger load (let's say 100 pax) and you are flying a route of 1200 nm and are limited to let's say 80 pax, then there is naturally no more payload carrying capacity to allocate for cargo. All payload is taken by pax+bags (= very simple). However the cargo allocation is calculated when you assign the flight to schedule and it assumes always a full flight. So if you carry 50 pax instead of the 80 possible there would be theoretically space available for cargo but that's not calculated on the fly on every day (too heavy).
I think passenger + cargo planes should take more time on turnaround than pax only.
What is the time frame in adding cargo flights?
Quote from: alex_king92 on September 16, 2015, 07:32:30 PM
I think passenger + cargo planes should take more time on turnaround than pax only.
The times in AWS are already ridiculously long. Most airlines in the real world operate normal schedules completely on minimum turn time.
Yes, AWS uses the actual minimum turn times as given by the manufacturers of the planes, however for the well known "1% delay risk", you need to have extremely long turn times.
To pile up: Real world airlines manage that including cargo.
So, please, tell me why we would need even longer turn times to do something the real world does in less time?
Quote from: [Remover of SkyConnect] Jona L. on September 16, 2015, 09:39:27 PM
The times in AWS are already ridiculously long. Most airlines in the real world operate normal schedules completely on minimum turn time.
I agree, when I worked for the airlines turning a 737 in 30 mins with, 143 pax, 250bags and 5000lbs cargo and mail on and off was normal and expected.
Quote from: bdnascar3 on September 16, 2015, 10:04:22 PM
I agree, when I worked for the airlines turning a 737 in 30 mins with, 143 pax, 250bags and 5000lbs cargo and mail on and off was normal and expected.
I worked ramp supervision for 2 years, nothing like turning a 738 in 40 mins (189 pax, 300-400 bags and usually about 1000Kgs in cargo, including human remains -each, both ways). Gotta love LCCs ;D.
But that being exactly the point, it works in real life, and I do understand and somewhat like Sami's approach to it, to give it a certain risk of delay that can be reduced by extending the times. But any longer than that would be overkill.
According to the ground handling manual, Emirates suggests a 77W (777-300ER) at full payload for a full stage flight (-> fuelling time!), be done in 80mins. In AWS you need 90 mins for any 777, and that already gives you a 25% risk of delay.
Don't try telling that to EK station reps or their DXB OPS...
Have question on the prices in your example. My understanding is that light cargo (express/mail etc) is the more expensive while the heavier stuff has a cheaper per lb price.
Quote from: bdnascar3 on September 16, 2015, 10:08:59 PM
Have question on the prices in your example. My understanding is that light cargo (express/mail etc) is the more expensive while the heavier stuff has a cheaper per lb price.
According to the IATA TACT (basically a "suggested retail price" for air cargo issued by IATA) rates for general cargo decrease in per kg (or lb for the British colonies :P), but there are special rates offered for certain cargo (or surcharge rates for special cargoes).
- To get to the point, on many routes there are special (usually lower) rates for Mail, Newspapers, etc.
Some carriers offer different prices, depending on the service you book (if you want fast or cheap e.g.).
I can explain this to you in further depth in a PM, if you like, but as for the short version: See above.
cheers,
Jona L.
Can't wait to try out the cargo feature. :) The previews are looking awesome. Great job Sami!
Regarding the turnaround time, I think it's already too long as well. SGS turns around a SAS 737-800 in 20 minutes with full load (pax+bags+cargo), and manages to keep Europe's best on time statistics. Current AWS time for that model is approx. 60 minutes for 1% chance of delay. So no need to increase the turnaround time.
I agree, times are already long, but look at the game only: if I operate a pax only flight I will earn less than a company which operates pax +cargo and has an "extra" earning. So I think it's a good incentive to pax carriers and offers more strategic possibilities.
Quote from: alex_king92 on September 17, 2015, 08:30:06 AM
I agree, times are already long, but look at the game only: if I operate a pax only flight I will earn less than a company which operates pax +cargo and has an "extra" earning. So I think it's a good incentive to pax carriers and offers more strategic possibilities.
Well, if you read the previews, you would've noted, that all planes (except "small") can carry at least some sort of cargo.
-> everyone will at least be able to get the extra revenue, thus no one should be "extra advantaged".
Think about low cost carriers which doesn't carry cargo and turn they planes in 20/25 min. No ground handling costs for loading cargo. They really save time and money in this.
Quote from: alex_king92 on September 17, 2015, 05:32:03 PM
Think about low cost carriers which doesn't carry cargo and turn they planes in 20/25 min. No ground handling costs for loading cargo. They really save time and money in this.
Since you can't reduce turn times below minimum in AWS, there is no point in this.
Since you can't operate a LCC in AWS, there is no point in this.
Since -as of current information available- cargo will be offered by default, so again, there is no point in this.
There is nothing you can't realize. Mine was just a suggestion, you don't understand this or you get satisfaction in gainsaying?
I think your basic idea is a good one alex_king92, but like Jona said these features aren't implemented yet. Whenever variable turnaround times are implemented, the cargo/no cargo option could probably be part of it. It's been discussed before, for example having longer turnaround times for longer flights, or being able to choose ground handling companies like you choose fuel services. The more expensive, the faster turnaround time. Being able to operate a LCC will most likely be possible in the future as well, since we'll get more options regarding in-flight entertainment, catering, seating options and so on making it possible to customize your airline the way you like it. As far as I know, some of these features are under development, others are merely suggestions.
Quote from: alex_king92 on September 17, 2015, 08:26:23 PM
There is nothing you can't realize. Mine was just a suggestion, you don't understand this or you get satisfaction in gainsaying?
I am not a naysayer, nor do I get satisfaction from gainsaying.
I have just made a point, and am defending it with arguments, of which you haven't brought many so far.
As of previous postings, I said why I am against your suggestion and I told you why. I understand your reasons for it, but I don't agree with them. Unless you can make a good argument for a change, I am not willing to change my position on this.
No offense, but you don't seem to have much experience with real world procedures. I have seen my fair share of them, and yes it is possible to beat those times, but that is not "business as usual", and sometimes borderline legal depending on where you are, and what you have to do to achieve the times.
And since this is a sim, it will have to bear some relation to reality (e.g. following the procedures).
As far as TATs are concerned, the current setup is all well, and should not and need not be changed.
cheers,
Jona L.
We are close to introduce a new feature, so I think this is the right time to make some minor adjustments to make the game more customizable and less static. I'm speaking about increasing strategic possibilities available to players. Each choice should be EQUIVALENT to the others: some advantages at one side, and some disadvantages at the other. So, for example, I would like to be able to carry passengers only and be quicker and spend less to load my plane, when my opponent gets extra income filling unused space in his cargo holds. I'm looking for realism too, but it doesn't make sense if everybody does the same things.
This still wouldn't change anything.
The thing that requires TATs to be that long is -for >95% of flights- the passengers. Only in very few cases, where there is excessive amount of baggage to be loaded (where there normally is no more space for cargo anyways), the ground time is that long for non-PAX reasons.
In a regular turn around, baggage and cargo loading takes a lot less time than passenger loading.
This goes for bulk loading (loading every piece by hand), and a lot more for container loading.
Example:
An A320 full cabin takes ~12-15mins to empty (considering a regular scheduled flight with relatively routined PAX; +50-100% for charter/holiday PAX) and 17-25mins to fill (again, +50-100% for charter/holiday PAX), while off and onloading of containers/pallets on all available spaces takes roughly 15 minutes combined. If you have 2 loading crews with double loading equipment you can cut that time in half.
Example 2:
A B77W full cabin takes 25-40mins for deboarding, depending on number of jetties (again with relatively routined PAX, add time for tourists as above) and 35-60mins for boarding, depending on number of jetties (again more time for unroutined travelers).
Off and onload of all positions, which can only be filled if you have a LOT of cargo (15-40tn, depending on volume:weight ratio) is about 50-60mins (less with double loading crew).
Additionally at some airports fuelling is not allowed while PAX are boarding/deboarding, baggage/cargo loading is still allowed however. So you can add some time for fuelling between the PAX times as well. On a B777 uplift is about 2000kgs/min -> ~4mins of fuelling per each hour of flight, on the A320 you have an uplift of 800-1200kgs/min -> ~3mins per each hour of flight.
I assume you see where this is going?!
Of course these examples are void, if you have 20 PAX and 15 tons of cargo, but those flights are not the day to day operations.
And don't bring up RYR as an example, they try to have as little baggage as possible (by charging extra), and treat GH staff life workhorses, and push things quite far in terms of legality concerning work-safety, airport regulations and other restrictions.
cheers,
Jona L.
It seems you've lost the point of my suggestion, please, read again my previous post. I'm not against current turnaround times, and as I can see, you are agree with me when you speak about doubling loading crew. I have written enough about this thread.
Cheers
Alex
Quote from: alex_king92 on September 18, 2015, 05:37:48 PM
It seems you've lost the point of my suggestion, please, read again my previous post. I'm not against current turnaround times, and as I can see, you are agree with me when you speak about doubling loading crew. I have written enough about this thread.
Cheers
Alex
It is actually you who is missing the point.
You said you wanted airlines
without cargo to be able to reduce turn times.
The matter of fact is, that cargo is not the problem with turn times, passengers are.
Cargo is a nice to have add on, available to all airlines (given they have a license, but most do IRL), and they can take it without disrupting regular schedules, even if they are at minimum turn times.
The whole point of my arguments has been to show you that shorter turn time are not possible.
I'm looking forward to run cargo, as somebody who normally operates in the more remote areas of the game worlds, that could give it a nice twist.
For the turn arounds, I concur with the "walk-on" cargo being the most time consuming, and you also have to consider that delays ripple through the day and if you are late for your slot, you may end up in the holding pattern for another few minutes, all adding up over the day.
If you ever had the pleasure of waiting for an afternoon flight in North America, you'll understand, "due to late arrival of the aircraft, etc.".
It for sure would make the sim more realistic but also way too complicated to run through a browser interface. There's a reason for those special little programs and dedicated personnel the airlines have and if we reduce turnarounds in the game, we need to have a counter-mechanism through slot allocation. LHR is a wonderful example of most flights circling around as they missed their slots. Or if you fly into MAN on a flight after 9 pm, they have their baggage handlers down to a single team, etc.
As with the latest changes to the alliance score calculation, the game is heading to a more realistic experience. Reducing turn around time in real life increases the risk exposure of delay (and so those it in the game). Just cutting the time doesn't increase realism, you'll need to have the drawbacks in as well to do so.
Noriker
Turnaround times won't change due to cargo. However a 'variable turnaround' system has been suggested already a longlong(long) time ago and is something that will be considered for the future. This would mean that the turnaround is relative to flight duration / required ground services (= allowing shorter hops with larger planes with reasonable ground time). But that's not related to the present developments.
I noticed that the orientation of the values for daily supply and demand on the Estimated daily passenger demand (passengers / day) chart has been changed from the normal horizontal format. The new format is extremely hard to read and one has to twist their neck to read the number above each bar on the chart.
Any chance the format can be changed back to improve readability?
Quote from: pdxpilot06 on September 26, 2015, 07:42:40 AM
I noticed that the orientation of the values for daily supply and demand on the Estimated daily passenger demand (passengers / day) chart has been changed from the normal horizontal format. The new format is extremely hard to read and one has to twist their neck to read the number above each bar on the chart.
Any chance the format can be changed back to improve readability?
Format has been changed to accommodate the longer numbers for cargo demands. Change was intentional. Likely not to be reverted.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 26, 2015, 12:13:48 PM
Format has been changed to accommodate the longer numbers for cargo demands. Change was intentional. Likely not to be reverted.
If cargo demand will be displayed on the same chart as passenger demand won't that skew the scale? If maximum passenger demand on any day of the week is 2,000 and minumum cargo demand is 10,000 lbs, the Y axis would have a minimum of 10,000 making the passenger figures appear close to zero.
I suggest displaying cargo demand in abbreviated format do both cargo and passenger demand can be read easily. An abbreviated format would be 10k for 10,000 lbs (or whatever unit is used for cargo demand).
Suggestion #2 is to have a separate chart for cargo demand or at least a way to exclude cargo-only demand from the chart. No need to have exyra space for larger nunbers if those numbers are hidden.
Suggestion #3 is to have a purely numerical display of passenger and cargo supply and demand either by day or by week.
Thank you for consideration of my comments and suggestions.
Cargo is already displayed in a separate chart, below the PAX figures.
Sami - Will the achievements be back dated in existing Game Worlds. i.e. current airline? only i have achieved a few of these based on my current airline but the achievements are still showing as unachieved?
Yes, it takes a few game weeks to process.
Quote from: Jona L. on September 18, 2015, 06:55:56 PM
It is actually you who is missing the point.
You said you wanted airlines without cargo to be able to reduce turn times.
The matter of fact is, that cargo is not the problem with turn times, passengers are.
Cargo is a nice to have add on, available to all airlines (given they have a license, but most do IRL), and they can take it without disrupting regular schedules, even if they are at minimum turn times.
The whole point of my arguments has been to show you that shorter turn time are not possible.
So what we need to do is patent the process for pallets of seats, and preload passengers on them for optimal boarding times. I'm in!
On subject of turn times, where i work we are routinly spinning 180 seater A320s in 30 minutes and 156 seat A319s in 25. I think with cargo added this would take alot longer as we a slick woth everything we do and i think that adding cargo bins would mean having to use ulds for bags which adds weight and slows spins...
Just my 2c
Has flight time variability ever been discussed? I'd like to see an option where a slider is available to determine cruise speed. There is an optimal speed which sits at, say 85% on the slider. If you need to squeeze a little time to make a schedule work you can cruise your plane at 90-95% gaining some time in the air. Would make it easier to get in before the evening curfew kicks in. Reverse for if you need a little more time to get in after a morning curfew, slow the cruise a bit so you can get in after 6am instead of before.
An aircraft condition penalty can apply for those flying faster that optimal cruise. Be a lead foot pilot, driving your plane fast results in your plane wearing out a bit faster than normal.
Why is storing aircraft considered an achievement? Also would like to see an achievement for how many times you've completed certain achievements, IE 3 times run an airline to the end of the game world.
Quote from: bdnascar3 on October 02, 2015, 11:00:16 PM
Why is storing aircraft considered an achievement?
Just for fun. There will be one (later on) for example that you get if you have a large strike..
(= just making them a bit more diverse; ie. who's the best but also who's the worst ;) ..perhaps the parking tag can be considered as the latter..)
Quote from: soarinternational on October 02, 2015, 09:54:44 PM
On subject of turn times, where i work we are routinly spinning 180 seater A320s in 30 minutes and 156 seat A319s in 25. I think with cargo added this would take alot longer as we a slick woth everything we do and i think that adding cargo bins would mean having to use ulds for bags which adds weight and slows spins...
Just my 2c
This depends. At my airline, minimum ground time for a 175 seat 737-800 is 45 minutes. Even bulked out with, say, 200 bags and 5000lbs of freight on and off the ramp will -always- be ready before boarding is complete. Cargo, for the most part, should not affect turn times IMO.
Quote from: sami on October 03, 2015, 12:48:14 PM
Just for fun. There will be one (later on) for example that you get if you have a large strike..
(= just making them a bit more diverse; ie. who's the best but also who's the worst ;) ..perhaps the parking tag can be considered as the latter..)
Parking 200 planes is easy... bring on level 4 and 5 already! Need 1000+ for level 5!
Quote from: sami on October 03, 2015, 12:48:14 PM
(= just making them a bit more diverse; ie. who's the best but also who's the worst ;) ..perhaps the parking tag can be considered as the latter..)
Parking planes determines who is the laziest :P
Quote from: Jona L. on October 04, 2015, 02:31:35 PM
Parking planes determines who is the laziest :P
It's actually a pain to park planes because you can't park ones in maintainence so you can't ever select all on a page as there's always a few you have to uncheck to clear the nondescript error message....
Quote from: schro on October 04, 2015, 02:43:55 PM
It's actually a pain to park planes because you can't park ones in maintainence so you can't ever select all on a page as there's always a few you have to uncheck to clear the nondescript error message....
Sami - making our lives harder since 2006 ;D ;D ;D
Can we have an achievement for operating a large airline without using a CAT 5 Airport. Not that I'm operating out a 200 plane airline out of Romania or anything like that! ;D
With regards to this update, will there be any flights that operate as cargo charters, or is this not going to be implemented yet and will all be scheduled flights for now? For example, a contract based system where the military of a country offers x amount of flights of y time period, you ferry the aircraft there, and operate the flights.
Comments about the new notification messages please ...
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg353401.html#msg353401
Quote from: sami on October 16, 2015, 05:05:52 PM
Comments about the new notification messages please ...
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg353401.html#msg353401
Not bad.
I was just surprised when I unliked the post that it was not a red cross. But it works.
Looking really forward to the cargo and new demand system. Kudos Sami!
Will connections be a part of the new demand system yet or is that planned further out (that is, if it's planned)?
Planned yes, not actually designed yet (one big question there is the design of a clean and easy to understand interface)... And as you read from the previews I wish to take the design and implementation step by step, in order to make sure as much of the new stuff as possible can be added to the current long games too.
Nice picture Sami ... Such a good resemblance :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Not posting this yet to the Changelog thread, test it first please ..
(= Open a new route -> check 'Every Day' and 'Create each day as a separate route' and watch it make 7 individual routes that you can assign to different planes, etc)
Quote from: sami on October 28, 2015, 08:13:06 AM
Not posting this yet to the Changelog thread, test it first please ..
(= Open a new route -> check 'Every Day' and 'Create each day as a separate route' and watch it make 7 individual routes that you can assign to different planes, etc)
I love to see the changes currently happening in AWS. This new 7 day feature is a big step in the right direction. Great to see that many of the requested topics are being worked on
kudos to the AWS team
Quote from: sami on October 28, 2015, 08:13:06 AM
Not posting this yet to the Changelog thread, test it first please ..
(= Open a new route -> check 'Every Day' and 'Create each day as a separate route' and watch it make 7 individual routes that you can assign to different planes, etc)
This.
Is.
HUGE.
I've used it extensively tonight, and it's working like a charm! Thank you Sami!
Quote from: sami on October 16, 2015, 05:05:52 PM
Comments about the new notification messages please ...
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg353401.html#msg353401
The scheduling page (and some others) will be updated probably next week to include these new notifications. This will help in the usability since each action won't then anymore pop you to the top of the page (in order to show the message). Other smaller usability fixes too, but this will mainly be a larger technical update background scripts/functions (consolidating all them a bit more since many functions are cross used over different pages).
Some questions on cargo and the planes.
Will we see the combi versions...like 747-200. combi? I flew a BA 747 combi many years ago from ORD-LHR and KLM has put its combi -400 on the Chicago route for a long time.
Will we have the ability to convert pax planes into all cargo at some point? While most went from pax to cargo airline, might be a good way to run a pax operation with a dedicated cargo fleet with old planes.
Any chance the 3 fleet penalty could be relaxed to 4 if one of the fleets is cargo only? It would relate back to point 2 where maybe you convert your DC-8s to cargo and run them through the 1990s even though you would have parked/scrapped them otherwise. Or maybe cargo DC-10s into the 2010s like all the FedEx ones still flying around .
Which raise the last point, will the plane age warning be extended if you convert an old plane to cargo? I.e., the assumption is they were probably Nearly rebuilt/very reinforced around 20-25 years which is why UPS, DHL, FEDEX and the others can run 40 year old cargo 727s, DC-8s, DC-10s etc.
Looking forward to the first game with cargo!
the new side notifications are much appreciated especially the part where the page will not revert back to the top.
So far it does not work for me though. When changing a price under 'manage routes' via the price button, I still get the old mechanic. Same goes for setting maintenance under scheduling.
However, you said 'Some of the functions like adding a flight to schedule still use the old system' in the change log so maybe that's it.
Thanks.
So, to necro this thread, I'm not convinced the server is grinding its gears but has been fixed yet. I have had a number of greater than 1 second page renders based on the stats in the footer since the bug was marked as fixed. I'll likely openba new one once I get more solid data to present (I've been on the road a bit...)
Well, at least part of it was.. I noticed myself when the full-site backup snapshots where taken that there was a significant (>10sec) lag for a period of 2-3 minutes whenever the process was ongoing. That is definitely fixed now, and is "not so bad" anymore since backups are taken on per-game basis now and they are also better spread over the day... Other background processes may still cause occasional lag but several things have been already adjusted.
Occasional 1sec process times are not a cause for alarm, but >2+ secs is too much already. And of course 1sec server process time too if that continues all the time (and not just once a day or something like that)..
QuoteSukhoi Superjet and Fairchild Dornier 528/728/928 fleet groups are allowed in London City airport.
argh: arrives too late for my current GW3, and will allow opponents to annoy me there. Snif snif.... Had it be true, I'd have gone J928 instead of E195, and those are much cheaper.
Joke apart, a logical decision. 5 game years too early for my taste, but well...
QuoteNew setting option: "Automatically send leased out planes to long-term storage when aircraft are returned" (at Settings -> Aircraft Settings page). Does exactly what it says: when any plane is returned to you from lease with another airline, it is automatically put into long-term storage (parking) instead of remaining idle in your fleet. This avoids the automatic C/D checks. The leasing contract termination message also notifies of this when this setting is on.
Waow. No more D checks for 24-years old airplanes destined to the junkyard. Thanks a lot.
What about a330-800/900NEO ? aswell as A330-300 Enhanced are we getting those variants in game soon ?
Very happy about the added A330-300 242ton variant! Thanks Sami. I just believe the range added is not correct, the 242tn version has center fuel tanks activated and the range is up to 6350nm with 277 pax, and 5 tonnes more cargo than earlier models. Airbus calculations tend to be very spot on. The A330-300E 242tn is replacing A340 at several airlines, like SAS because of the added range. But in Airwaysim, it only got a tiny 50nm increased range.
From Airbus website:
"A further enhancement of the A330 comes with Airbus' launch of an increased maximum takeoff weight capability to 242 metric tonnes. With this improvement, the A330-300 benefits from up to 500 nautical miles of extra range, to 6,350 nautical miles (11,750 km.) – with 277 passengers, and carries nearly five tonnes more payload than the previous 235-tonne aircraft. In operational terms, the increased takeoff weight A330-300 is able to connect to the following new city pairs: London to Tokyo; Frankfurt to Cape Town; Beijing to Melbourne; Beijing to San Francisco; Kuala Lumpur to Paris; and Los Angeles to Dublin. "
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a330family/a330-300/
Sunbao, the A330-300 Enhanced is the same as the 242tn version. Thanks again Sami, just want the added range on it. Please. :)
Quote from: Andre on January 16, 2016, 04:58:18 PM
But in Airwaysim, it only got a tiny 50nm increased range.
It's amazing... they waste time adding a new plane with 50nm more, while core features like city based demand are in the "to do" list since years.
Well, there are at least 100 things on my to-do list..
I will also check the 330 range later when I add the neo variants (before new gw#2).
Sami, thank you! I appreciate it a lot. :)
ezzeqiel, I'm happy Sami took the time to add new models.. especially since I was the one asking for the A330-300 242n and NEO versions. I really do appreciate his work, I just wanted to correct the range/payload data. I didn't mean to complain. I hope he continues to add models and change small things. The city based demand is an enormous undertaking, the amounts of work and data involved is really huge.
I do let my opinion be heard about things as well, like the fleet commonality issue. I have complaints about things, but I do respect the work Sami puts into it. And every little bit that is added to the game means so much and keeps my interest in the game.
Quote from: Andre on January 16, 2016, 04:58:18 PM
Sunbao, the A330-300 Enhanced is the same as the 242tn version. Thanks again Sami, just want the added range on it. Please. :)
Perfect then, if it also then get right range as you pinpoint then it will be very good.
"Minor changes to the slot checker system on busy airports, making route swapping easier."
What does that excatly means sami ?
Well I know what family I ain't buying for future GW...
Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on January 17, 2016, 04:43:02 AM
Perfect then, if it also then get right range as you pinpoint then it will be very good.
Indeed.
Sami I have a suggestion for the A330-300 242tn. It has two names as Sunbao mentioned, it's called A330-300E (E for Enhanced), or just A330-300 242tn.
Since the aircraft is a bit more than just an MTOW increase, I suggest you can make it a seperate model. Call it A330-300E and launch date around 2014 with deliveries around 2015.
The A330-300E has aerodynamical improvements and tweaks like the flap "canoes" are shortnened, and it's got the centre fuel tanks activated. It's also got an EFB built into it, but that's not relevant to Airwaysim. It's basically a NEO without the new engines. It's got better fuel economy and much longer range due to these changes. Delta and SAS were two of the first airlines to get these models delivered. So I think it would make sense to let it be a seperate model, like for example A340-300X and so on. Also it will be available later in the game, and not be an unfair advantage over the 767/777 in the 90s. Being launched in 2014 and delivered around 2015 would make it a natural replacement for A340, just like in the real world.
Quote from: Andre on January 17, 2016, 05:18:46 PM
A330-300E (E for Enhanced), or just A330-300 242tn.
According to some data the first -300E would been around already in 2008... And other say that the "E" is really only a marketing term by some airlines.. There's talk of 330-300X too (model before E).
Anyway, the weight variants do not have a launch date setting like engines have so I cannot assign a weight variant to appear any later than the launch of the plane. But creating own -300E model with just one weight variant (but all three engine options??) doesn't sound right either.
Quote from: sami on January 18, 2016, 02:20:08 PM
According to some data the first -300E would been around already in 2008... And other say that the "E" is really only a marketing term by some airlines.. There's talk of 330-300X too (model before E).
Anyway, the weight variants do not have a launch date setting like engines have so I cannot assign a weight variant to appear any later than the launch of the plane. But creating own -300E model with just one weight variant (but all three engine options??) doesn't sound right either.
I understand. The first 242tn was delivered last year to Delta. The A330-300 242tn has the center tank activated, MTOW increased, and about 500 nm more range than the previous version. The A330-200 242tn has a range increase of 350nm, and already has the center tank activated. Both models also got an aerodynamical cleanup which helps with fuel consumption and range.
But of course, it's up to you if you want to just make it another MTOW increase, or if you want to seperate it as it's own model. As I've mentioned before, there's more to it than just the MTOW increase, but the most important thing is that it/they get the right range, or else it won't be much use. +500nm for A330-300 and +350nm for A330-200. I know they're available with RR Trent 700 engines, but I think all engine options are available.
In my opinion I think it should be two seperate models launched around 2012 (noticed the Airbus press release was November 2012), and with EIS around 2014/15. You could call them A330-300 242tn and A330-200 242tn which seems to be what Airbus calls it these days. Or you could just leave them as another MTOW increases as they are now, but with corrected range. The only negative side with that is that some people might think it's unfair to the 767/777, and it would be much earlier than it actually was available.
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/airbus-offers-new-242-tonne-a330-takeoff-weight-capability-to-extend-market-coverage/
I'd like to see the launch of the newer generation put off as well - if the 242T 330 was available at the launch of all 330's, then that would more or less kill the need for the less efficient A340 20 years before it's time to kill it off...
Perhaps then both 330X and 330E in the same style what we have with 340 .. the X is the 230tn variant and E 242 .. (though Airbus hasn't really used these terms, but I guess it's better than adding the weight variant way too early). But have to investigate this a bit, rather confusing.
Agree sami and schro. Seperate models would be best. The 242 tn variants are a very large leap from the previous versions regarding range and payload, and they are the models the NEOs will be based on. And I agree with schro that it's best to launch it at the correct date, serving as an A340-replacement plane. It would undermine the A340 if launched in the 90s. 230tn as X and 242tn as E sounds good.
Not sure where to put this, but there's a typo on the A330-300 order page. The new 242tn variant that was just added is listed as 2,420,000 kgs for the PW4000 engine type on the overview page :o. Talk about a world record! ;D
Was the range on the A330-200 with the GE engines changed in the past 24hrs? I have two aircraft on order and one currently in my fleet with the +3tn CF6 engines, and the advertised range when ordering this variant was 6900nm (6940nm with my seating config), and that was lowered to 6840nm when I went to order two more +3tn variants. The current a330-200 in my fleet still shows a range of 6940nm, but the two I have on order (placed before the change) now show only 6890nm with the same seating config and the same +3tn MTOW. This brings the range of those aircraft under that which may be required for some of the routes I wanted to use them for. Were any changes made in the past 24hrs? :(
Quote from: blahmeh14 on January 19, 2016, 11:40:22 PM
Was the range on the A330-200 with the GE engines changed in the past 24hrs? I have two aircraft on order and one currently in my fleet with the +3tn CF6 engines, and the advertised range when ordering this variant was 6900nm (6940nm with my seating config), and that was lowered to 6840nm when I went to order two more +3tn variants. The current a330-200 in my fleet still shows a range of 6940nm, but the two I have on order (placed before the change) now show only 6890nm with the same seating config and the same +3tn MTOW. This brings the range of those aircraft under that which may be required for some of the routes I wanted to use them for. Were any changes made in the past 24hrs? :(
Changes like that are never made to an in production game, so here's what probably happened:
1. You ordered the plane and changed the seat configuration on the order page.
2. You didn't notice that the range stated by the ordering page only quotes range with default setting and does not display the range with the seat assignment selected at that time.
3. Upon delivery, you discovered that range went down as that's the first time it was presented that way.
No need to fear though, you'll only be seat restricted by a handful of seats and the plane will be just fine on the route.
The opposite happened, though -- I ordered less seats than default. If you take a look at the attachments, the airplane I currently fly has the same seating config as the ones on order, and is the same MTOW variant with the same engines, but the range has decreased for the ones on order versus the one I fly. :-\
For reference, I've also attached the order page specifications to show that the range listed in the "aircraft on order" page takes into account the seating arrangement. The +3tn went from 6900nm to 6840nm default overnight. :o
Many thanks for the reply, though, schro! :)
Check it again on delivery. I don't think the order page number seems accurate - most reliable will be when the plane is delivered. That being said, running 250 seats on a 332 at max range does not bode well for your profits, though, it should be fine in beginner's world. If you go up to a big world, I'd suggest other options first....
One other thing that I'll often do is not worry about removing seats to add range but let the system handle the seat restrictions. The payload range chart can give you an idea of what to expect....
Guys, do you really think anybody would order 330X / 330E with deliveries in 2015, while NEOs would come in 2018. In current game conditions nobody would order new a/c just for 3 years. So, IMHO, it's better to add new MTOW option.
Quote from: Tim on January 20, 2016, 12:57:46 PM
Guys, do you really think anybody would order 330X / 330E with deliveries in 2015, while NEOs would come in 2018. In current game conditions nobody would order new a/c just for 3 years. So, IMHO, it's better to add new MTOW option.
Yes there will, i will sure do it for one, yes its only 3 year but that will be around 40 planes to get in that time span.
The mtow option is unrealistic and unfair for other plane tyeps so thats sure not the way to go.
We aim to have a realistic game
Quote from: Tim on January 20, 2016, 12:57:46 PM
Guys, do you really think anybody would order 330X / 330E with deliveries in 2015, while NEOs would come in 2018. In current game conditions nobody would order new a/c just for 3 years. So, IMHO, it's better to add new MTOW option.
Yes, as Sunbao said 3 years is 40 planes, give or take. Also, the 330NEO will share commonality with the 330/40 line so I see no reason at all to not order 330X/E when made available.
Pricing will tell a lot about it's desirability... Later model wide bodies are priced so high dynamically that their costs don't justify the efficiency increase...
Quote from: schro on January 20, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
Pricing will tell a lot about it's desirability... Later model wide bodies are priced so high dynamically that their costs don't justify the efficiency increase...
Which makes the game more interesting. There is no obvious choice, no sure way to win.
Any chance in a future update you could modify pricing to include the ability to set default prices, increase, or decrease prices (fares) at 1 base only instead of system wide??
With the new function "create routes for the next six days" I usually don't buy slots for these seven day schedules as the last planes are usually 6-7 months away.
And even if you were to purchase those slots, they would expire before you get use them.
Wouldn't it be an idea to have a "buy slots for selected routes" on the manage routes dropdown menu?
Some schedules have 9 routes and this would save the time to "edit" all of them...
Kind regards,
NC
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on January 22, 2016, 09:56:18 AM
With the new function "create routes for the next six days" I usually don't buy slots for these seven day schedules as the last planes are usually 6-7 months away.
And even if you were to purchase those slots, they would expire before you get use them.
Wouldn't it be an idea to have a "buy slots for selected routes" on the manage routes dropdown menu?
Some schedules have 9 routes and this would save the time to "edit" all of them...
Kind regards,
NC
...or even a single button "buy all slots for routes with aircraft assigned". So that, whatever you forgot to buy, works now.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 22, 2016, 11:10:24 AM
...or even a single button "buy all slots for routes with aircraft assigned". So that, whatever you forgot to buy, works now.
That would be good addition, I've only been playing a week or so and found myself in this situation a few times. Planned a few routes ahead of a plane being delivered and when the time came to "open" those routes, it was a pain to manually edit 10-20 different routes.
Quote from: ChuckPerry on January 21, 2016, 05:03:53 AM
Any chance in a future update you could modify pricing to include the ability to set default prices, increase, or decrease prices (fares) at 1 base only instead of system wide??
A very needed function indeed
I'm surprised the last change log didn't include:
Automatically lock the slot page for 24 hours for any player opening a bug report about being locked out of the slot page.
Make all planes common to a player's airline invisible to it on the used market for each player that opens a bug report about no planes being available on the used market because brokers are storing them.
While the constant complaints about the used market and the slot page do get annoying, the slot lock out function really is a problem. If it says 10 minutes, it needs to be 10 minutes. If it is going top be longer, the player deserves to know that it will be longer. The big problem is a player that is locked out keeps checking every 10 minutes expecting to be able to see the slot page, but that lock out warning pops up again. The loading of the slot page triggers as another click thus making it even LONGER until the player can view the slot page.
While I agree that a mechanism is needed to prevent abuse, it is also not fair the the player, the paying customer, to have deliberately misleading information displayed when the page load limit is reached. I would rather it tell me "You loaded the page x times in y minutes, you may not load this page for z minutes. Please check back then" even if it is 2 hours, than having it always say 10 minutes. That being said, a flat 10 minute ban followed by a reset on the page load count is plenty sufficient for a penalty at any airport where catching a slot drop is crucial. If a drop occurs during that 10 minutes, you missed them anyway.
Just my $0.02....
Don
Happy that some agree. Its still locked by the way. If feel mistreated in such an important part of the game and I think there might be many more that agree with me.
Hope you have some nice in game compensation for this faulty mechanism Sami.
Quote from: [SC] - King Kong on January 31, 2016, 08:25:26 PM
Happy that some agree. Its still locked by the way. If feel mistreated in such an important part of the game and I think there might be many more that agree with me.
Hope you have some nice in game compensation for this faulty mechanism Sami.
Sadly that a issue that has been her for years still not is fixed
I've been blocked only once, but it was horribly frustrating : a Fairchild metro can fly 6 short routes a day. So, as usually, I opened 6 additional tabs in opera, each one for a route, and this time, I had 6 different destinations(yeah, serving 602 airports needs quite work - but that's normal). I check everything is OK, all routes are properly setup, and I enter a "confirm" frenzy, clicking it 6 times in less than 10 seconds.
And, of course, at the 6th click, slot ban. Hell, I was just filling one single plane! Yes, a single lone plane can fly 6 daily routes, that is 84 slots to reserve. Not even flying at night. Example, my current G-FAAG in current GW3. Flies From Edinburgh to Newcaste, Islay, Barra, Wick, Benbecula & Newcastle again. Every day. SX-FAB flies from Corfu to Vasteras, Preveza, Kefalonia, Tirana, Araxos & Dubrovnik each day(besides Vasteras on saturdays for the A check.). That's 82 slots to 6 different aiports, and I'm not allowed to validate all of them at once. I must first do some of them, assign them to the plane, then do the other ones, then assign the remaining ones. Very tedious, and it increases the risk of error & frustration.
NB : those planes make +250k$ per week before taxes and salaries(who are rather low anyways). My estimate is that they earn me around 125k$ per week, for a purchase price of 5M$(at the time of purchase, they're costlier now). Many people laugh at them, but under 280NM, they are insanely efficient(where slot prices are not too insane). So yes, I'd like to be able to plan them 6 daily flights at once without being slotbanned. Of course, I never had that problems with 737(4 maximum daily flights) or even RJs(5 maximum daily flights, Be it on CRJs, ERJs, A148 or Ejets). But it really annoyed me a lot.
"Can I build by own big HUB?
Players can indeed make the airports grow and create traffic to airports that would be otherwise quiet. For example you could find a small city airport that will catch the demand of a big city (like Stockholm and the Bromma airport) and start flying from there. Initially your problem can be that the airport might be capacity limited but future versions of this system will allow airports to expand with new runways (more slots) and so forth."
From the Previews thread. This is a huge aspect of City Based Demand, and something many of us has asked for in the past. I really hope the option to expand airports with new runways, runway extensions and slots will be implemented sooner than later. Very happy to see that it is planned for in the future.
Hello,
i would like to bring to the table the topic of maximum alliance members, related to the change back in January 2016
Quote"The maximum amount of members per each alliance is now related to the player capacity of the game world. Minimum level is 20 members in all games, and the new maximum is 40 members (reached when game's max player capacity is >700). This way we can encourage more players to join alliances in large games."
I've given it some time to see how it would work and based on my experience i would like to share my thoughts
When i first saw the post i thought 'awesome, the more the merrier', but i soon realized this was not the case.
Having a team with 25 members was a good number, Not to low and not to high, you have the feeling that you have a connection with everyone. But raising this limit to 40 changed that since you now have 15 more people to keep in contact with.
Suddenly the focus of an alliance changed to get the maximum numbers of member as possible, so the alliance can get those 5 point per member each year. This as a result will leave the variable score to be less important at the end of the game...
The way the alliance point system works today is too depending on how many member each alliance has. I think this is a shame since it takes the focus away from running and building a succesfull airline focusing on a good score
My final though is that for a 40 member alliance to work, i think the alliance point distribution should be "re-shuffled" so alliance members point don't play such a big part in the alliance score
As a start maybe the maximum numbers should not be determined by the capacity in the game world rather than the amount of players in the game world....
Best Regards
Christian
(Fresh Air)
the advisor idea is excellent. While mentoring, I've seen quite a few strange things. Dunno if they are easy to catch.
"why lease another aircraft when the previous aircraft is used less than 5 hours a day"?
"why setup a line where the airplane is obviously too small?" (the "too small penalty is not easy to spot, for whoever does not know to look for it")
"why fly a regional turboprop during the night, and having a A-Check during daylight?"
Sooo will we also get France ATC strikes as a bimonthly event? ???
Can you add major sports events? an idea?
Sports events are already covered by the random events. But changing them to historical events is possible, just have to remove the random sports events then.
FIFA worldcups and Olympic Games are most likely then. Should be rather easy to have those implemented. Question is where to stop. Cricket world cups should not be that famous.
Bringing this up again as I have a 737 coming in with 13 routes in a 7 day schedule, which requires slot buying
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on January 22, 2016, 09:56:18 AM
With the new function "create routes for the next six days" I usually don't buy slots for these seven day schedules as the last planes are usually 6-7 months away.
And even if you were to purchase those slots, they would expire before you get use them.
Wouldn't it be an idea to have a "buy slots for selected routes" on the manage routes dropdown menu?
Some schedules have 9 routes and this would save the time to "edit" all of them...
Kind regards,
NC
Loving the new automatic schedule conversion! I just tried it with a Fokker 100 -> MD-90 schedule, using original departure times. Worked flawlessly.
It will probably be difficult going the other way, because the F100 is slower. But if we implemented a generic Cost Index feature (a speed override), it could be regulated so that even slower aircraft could increase speed to use the same departure times, at the penalty of increased fuel burn.
Keep up the great work Sami!
Quote from: [ATA] Hassel on March 20, 2016, 12:21:30 PM...I think the alliance point distribution should be "re-shuffled" so (the quantity of alliance members) point don't play such a big part in the alliance score...
It should be the median of all members scores. Like this alliances will focus on getting members with good scores as opposed to as many members as possible.
Alliance should get points and rewards for what is alliance goals, not company goals.
I mean - what is the goal of alliance for this game? If its supposed like IRL alliance/codesharing etc, then the alliance points should be given for how many continents/countries/cities is covered, and with how much quality. Which can be obtained by CI. And also how many pax served.
Something like this. IMHO
Great to see the Embraer E2 being added! Given that the E195 E2 is very close to the CS300 in terms of capacity, perhaps it's time to reclassify the CSeries as a medium aircraft?
CSeries is a whole lot bigger than E-Jets. Average (max) capacity of all models in Cseries is 142 pax while for E-Jets it is 104 pax.
The BAC-111 moving to large is a huge nerf and I'm not sure I'm a fan of the change. Now there's really no reason to select it over a DC-9 or 737-Jurassic due to its much lower range (and capacity) with (now) comparable operating costs due to the sizing change.
Prior to the change, the BAC could be a wise choice where the limited range was a fair trade for the lower operating costs of a medium plane. Now, there's really no reason to make that exchange...
Quote from: schro on January 17, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
The BAC-111 moving to large is a huge nerf and I'm not sure I'm a fan of the change. Now there's really no reason to select it over a DC-9 or 737-Jurassic due to its much lower range (and capacity) with (now) comparable operating costs due to the sizing change.
Prior to the change, the BAC could be a wise choice where the limited range was a fair trade for the lower operating costs of a medium plane. Now, there's really no reason to make that exchange...
This is a change I would feel too as I normally operate the BAC for this exact reason. The only reason now to take these would be if they were much cheaper or yu came into the game late and that's all you could get new.
I, for one, am a big fan of the change. I think it will bring more balance to the game; should make it more possible to compete if you aren't lucky enough to get a huge order into the BAC production queue very early on.
Not for nothing, I also like that it should make the game conform closer to historical reality. DC-9s outsold the BAC by something like a 4-1 margin. Granted, getting into the DC-9 queue may become critical to early success, but such is life when you have a world with 0 airlines and in a matter of a week a world with 300-400 airlines...
Quote from: chwatuva on January 17, 2017, 06:55:41 PM
I, for one, am a big fan of the change. I think it will bring more balance to the game; should make it more possible to compete if you aren't lucky enough to get a huge order into the BAC production queue very early on.
Not for nothing, I also like that it should make the game conform closer to historical reality. DC-9s outsold the BAC by something like a 4-1 margin. Granted, getting into the DC-9 queue may become critical to early success, but such is life when you have a world with 0 airlines and in a matter of a week a world with 300-400 airlines...
Yeah I get the change and it makes perfect sense I think it will be interesting to see how the prices of the BACs will differ to the rest if it turns out to be less popular.
One possibly overlooked effect of the size changes is that some types can now not fly to certain airports. The Vickers VC10 for instance would no longer be able to fly into any airport below size 3.
Likewise, the BAC would now not be able to fly to size 1 airports. So a 'large' 70 seat BAC 200 (4,987 ft runway requirement) would not be able to fly to the same airport that a 'medium' 96 seat BAe 146-300 (4,921 ft runway requirement) can. Like not just a penalty - be totally forbidden from doing so.
I would hope the BAC 200/300/400/475 (all 75 seats or fewer) would remain medium with the 500 version going to large. I know that it may not currently be possible to have different aircraft sizes within the same fleet type. But I think it is something which should be explored as it would be a more holistic refinement (and not as blunt and polarizing). Especially as there are similar dilemmas across other aircraft types (DC-9-10/51, Boeing 757-200/300, Embraer 170/195, etc.).
Quote from: fark24 on January 17, 2017, 08:26:49 PM
Likewise, the BAC would now not be able to fly to size 1 airports. So a 'large' 70 seat BAC 200 (4,987 ft runway requirement) would not be able to fly to the same airport that a 'medium' 96 seat BAe 146-300 (4,921 ft runway requirement) can.
1. There will always be problems, and the problems always happen at the margins. Just like in so much of real life. Does is make sense that 757-300 can carry more people further as a large aircraft than many 767-200s? One obstacle at a time...
2. Sami (and others) talk about generations of aircraft. You are talking about different generations of aircraft, ships that started service in 1965 vs. 1983.
Thank you. So glad to see the change in size for these aircraft. Tired of the DC-9 becoming obsolete early because of the BAC. And other impacts.
Quote from: schro on January 17, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
The BAC-111 moving to large is a huge nerf and I'm not sure I'm a fan of the change. Now there's really no reason to select it over a DC-9 or 737-Jurassic due to its much lower range (and capacity) with (now) comparable operating costs due to the sizing change.
Prior to the change, the BAC could be a wise choice where the limited range was a fair trade for the lower operating costs of a medium plane. Now, there's really no reason to make that exchange...
BAC is significantly cheaper most of the time...isn't it?
I know the change is controversial, but I'm broadly for it. The BAC is over-powered in that is so good for so long if used correctly, when we know in real life it was never a keeper in such a way.
What will be interesting is how people's strategies change. There is no like for like alternative. What I expect to see is more large bases, fewer regional airlines, the 737 becoming even more precious, along with the DC-9, and the NAMC becoming the go to plane for regional carriers.
I think a better solution to the problem however might be a new class of plane, and a new class of base size and a new class of airport size. We currently have 4 classes. Small, medium, large and extra large. I think there the BAC, the Fokker 100 and the E190 sit in a field all of their own, that could do with a category in between the current "medium" and "large" categories.
The changes are welcomed and should change the fleet structure of players airlines, regarding the BACs.
Its more of an annoyance in fleet planning then anything else. The player base will rebound in kind and new strategies will be developed. Other overlooked aircraft will see some new daylight. BAC re-class will force players to retire them sooner then normal, to switch to more modern era Med class aircraft.
Changes to the 1950s/60s era aircraft will result in a slightly more expensive start up, but nothing ground shaking.
VC10 changes are interesting. This will bring the VC10 and Super inline with the 707/DC-8. Which it naturally competes with in range/capacity. Players will have to treat it as a more LH oriented aircraft and not some hybrid LH aircraft flying like we see in the modern times era (A321,739). Im sure this will upset the natural balance of those who have to update there excel 7 day scheduling spreadsheet, but live and let go I say.
Talentz
I agree with the rebalance of BAC, however it will just hurt more "casual" player who wants to stay in the game...
before if you start late or not as wealthy you can go for less popular plane(yes bac was not as popular many years ago until too many people found it's advantage). Now you are forcing those crowd to go to dc9/737.... assume there is no special treatment increasing the production of 737/dc9 you are just making not as well run airline harder to source plane, and stay competitive compare to better prepared player who drops like 200 order right from the launch.
This also applies to vc10, which is a good alternative to 707/dc8, where you have backlog for a very long time, player who cannot afford to wait can take a lessor range vc10 with cheaper run cost to challenge those 707 player.... now with these changes the cost makes it non reasonable to do so.
at the same time, while small airport expansion is already hard enough, with those better plane moving to medium category you are essentially increasing the cost of running it..... to be honest I am not sure the motive of making these changes.
Quote from: Teadaze on January 18, 2017, 08:24:15 AM
before if you start late or not as wealthy you can go for less popular plane(yes bac was not as popular many years ago until too many people found it's advantage). Now you are forcing those crowd to go to dc9/737.... assume there is no special treatment increasing the production of 737/dc9 you are just making not as well run airline harder to source plane, and stay competitive compare to better prepared player who drops like 200 order right from the launch.
now it becomes easier. Currently BACs becomes very popular, therefore not everybody can get them for fair price. loosing its extra-advantage more people will turn to dc9, therefore bacs become easier to get.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on January 18, 2017, 12:20:34 PM
now it becomes easier. Currently BACs becomes very popular, therefore not everybody can get them for fair price. loosing its extra-advantage more people will turn to dc9, therefore bacs become easier to get.
which become a worse idea.
let's say each plane have 3 slot production line... each with 100% utilisation. BAC's advantage can only be used in certain area where range is not required. most people are happy because load is being distributed. Newcomer has a fair chance in choosing a BAC, dc9 or 737.
Now with the change, there is 0 advantage using BAC compare to Boeing or dc..... those 30% players will want to go to 737/dc9, the 6 production slot will have 9 slot worth of order, new comer or people who cannot make large order will get pushed out after ordering 5-10 plane, and it will take them up to 30% longer time for obtaining those aircraft.
Yes, it is easier to get bac, but what's good of a BAC if you are in countries that need more than 1600nm range route? And it is not as effective then the monster competition that has their 737-200adv running? you are pretty much suckered waiting for additional years to have a slot, or forced to get lucky and lease one of the overpriced ones.
before dc9 comes to market ppl are using 732 and 722 for 1600+ routes. or even dc8.
by the time dc9 arrives big players are already packed their fleets and dont want to add extra fleet.
they are used to wait until 733 or airbuses arrives. or md80.
Quote from: Teadaze on January 18, 2017, 12:34:28 PM
(.../...)what's good of a BAC if you are in countries that need more than 1600nm range route? And it is not as effective then the monster competition that has their 737-200adv running? you are pretty much suckered waiting for additional years to have a slot, or forced to get lucky and lease one of the overpriced ones.
dynamic pricing. That's the difference. When a plane costs half what it should, and other better plane costs double than what it should, you have high differences in ownership costs. Last 3 GW3, I toyed with A148. An inferior plane. The other GW3 I played, I had E75. A superior plane. Still, when the A158 can be bought for 17M$, while the E175(not quicker, less seats) is around 45M$, the choice is not between choosing the bad plane and choosing the good plane, but between
buying bad planes and
leasing good planes. And suddenly, the communist crap makes sense financially. As long as you're the only one to buy it, of course. And as long as you scrap them after 16 years.
BACs, in this perspective, will become a niche plane for a few players who want to own their fleet and don't have the firepower of the big boys. Or even smaller players who simply can"t afford leasing the overpopular models. Of course, they have no use in large countries. But for a medium-sized player located in Europe, they still make a lot of sense. Because other players will ignore them.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on January 18, 2017, 01:15:51 PM
before dc9 comes to market ppl are using 732 and 722 for 1600+ routes. or even dc8.
by the time dc9 arrives big players are already packed their fleets and dont want to add extra fleet.
they are used to wait until 733 or airbuses arrives. or md80.
Usually there would have to be a split fleet type strategy for a player on say, the east coast of the US, in order to properly cover demand if the BAC was in the mix. This adds to the complexity of the airline more than anything - Suppose you're in ATL - you can use hundreds of BACs within their range envelope, but they can't hit california, so a secondary 732/722 fleet must be used for those destinations (say, 100 planes). If the next step is the MD8x planes, then you've got to transition carefully as you go... With there being no cost differential, then there's no point in spending time on the BAC in that situation - just load up on Diesel 9's and call it a day.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 18, 2017, 01:28:54 PM
dynamic pricing. That's the difference. When a plane costs half what it should, and other better plane costs double than what it should, you have high differences in ownership costs. Last 3 GW3, I toyed with A148. An inferior plane. The other GW3 I played, I had E75. A superior plane. Still, when the A158 can be bought for 17M$, while the E175(not quicker, less seats) is around 45M$, the choice is not between choosing the bad plane and choosing the good plane, but between buying bad planes and leasing good planes. And suddenly, the communist crap makes sense financially. As long as you're the only one to buy it, of course. And as long as you scrap them after 16 years.
BACs, in this perspective, will become a niche plane for a few players who want to own their fleet and don't have the firepower of the big boys. Or even smaller players who simply can"t afford leasing the overpopular models. Of course, they have no use in large countries. But for a medium-sized player located in Europe, they still make a lot of sense. Because other players will ignore them.
At the era when the BAC/732/722s are viable planes, leasing and ownership costs are rather immaterial as they are incredibly low compared to revenue (as are all costs in the early games). Once you get into the 90's-2000's and beyond, that's where ownership costs start to make a material difference to the bottom line....
QuoteSitewide SSL
Due to future changes implemented by Google in their Chrome browser, followed later by others, we've implemented a sitewide encrypted transfer policy. All pages are now loaded using the SSL protocol, as indicated by the green lock icon at the address bar.
Wow, Thank you so much for this! I have been waiting for this for a long time.
From the latest changelog:
QuoteNew aircraft ordering system has more logic built into it. The system stores now the individual discounts each order receives, and this allows the system to calculate the price better when later editing the order (previously discounts were not stored and editing the order afterwards was usually costly if you got a good discount). [affects only orders made after 1st April 2017 real time]
I made an order for 10x B717 in the past 48 hours, after 1 April (real time), in GW3. (09-Jul-2006 in-game.) I went to edit the order today to change the delivery base, and the game wants to charge me $107k and increase my lease by $15k/mo. I did not get any discounts on my order as it was a lease order for only 10 planes, but simply changing the delivery base 7 game weeks after placing the order shouldn't cost me anything.
Quote
•Route editor's slot handling is updated so that you can now choose to get slots only for one leg of the route. Previously if you ticked "Do not buy slots for this airport" you had to get all the slots when next time editing the route but now you can do that in increments.
Something may have changed with the functionality recently: When I own the slots at only 1 airport, and not the other, in the past, I was able to fly one leg of the flight and hopefully acquire the slots at the other airport later to be able to fly in both directions.
Now when I have slots at only one airport and not the other, the system closes the route and drops the slots. After about 2 months of flying.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 11, 2017, 02:22:36 AM
Something may have changed with the functionality recently: When I own the slots at only 1 airport, and not the other, in the past, I was able to fly one leg of the flight and hopefully acquire the slots at the other airport later to be able to fly in both directions.
Now when I have slots at only one airport and not the other, the system closes the route and drops the slots. After about 2 months of flying.
Should this be considered a bug? Should I move it to the bug reports?
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 11, 2017, 02:22:36 AM
Something may have changed with the functionality recently: When I own the slots at only 1 airport, and not the other, in the past, I was able to fly one leg of the flight and hopefully acquire the slots at the other airport later to be able to fly in both directions.
Now when I have slots at only one airport and not the other, the system closes the route and drops the slots. After about 2 months of flying.
It has always dropped all slots when not flown after the 2 month period as far as I can remember.
If it didn't, that'd mean the game would allow you to fly your planes one way, and return via a warp?
well
I found one warp route at my GW3 company also.
I search for unslotted routes to check and see that one route has income :)
DEN-PWM 23:55 route - has no slots at Den. but still flying and providing profit on back leg :)
Quote from: schro on April 12, 2017, 12:37:50 AM
It has always dropped all slots when not flown after the 2 month period as far as I can remember.
If it didn't, that'd mean the game would allow you to fly your planes one way, and return via a warp?
Isn't slot more of a gate thing than a take-off slot? So the flight takes off without passengers and comes back with passengers.
BTW, closing the route if it has only one set of slots kind of defeats the purpose of the flexibility built into the system where you CAN buy just one set of slots.
And I am about 99% sure that the system did allow flying one way only just few months ago. I had several LAX routes like that, flying, while I was waiting for slots to be freed.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 12, 2017, 02:52:47 PM
Isn't slot more of a gate thing than a take-off slot? So the flight takes off without passengers and comes back with passengers.
BTW, closing the route if it has only one set of slots kind of defeats the purpose of the flexibility built into the system where you CAN buy just one set of slots.
And I am about 99% sure that the system did allow flying one way only just few months ago. I had several LAX routes like that, flying, while I was waiting for slots to be freed.
but then it should consume fuel and etc for both legs?
Regarding July 20th update for aircraft conversions from passenger to freight, does the aircraft come out of conversion with a fresh heavy (C/D) check?
Currently no, but C check would be reasonable. That would change the cost calculation then.
It's anyway just the first version (does not have multi-conversion support yet)
For Combi aircrafts, like F27 Mk.300 combiplanes, is there any tools in cabin configurator that allow we to choose the size of the combi department on the main deck of those aircrafts?
Quote from: Sami on July 20, 2017, 05:02:20 PM
It's anyway just the first version
Since it sounds like this mechanic will be subject to further development, would it be possible to include/enhance the system to allow for scheduled actions for upcoming maintenance tasks? (Such as change seating config/install hush kit/convert aircraft during next C/D check).
Quote from: Sami on July 20, 2017, 05:02:20 PM
Currently no, but C check would be reasonable. That would change the cost calculation then.
It's anyway just the first version (does not have multi-conversion support yet)
Thanks for the quick reply. Perhaps it would be possible to have the option of performing a C/D check while the aircraft is undergoing retrofit - but simply add that to the total cost (like when requesting a C/D check on aircraft purchased from the used market) and also have the heavy check time absorbed into the conversion time and vice versa.
For example, lets say for a particular model a conversion takes 30 days, a C-check 10 days and a D-check 35 days. If I request a conversion + C-check, I get the aircraft back in 30 days. If I request a conversion + D-check, I get the aircraft back in 35 days.
I'm interested to see how this changes commonality. I'm pretty sure it has been said the Commonality System is something to look at at some point. For a ATR it doesn't become much of an issue. All you do is convert the older one's to Cargo and bring newer later models in as your passenger aircraft.
But it does bring up some interest with B707's, DC-8, DC-10's when we all retire those but might move them across as cheap freighters. 3 fleet types becomes a nightmare. I would imagine in the long run with changes and updates to commonality this becomes less of an issue, but for the time being as this feature is introduced, it could prove interesting. But we'll see how this evolves along with everything else in the pipeline.
- So if I understand correctly, even if the catchment area for BRU is grown to very large, they still can't catch traffics from AMS/DUS/LUX/CDG? Or American border town airports like BUF cannot actually(effectively) catch traffics from Canada border town? Both of them seems to be something that happens in real life.
- And so even if I grow the airport of LGA to become a very large one and dwarfed all other NYC airports in term of international long haul traffics, if competitors start flying long hauls from other NYC airports, I can't really do anything to compete against my competitors?
original statement
Edit: I believe the IL96-M and IL96-400 should have same seating capacity as well as cargo capacity?
Edit: Also, if what I am reading is correct then the IL-96-400T was not supposed to be powered by Russian engines?
For the DC10/MD11 and F27/F50 commonality change, is that effective in current game worlds or only future game worlds?
All data changes only for new games in this change (including "updates").
Quote from: Sami on September 14, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
All data changes only for new games in this change (including "updates").
Damn, would have saved me a lot of money when i got the F50 later on :'(
Quote from: Danny Williams on September 14, 2017, 02:51:37 PM
Damn, would have saved me a lot of money when i got the F50 later on :'(
which makes for an interesting dilemma. Stay with F27s? Go F50? Switch to regional jets? Take another brand?
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on September 14, 2017, 02:56:56 PM
which makes for an interesting dilemma. Stay with F27s? Go F28? Switch to regional jets? Take another brand?
I'll most likely go with the F28's later on i think, assuming it doesn't launch in the middle of the night, like most planes have done so far...
Quote from: Sami on September 14, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
All data changes only for new games in this change (including "updates").
Given that the DC10 won't launch for another while in GW2 and it will be ongoing for another real life year, can it be combined with the MD11 group for this world? All the other worlds they're far past useful at this point....
QuoteFokker F.27 and F50 fleet groups have been combined.
Are the Fokker F28 and Fokker 70/100 also combined? This because these are certified as Fokker F28 variants:
Fokker 70= Fokker F28-0070
Fokker 100= Fokker F28-0100
Type certificate Fokker F28 (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TCDS_EASA.A.037_Fokker_F28_Iss_06_20160715.pdf)
Quote from: TK1244 on September 15, 2017, 11:46:27 AM
Are the Fokker F28 and Fokker 70/100 also combined? This because these are certified as Fokker F28 variants
Their speed is not the same(421 ktas against 403), so it would be problematic. That's the same reason Q400 is a seperate group from DH8C
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on September 15, 2017, 01:56:29 PM
Their speed is not the same(421 ktas against 403), so it would be problematic. That's the same reason Q400 is a seperate group from DH8C
Understandable, thanks for your reply!
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on September 15, 2017, 01:56:29 PM
Their speed is not the same(421 ktas against 403), so it would be problematic. That's the same reason Q400 is a seperate group from DH8C
There are also some other aircrafts, like Convair 240 and those pother model in the same series, that in real life have different speed, but are merged into same family and share same speed for the game's purpose.
And then it should probably also be asked that is the speed different of 421 vs 403 due to aircraft performance or airlines' choice of speed
For MD-11
- New models aren't in the same family as original model in CCGW
- There are no Md-11 on used market in cargo challenge USA, mind to drop some there?
(https://i.imgur.com/0HcFTKO.png)
Quote from: qunow on September 15, 2017, 03:06:37 PM
- There are no Md-11 on used market in cargo challenge USA, mind to drop some there?
The production line of Boeing 737NG series are closed after a very short moment in Cargo Challenge Europe too, a moment that airlines cannot gain sufficient cash to buy new planes and suffered from the fuel spike bug
People there are also waiting for such supplies ;D
Quote from: qunow on September 15, 2017, 03:06:37 PM
For MD-11
- New models aren't in the same family as original model in CCGW
- There are no Md-11 on used market in cargo challenge USA, mind to drop some there?
(https://i.imgur.com/0HcFTKO.png)
Yay! More aircraft for me to scoop up :laugh:
Talentz
Quote from: Sami on September 14, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
All data changes only for new games in this change (including "updates").
For airport in Seoul, after Gimpo airport opening time adjustment, have the Seoul airport that was used before the opening of Gimpo airport implemented in the game?
Quote from: qunow on September 17, 2017, 05:19:27 AM
For airport in Seoul, after Gimpo airport opening time adjustment, have the Seoul airport that was used before the opening of Gimpo airport implemented in the game?
Highly doubt it. As there has been no posted data.
Talentz
- About the increase in count for max passenger an DC3 can carry in previous patch note, I thought that only apply if the plane is used mmilitarily?
Quote from: qunow on September 18, 2017, 01:40:49 PM
About the increase in count for max passenger an DC3 can carry in previous patch note, I thought that only apply if the plane is used mmilitarily?
Well that was changed to 32 because of your bug report, so.... :P
Quote from: Sami on September 18, 2017, 02:52:01 PM
Well that was changed to 32 because of your bug report, so.... :P
ah right, iirc some post-military DC-3 sill retain that 32 seat certification, if i recalled correctly
Edit: 0 > [_] (space)
Quote from: qunow on September 18, 2017, 04:25:03 PM
ah right, iirc some post-military DC-3 sill retain that 320seat certification
A DC-3 with 320 seats? Don't give the airlines any ideas :o ;)
Ooo, they made a Civilian Version of the C-130, too late, I've had one! :P
Will the new airport model influence runway length?
And, with the new scale, how will refueling airport option be affected?
No changes for runways. Techstops will be changed a bit.
Just looking for a bit of clarification here.
If I was based out of Shannon EINN, does this mean the more I grow and expand my airline, the airport EINN would grow as well?? Would demand to the airport itself grow also??
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Demand/
Here's a good read on the subject if you haven't read it before. Essentially, yes.
Quote from: freshmore on September 20, 2017, 04:06:22 PM
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Demand/
Here's a good read on the subject if you haven't read it before. Essentially, yes.
Other than catchment area, would increased airport size also affect the demand native to the area around of your airport core?
I've notice the new airport classification. No opinions yet. Too early.
Anyway it seems that the filter in researching the routes doesn't work as expected. Whatever I put in the infrastructures filter, it finds all the airports.
Is the catchment area implemented (for cargo)? Is it related to airport traffic level?
Could it be shown on the map on the airport change?
Hi Sami,
Just want to confirm 707-320 conversion of freighter is available to current GW1. Or I need to wait until the conversion model makes available some time when game world proceed.
Thanks
from what I see, Turn around time for IL62M & MK is 100 minutes in the brand new GW3. Is it normal?
I just noticed the 777-2xx models will be able to be converted to the 777F.
However in real life 777s are unable to be converted to freighters, due to too weak floor beams.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on December 17, 2017, 08:33:41 PM
from what I see, Turn around time for IL62M & MK is 100 minutes in the brand new GW3. Is it normal?
Min TaT?
It is the same in GW#2 for min TaT. Been just changed, but for new games only.
Quote from: VitoNg on December 13, 2017, 05:41:36 AM
Just want to confirm 707-320 conversion of freighter is available to current GW1. Or I need to wait until the conversion model makes available some time when game world proceed.
The latest a/c update batches have not been run into GW#1 yet but I will do that at some point soon. Not sure if that model is there yet; will be.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on December 17, 2017, 08:33:41 PM
from what I see, Turn around time for IL62M & MK is 100 minutes in the brand new GW3. Is it normal?
It's updated to master database but GW#3 was created before this update already. However not a big issue in my mind since in 2000 IL-62 is quite beyond its useful life.
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on December 17, 2017, 08:45:33 PM
I just noticed the 777-2xx models will be able to be converted to the 777F. However in real life 777s are unable to be converted to freighters, due to too weak floor beams.
Any further info on this? The conversion can be removed (though for game play purposes I would find it useful to be there).
From the latest changelog regarding logic for demand calculation:
Quote from: Sami
[..] (for pax demand the results will be "hard-counted" at ~1200 the next day) [...]
I don't understand what this means. Will demand of the airport increase 1200 pax per game day spread out to all routes?
Quote
•Detailed cargo load factor information now shown at Manage Routes listing page.
Excellent. One small cosmetic item: Could the cargo types be abbreviated L, S, H instead of CL, CS, CH? The extra letters are causing some text wrapping issues under some conditions.
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on December 17, 2017, 08:45:33 PM
I just noticed the 777-2xx models will be able to be converted to the 777F.
However in real life 777s are unable to be converted to freighters, due to too weak floor beams.
Difficult but not impossible.
Just when I got rid of the Electras thinking they wouldn't be upgraded...
Hi Sami,
The airport information page map is destroying the whole layout of the page. Also, market shares are no longer loading.
EDIT: Seems like you just fixed it. :)
Click reload
Please pretty please add the 747 cargo soon/to the next changelog. :)
Oh and good for you not being held to ransom by google. They shafted my university last year, anything that halts their march to world domination is good by me.
Looks like the demand charts are now bonkered. Anyone got a microscope I can use so I can see them?
Demands looks fine again, BUT we have another issue now. I cannot create routes anymore. If I click on the "select airport" button (the green tick) it leads me to the route information page (where I can see the demand etc) instead of the route creation page... :'(
EDIT: Fixed
About today's post
QuoteChanges are modelled all the way to 1970, but not prior that (did not have time as 1950-1970 in Africa was a mess with so many changes and different colonies/borders that it would take ages to research and draw the borders).
A rather simple possibility would be to have colonial empires (british, french, belgian, spanish and portugese) showed as global entities alongside Liberia or South Africa (rather than having all colonial subdivisions), and introduce the current borders as they become independent.
The only two exceptions might be Morocco and Tunisia, which where not proper colonies but protectorates.
Quote
•Bad scaling of market share pie charts in airport info page fixed.
I am not sure what was fixed, but the market share charts still look small to me.
Sami - The latest changelog has destroyed scheduling.
If I create a 7-day schedule consisting of say, 13 routes, the pagination list gets veryyyy long because of this stupid warning every time.
I do not see why such a need to warn has occurred all of a sudden; people were doing fine without it.
If the scheduling already wasn't finger-unfriendly enough ! ::)
Sorry if the words are harsh, but that is an epic fail. Enough for me to consider reducing the number of GWs I can keep playing simultaneously.
Well. That warning should not appear there (and even if it would be, not in that format)....
Thanks for updating the Mx family! Obviously to late for the modified Max 7/8/9 in GW 3 but will the Max 10 launch in the current GW3?
Will the 777/737 updates be rolled out in current GW1 as well?
Can we get the Max10 in 3 since it does not launch for 3 more years IRL?
The server update you spoke about sami, can you elaborate on if this will make the game run faster, aka 20 or 15 min days after the initial start of a game world?
No, there are no plans to speed up the game days (since users cannot keep up...).
Quote from: Obelix on May 17, 2018, 01:21:14 PM
The server update you spoke about sami, can you elaborate on if this will make the game run faster, aka 20 or 15 min days after the initial start of a game world?
Not sure about that one. I reckon that games are long (1950-2035, 1.9 years...), but at the same time once you have a large airline, having time (through "long" days) is a key factor, as otherwise your renewal would last much longer in game time, and so would your negative margin.
Plus, smaller airlines (sometimes used as lighter solution in order not to overload ourselves) would become much more nervous.
If your issue is the game lengths, have shorter games (5 GWs instead of 4?) would be a good solution: increased rotation between games, faster access to said era, etc.
There was this Cargo test mini-game with 15 minutes days. It was insane. Every 2 real hours, I was connecting and setting up 3 used planes. While someone who can't connect during the day is definitively doomed. reached more than one billion of weekly profit in that one. Was fun, but made no sense....
30 minutes is excellent, IMHO, bar maybe for the last years of a long game. Still punitive for not often connected people, but not as deadly.
Quote
Coding error in global wind systems found & fixed, affected flight time calculations on some long haul flights (usually max 10mins). [fix will only take effect in any new game worlds
Not a big deal, but I am wondering if this is related to the bug that was fixed.
Consider a text stop route one way (HKG the old airport to FAI):
HKG-GDX-FAI: 4393nm, flight time 12:20
Hkg-KHV-FAI: 4392nm, flight time 12:20
(aircraft is 757)
Both are tracking very closely the direct path.
But on the return trip:
FAI-GDX-HKG: 4393nm, flight time: 12:35, airborne: 10:58
FAI-KHV-HKG: 4392nm, flight time: 12:50, airborne: 11:08
FAI-HKG: 4392nm, flight time: 11:20 (nonstop), airborne: 11.01
The new achievements...are those active already? In other words: If I am flying let's say 500 US-aircraft can I expect to get this achievement any moment now?
Or are those only valid for new game worlds?
PS: Thanks for those! I have another idea for another achievement. Since we have the "Yearly Passenger" achievements, why not have "Yearly Cargo" achievements, too? ;) (Since you're at it...)
Quote from: Andre090904 on July 23, 2018, 06:41:48 PM
The new achievements...are those active already? In other words: If I am flying let's say 500 US-aircraft can I expect to get this achievement any moment now?
Yes, from next in-game Sunday onwards. (but in order to get the level III badge you will have to get I and II first .. so 500 Embraers => three weeks and you will have level III for the Brazilian wax since only one level is granted at every time the system checks them, which is once every week)
Quote from: Andre090904 on July 23, 2018, 06:41:48 PM
The new achievements...are those active already? In other words: If I am flying let's say 500 US-aircraft can I expect to get this achievement any moment now?
Or are those only valid for new game worlds?
PS: Thanks for those! I have another idea for another achievement. Since we have the "Yearly Passenger" achievements, why not have "Yearly Cargo" achievements, too? ;) (Since you're at it...)
Usually achievements are processed at the end of each game week, so check back in a few hours to see if your question was resolved on its own :-)
What about Airbus' a/c "made in the US", in Mobile? ;D
yes they're active in GW4 as I got one ;-)
S
Great changelog! Thanks Sami.
(ok, quite happy because there were quite a lot of things I reported :-[ :laugh:)
As for the demand between ex-Soviet states, don't know what bug you precisely refer to, but I still see some one way full demand / 0 demand on the return leg (ex: UUEE/UARR in GW#2).
Quote from: Tha_Ape on August 24, 2018, 05:09:03 PM
As for the demand between ex-Soviet states, don't know what bug you precisely refer to, but I still see some one way full demand / 0 demand on the return leg (ex: UUEE/UARR in GW#2).
Maybe the fail to display the airport map of SU in the Asian side on Airport Information page.
Quote from: wilian.souza2 on August 24, 2018, 07:18:14 PM
Maybe the fail to display the airport map of SU in the Asian side on Airport Information page.
I don't think so, I think he refers to this one:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,77615.0.html (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,77615.0.html)
(the map got a very specific entry)
I'm going to give a hearty two thumbs down to the production lines closing after 20 years change as it is simply game breaking for large airlines. This will have significant impacts across all game worlds in a very negative way and reduce the amount of fleet diversity, strategic choices and long world playability especially given the uptake rate limit of new planes. Planes fall out of favor and cease production because they are no longer economically viable (for the most part) in the real world. In our simulated world, we don't follow the same economic model - specifically related to fleet commonality, which is a force that makes the simulated economy vastly different from the real economy.
Let's look at a few cases where this will be game breaking -
The "final" 3 types of "large" planes in game - A32x, 737NG and MD90/717. The first two are fine, but the MD90/717 combination left production in the early 2000's after a very short production run. For game worlds that run until 2035, this means a MD90/717 flyer will not be able to get new planes for the last 10 game years of the world and potentially have to switch types. This will lead to all MD flying airlines to likely reconsider and get in the huge line of the A32x and 737NG.
The 757 - Seeing a resurgence with cargo capabilities, it will also not be available in the final 10 years of the game world.
There's a number of more examples, but if the fleet transition/4th type penalty is not modified, then this change breaks the game for large airlines that use types that were put out of production before the end of their economic life.
GW#2: year 2010, AW650 & Bristol Britannia still in production. So, that's about the reason for the change.
edit: I've changed it to 35 yrs which allows the semi-modern models to run till 2035. The idea is that there has to be some end of production, at some point, and that will stay there (= not possible to do DC-3 in 2035). There will be also some changes to maintenance / operating cost models (at some point, maybe) to better model the inefficiency of running old designs (even though newly built) in modern times.
Quote from: Sami on September 05, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
GW#2: year 2010, AW650 & Bristol Britannia still in production. So, that's about the reason for the change.
But isn't that a symptom of a different problem - that newest generation of jets (and props) don't get enough advantage over Britanias all the way to 2010?
Quote from: Sami on September 05, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
GW#2: year 2010, AW650 & Bristol Britannia still in production. So, that's about the reason for the change.
I don't feel this is a problem. And the guy flying them is sure in a niche and better stay put (not trying to kill other players, better stay on his own).
Sure, it isn't realistic at all, but while some parts of AWS are quite realistic, some aren't (for playability purposes - not a critic, just a statement), and this is what is good. It's a sim, but also a game.
As long as nobody suffers from a
few unrealistic
niches here and there (and there are not many), I don't see the reason to forbid them.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on September 05, 2018, 09:11:32 PM
I don't feel this is a problem. And the guy flying them is sure in a niche
[...]
As long as nobody suffers from a few unrealistic niches here and there (and there are not many), I don't see the reason to forbid them.
There are some extremely-niche carriers flying out-of-production types in parts of the world because they either can't buy new (Iran Air) or current models are not suitable (Hawaiian's interisland service).
yeah, the guy is doing an experiment(which is beginning to fail badly, by the way) in Vietnam, a place noone flies. I don't see the harm he's doing. He's having fun at the expense of noone.
Closely related point: what about the RL airlines using a/c well past their 35 y old limit in AWS?
Prop-modified CVs recently retired, DC-8s are still in the air as of today (production ceased in 72), 737 Jurassic (one just crashed in Cuba), Viscounts still flying in the 90s/2000s in Africa, etc?
I don't complain - I just note that a closely related matter of realism has been denied (for gameplay reasons) while this is forced in (while it doesn't disturb playability).
35y is the internal design limit. Not entirely impossible to change it at some time, now when cargo is in play too.
Don't see any problem with the 20 year rule tbh. 20 years past real life closure, and a further 24 years up to 3rd d-check, with the potential to go up to 35.... one can still fly aircraft 55 years after real life closure. If the game world isn't over by that point, or the airline not bankrupt from operating old aicraft, there is more than enough time to find a replacement. If anything, 20 years is a bit high rather than low ;)
@Cactus
I see your point, completely makes sense. But what I'm saying is: what harm does a guy flying old tin cans in a GW? None.
It's for this very reason that I feel there shouldn't be a limit ("no harm, no nerf").
I see that. I think a different way of encouraging newer aircraft is probably more apt anyway. Increasing the costs of maintenance for old series more sharply sounds like a decent idea.
I have to admit, before yesterdays left field changelog announcement, it's something I'd never thought of.
Quote from: Sami on September 05, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
edit: I've changed it to 35 yrs which allows the semi-modern models to run till 2035. The idea is that there has to be some end of production, at some point, and that will stay there (= not possible to do DC-3 in 2035). There will be also some changes to maintenance / operating cost models (at some point, maybe) to better model the inefficiency of running old designs (even though newly built) in modern times.
I'm totally in to this. Endless production runs, although allowing fun experiments, can also benefit players who want to build airlines of 1000+ aircraft and own their field of operation, without bothering much on what's going to happen tomorrow.
From my observation, a lot of the operating DC-9s (or MD-90s, etc.) well past 35 years after introduction is more likely due to the financial penalties involved with operating more than 3 fleets than with someone trying to do a fantasy scenario of seeing how they would fare in the modern era.
Once you build up an airline of a few hundred frames of the type, it can be extremely difficult to do a 1-for-1 replacement using just one model. Even in real life - witness American Airlines making deals with both Boeing and Airbus to get some 400+ narrow body aircraft on the property in short order to work down their fleet of MD-80s.
As noted in a previous comment, most of us are going to want to ditch frames that are 20+ years in age - which is logically when a fleet transition should be taking place. Perhaps the following could be implemented in combination:
- 20 years after entry into service: Extra fleet penalty no longer applies to this type.
- 35 years after entry into service: Type is no longer produced.
Gives a nice window to conduct fleet replacement and even operate some aircraft as freighters in their old age (since freight conversions become available later on).
Quote from: fark24 on September 07, 2018, 04:04:44 PM
From my observation, a lot of the operating DC-9s (or MD-90s, etc.) well past 35 years after introduction is more likely due to the financial penalties involved with operating more than 3 fleets than with someone trying to do a fantasy scenario of seeing how they would fare in the modern era.
Once you build up an airline of a few hundred frames of the type, it can be extremely difficult to do a 1-for-1 replacement using just one model. Even in real life - witness American Airlines making deals with both Boeing and Airbus to get some 400+ narrow body aircraft on the property in short order to work down their fleet of MD-80s.
As noted in a previous comment, most of us are going to want to ditch frames that are 20+ years in age - which is logically when a fleet transition should be taking place. Perhaps the following could be implemented in combination:
- 20 years after entry into service: Extra fleet penalty no longer applies to this type.
- 35 years after entry into service: Type is no longer produced.
Gives a nice window to conduct fleet replacement and even operate some aircraft as freighters in their old age (since freight conversions become available later on).
In the real world, aircraft continue to be supported at a reasonable parts cost as long as there's a substantial fleet of them flying. The MD80 is currently getting sacked everywhere because AA decided to park the type quickly and Delta made a "last call" parts order to get its fleet to about 2022 and then discontinued their service contracts for parts. Had Delta maintained their parts contracts, you wouldn't see Allegiant and others dumping the type so quickly.
Quote from: schro on September 07, 2018, 05:20:15 PM
In the real world, aircraft continue to be supported at a reasonable parts cost as long as there's a substantial fleet of them flying. The MD80 is currently getting sacked everywhere because AA decided to park the type quickly and Delta made a "last call" parts order to get its fleet to about 2022 and then discontinued their service contracts for parts. Had Delta maintained their parts contracts, you wouldn't see Allegiant and others dumping the type so quickly.
And, in this case, Sami is playing the same role that Delta did (making a last call). So airline managers here should naturally react in a similar fashion (call up other manufacturers).
If you are Allegiant-sized, perhaps you can do a 1-for-1 within a few years. If you are American-sized, you're going to have issues with the current implementation. You'll need at least a 2-for-1. Unless the number of fleet types penalty is "aged out".
Quote from: fark24 on September 07, 2018, 05:47:16 PM
And, in this case, Sami is playing the same role that Delta did (making a last call). So airline managers here should naturally react in a similar fashion (call up other manufacturers).
If you are Allegiant-sized, perhaps you can do a 1-for-1 within a few years. If you are American-sized, you're going to have issues with the current implementation. You'll need at least a 2-for-1. Unless the number of fleet types penalty is "aged out".
Right - the game breaking part of this restriction has more to do with the rate that new planes can be received and the commonality penalties for going to a 4th fleet type in a large airline than it has to do with the actual "last call" concept.
I've made other feature requests, such as this one - https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,77691.0.html - to try to make the game more playable for larger airlines. The higher used market purchase rate is only helpful when you have a lot of buyers flipping planes to you (which isn't always possible). I've seen other requests related to a method for transition that does not penalize - i.e. a 500 plane fleet moving to a new type over X years does not count, etc.
A bit late after the change log entry, but... now that I've started a fleet change and seeing my old 30yr routes, I've noticed the bigger then expect change on smaller cargo routes.
So my question is this: What is the minimum threshold for CBD to generate HC demand on a given route? I have 5-9k kg routes that used to have 1-3k kg HC demand, now have none as the change being HC demand is converted to STD and LGT cargo.
Which is excellent news for pax (belly) only airlines as they can compete for all of the potential demand as opposed to just being limited to STD/LHT and shut out from HC.
If that is how smaller routes are supposed to be, what is the point of even using a freighter (LG/VLG) on anything smaller then 12k routes? Cargo airlines can't compete against the frequency of pax airlines because even the smallest LG cargo planes would greatly over supply the route = no benefit.
About 90% of the worlds routes (cargo) only need 1 flight a day to supply all the demand needed for years too come, So I'm puzzled as to the reason behind this.
Talentz
From my experience, I realize that freighters have a much bigger advantage over pax aircraft to take cargo market share on a route, regardless of it having HC or not.
Quote from: Talentz on September 09, 2018, 12:54:12 AM
A bit late after the change log entry, but... now that I've started a fleet change and seeing my old 30yr routes, I've noticed the bigger then expect change on smaller cargo routes.
So my question is this: What is the minimum threshold for CBD to generate HC demand on a given route? I have 5-9k kg routes that used to have 1-3k kg HC demand, now have none as the change being HC demand is converted to STD and LGT cargo.
Which is excellent news for pax (belly) only airlines as they can compete for all of the potential demand as opposed to just being limited to STD/LHT and shut out from HC.
If that is how smaller routes are supposed to be, what is the point of even using a freighter (LG/VLG) on anything smaller then 12k routes? Cargo airlines can't compete against the frequency of pax airlines because even the smallest LG cargo planes would greatly over supply the route = no benefit.
About 90% of the worlds routes (cargo) only need 1 flight a day to supply all the demand needed for years too come, So I'm puzzled as to the reason behind this.
Talentz
Curiously, the latest set of changes / fine tuning had almost no effect on 2 of my cargo heavy airlines in GW1 and GW3. Neither positive nor negative.
As far as heavy cargo, I see a lot of routes with total demand between 4k and 10k that do have HC. Most of the routes below 4k don't have heavy cargo.
Quote from: Sami on September 05, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
GW#2: year 2010, AW650 & Bristol Britannia still in production. So, that's about the reason for the change.
edit: I've changed it to 35 yrs which allows the semi-modern models to run till 2035. The idea is that there has to be some end of production, at some point, and that will stay there (= not possible to do DC-3 in 2035). There will be also some changes to maintenance / operating cost models (at some point, maybe) to better model the inefficiency of running old designs (even though newly built) in modern times.
Actually its a symptom of getting a little bored with elements of the game & repeating the same old stuff every game world. It was just a personal challenge based in a country which frequently has no airlines in place later in the game. It's also forcing me to find out more about the game mechanics. So much for enjoyment....
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on September 06, 2018, 06:36:08 AM
yeah, the guy is doing an experiment(which is beginning to fail badly, by the way) in Vietnam, a place noone flies. I don't see the harm he's doing. He's having fun at the expense of noone.
Thanks! That's all it is, a bit of fun. Yes, it's unravelling at the moment but I'm working on ways to get to 2035 & if (big if) I make it that far I'll consider it a success. But once is enough, not to be repeated even if it wasn't banned.
In my opinion, the changes on the slot system acquisition are very well thought and balanced - thanks Sami :)
Just catching up on these most of which seem good.
Sami, can you clarify your airport scenarios? I think this applies to the Milan example, but I'm not following the logic. If I switch the example to Tokyo, when Narita opens, Haneda goes domestic and some regional international routes. all the long hauls go to Narita. So does this mean haneda would keep the same demand profile for international?...or is this a sub case when all routes outside a certIn radius transfer equal demand to the new airport at Narita (I.e. NRT-LHR, NRT-JFK, etc.). Then would seem that the domestic demand in this example never transfers one-to-one to NRT. For example, Haneda-Osaka has the massive 15,000-20000 seat demand but NRT is going to only have maybe 1000 demand for "connecting" international demand as the average Domestic commuter isn't going to go out to Narita for a domestic flight. Same type of thing with the Osaka airports. These plus the Seoul switch have always seemed the most problematic whether based there or just flying routes to Japan...so any insight how this works on these would help. OVerall I give 2 thumbs up for the overall improvements as I always seem to have weird demand issues in these airport new openings.
Can someone just confirm the logic on the plane changes, otherwise my question is can there be a FAQ page with general closing dates for the major plane type production lines...but if this logic is correct not necessary...taking the D.C.-8 that someone mentioned closed in 1972. Assuming that's true, so we can potentially still order D.C.-8s until 2007 (+35 years) then if so inclined you can run the last one until the game ends if you were truly nuts? If this is the case then no need for a FAQ. I know this is extreme but more realistically, based on the last few long games with these slow production rates and the masses flocking to certain planes types...it's a very real possibility that you order a D.C.-8-63 and you are taking your delivery in 1975-1980 based on actual game play. I want to make sure there is not a hard close in 1972...-as otherwise I think it needs to be something like actual close date + 10 Years so you don't have those constantly online freezing others out of production slots. And as others have mentioned if there can be some relaxation of the 4th fleet type for phase outs, that would help...although I would also note it is possible to live through the (un)controlled chaos of changing over large fleets of the pre-1980s planes to ones fit for the 2000s...my record is 8 fleet types and still surviving it...although admittedly, not for the faint of heart ;)
Ps sorry I'm late to posting party given the earlier notes in September.
Sami - Do you have a timetable for adding more aircraft?
Aside from finishing the 747 combi update, we lack some late 80s, early 90s combi/cargo aircraft that would open up some fleets to be used beyond there pax life.
Talentz
Quote from: spiff23 on October 03, 2018, 02:48:36 AM
Just catching up on these most of which seem good.
Sami, can you clarify your airport scenarios? I think this applies to the Milan example, but I'm not following the logic. If I switch the example to Tokyo, when Narita opens, Haneda goes domestic and some regional international routes. all the long hauls go to Narita. So does this mean haneda would keep the same demand profile for international?...or is this a sub case when all routes outside a certIn radius transfer equal demand to the new airport at Narita (I.e. NRT-LHR, NRT-JFK, etc.). Then would seem that the domestic demand in this example never transfers one-to-one to NRT. For example, Haneda-Osaka has the massive 15,000-20000 seat demand but NRT is going to only have maybe 1000 demand for "connecting" international demand as the average Domestic commuter isn't going to go out to Narita for a domestic flight. Same type of thing with the Osaka airports. These plus the Seoul switch have always seemed the most problematic whether based there or just flying routes to Japan...so any insight how this works on these would help. OVerall I give 2 thumbs up for the overall improvements as I always seem to have weird demand issues in these airport new openings.
Can someone just confirm the logic on the plane changes, otherwise my question is can there be a FAQ page with general closing dates for the major plane type production lines...but if this logic is correct not necessary...taking the D.C.-8 that someone mentioned closed in 1972. Assuming that's true, so we can potentially still order D.C.-8s until 2007 (+35 years) then if so inclined you can run the last one until the game ends if you were truly nuts? If this is the case then no need for a FAQ. I know this is extreme but more realistically, based on the last few long games with these slow production rates and the masses flocking to certain planes types...it's a very real possibility that you order a D.C.-8-63 and you are taking your delivery in 1975-1980 based on actual game play. I want to make sure there is not a hard close in 1972...-as otherwise I think it needs to be something like actual close date + 10 Years so you don't have those constantly online freezing others out of production slots. And as others have mentioned if there can be some relaxation of the 4th fleet type for phase outs, that would help...although I would also note it is possible to live through the (un)controlled chaos of changing over large fleets of the pre-1980s planes to ones fit for the 2000s...my record is 8 fleet types and still surviving it...although admittedly, not for the faint of heart ;)
Ps sorry I'm late to posting party given the earlier notes in September.
I'm not Sami, but I'm occasionally useful.
My understanding is that some airports will have attribute flags assigned to them to adjust behavior of passengers (this is NOT active yet). For example, when NRT opens, HND may get flagged with domestic and short haul international flights only, so there will be no long haul demand form it. Even then, when NRT opens, you've got 2 decent sized airports with similar catchment areas - upon the move, it looks like the demand will be copied from one to the other, and then it will start moving based upon catchment area, traffic and infrastructure. What I would suspect would happen with domestic passengers is that they would become equally split between HND and NRT due to the overlap.
You're correct on your assumptions - the DC8 line will hard close in 2007, which is 1972+35 years. The DC8 is an interesting historical example as the line wasn't necessarily closed due to a lack of orders, but rather to encourage DC10 sales.
italics on aircraft nicknames/scheduling - very nice!
;-) S
I think the release this evening broke the mouse over on the Scheduler page.
The pop up window is now stuck to top of the main window now.
Reload the page once
Quote from: Sami on October 06, 2018, 08:04:17 PM
Reload the page once
the reload function works but once you remove a single flight from a schedule to move it to another one (manually).. the page reloads back to page one.
This isn't helpful at all.
I did, same. Restarted bowser, same. I restarted machine, same.
When I turned on this:
"Additional information at Scheduling page" in settings, it stopped. Now even if I turn that off, it still works - strange. But I'm not experiencing the issue any more so all good.
Might be helpful if someone else has the same issue. I'm gonna keep the additional info on BTW, that's handy.
Thanks for the reply anyway Sami.
I should add, that I had tried this "Additional information at Scheduling page" feature earlier and turned it off, as it was interrupting the mouse over window, making it disappear, this isn't happening any more. Because this is turned on by default, shouldn't affect many people.
I really like the airport codes in schedule pages!
Just noticed the new update, and I'm liking it. Thanks Sami!
I'm generally enjoying the new changes, but, some of the maps seem to have an issue now with their loading. This seems to be focused around the International Date line and will only load routes or destination markers on one side of it. Airports like HNL that are close to the line, or airlines with route maps straddling this seem particularly affected. Has anyone else experienced something similar?
Those are rather tricky, and have in some cases seen the same, and needs to be checked at some point..
Couple of questions about the new aircraft pre-launch ordering:
If I order some 737-800 during the pre-launch period for the MAX-8 and the -800 delivery slots overlap the start of MAX-8 production, do the -800 orders get scheduled as if there were no MAX-8 orders?
And if I do a combined order of 50x 737-800 and 50x MAX-8 during the pre-launch period and the -800 delivery slots overlap the start of MAX-8 production, will the -800 orders all get scheduled first instead of alternating models like they do now when you make a combined order?
If you order prelaunch plane A and after that non-prelaunch plane B from the same line, the orders for plane A are allocated after the deliveries of plane B. This is because the order slots are allocated 45 days after the launch of the plane A and it sees the orders from plane B as existing orders you have already in the order queue at the time the slots are allocated. (the B orders are allocated normally, like orders for A were invisible)
And you can freely mix models in one order. Models that are available are allocated slots immediately and the prelaunch models are hidden until the 45 days have passed.
(pls note that until the preorder slots are actually allocated the delivery dates for any overlapping other models are very preliminary and might change rather much.)
Big question I have is will there be a minimum delivery rate for new models? It would really suck to order 100 A320 during the launch and have them trickle in at 1 every 4 months for the first 10 years!
I have a gripe about the new ordering system.
I accidentally ordered too many frames to one base and not enough to another on an order. Can we make it where this is at least editable as well as config.
Quote from: Sami on October 08, 2018, 08:25:36 PM
(pls note that until the preorder slots are actually allocated the delivery dates for any overlapping other models are very preliminary and might change rather much.)
If I understand you correctly, the -800 orders in my example would initially get allocated before the MAX-8, but after the launch preorder period expires they will get shuffled with the MAX-8 orders. Which has the effect of placing those -800 orders in the same "pool" as the MAX-8 preorders.
Which, if correct, is a good thing IMO. As it is now, particularly with the 737 Jurassic & Classic lines and the DC-9, the initial models (731, 733, DC-9-10) get so many orders that airlines waiting for the 732, 734, or DC-9-30 sometimes wind up waiting for years after production "begins" before the first examples of those models actually get built.
Quote from: Zobelle on October 09, 2018, 12:43:10 AM
I have a gripe about the new ordering system.
I accidentally ordered too many frames to one base and not enough to another on an order. Can we make it where this is at least editable as well as config.
+10000, even if at cost.
You might want to read the changelog with some thought in regards to production rates and order editing.
Re new New Aircraft Ordering System: How does this affect increases in production slots for popular aircrafts?
Dear Sami
Great news.
What about used market ordering changes ? Like the ability to order more planes for upcoming weeks ? Like ordering 6 planes, but they will arrive :
3 of them in 2 week, and 3 of them in 4 weeks. ?
It also helps peoply who is not 24/7 online.
Quote from: tyteen4a03 on October 09, 2018, 11:25:44 AM
How does this affect increases in production slots for popular aircrafts?
Not sure what the exact question is?
Quote from: MuzhikRB on October 09, 2018, 09:09:16 PM
What about used market ordering changes ?
No plans for these yet. (other priorities)
Quote from: Sami on October 10, 2018, 02:10:34 PM
Not sure what the exact question is?
So when a new model is launched, initially there are very little production slots, but as companies order new aircraft after they begin production, the manufacturer can create more production slots.
Is this factored into the new New Aircraft ordering system?
Quote from: Sami on October 09, 2018, 06:34:35 AM
You might want to read the changelog with some thought in regards to production rates and order editing.
I did read it but just looking for clarification. When popular types launch will enough production slots be created the meet demand or will there be a production cap potentially causing long periods between deliveries?
The production rates are calculated taking into account the amount of pre-launch orders too.
So if now C series are A220 they will be listed under Airbus or still under Bombardier? Is quite tricky cuz from what I understand it is basically a Bombardier factory made plane but it will just be called Airbus A220.
QuoteChanged parts of the airport slot calculation to take into account the infrastructure and traffic levels of the airport. However this is not the final "new" slot calculation system yet (which is a bigger fundamental change and will be done later). [only for new games]
Increased the amounts of airport slot calculation cycles at the start of the game for better balance (in a new game world the airports start at a lower capacity, and it will grow towards the "final" number over time).
Minor update to the temporary slot quota mechanism at highly slot-constrained airports (ref. Changelog 21st Sept): The slot usage trigger of 95% is now checked from "daytime slots" (between 06 and 22) instead of all slots at the airport, to better reflect on what the airport actually has available in normal ops hours.
Great news! I was going to request this kind of change in the Feature request section. I'd like to see other little upgrades to it:
- Regarding slot prices, base prices should follow inflation levels. Currently we have a situation in which we pay, let's say, 1.5 M for daily departures through the whole week during the 1st and 2nd year into the game and 250 K for the same amount of slots 20 years later.
- Regarding slot availability, I think the system should stop issuing new slots for airports that are far from being slot-constrained. The trigger for adding new slots to airports should be when 80% of daytime slots are occupied.
These proposed changes would make slot prices more expensive and cut incentive for players to spam routes.
With the latest changeling stating only new games, is GW3 still counted as new?
Quote
•Airport ground handling and loading fees for cargo are updated to follow the new 10-step airport size classification. [only for new games]
This one and other fee increases are killing my GW1 airline, so it definitely applies to old games too.
I agree with JS - I know they are referred to as minor, but with 30 million to 35 million in profits a week, these were reduced by 10-15 million by the by the changes, specifically:
5 million dollar increase in cargo handling
2 million dollar increase in ground handling
1 million dollar increase in landing fees
1.5 million dollar increase in PAX fees
(this occurred while navigation fees were basically flat (up 2% or about 400K), and insurance was flat, also revenue dipped slightly, but unsure if that's a result of the changes or simply aircraft rotation as they go through their C check cycles.
It's frustrating when changes in gameplay mechanics that are described as minor have a significant impact on operations with the only explanation being
"Small adjustments to cargo prices and fees for better balance. [applies to all games]".
Is it possible to get a more detailed explanation as to how the changes impact costs so that we can make more informed decisions?
ninja edit: figures above are for Peanut Airlines in GW 4
There was an error in the airport cost factor calculation causing this increase (not all airports were affected, only those with slot usage between certain levels). Already fixed in the morning, and they should return to normal levels.
Yep - numbers look generally back to the way they were (plus/minus a percent or two likely do to normal variation and maintenance). Thanks Sami.
Quote from: Sami on October 13, 2018, 01:52:03 PM
There was an error in the airport cost factor calculation causing this increase (not all airports were affected, only those with slot usage between certain levels). Already fixed in the morning, and they should return to normal levels.
My numbers are down as well, but I am curious about this cost factor.
I know this is still work in progress, but what is this cost factor, is it based on total slot usage in the airport or just a percentage of used slots?
The cost factor has been present at airport calculations for a very long time. Not a new thing. Might be updated with the new infra/traffic class system later on.
Just to say I'm happy that there is finally a full family of NB with freighter variants able to somewhat rivalise with the 737 and A320 :)
Thanks Sami!
(still lacks the -214 though)
Tu-214 is basically the same thing as Tu-204-200. Different designator as it's build by different factory and has a slightly different exit door configuration but performancewise the same, and won't be added separately. -300 series is also sometimes dubbed as Tu-234.
Quote from: Sami on December 09, 2018, 09:04:58 PM
Tu-214 is basically the same thing as Tu-204-200. Different designator as it's build by different factory and has a slightly different exit door configuration but performancewise the same, and won't be added separately. -300 series is also sometimes dubbed as Tu-234.
I had the impression that it had a longer range/additional tanks. But anyway, long range ops with a Russian NB might not be such a good idea...
What was the change to the Airbus 320neo family capacity? Up or down?
Quote from: schro on January 23, 2019, 04:46:51 AM
What was the change to the Airbus 320neo family capacity? Up or down?
Up. At least for the A319:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,79693.0.html (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,79693.0.html)
Quote from: schro on January 23, 2019, 04:46:51 AM
What was the change to the Airbus 320neo family capacity? Up or down?
Will we get this in GW3?
Simon
Really nice new feature that shows the range / payload limited capacity for both pax and cargo on the route pup up on the scheduling screen.
Quick question. With the new aircraft performance system update, will it be possible to easily compare the performance of two different aircraft on the same segment without flying it. For example, if my fleet has both A320's and the 737-800's, if I create a new route from KJFK to KTPA, would I be able to see the forecasted difference in fuel consumption. Currently we can see the changes in travel time concretely, but performance calculations are more opaque. Similarly, in terms of the performance deterioration over time - will that information be available also?
I guess the broad question is what components of the new system will be visible to the user and which will be under the hood. Obviously I understand the desire to protect the detailed information that so much effort has been spent both by Sami and the community, but some clarity in regards to the impact some components have would be helpful.
Specifically:
* Average fuel use by plane type in the create route page (so if I change from A320 to 738 I can see the difference). Currently, we can impute this after the fact by looking at the fuel costs by segment, but seeing it advance I think is helpful. Providing this number in aggregate rather than all stages is adequate. I understand that this varies by the actual cargo carried (less PAX/cargo, less fuel) and distance (less distance, filling the fuel tanks to the brim is not necessary), but something to compare fuel performance by segment would be helpful. I think this would also help provide some transparency into discrepancies around the fuel calculations. Today, some people complain that a certain aircraft type performs better/worse than it should. Very possibly this is caused by a different average stage length assumption in the average fuel provided by AWS. Thus providing this information would be helpful. For example, per the manual the average stage length for VL aircraft is 4000NM. However, if I have a 767-200ER and a 340-200 (or pick another variant) and want to see relative fuel usage of both on a 6200NM stage could that be done PRIOR to flying the route. This would help in optimal aircraft selection as well.
* Current engine performance deterioration - if it's linear between 0 and 5% than it's probably not a big deal, but if the deterioration curve is non-linear or varies by aircraft type, it would be helpful to know what the value is.
Additionally, does this mean that hot and high altitude variants will have more of a place in AWS as the take-off performance will be more accurately estimated?
Thanks for the hard work Sami, this looks like a really meaningful improvement in terms of precision. Thumbs up from me.
I'd love to see how these improvements translate to niche types like Concorde as currently max range is at least 10% under IRL observed range and cruise speeds are far below the same.
Also I feel that with the current system the increased performance penalty is already paid for in higher mx costs. Will there be a reduction in maintenance costs as well?
Quote from: NovemberCharlie on February 10, 2019, 06:25:45 AM
Also I feel that with the current system the increased performance penalty is already paid for in higher mx costs. Will there be a reduction in maintenance costs as well?
Also curious about this as I agree fully....
If we're going to get nailed on fuel on top of this, I'm sure I speak for many who would like to see the curve lightened to allow perfectly serviceable aircraft to serve for at least another heavy cycle — up to D4.
The current mx cost curve is excessively punitive given slow rate of possible replacement (commonality penalties notwithstanding) and makes operating aircraft past D2 obnoxiously expensive and past D3 nearly a death sentence. (For reference, replacing just 330 A321 with A21N was in itself an 8 year process WITH aid from other purchasers...)
so now old airplanes consume up to 5% more fuel... does it mean that range decreases with age as well?
Quote from: dandan on February 11, 2019, 04:46:16 PM
so now old airplanes consume up to 5% more fuel... does it mean that range decreases with age as well?
Physics aren't really relevant to this particular change ;-)
Quote from: schro on February 11, 2019, 04:53:06 PM
Physics aren't really relevant to this particular change ;-)
I suppose part of our mx cost go to add fuel tanks in place of belly cargo container, lol.
Quote from: Zobelle on February 11, 2019, 05:07:52 PM
I suppose part of our mx cost go to add fuel tanks in place of belly cargo container, lol.
ahhhh... thats why there are so high maintenance costs for old planes, so the guys in the hangar make some extra dents in it! :D
Quote from: dandan on February 11, 2019, 06:28:14 PM
ahhhh... thats why there are so high maintenance costs for old planes, so the guys in the hangar make some extra dents in it! :D
Or, the workers are going with the logic "Bang Bang Fix".
Feedback to the nee Alliance rating:
Made is a separate subject in Feature Request:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,80047.0.html
:'(
Expected a bit more of a change before the GW2 start...
Quote from: dandan on February 26, 2019, 03:33:52 PM
:'(
Expected a bit more of a change before the GW2 start...
Like pax CBD? ;)
Quote from: deovrat on February 26, 2019, 04:23:26 PM
Like pax CBD? ;)
not really sure what. just... a bit more than a few bugfixes, updates of some aircraft stats and airports.
like maybe aircraft-floorspace. or ife/passenger services. or passengers that can choose to fly on other weekdays if no service is available. or something like that.
I've been waiting for 4-5 years for pax CBD and 6th freedom flights, and there's no end in sight
Any chance the 747 combi will be featured in GW#2? With the new feature of VL combis able to carry HC, the 747 could finally be interesting ::)
Even through a mid-game update like it happened in last GW#2?
And the A350-900ULR, if there is enough data?
Singapore's current fleet building is almost limited to the 777, as the only other plane able to reach contiguous US is the A340-500HGW but the A330/340 family is globally a tad small for SIN. And not having fleet choices is a tad, ehm, annoying.
Thanks, Sami!
QuoteFuel burn per Revenue Passenger Kilometre (last 30 days) [new]
Fuel burn per Revenue Freight Tn Kilometre (last 30 days) [new]
Sorry, but this isn't a fair scoring component at all as it's not dependent upon the choices of management (for the most part), but rather the location of the airline and where its demand is. For example, an airline in ATL with a thousand short haul planes will have a vastly different profile than a near exclusive long hauler airline in JNB or SIN. Why should an airline benefit or be punished for its location?
Quote from: schro on February 27, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
Sorry, but this isn't a fair scoring component at all as it's not dependent upon the choices of management (for the most part), but rather the location of the airline and where its demand is. For example, an airline in ATL with a thousand short haul planes will have a vastly different profile than a near exclusive long hauler airline in JNB or SIN. Why should an airline benefit or be punished for its location?
well, it is much better than the previous "fuel per passenger", withozt considering route length.
Quote from: schro on February 27, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
Sorry, but this isn't a fair scoring component at all as it's not dependent upon the choices of management (for the most part), but rather the location of the airline and where its demand is. For example, an airline in ATL with a thousand short haul planes will have a vastly different profile than a near exclusive long hauler airline in JNB or SIN. Why should an airline benefit or be punished for its location?
Maybe you should stick to running a small regional airline then. ;)
Quote from: dandan on February 27, 2019, 02:13:43 PM
well, it is much better than the previous "fuel per passenger", withozt considering route length.
Prior metric wasn't included in airline score, thus the unfairness was immaterial to game standings. The new metric is less lopsided than the old one, but it's still fairly significant. It's also inherently flawed as it doesn't consider freight in the calculation, so you're getting fuel burned and no passenger credit there.
Quick comparison in GW3 - Owl Express (SIN - Left) vs Jet Black (ATL - Right)
Total Fleet - 694 vs 567
Revenue Seat Kms - 36,682 vs 31,532
Fuel burn - 439T vs 174T
Fuel per RPK - 145.5 vs 431.9
The statistic actually looks way off from reality, so maybe that'll correct, but regardless, I fly 20% more RPKs than Jet black while burning 2.5x more fuel. I absolutely can't compete in this ranking due to where my demand in SIN is (mostly Europe, 6000nm away).
Quote from: Mort on February 27, 2019, 02:34:43 PM
Maybe you should stick to running a small regional airline then. ;)
I do what I can
Quote from: schro on February 27, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
Prior metric wasn't included in airline score, thus the unfairness was immaterial to game standings.
Yes it was. (Anyhow, the change in the fuel burn stat into fuel/RPK has been requested quite many times already and now finally was a good time to do that.)
And cargo has own stat for fuel burn, please see the changelog.
(and actually I see that the stats page is displaying them incorrectly, in wrong order, will fix that soon, ... and it is still lacking data until a few game months pass by)
Quote from: schro on February 27, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
Fuel per RPK - 145.5 vs 431.9
i assume that yours is the right number and jet black the left one in this case? i havent found this number yet in my statistics.
+ didnt know its going to be part of the score
Quote from: Sami on February 27, 2019, 04:30:19 PM
Yes it was. (Anyhow, the change in the fuel burn stat into fuel/RPK has been requested quite many times already and now finally was a good time to do that.)
And cargo has own stat for fuel burn, please see the changelog.
(and actually I see that the stats page is displaying them incorrectly, in wrong order, will fix that soon, ... and it is still lacking data until a few game months pass by)
I should have had my pitchfork out years ago then...
In related news, I did buy a pitchfork yesterday...
Quote from: dandan on February 27, 2019, 04:33:28 PM
i assume that yours is the right number and jet black the left one in this case? i havent found this number yet in my statistics.
+ didnt know its going to be part of the score
No, my number is the left one - the number clearly isn't right, so probably still waiting on data collection to right itself as sami mentioned.
When I complain (sudden ranking score switch), then I should praise, too:
The overviews concerning pax and freight are pretty interesting!
Quote from: schro on February 27, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
Sorry, but this isn't a fair scoring component at all as it's not dependent upon the choices of management (for the most part), but rather the location of the airline and where its demand is. For example, an airline in ATL with a thousand short haul planes will have a vastly different profile than a near exclusive long hauler airline in JNB or SIN. Why should an airline benefit or be punished for its location?
But it is far better than the statistics it replaces, which was just fuel consumption divided by pax.
Interesting that top cargo airlines have the lowest passenger "Fuel Burn per RPK".
Quote from: Sami on February 27, 2019, 04:30:19 PM
(and actually I see that the stats page is displaying them incorrectly, in wrong order, will fix that soon, ... and it is still lacking data until a few game months pass by)
Should be correct now! (forced stat re-calculation in all games)
Note that the fuel usage stats will be fully correct only after a couple of game months, since it takes the data from actual route history (not from the 'average total fuel burn' statistic as that is inaccurate if you change aircraft types). So during that time the airline score may also fluctuate a bit.
Has the new used market purging algorithm been applied to GW2? No sign of DC6 all day...
Quote from: tyteen4a03 on March 05, 2019, 05:36:22 PM
Has the new used market purging algorithm been applied to GW2? No sign of DC6 all day...
There were DC-6s on UM today.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 05, 2019, 05:55:33 PM
There were DC-6s on UM today.
Who had that last one reserved for you? ;)
Quote from: Mort on March 05, 2019, 06:05:34 PM
Who had that last one reserved for you? ;)
I stole it ;)
(following the beg, borrow and steal strategy)
QuoteAlliance score is now calculated with a new and straightforward method: The total score of the alliance is the average airline score of all members participating in the alliance, apart from the airline with the lowest score who is excluded from the average calculation (in order to allow alliances to recruit new members without big effect to their scores).
Hi Sami,
first of all thanks for looking to overhaul the alliance scoring but you have now actively encouraged alliances to downsize as much as possible and only keep the top scoring players. From an A team perspective we've been recruiting a lot of players with lower scores helping them and teaching them the game. I believe thats the value of alliances as newer players get to learn from more experienced players this way.. From an A Team managing member perspective I can now state that this will actively discourage us from training new players.
I feel this is against the spirit of AWS as many players join alliances to learn. I understand that the bottom airline gets excluded but that makes no difference.. Alliances will just cull the bottom 10-15 or whatever it takes to potentially move up the score and that's not how it should work. The scoring should not be able to be manipulated in this manner.
some more suggestions were made https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,41677.20.html (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,41677.20.html) and I like the idea of potentially having a sum of the scores (of perhaps the top 50/100 airlines). Then the more players you can get in the top 50/100 the better and it doesn't encourage cutting members from an alliance.. any sort of average calculation will just result into the lower end being removed from the alliance.
regards
Fred
As a relatively new player to AWS this change seems to hurt us immensely. The strong alliances won't want to recruit us and teach us new things. I was struggling alone, but when I was recruited into an alliance I quickly learned from the shared knowledge and found relative success.
Personally I would of left the game out of frustration if left alone. This change to alliance scoring impacts new players the most and I am afraid it will only discourage new players to AWS more.
Hello Sami,
Its sad to see the game taking a turn for the worse, for thats really what this new alliance scoring system are doing.
From now on you in the last game year or so as alliance, need to kick out all but 4 players to get the highest score possible.
I have as such no problem in the airline score being used, but its just not enough to base it on.
Before this new world you gave us a improved airline rating system, that you now already has moved away from, its shown but not used its so said, as it sure was a move forward.
In gw2, the second worst alliance by alliance rating is now the leader by alliance score, alone that says how wrong this is, the worste alliance by rating is number 4 in score now, again it show how wrong this move is. Both of them has a low number of member that bring them up around the top.
You have basically killed the alliance team work and fun of running an alliance, sorry to say but thats how i feel.
The future will now be that we get a lot of smal alliances A Team 1 A Team 2 etc as we can't have more then 4 player in each to perform best way possible is that really how you want the game to be going forward ?. the larger alliances split up in smaller ones when we are coming to the end of a game.
"Yeah well nice to have you With us Guys but well we need to throw out most of you as we just need the best 3 scoring members when we reach the last game year"
Thats basically what you tell us to tell our members by this move.
I hope you really will look into change the rules once again, otherwise you will kill the joy and fun for a lot uf us.
Sunbao
I am just a small fish internally in Elite, so don't take my word as the official word of the alliance.
That being said, we also took a few recruits in the hope of training them. Probably not as many as ATeam, but still, we take a few each game. It's a gamble. Some will succeed, some will fail. That's a part of the risk.
Both ATeam, us, and a few other alliances, have a few very, very, very good players, who always score high. The temptation would be huge to kick everyone else from the alliance one day before the end of the game. That would be gaming the system. Imagine, we do that : the standings would be :
"Winner, Elite, 3 members, 2500 points. Second, ATeam, 33 members, 1800 points". Elite was 28 members 2 days before the end of the game.....
Does it make sense? nope
Does it risk to happen? Well, most other alliances would do the trick, too.....so alliances would be empty the last day, bar the best players.
The "last day & kick people out" won't work due to the intervals/history on how the score is calculated. (so no sense in trying)
Other than that... This is the system chosen for now, and we'll be using that for some time and see how it works and might be improved later in the future.
Quote from: Sami on March 07, 2019, 04:05:59 PM
The "last day & kick people out" won't work due to the intervals/history on how the score is calculated. (so no sense in trying)
Then we do it 5 years before the end or 10 it dosen't matter at all, the key is that we need to limit number of members to gain a chance to be at top in your new scoring system.
Quote from: Sami on March 07, 2019, 04:05:59 PM
The "last day & kick people out" won't work due to the intervals/history on how the score is calculated. (so no sense in trying)
Other than that... This is the system chosen for now, and we'll be using that for some time and see how it works and might be improved later in the future.
But isnt that contradictory to what you said in the changelog, that the alliance score is the average of the airlines, excluding the lowest scoring airline?
So if a year before gameend all the "mediocre" players, the players in smaller countries, ... leave the alliance, that should be the result: you have the 3 best players, you win.
Not what i would consider an "alliance", but maybe i am misunderstanding something here.
Last day/month/quarter/year will be the case then since airlines near the top won't move much.
We will work with it but I'm sure you will see less engagement in new people joining alliances and disconnect from the game and ultimately less entertaining gameplay.
I for one don't see purpose anymore of helping new players and can see gameworlds towards the end with a lot less players than historically.. after all only the top few matter if it's based on average.
Quote from: [ATA] Frimp on March 07, 2019, 04:16:06 PM
Last day/month/quarter/year will be the case then since airlines near the top won't move much.
We will work with it but I'm sure you will see less engagement in new people joining alliances and disconnect from the game and ultimately less entertaining gameplay.
I for one don't see purpose anymore of helping new players and can see gameworlds towards the end with a lot less players than historically.. after all only the top few matter if it's based on average.
i have to admit: i never cared much for alliance scores - but since thats the only feature of an alliance (except for communications): you could be right.
Yeah, this is an alliance management's nightmare....
Hi Sami,
I completely agree with the others and think this is counter-productive. There's no point in repeating the same arguments, so I'll keep it short.
I think this new feat was rushed in before weighting all the pros and cons, and while the discussion was still going on (see link above).
The pros you see are real, but so are the cons, and they're big.
Sky recruited around 10-12 young players in GW#2, 1/3 of all our airlines. Sky usually scores pretty high despite this policy of welcoming these young players, but the current system made us... n°6!
SASA, an alliance focused only on one continent (which deeply impacts their rating) and consists of only 7 players ranks n°3.*
Shaving off the single worst scoring airline ain't gonna change anything if an airline consists of 33 members with 1/3 low scoring.
Thank you for considering our concerns,
Arthur
* SASA members, if you read me, don't feel offended. Indeed, I feel the idea of an alliance on only one continent very interesting and challenging, I just think you shouldn't be n°3 in score. Especially considering you have only 7 members.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
an alliance doesn't have to be about coming top in scores! There's load more to alliances than just getting the top score. Perhaps we're seeing some true colours now...
Don't get me wrong, I think alliances are brilliant, but a few make me want to stop playing this game due to their kill other players at all costs hyper competitive mindset..
Simon
Quote from: groundbum2 on March 07, 2019, 05:07:58 PM
an alliance doesn't have to be about coming top in scores! There's load more to alliances than just getting the top score. Perhaps we're seeing some true colours now...
Don't get me wrong, I think alliances are brilliant, but a few make me want to stop playing this game due to their kill other players at all costs hyper competitive mindset..
Simon
Hi Simon,
alliance do have a score, and this score should effectively reflect various things, and Sami agrees on it. Then comes the problem of defining what make an alliance score bigger than the some other one's: here we can discuss and dispute.
Whatever your opinion is, the new alliance scoring system makes no sense:
- doesn't promote varied alliances
- doesn't promote formation of new players
- doesn't promote large alliances
- promotes small alliance with high scoring airlines
Indeed, the new calculation would promote even more the "kill others": if you have 3 mini-alliances forming a cartel with some common discord channel or such, they would rule the GW and kill the rest. Actually, my best interest in last GW#2 would have been to leave Sky with VladimirJohnson, Luperco and 1 or 2 others, and then set up something off the grid with King Kong, Spiff, Konchr, etc. We would have destroyed any hope for the others to score in the top.
Quote from: groundbum2 on March 07, 2019, 05:07:58 PM
an alliance doesn't have to be about coming top in scores! There's load more to alliances than just getting the top score. Perhaps we're seeing some true colours now...
Don't get me wrong, I think alliances are brilliant, but a few make me want to stop playing this game due to their kill other players at all costs hyper competitive mindset..
Simon
This.
If anything this should encourage the top tier to bring up their struggling members, not push them out.
Quote from: Zobelle on March 07, 2019, 05:40:26 PM
This.
If anything this should encourage the top tier to bring up their struggling members, not push them out.
The embodiment of Phoenix! :)
Why is almost everyone moaning about a freakin number that doesn't even matter? Jeez, just chill out, enjoy the game and start thinking about stuff that actually matter... ::)
Quote from: Jake S on March 07, 2019, 06:49:06 PM
Why is almost everyone moaning about a freakin number that doesn't even matter? Jeez, just chill out, enjoy the game and start thinking about stuff that actually matter... ::)
Because we can only take 3 used frames per 8 days. Gotta have something to do in between.
Quote from: Sami on March 07, 2019, 04:05:59 PM
The "last day & kick people out" won't work due to the intervals/history on how the score is calculated. (so no sense in trying)
Other than that... This is the system chosen for now, and we'll be using that for some time and see how it works and might be improved later in the future.
As I said elsewhere, I think using players score is good, but I think the score should be the sum, not the average, which will not discourage taking on new airlines. This way, adding new players will not be a liability, every player in the alliance will be an asset.
Hmm, alot of people are bored today. If you have spare time inbetween market refreshes, help out here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/board,590.0.html - :laugh:
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on March 07, 2019, 07:55:01 PM
Hmm, alot of people are bored today. If you have spare time inbetween market refreshes, help out here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/board,590.0.html - :laugh:
Talentz
I like the idea here, just think it should be limited to top 20 or 25 members. There are legitimate reasons why averaging all but the bottom score will hurt alliances and the AWS community as a whole.
GW4..
Top 2 alliances tied...
1 alliance has 9 players in top 20..
the other alliance has 1 player in 20th.
Quote from: [ATA] Frimp on March 07, 2019, 08:42:07 PM
GW4..
Top 2 alliances tied...
1 alliance has 9 players in top 20..
the other alliance has 1 player in 20th.
That's GW2..
still dont understand why alliance score based on individual SCORE of players?
Alliance points should come from:
How one group of players contribute in pax/cargo movement versus others group of players. Not how individual scoring calculated somehow to ally scoring.
Main basement: 1. How much PAX/cargo transferred by alliance since day 1 till game end. Thats it. It shouldnt calculate PAX/cargo transferred by a company during period out of alliance (to not provoke to inviting players on the finish line to ally).
2. How much planes are up in the air ? (average for last 2 years)
3. How many weekly flights.
calculate points from these 4 categories like you do for individual scoring.
And then multiple this score on alliance Rating (%), which represents Quality of Alliance.
Simple as it is.
Old system was in favour of player amount in ally without any connection to quality of airlines.
Current system overrides in favour of individual scoring without any connection of how Alliance is performing at all.
Slight adjustment based on feedback:
Quote from: Sami on March 07, 2019, 03:05:20 PM
Alliance score is now calculated with a new and straightforward method: The total score of the alliance is the average airline score of all members participating added with the sum of 2% of all individual airline scores in the alliance, apart from the airline with the lowest score who is excluded from the average calculation. There is no need for a separate scoring system since the airline score represents very well the overall quality and position of the member airlines.
"If the airline has 5 members with airline score values of 5000, 4500, 4000, 4000 and 3500 then the total alliance score is 4725 (average score and 2% of each, with the worst performer (i.e. score of 3500) excluded from the calculation)."
(in effect after 1-3 game months)
And as a comment to the previous post: Alliance is "nothing more" than what the airlines themselves are. So using the airline scores as the basis for the entire alliance scoring is a) logical and b) transparent since the airline score is a good overall metric on the entire operations. Score is a simple value used to compare the performance of airlines/alliances in an easy way. Not to be confused with the alliance rating.
Anyway, with this minor change this update item is closed and moving on to the next ones on my list.
So, from what I can tell, we should rather focus on "Alliance Rating" instead of "Alliance Score" to determine how well an Alliance is doing.
Quote from: Sami on March 07, 2019, 10:56:00 PM
Slight adjustment based on feedback:
"If the airline has 5 members with airline score values of 5000, 4500, 4000, 4000 and 3500 then the total alliance score is 4725 (average score and 2% of each, with the worst performer (i.e. score of 3500) excluded from the calculation)."
(in effect after 1-3 game months)
And as a comment to the previous post: Alliance is "nothing more" than what the airlines themselves are. So using the airline scores as the basis for the entire alliance scoring is a) logical and b) transparent since the airline score is a good overall metric on the entire operations. Score is a simple value used to compare the performance of airlines/alliances in an easy way. Not to be confused with the alliance rating.
Anyway, with this minor change this update item is closed and moving on to the next ones on my list.
I'm very sorry, but on behalf of Sky Alliance - one of this AWS games most popular, well subscribed and certainly amongst the most consistent (by terms of we are always represented in all GWs), I am thoroughly unimpressed by the changes. In GW4 our alliance has worked tirelessly, become the highest subscribe-to alliance and was clearly out in front on the league table - and yet we have somehow been unceremoniously dumped from 1st all the way down to second last by this ?
To me this just represents an undeserved slap in the face to all our members. What's the point of this game - where the very essence of playing is to compete to win - then half way through a GW all the goalposts are moved and so there's the result. How can anyone think this is fair play to happen in the middle of a GW. If stats must be changed, sure, change them at the beginning of a new GW. Sorry but I have to stand up for our alliance where we specifically try to nurture new players alongside seasoned veterans. The new scoring method punishes this. The new method rewards being able to gather all the best players under one roof - that's nothing to do with "teamwork" - that's a "cartel". This situation doesn't sit well at all.
Agree, this method should be removed from all but the newest GW.
Now that someone has pointed out that major changes in game worlds can be a lot like moving goalposts, I thought I'd grind my axe as well about a separate but recent incident that I'm rather peeved about right now. Specifically, the change to allow XL Combis carry heavy cargo. That is a major strategy changer for airlines, especially in the earlier era that GW4 is currently in. When I decided on my 757/767 fleet strategy, there was not the opportunity to use combis as heavy cargo transports. I scoffed at my weak competition as they selected the DC10/MD11 combo to replace a number of their DC8s as my combination of planes was just as capable and more cost effective to fly, which would surely lead to his final demise as a poorly run airline that got by on pure luck (seriously, how does one profit flying an DC8/757PF/732C/MD11 on multiple cargo routes with less than 3000kg of actual demand?).
Anyhow, now that the goalposts were changed, his airline is prospering as routes that are not viable for me to send a 757-200PF on are fantastic routes for MD-11C's as they can soak up all of the cargo demand and passenger demand. If I wanted to replicate that, I'd have to send a 767 for passengers and then fly a 20% full 757 to pick up the heavy cargo, which puts me at a severe disadvantage.
I didn't rage quit during all of the cheating and intentional targeting that happened against me earlier in the game, but at this point, I'm wondering what the point is to continue in GW4 as this is the second major unfair issue to go against me - I really don't want to replace all of my 757s and 767s with MD11's just to be able to properly compete at this point (as that means I'll have yet another MD11 to something else transition I have to do before the game ends).
It's probably too late to revert the change in the game world, but as a long time player and operator of small regional airlines, this was a major change that should not have been made mid-game with zero warning whatsoever.
Couldn't. Agree. More.
I have an additional axe to grind on this topic. Yes the DC10/MD11 has the combi, but the 747 does not, even though it's listed as in the game (see my rejected bug report). So, not only was a meaningful consideration in fleet selection changed part way through the game, but the modeling of the aircraft to serve this revised mechanic was not complete. And when questioned about it, the answer was "it will be in the next GW if there's time". The lack of announcements on this topic speak for themselves.
If we are changing meaningful game mechanics, introducing them part way through games where there's a lack of visibility into what components have been fully fleshed out vs. not is extremely myopic and disappointing.
axe is now dull.
bye.
dmoose42
Age 38 and 18 days
I personally like the combi/HC dynamic but do agree it should have waited for new game worlds to be introduced.
'Unfair moving of goalposts mid-world'? Sounds pretty much like real life to me! I used to agree with he above few comments and be annoyed by this kind of thing but I've actually changed my thinking recently. It's a game and it can get rather boring and repetitive once established. Anything (well, many things) that shakes things up, however unfair, adds a new dimension. Remember - it's not real money you're making!
I have to agree with knobby. Here. Life is unfair, and one has to adapt.
Quote from: knobbygb on March 08, 2019, 06:25:41 AM
'Unfair moving of goalposts mid-world'? Sounds pretty much like real life to me! I used to agree with he above few comments and be annoyed by this kind of thing but I've actually changed my thinking recently. It's a game and it can get rather boring and repetitive once established. Anything (well, many things) that shakes things up, however unfair, adds a new dimension. Remember - it's not real money you're making!
You might not make real money, but you invest alot of time into it, and it will be seen as wasted if ypu put nearly 2 years of your life into a gw thrn last few months all is taken away from you
Quote from: Obelix on March 08, 2019, 06:52:43 AM
and it will be seen as wasted if ypu put nearly 2 years of your life into a gw thrn last few months all is taken away from you
Seriously? Two years and "it's taken away in last months". What? Game World #4 has 8 months to go, Game World #3 has 4.5 months to end. The before-mentioned combi a/c update was made also to GW#1 when it also had 4+ months to the end (and that was difficult to separate between current & future scenarios due to technical considerations).
With scenarios lasting now regularily 12+ months it is unavoidable that there will be changes to them during the course of their duration, because having each game as a different "version" with different codebase is a nightmare to manage and that is not being considered. All the most major updates will be built only into new scenarios of course (as implementing some of those, like changes in flight times, would be a huge hassle to players); but it all depends on the individual change and it's not very simple.
(The comments made here are now getting a bit pointless and non-constructive, so everyone should please consider what they post and stay on topic, thanks. Sorry for the frustration, but perhaps it's better that I don't comment so frequently here and instead just focus on the updates and development)
edit / typo
Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 07, 2019, 05:24:33 PM
Hi Simon,
alliance do have a score, and this score should effectively reflect various things, and Sami agrees on it. Then comes the problem of defining what make an alliance score bigger than the some other one's: here we can discuss and dispute.
Whatever your opinion is, the new alliance scoring system makes no sense:
- doesn't promote varied alliances
- doesn't promote formation of new players
- doesn't promote large alliances
- promotes small alliance with high scoring airlines
Indeed, the new calculation would promote even more the "kill others": if you have 3 mini-alliances forming a cartel with some common discord channel or such, they would rule the GW and kill the rest. Actually, my best interest in last GW#2 would have been to leave Sky with VladimirJohnson, Luperco and 1 or 2 others, and then set up something off the grid with King Kong, Spiff, Konchr, etc. We would have destroyed any hope for the others to score in the top.
Let's do it then :-) Aiming for similar results in other gameworlds hehe
Quote from: Tha_Ape on March 07, 2019, 04:32:36 PM
Hi Sami,
I completely agree with the others and think this is counter-productive. There's no point in repeating the same arguments, so I'll keep it short.
I think this new feat was rushed in before weighting all the pros and cons, and while the discussion was still going on (see link above).
The pros you see are real, but so are the cons, and they're big.
Sky recruited around 10-12 young players in GW#2, 1/3 of all our airlines. Sky usually scores pretty high despite this policy of welcoming these young players, but the current system made us... n°6!
SASA, an alliance focused only on one continent (which deeply impacts their rating) and consists of only 7 players ranks n°3.*
Shaving off the single worst scoring airline ain't gonna change anything if an airline consists of 33 members with 1/3 low scoring.
Thank you for considering our concerns,
Arthur
* SASA members, if you read me, don't feel offended. Indeed, I feel the idea of an alliance on only one continent very interesting and challenging, I just think you shouldn't be n°3 in score. Especially considering you have only 7 members.
Maybe it's because we are on our way to dominate South America? 8)
The old scoring system does discriminate against small alliances with members that outperform big alliances - for quite some time in GW#1 we (as Aberdeen Alliance) were the only alliance with an all-green airline scores.
Changes in alliance scoring should not be changed in current gameworlds, only be made to new games!
Quote from: Sami on March 07, 2019, 10:56:00 PM
And as a comment to the previous post: Alliance is "nothing more" than what the airlines themselves are. So using the airline scores as the basis for the entire alliance scoring is a) logical and b) transparent since the airline score is a good overall metric on the entire operations. Score is a simple value used to compare the performance of airlines/alliances in an easy way. Not to be confused with the alliance rating.
Anyway, with this minor change this update item is closed and moving on to the next ones on my list.
If scoring system forces ally management to : a) not recruit newbye players b) kick at some point member not performing well c) concentrate members on single possible strategy to win like an ally (not caring about personal goals)
then I would state - that such system is:
A) Not logical
B) Not promoting
C) not encouraging at all. >:(
Alliance should have different ways to win GWs:
- it can be small group of high profile players capturing top bases and dominating it with pax and cargo.
- or it can be 40 average players producing the comparable amount of pax and cargo service
- or it can be mix of it
any of alliance should have chance to win AS ALLIANCE, no matter how they are played individually.
we have plenty well developed individual rewards. Let us make the same for alliances.
I totally agree with MuzhikRB
So now we should change the name of these group - no more an "Alliance" which means a group who get to gether for the common good of all. Instead now we should call them a "Cartel" because if you want to be at the top of the leaderboard, then you had best gather together only the top most experienced players all under one Cartel.
Quote from: Cornishman on March 08, 2019, 12:26:29 PM
I totally agree with MuzhikRB
So now we should change the name of these group - no more an "Alliance" which means a group who get to gether for the common good of all. Instead now we should call them a "Cartel" because if you want to be at the top of the leaderboard, then you had best gather together only the top most experienced players all under one Cartel.
... and no more goodies and cheap planes for those broke guys in the alliance! ... instead we all offer cheap flights to Cali and Medellin 8)
As already mentioned previously - the updated scoring system is this, and will stay like this for now. You might want to see how it works for some time before getting all worked up..... Thank you for the comments, ideas and for some surprising over-reactions in a rather tiny matter (in the overall scheme of all things).
Since I can't spend my time in herding this topic and off topic messages seem unavoidable, this thread is now temporarily locked for commenting.
Hey Sami!!
I hope you remember me, I'm the guy that talked to you about Convair 880/990. Will they be updated at this patch?
Thanks!
Is the new expansion system turned on in GW#2?
Quote from: tyteen4a03 on April 02, 2019, 06:49:01 PM
Is the new expansion system turned on in GW#2?
Check the world news, quite a few expansions have launched already.
Quote from: Tsuneyoshi on April 02, 2019, 06:18:43 PM
Hey Sami!!
I hope you remember me, I'm the guy that talked to you about Convair 880/990. Will they be updated at this patch?
Thanks!
Which?
If I remember correctly the 990 range needs to be updated as historically a pair of charter airlines did in fact use for nonstop TATL.
Quote from: Tsuneyoshi on April 02, 2019, 06:18:43 PM
Hey Sami!!
I hope you remember me, I'm the guy that talked to you about Convair 880/990. Will they be updated at this patch?
Thanks!
All in due time. Quite much new a/c data available thanks to research and will focus exactly in these less accurate models before fine tuning modern plane models.
And on the matter of the new infra expansions. You will see quite many news of this sort being posted initially since there's obviously a bit of a backlog since the system activates in-game. But should smoothen in a few game years.
Quote from: Sami on April 02, 2019, 10:00:57 PM
And on the matter of the new infra expansions. You will see quite many news of this sort being posted initially since there's obviously a bit of a backlog since the system activates in-game. But should smoothen in a few game years.
Makes sense : all airport extensions are late, the game will need a few years to be back to normal.
Is there a cap on the traffic level based on year?
Because in 1959, in GW2, it seems all of the airports are capped at traffic level 3.
Although the talk of the alliance scoring has died down, I can attest to the fact that being in an alliance as a starting player with little experience and a low score is EXTREMELY helpful. I learned almost everything I know now through either the forums or my brief days of playing in Phoenix in 2016. The cooperative gameplay of an alliance helps keep new players interested and invested in the game, and it allows them to gain in-game experience and tips to help them build successful airlines in the future. Had I not played Phoenix back then I may have never developed a hobby in AWS that brought me back to play in early 2019. In all, I think that alliance score shouldn't discourage starting players with lower scores, as this can deprive entry-level players from getting better in the game.
Quote from: Sami on March 07, 2019, 10:56:00 PM
Slight adjustment based on feedback:
"If the airline has 5 members with airline score values of 5000, 4500, 4000, 4000 and 3500 then the total alliance score is 4725 (average score and 2% of each, with the worst performer (i.e. score of 3500) excluded from the calculation)."
(in effect after 1-3 game months)
And as a comment to the previous post: Alliance is "nothing more" than what the airlines themselves are. So using the airline scores as the basis for the entire alliance scoring is a) logical and b) transparent since the airline score is a good overall metric on the entire operations. Score is a simple value used to compare the performance of airlines/alliances in an easy way. Not to be confused with the alliance rating.
Anyway, with this minor change this update item is closed and moving on to the next ones on my list.
This, I cannot agree with. The airline score is heavily weighted towards a large fleet size. A less than mediocre giant will always outscore a very efficiently run small (200-300 aircraft) airline. Look at the airline score listing in any game world for evidence.
New players often need to operate in countries that will not profitably support more than 300 aircraft to learn how the game works. Under the new Alliance scoring there is no incentive to help new players (apart from the token "one") as they will inevitibly lower the alliance score & it is clearly intended to be a competitive environment because a score is calculated.
I can however see how these changes will aid an alliance that specialises in giant airlines, draw your own conclusions.
I can only see this as a very short sighted and backward step.
As mentioned earlier there won't be any changes to the alliance score for now.
The old scoring method was totally broken and not suitable even the slightest to the long game worlds (it was never designed for 1yr+ games!), as the only thing what it rewarded was keeping the alliance alive from day 1 to the end and making sure nobody got any penalties from strikes or bankruptcies, everything else was irrelevant.
Airline score is designed so that biggest does NOT mean highest score. GW#4; top scorer has a fleet of ~600 while airline with largest (~1500) fleet is at place 13 currently. And of course one cannot be at the top with a 20-plane fleet in a long game.
And also in GW#4 the top scoring alliance has a) high number of members (second highest at 33) and b) very diverse member base with their airline scores ranging from near-top 5540 to low 2256. Just as an example as I was active in that game just now. (not starting any debate here, as the feature was just updated and won't be revisited now)
(p.s. and I hope everyone have read the manual about the score update and noted that there are no penalties for bankruptcies or such anymore. So no need to leave the alliance before b/c and a member going missing in action doesn't count negatively towards the score, and so on.)
Quote from: Sami on April 04, 2019, 09:37:09 AM
As mentioned earlier there won't be any changes to the alliance score for now.
The old scoring method was totally broken and not suitable even the slightest to the long game worlds (it was never designed for 1yr+ games!), as the only thing what it rewarded was keeping the alliance alive from day 1 to the end and making sure nobody got any penalties from strikes or bankruptcies, everything else was irrelevant.
Airline score is designed so that biggest does NOT mean highest score. GW#4; top scorer has a fleet of ~600 while airline with largest (~1500) fleet is at place 13 currently. And of course one cannot be at the top with a 20-plane fleet in a long game.
And also in GW#4 the top scoring alliance has a) high number of members (second highest at 33) and b) very diverse member base with their airline scores ranging from near-top 5540 to low 2256. Just as an example as I was active in that game just now. (not starting any debate here, as the feature was just updated and won't be revisited now)
(p.s. and I hope everyone have read the manual about the score update and noted that there are no penalties for bankruptcies or such anymore. So no need to leave the alliance before b/c and a member going missing in action doesn't count negatively towards the score, and so on.)
If we wanna nitpick, #1 alliance in GW#4 is also the alliance with most planes overall, 33% more than #2 alliance... Which means an average airline 33% larger than in #2.
That's not a slight difference.
Quote from: Sami on April 04, 2019, 09:37:09 AM
As mentioned earlier there won't be any changes to the alliance score for now.
The old scoring method was totally broken and not suitable even the slightest to the long game worlds (it was never designed for 1yr+ games!), as the only thing what it rewarded was keeping the alliance alive from day 1 to the end and making sure nobody got any penalties from strikes or bankruptcies, everything else was irrelevant.
Airline score is designed so that biggest does NOT mean highest score. GW#4; top scorer has a fleet of ~600 while airline with largest (~1500) fleet is at place 13 currently. And of course one cannot be at the top with a 20-plane fleet in a long game.
And also in GW#4 the top scoring alliance has a) high number of members (second highest at 33) and b) very diverse member base with their airline scores ranging from near-top 5540 to low 2256. Just as an example as I was active in that game just now. (not starting any debate here, as the feature was just updated and won't be revisited now)
(p.s. and I hope everyone have read the manual about the score update and noted that there are no penalties for bankruptcies or such anymore. So no need to leave the alliance before b/c and a member going missing in action doesn't count negatively towards the score, and so on.)
I wasn't really expecting any change.
My point is that a less well run giant will generally outscore a well run smaller airline. This becomes more evident the longer the game world goes on. There too many metrics that favour only the larger airline. With say only 300 aircraft it is exceptionally difficult to break into the top 50. This will change how alliances choose to accept new members, especially the more competitive alliances.
GW#1, nearing the end, 7 airlines with less than 600 planes and 1 with less than 300 in the top 50. 600 planes is a substantial airline for a new player and cannot be achieved if based in a smaller country.
Quote from: Wreck on April 04, 2019, 10:34:09 AM
GW#1, nearing the end, 7 airlines with less than 600 planes and 1 with less than 300 in the top 50. 600 planes is a substantial airline for a new player and cannot be achieved if based in a smaller country.
I ended up 12th in scoring in last GW3, playing in Algeria.
and honestly, considering the way alliance rating is done, and the influence over LFs, I4d be an alliance leader, I'd be interested by a decent player in a remote place like SGN, just because that player would increase my alliance coverage, and therefore my alliance rating, and therefore my own financial performance.
Quote from: Wreck on April 04, 2019, 10:34:09 AM
I wasn't really expecting any change.
My point is that a less well run giant will generally outscore a well run smaller airline.
As it should because running a larger airline is way more time consuming and challenging.
Quote from: Infinity on April 04, 2019, 08:47:45 PM
As it should because running a larger airline is way more time consuming and challenging.
To run a big airline well, I agree with you & rightly should be rewarded. To run a big airline poorly I think is over rewarded.
It seems that if the primary driver for the airport expanding is lack of slots, and if the expansion does not (yet) deliver any slots, it seems that in more advanced game worlds, some airports will get back to back expansions.
Yes, I was under the impression that with the expansion in infrastructure, a big batch of slots would be released at once (10? 20?)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 08, 2019, 08:48:49 PM
It seems that if the primary driver for the airport expanding is lack of slots, and if the expansion does not (yet) deliver any slots, it seems that in more advanced game worlds, some airports will get back to back expansions.
Back to back expansions only after the minimum amount of time between expansions has passed and not otherwise limited by era allowances. What are you hinting at?
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on April 09, 2019, 03:05:54 AM
Back to back expansions only after the minimum amount of time between expansions has passed and not otherwise limited by era allowances. What are you hinting at?
Talentz
The way I see it working is that by using up slots, pressure to expand airport will build up, and most the slots being used up creates the maximum pressure to expand.
Then, the expansion that also grants slots is like a pressure valve and releases the build up pressure, so that there is no pressure to expand until the slots are used up again.
But by not granting slots, there is no pressure valve, and there is equal pressure to expand before and right after the expansion.
As winds are now quite a bit more realistic, will there be any change in the itinerary calculation?
Will the pilots be able to go 30nm up north and take a longer route to avoid strong headwinds and in the end gain some time? Will the system check for the shorter route time-wise and not distance-wise?
SIN-EWR being in this case a good example: https://www.quora.com/For-a-flight-going-from-the-United-States-to-China-or-Japan-why-would-an-airline-choose-the-long-route-over-Europe-and-the-Middle-East-instead-of-going-over-the-Pacific-Ocean (https://www.quora.com/For-a-flight-going-from-the-United-States-to-China-or-Japan-why-would-an-airline-choose-the-long-route-over-Europe-and-the-Middle-East-instead-of-going-over-the-Pacific-Ocean)
Yeah I think it is all really nice and interesting that this update had been implemented, but it should be done hand in hand with a better flight planning module....
How does the new wind model differ from the one in GW2 currently?
Quote from: [ATA] Verto on May 14, 2019, 03:12:40 PM
How does the new wind model differ from the one in GW2 currently?
More accurate compared to real life.
Previous wind model had only 6 data points in entire world, this one has 10000? (or something in that amount anyway)
@Sami, reference this post (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg474551.html#msg474551) in the changelog.
QuoteThe early B747 is quite a mess like many of the other aircraft of that era, with dozens of variants and different choices. And the data for the operational weights and other info varies and depends on which source you look, and updating this data is hence rather time consuming. The -200 combis will be added during the next month, and the -300 series will also receive a data update at some point. Note that the performance data of the 747 series is still v.1 and not fully accurate (we don't have the manuals so far).
Will the -200 combis (C/M) make it into the game in time for the GW1 relaunch? Likewise with any other additions? 300M, 400M etc?
QuoteThe data on performance is based now on actual aircraft manuals and similar data. As a result the fuel burn values are more accurate and in B707s case quite much lower than before. Do note also that there is quite a big fuel burn difference between the turbojet and turbofan (B designator) powered aircraft, latter being more efficient.
DC-8 will also receive a similar update before new GW#1 in order for these two rivals to be on the same accuracy for the new game.
Can we get a rough idea about the new fuel burn values for these fleet types? Or at least the % deviation?
Those of us who plan their prop schedules while keeping one eye on jets, will appreciate any insight immensely when it comes to fleet planning.
Fuel figures can be seen from game interface. So you can call Boeing and ask about the new jet when they plan to start building it ;) (where's the suspense otherwise ;D)
Quote from: Sami on May 22, 2019, 07:36:05 AM
Fuel figures can be seen from game interface. So you can call Boeing and ask about the new jet when they plan to start building it ;) (where's the suspense otherwise ;D)
My estimate is reduction from 11-14 tons per hour down to quoted (by operators) real world figures of 7-9 tons per hour depending on turbojet vs fanjet.
Quote from: Zobelle on May 23, 2019, 09:10:41 AM
My estimate is reduction from 11-14 tons per hour down to quoted (by operators) real world figures of 7-9 tons per hour depending on turbojet vs fanjet.
That would be quite a boost if those values comes to fruition.
QuoteNew performance tool
(Very early preview picture below)
In order to make the highly realistic aircraft performance model more understandable and in order to help fleet and route planning, a new Performance Tool is in the making.
Thank you for this, a welcome change indeed. I assume that it would allow a player input any of the a/c available at that point in time, not just the ones currently in their fleet.
Quote from: deovrat on May 23, 2019, 11:04:17 AM
I assume that it would allow a player input any of the a/c available at that point in time, not just the ones currently in their fleet.
Correct. What you see at Aircraft Info page (https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/Info) can be used in perf.tool.
would the tool allow us to check a route between any two airports worldwide, not just from our bases? That would be cool!
Mike
In regard to the new Performance Tool, it would be nice to have an estimate of weekly costs / profit on the route -the same information you see when your aircraft has started flying the route (weekly profit I think it's called). Obviously, this would be an estimate and would assume you have purchased the aircraft outright (the player can figure in his/her weekly leasing costs if applicable). This would be very nice to understand the effect different types of planes have on a route.
When Infrastructure level rises at an airport, will it change flight times (longer taxi times)? That would be a major headache ...
Mike
No, the taxi times are based on old 1-5 classes.
Not great but that's the only reasonable way to do it really.. (or then just standardize taxi times at all airports)
QuoteAirport at infra level 10 has 100 slots/hr while airport at level 1 has 10 slots/hr, and growth between these levels is linear. In other words airport at level 5 has 50 slots/hr. These can be changed by a global modifier in game's settings (i.e game has slots setting at "+50%" globally, and then level 5 airports have 75 slots/hr).
OK, how will this work at big airports? For example, ORD in GW2 has currently 173 hourly slots and it still is slot-restricted in the morning hours. Is it just a matter of "deal with it" or will slots still increase over time?
QuoteWhenever an airport expands and it was slot-constrained before the expansion, a slot quota mechanism is activated for the airport. The actual quota depends on many things but is usually at least 50 new slots for each 5 passed game days. In other words you can schedule 7 new flights flown 7 times a week, and repeat this every 5 game days - so shouldn't be a truly limiting factor for anyone. The quota is valid for a maximum for 120 days after the expansion (2.5 real days with 30min/day game speed), which after the limit is lifted and slots are free to be bought in larger quantities too.
7 new flights. That means 2 regional planes or 1 7-day-schedule (with 7 flights of course). That's really not much and will be limiting a lot. I would have assumed the limit to be somewhere around 200 slots or so instead of just 50. I agree there needs to be a limit for fair play reasons...but not that low.
Quote from: Andre090904 on June 09, 2019, 03:18:14 PM
OK, how will this work at big airports? For example, ORD in GW2 has currently 173 hourly slots and it still is slot-restricted in the morning hours. Is it just a matter of "deal with it" or will slots still increase over time?
Yes, how will this play out? Many US airports look like they would be constantly slot locked under this new model.
QuoteORD in GW2 has currently 173 hourly slots and it still is slot-restricted in the morning hours. Is it just a matter of "deal with it" or will slots still increase over time?
You should not expect a total slot availability at all hours during the day. Especially if the airport is one of the popular ones. (in several current game worlds the slot numbers are artificially high, but it's a fine balance of being too limiting or too generous)
Quote7 new flights.
Repeatable every 5 game days. If the airport grows for example +10 slots per hour there might not be that much to share. And the system will
not be biased towards whoever sets their alarm on and gets there first.
(the quota system will be tuned once there are some more experiences of it)
Quote from: Sami on June 09, 2019, 04:31:30 PM
You should not expect a total slot availability at all hours during the day. Especially if the airport is one of the popular ones. (in several current game worlds the slot numbers are artificially high, but it's a fine balance of being too limiting or too generous)
Agreed. But then again let's assume ORD had 100 slots now in GW2 (73 less than it has currently). This would mean it would be totally slot locked except night times. I am sure this can't be it either?
Quote from: Andre090904 on June 09, 2019, 04:42:45 PM
Agreed. But then again let's assume ORD had 100 slots now in GW2 (73 less than it has currently). This would mean it would be totally slot locked except night times. I am sure this can't be it either?
I second Andre on this, and think that the huge bases like ORD/LAX/LHR might either need a category (11/12) of their own, or a multiplier to the slots later in the game.
P.S. - If neither of the above are planned, happy days for A380 ! :P
Quote from: deovrat on June 09, 2019, 04:52:54 PM
I second Andre on this, and think that the huge bases like ORD/LAX/LHR might either need a category (11/12) of their own, or a multiplier to the slots later in the game.
Half agreed. LHR is slot-constrained IRL, so wouldn't be a problem to keep it so in the game. Yes, settings in different GWs are already different, but then LHR would become somewhat more realistic (LHR has currently only 2 runways - vs 6 in the 50s - can't beat ATL).
And that's only a problem until CBD for pax is implemented. After that, Gatwick and Luton will gain power and that's precisely the point of crossing CBD with this infra system.
Quote from: deovrat on June 09, 2019, 04:52:54 PM
P.S. - If neither of the above are planned, happy days for A380 ! :P
That would be interesting indeed. Very much.
Sorry to say, that if CBD for pax is being implemented before other more needed features, then that will probably be my last day playing this AWS game.
No disrespect and I'm sure many folk would disagree with me, but imo, we really need some exciting new developments, not more fiddley things to tie us up tighter in little knots. I mean - lets face it: we currently have CBD for cargo in place, yet we do not have a satisfactory toolbox to help assess exactly which airports we should serve and which not to bother with thereafter because it would be affected by our previous route selection in any given CBD. We all know that if you fiddle around and open a new tab and alter the url then there is a very clunky way to see a map with the CBD areas and the airports within them. But even then, this leaves us with some massive tasks to create a spreadsheet to organise yourself. I did that when I mapped out all the cargo route possibilities from Paris to the USA. Largely it worked a dream for me in the end - but I'm not doing that again with all pax routes all around the world - NO WAY - task much too big.
Perhaps instead, finally doing something that makes huge swathes of the planet like Africa, more fun and workable - maybe in Africa (and similar places where traffic is thin) allow "stop-&-pick-up routes". Perhaps first some toolbox updates to fix the large number of "repeat/repeat/repeat" tasks we have to tediously go through "1-plane-at-a-time" or "1-route-at-a-time" when running a large fleet of say 500+ aircraft.
PS: Thank you for just fixing the mass-scrapping of planes. Excellent, some more fixes like this will really go down well. (I only just noticed this after posting this message)
I was just having to look at some of my less profitable cargo routes and make some decisions whether to axe a few. So about the current CBD arrangement for cargo - for my money it really is pretty damned poor. I run a fleet of cargo planes - and so to fill-up a required shorter schedule here and there in a 7-day schedule, I choose to fly into destinations like Germany, Italy the UK and France which have decent cargo requirements on the whole. But so many airports are within same CBD as several others, that when the demand is split around as it is - it becomes less viable to actually serve any of the destinations at all. It would surely be better for one airport in any given CBD to be given a "cargo-handler" status - like for example BHX offer cargo, whilst those around like EMA, CVT, etc. would not.
Really not a fan at all of this CBD stuff. Dead against seeing this introduced for pax.
In essence, it's an interesting concept and opens new strategy possibilities. The net effect, however, seems to be having more scattered demand/thin routes and flying smaller planes. It'll be a new challenge for all of us and keep us busy for a while but might prove frustrating in the longer run... but I'm glad to see this game in constant development.. something new in the pipeline all the time....
Mike
And it IS realistic... it means you must fight to strategically move demand by offering more/better flights than your competitors. Now, how well the system works is another matter but it has to be better than just having fixed demand at each airport, as before. As for your example of designating a specific cargo airport - that would just be totally unrealistic and the game is trying to replicate real life wherever possible. Can you imagine the fuss if EMA were suddenly told "No, you can't handle cargo, BHX is having it all". It would break all sorts of anti-competition and free market rules.
Simple solution is to work to find what airports handle cargo IRL and which dont. If no cargo IRL, airline has to invest in a facility prior to launching service.
Knobby says "it IS realistic" - I have no argument about that specific fact knobby - but the problem is the tools that we have to manage this in AWS are completely lacking. Knobby... have you tried finding out all the cargo strategic best destinations in the USA for example, if you fly from one of the European major cargo countries? I have... my God, it was a nightmare long task to establish what would work. I cannot begin to imagine the frustration to have to do that for every destination everywhere for passengers with the current tooling levels. That is what I'm trying to flag up here before it all just gets launched and then everyone discovers we have a nightmare going on.
Agree with cornishman. In GW3, I've got a few cargo lines from MPL, some work very well, some very bad, and I couldn't find what lines from MRS(the only reasonable nearby competing airport) were in competition with mine.
The system may be realistic, it's also completely unreadable.
I'm looking forward to passenger CBD as that is when the fun starts. Lets face it, we've played the games loads and we're used to the JFK-LHR cash cow that prints cash, and with slots restricted at both ends and Heathrow closed 23-06 means it's hard to break into for new people.
CBD promises us we can setup a new operation at Stansted and fly punters to Atlantic City. Or use Midway and not ORD. Oakland not SFO. etc etc. So rather than establish the usual big bases that nobody can touch after the first few years, we suddenly get disruptors popping up all over. Can't wait! Who will be the JetBlue or Ryanair of AWS? And if we get hub and spoke well...!
I can usually see who is hiding at smaller bases by going to the airport page, say Oakland for SFO, seeing who's based there, seeing if they have any cargo planes, if they do looking at their airline specific timetable and see if they've sneaked in some cargo flights to steal "my" cargo, eg KOAK-NYC.
Simon
My view is for quite a simple solution around CBD,
i think we need an extra data bar on the demand/supply page... one which shows the total supply between all the possible routes in CBD... if that total supply is below the potential demand then you know you can shift some volume your way and turn it into actual demand.. if it's not already above the potential then you know it will be harder to get the potential to turn into actual demand..
Not sure how easy it is for Sami to make that visible..
Quote from: [ATA] Frimp on June 19, 2019, 06:14:35 PM
My view is for quite a simple solution around CBD,
i think we need an extra data bar on the demand/supply page... one which shows the total supply between all the possible routes in CBD... if that total supply is below the potential demand then you know you can shift some volume your way and turn it into actual demand.. if it's not already above the potential then you know it will be harder to get the potential to turn into actual demand..
Not sure how easy it is for Sami to make that visible..
even easier: we just need one bar, with two new lines. the bar itself shows current demand at the airport. the top line is an indicator on maximum demand and the bottom line on the minimum demand that goes to that airport-route. but i am afraid, CBD will need much more tools to work with.
Quote from: dandan on June 19, 2019, 08:14:03 PM
even easier: we just need one bar, with two new lines. the bar itself shows current demand at the airport. the top line is an indicator on maximum demand and the bottom line on the minimum demand that goes to that airport-route. but i am afraid, CBD will need much more tools to work with.
Agree with Dani on both accounts but also like the added bar suggested by Frimp as an alternative. But whatever happens... needs much better management tools than currently available.
Quote from: Cornishman on June 20, 2019, 10:31:57 AM
(.../...) needs much better management tools than currently available.
We all agree on that. One solution to keep the screens readable would be a switch between "airport chart" (today's bars from airport are) and "area chart" (which would include all flights and demand from the whole area). I would see, for example, that there is no flight between MPL & BUR, but also that several flights do happen between the BUR area(which includes LAX) & the MPL area(which includes MRS, sooner or later), flights that would steal me a lot of demand.
But anything else providing the same level of information would be welcome. Is really needed, actually.
Quote from: Sami on June 09, 2019, 04:31:30 PM
You should not expect a total slot availability at all hours during the day. Especially if the airport is one of the popular ones. (in several current game worlds the slot numbers are artificially high, but it's a fine balance of being too limiting or too generous)
Repeatable every 5 game days. If the airport grows for example +10 slots per hour there might not be that much to share. And the system will not be biased towards whoever sets their alarm on and gets there first.
(the quota system will be tuned once there are some more experiences of it)
Surprised some of you haven't raised more of a fuss about this, but maybe this change is only affecting certain markets so far.. Anyway I understand where we are trying to go with this change, but at the same time this is just unreasonable. You are essentially asking your paying subscribers to log on more frequently and for longer periods of time. Before this change there was a cap on unused slots, which was annoying if you had 100+ aircraft sitting around, but understandable as players do deserve a fair shot to grab slots. Now not only is there a cap on unused slots, but also a set time limit that i must wait before i can finish buying slots and scheduling my aircraft. I will now have planes flying with schedules half finished because i need to wait another real life 2.5 hours before i can complete my scheduling. Forget scheduling SH aircraft with 7 day schedules anymore.. or any 7 day scheduling with more than one flight a day. Kinda silly if you ask me since that is the one strategy that is the most prevalent in all games(there's a tutorial pinned on this forum for crying out loud).
Sami, we really need to revisit this. Some of us can only get on once a day and would like to complete all necessary work in that period time. The cap on unused slots was a great move, but imo it really does not need to move past that. And if this is something that you won't bend on then at least have the cap be higher. 50 slots in 5 game days is nothing and for example if one was based at ORD flying SH using 7 day scheduling then in theory i could be purchasing nearly 200 slots at a given time for a 7 day schedule. Please reconsider this and thank you as always for continued work on perfecting this beautiful game.
Connor
I've just twigged to how awful this change is. So I'm playing ATL in GW1 and we just had an infra increase so now have 70 slots. But no increase for a real world week, with 9 other players the airport is totally slot blocked! It seems under the new rules we won't get slots released every so often, and when we get to infra 10 in a decades time we'll max at 100 slots!!! How can 9 people play for the next year, paying good money for credits, in a game like this? It's boooring as heck. In GW3 ATL has 220 slots, which given the size of the airport and the sheer number of destinations to get to and the size of the US pax market is reasonable.
We need slots to increase in gradual bits, as before, and to a higher number, so we have something to do in-between the infra increases every real 2 months! How can we play a game for an hour every 2 months? Once the slots are grabbed there's nothing to do..
Maybe the multiplier, 1.75 in GW1 supposedly, could increase week on week 1.80 1.85 etc..
Please reconsider Sami...
Simon
Simon
This is the reason I stopped playing new worlds because I never got to play, either slot blocked or no planes of any kind on UM. Seems like it desperately needs a fix, now I'm glad I didn't spend credits to join GW1.
Quote from: connorc17 on June 25, 2019, 03:39:46 AM
Sami, we really need to revisit this. Some of us can only get on once a day and would like to complete all necessary work in that period time.
As noted in the changelog (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg481391.html#msg481391) entry, the slot quota system is based on the old design and will be possibly tuned at some point after there are more experiences of it. However it's not just yet time to jump to any conclusions since it has been in use only for a couple of weeks. But the intention is to find a balance where one doesn't have to be online at all times, and neither be online when the slot increase happens, but still give some small reward if you're able to visit more often than let's say every two days.
Quote from: Sami on June 09, 2019, 09:25:48 AM
- The quota system is still partly based on old code intended only for the airline/route closures and will be tuned/improved at some point. Quota is also currently only displayed at the airport slots page but this is also due to some improvements soon. We'll keep an eye on how the things work in the new game world.
Quote from: groundbum2 on June 26, 2019, 10:32:46 AM
But no increase for a real world week, with 9 other players the airport is totally slot blocked!
First things first, the airport is not totally slot blocked. The morning hours are rather taken but not near 100% usage overall. But sure, ATL is currently the most difficult airport (traditionally it has been always LHR, but can't stick to old patterns). Mainly due to the excessive number of airlines HQ'ed there currently (more than at LHR).
QuoteIt seems under the new rules we won't get slots released every so often, and when we get to infra 10 in a decades time we'll max at 100 slots!!!
You are incorrect with the assumption of maximum of 100 slots / hr for
all scenarios. It depends on the game settings and at GW#1 already at infra 4 it has 70sl/hr. For smaller/shorter games the global modifier is usually at the default, but not for larger/longer games.
QuoteWe need slots to increase in gradual bits, as before
No, this is not happening. The only time the slots increase in bits is at the game start period during the first years. After that expansion happens only when the airport itself expands, which can be seen as the most realistic way since the airport capacity cannot increase out of thin air. Please read the details about the change from the announcement for details: changelog (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg481391.html#msg481391) and also the manual (https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Airport/#Expand).
Quote from: tungstennedge on June 26, 2019, 10:41:00 AM
either slot blocked or no planes of any kind on UM. Seems like it desperately needs a fix, now I'm glad I didn't spend credits to join GW1.
There are no airports in GW#1 that are at this moment 24/7 slot blocked and the game has been running for 2 years now already. Even the "always slot locked" LHR has still some slots available (92% usage) - a very high value but totally expected since it has 7 large airlines based there. Outside of the top-3 airports, let's say Haneda, we have only 65% slot usage with plenty of slots at every hour! So check your facts first please. And according to the feedback (for which I specifically asked for at the game forum) the used a/c market at this start-up round has been well balanced too. Sure the "go-to" plane for early start (DC-6) dried up quickly but overall it's been much better than previous long game start.
And you
must understand that you simply cannot expect an unlimited availability and supply of each and every resource needed. And this too is mentioned at the "launch notes" of every new long game world. There is always something that will limit your growth - demand, competition, economy in general, slots, aircraft, etc, and it depends how each scenario is set up and how players make their choices (so not always predictable).
Sami, I think you saying ATL is not slot blocked is disingenuous. ATL is 94% US domestic and there are no slots between 0500 and 1055. How can we run an airline when planes cannot depart for hours at a time? We all know 0000-0455 is total dead time for pax, and there is no freight yet, so it's disingenuous saying there are slots. I can't buy a plane and send it off for one 4 hour trip a day, it goes against all good advice on how to play the game.
I think AWS is heading for kind of hubris where it's trying to be so pure, it's not actually entertainment/a game/fun anymore. First and foremost when coming up with a new idea, AWS developers should say "in balance does this make the game more fun or not". What should I do for the next real world month? Paying credits every week? There's a thousand empire style games on GOG people could be playing..
Simon
while I cannot comment on the new slot system/mechanism from where I'm based, I believe 10 airlines based at any airport is excessive. There is bound to be a complete slot shortage sooner or later. Probably best to seek out new bases to expand from while waiting for some of the airlines to bankrupt.
I for one prefer the game to be as realistic as possible, that does make it more boring though. It's all in the balance I guess ....
Mike
Some very nice quality of life changes there Sami, thanks!
Quote from: Mort on June 26, 2019, 05:23:31 PM
Some very nice quality of life changes there Sami, thanks!
i agree. conversion out of storage would have been the iceing on the cake though ;)
Quote from: dandan on June 26, 2019, 05:55:14 PM
i agree. conversion out of storage would have been the iceing on the cake though ;)
On that note, straight from the used market purchase page would be awesome too please!!
Quote from: Sami on June 26, 2019, 11:05:29 AM
As noted in the changelog (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg481391.html#msg481391) entry, the slot quota system is based on the old design and will be possibly tuned at some point after there are more experiences of it. However it's not just yet time to jump to any conclusions since it has been in use only for a couple of weeks. But the intention is to find a balance where one doesn't have to be online at all times, and neither be online when the slot increase happens, but still give some small reward if you're able to visit more often than let's say every two days.
First things first, the airport is not totally slot blocked. The morning hours are rather taken but not near 100% usage overall. But sure, ATL is currently the most difficult airport (traditionally it has been always LHR, but can't stick to old patterns). Mainly due to the excessive number of airlines HQ'ed there currently (more than at LHR).
You are incorrect with the assumption of maximum of 100 slots / hr for all scenarios. It depends on the game settings and at GW#1 already at infra 4 it has 70sl/hr. For smaller/shorter games the global modifier is usually at the default, but not for larger/longer games.
No, this is not happening. The only time the slots increase in bits is at the game start period during the first years. After that expansion happens only when the airport itself expands, which can be seen as the most realistic way since the airport capacity cannot increase out of thin air. Please read the details about the change from the announcement for details: changelog (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg481391.html#msg481391) and also the manual (https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Airport/#Expand).
There are no airports in GW#1 that are at this moment 24/7 slot blocked and the game has been running for 2 years now already. Even the "always slot locked" LHR has still some slots available (92% usage) - a very high value but totally expected since it has 7 large airlines based there. Outside of the top-3 airports, let's say Haneda, we have only 65% slot usage with plenty of slots at every hour! So check your facts first please.
Of the 8% free slots 7% are within 2 game hours?
LHR have a too high quota and also some players take the advantage to schedule 3-5 flights within 1 hour and have a 5 game day limit they can eat out easy all the good slots in a real day and we have to wait again for 4 real months,just because fly 5 flights within 1 hour on a 300 demand is allowed and with new type arrivals they probably will reschedule the flights to actually good routes and this way have there slot security.
As with 92% of the slot beeing distributed at an airport beeing closed between 11pm and 6AM you not have to be worried you loose demand on a frequency war,as there is a reason those 8% are not used as are at times you cannot do anything good with them
I'm shared on the topic.
On one side, Sami is right. One can't expect all airports always to have all needed slots. Managing limited resources is part of the fun. Like managing the lack of used aircraft. I had a blast in previous GW2, flying IL12s that were as costly to fly than CV240s, for half the capacity and half the range, but IL12s were available at once. I had to think out of the box.
But I had to think out of the box in a severa-criterion game, with bizarre solutions that actually were possible to find. Good planes were impossible to find, mediocre ones had 6 months of delay(my then-rival went for the AW55, still better than my IL12s, but he had to wait 6 months - time to market for IL12s was 6 weeks, and it proved a decisive advantage), so I aimed for the worse possible piece of steel in the whole game. And succeeded anyways. @tungstennedge - Your style of play perfectly works as long as resources are unlimited. You'd learn a lot playing when resources are actually scarce, and opposition harsh. For reference, I was based in WAW, finally beat my opponent there(after 20 years of a crazy fight), and ended up 8th in overall scoring. Nothing was easy to me, I had a strong shortage of demand for the 54 first years of the game, couldn't fly the fleet structure I wanted for 21 years(and my B377-B727 switch), most EU airports were filled with opposition when skies opened to me in 2004, and I ended up richer than God. That's far more challenging than spamming the big routes in LHR once all local players have given up, and whining when slots or used planes are getting scarce.
Big boys don't cry. Curfews and already optimized 7-7 schedules prevented me from opening a 4th daily fly to SIN from SGN when a local BK'd. It's painful, there was demand for that, and I'd have improved my profitability. But that's the game. I'm in a place where I have to play tight with tight resources. That's where the fun is : make the best out of where I am, be it a big airport(I played FRA once in a challenge game, and CDG, MAD & JFK in GW3s) or a small one. I'm not gonna complain because my plan is destroyed by bad news. 80% of companies BK before the end of the game. Whatever their plans were, those plans were destroyed one way or another. BTW, many players did meet my company, and not many did survive the experience. I am also a game-breaker for many. I can ruin a game as surely as a lack of slots or used aircraft, maybe even more. I'm not hiding behind the facts - even as I'm not specifically targetting my opponents, I pushed most of them to BK, just by existing and scheduling like if they didn't exist.
If one day a player better than me BK's me, well, it's the game. I'm not gonna cry. I'm more gonna try to check what was wrong in my playstyle. How I didn't adapt properly to the situation.
Yet.
Yet I still have a philosophical problem with the new slot system.
Slots, are a one-dimensional problem. Once there are none, there are none. It can be mitigated in ATL or LHR(find another airport in the country to toy with and manage your growth), but not in SIN, for example. So, SIN has just been expanded, everyone stole the slots, and now, let's sleep for 4 game years before the next expansion. That's not my idea of fun. Once again, you're slot-locked in LHR, you attack MAN, or GLA, or God(who saves the queen) knows what in the kingdom. I still fear for the one-airport places. ALG probably does not have enough demand to slot-lock you, but SIN and later in the game(because of cargo) HKG definitively risk end up being boredom traps at one point or another. those airports are not places where you can escape once it's slot-locked.
Unfrequent slot drops in the middle of nowhere, while 100% unrealistic, help the game stay dynamic. The situation at a given airport is not frozen for the next 5-6 years. Next time I'll be at a slot-locked airport, I'll miss those. Because well, let's say I'm back in CDG, and this time I've got skilled opponents before the late game. It gets slot-locked, airport expands, it gets slotlocked again. OK, I can forget the airport for 5 years. It's frozen. Nothing to do whatsoever there. The whole situation at the airport is locked. No hope of fresh air. Realistic? Probably, especially when comparing to LHR IRL. Interesting for the game? Not so much.
Reading all the above arguments for and against the SLOTS issue... this for me makes by far, the most sense: (quote gazzz)
Unfrequent slot drops in the middle of nowhere, while 100% unrealistic, help the game stay dynamic. The situation at a given airport is not frozen for the next 5-6 years. Next time I'll be at a slot-locked airport, I'll miss those. Because well, let's say I'm back in CDG, and this time I've got skilled opponents before the late game. It gets slot-locked, airport expands, it gets slotlocked again. OK, I can forget the airport for 5 years. It's frozen. Nothing to do whatsoever there. The whole situation at the airport is locked. No hope of fresh air. Realistic? Probably, especially when comparing to LHR IRL. Interesting for the game? Not so much.
Sami - please reconsider these latest slot changes you made. The game is really not maintaining the level of enjoyability. It is a problem when you see people typing things like (quote Tungstennedge)
This is the reason I stopped playing new worlds because I never got to play, either slot blocked or no planes of any kind on UM. Seems like it desperately needs a fix, now I'm glad I didn't spend credits to join GW1.
If I get the chance to have some time to jump onto an online game like I do with AWS, I really want to be enjoying my time... not switching it off in frustration because I'm blocked from doing anything meaningful. I personally don't have any problems with my current GW4 game, but it is worrying to see these comments and many of them are strong arguments against the changes, which I have to add my dislike for the new process. An old euphemism says you get better results when you give a donkey a carrot instead of hitting it with a stick!
And still, we are talking now about a total of
two airports in the entire game world #1 that are currently restricted by slots. What a disaster ::) ;)
Only ATL and LHR would currently need expansion. All others work just as intended (well, LAX is still waiting for boost from level 3 to 4 but I'd suppose it comes soon). And none can be surprised that an airport with 7-9 airlines HQ'ed there becomes slot-limited.
Also note the "launch notes" of Game World #1:
Quote from: Sami on June 09, 2019, 05:00:04 PM
Notes regarding the launch of this particular game world:
- The new airport slot system will limit the growth at some airports. However it is not intended to be the single major limiting factor at all airports, but be prepared that some airports are not accessible due to lack of slots! We're keeping an eye on how the new system performs as adjustments and tuning might be necessary.
=> It is
way too early to think of any big changes.
There has been already some tuning on how the expansions get started, so the developments are monitored. One issue was that ATL+LHR got their expansions a bit too soon in regards to the game launch, and that has been adjusted for future. There might be also some changes on how quickly the next expansion can happen in early era if airports become too limited.
Also, I will say, that I kinda like having periods of less activity - for example if the airport is slot locked and I know the next expansion is some years away, I can put my airline on autopilot for a few years and focus on other GW's or RL.
Sami,
If airliners fly 3-5 flights in 1 to 1,5 hours on sh just to lock certain hours,here you find the problem.
The slot sytem it self is not the problem.
Then those slots are disapear to New routes and also multiple flights within a hour with 300 demand routes are not logical.even the manual say slot hoging is not allowed.
Some players are always try to find to avoid the sytem and take the fun out for others who play by the rule.
That why the last 2 quaters feel extra sweet. ;)
May I suggest, completely off topic, to Aero, this:
https://www.nha.nl/taalcursussen/engels/engels-voor-beginners
Cause honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Quote from: Aero on June 27, 2019, 12:50:59 PM
Sami,
If airliners fly 3-5 flights in 1 to 1,5 hours on sh just to lock certain hours,here you find the problem.
The slot sytem it self is not the problem.
Then those slots are disapear to New routes and also multiple flights within a hour with 300 demand routes are not logical.even the manual say slot hoging is not allowed.
Some players are always try to find to avoid the sytem and take the fun out for others who play by the rule.
That why the last 2 quaters feel extra sweet. ;)
well, yes, there was a case in GW2 where someone was accused of slot hogging. but since the airline used planes that were so small, they actually still made a profit, it was not considered slot-hogging.
At the same time, if opposition is harsh(which is common early in the game, at least in cool airports), small planes are doing profit, and big planes on the same routes are losing money. Is it still slot-hogging to fly small airframes in those conditions? I mean, it's a frequent occurence, I saw that countless times in Europe, some player lands a DC6 on a short route, another one lands 3 M202s, guess who wins? I can"t consider the M202 player as a slot hogger.
If a big airport will be limited to 100 slots, there will be tons of uncovered demand at those places. Imagine there are no slots left in LHR, FRA, AMS, CDG, LAX, CDG, ATL, JFK, SIN, HKG...etc. Demand still grows and there is just no way to grab it.
This will only mean fleets will change. Frequency wars are over. No more propeller aircraft at those airports. Instead, 747 and A380 will get more chances. But this is only possible if we own those rare slots to begin with. So from what I can tell it's still a "slot grabbing game" in the early days and it will become a huge fleet upgrade as time goes on. Also, competitors will be indestructable. Everyone has his share of slots and can't be attacked by the frequency mechanism. Since demand will be barely filled, it will be just a huge cash cow for everyone involved.
Quote from: dandan on June 27, 2019, 02:29:10 PM
well, yes, there was a case in GW2 where someone was accused of slot hogging. but since the airline used planes that were so small, they actually still made a profit, it was not considered slot-hogging.
Indeed. That starkly contrasts from a few incidents in GW4 where there was clear and blatant slot hogging through the significant oversupply of those sorts of routes. It's a lot harder to do that in the current era with the plane sizes available. In the past, buying up lots of slots like that was too expensive anyway...
Quote from: Andre090904 on June 27, 2019, 02:47:10 PM
If a big airport will be limited to 100 slots, there will be tons of uncovered demand at those places. Imagine there are no slots left in LHR, FRA, AMS, CDG, LAX, CDG, ATL, JFK, SIN, HKG...etc. Demand still grows and there is just no way to grab it.
This will only mean fleets will change. Frequency wars are over. No more propeller aircraft at those airports. Instead, 747 and A380 will get more chances. But this is only possible if we own those rare slots to begin with. So from what I can tell it's still a "slot grabbing game" in the early days and it will become a huge fleet upgrade as time goes on. Also, competitors will be indestructable. Everyone has his share of slots and can't be attacked by the frequency mechanism. Since demand will be barely filled, it will be just a huge cash cow for everyone involved.
It will be nice to give the larger aircraft a shot and not have a frequency war for a change!
I am still on the fence about the slot change overall, moreso on the numbers side of things, but that can easily be tuned down the line. I have no qualms particularly with slots only being introduced with airport expansions, that is logical, these slots can't just appear out of thin air.
As Sami said, this is the first GW where it has been introduced from the start, so might as well let it run it's course and see how things play out.
good point. maybe a "minimum aircraft size" is something to think of at airports with constant slot restrictions? so at some point the F27 is banned from flying to LHR or something. maybe something that can be connected with CBD implementation (since then the slot availability is going to be much more "relative" - no slots in LHR? ok, i am going to serve that destination from LGW)
A minimum plane size is not the problem,as we have a 4th fleet penalty and technology is follow rapidly,players will stay on 2 fleet and 3rd for transition.
Deactivate the seat block option so everyone can only fly routes which there type support.So you can only fly when the demand support.
If this is 1st game world where this slot distribution start,maybe an experiment with no seat block option would be helpfull too against the bus schedules.(you actually can only fly the routes then and not lock slots any more as oversupply is 200% aswell)
If this can be done,it will change the landscape on slot limited airports
Quote from: Aero on June 28, 2019, 07:53:50 AM
A minimum plane size is not the problem,as we have a 4th fleet penalty and technology is follow rapidly,players will stay on 2 fleet and 3rd for transition.
Deactivate the seat block option so everyone can only fly routes which there type support.So you can only fly when the demand support.
If this is 1st game world where this slot distribution start,maybe an experiment with no seat block option would be helpfull too against the bus schedules.(you actually can only fly the routes then and not lock slots any more as oversupply is 200% aswell)
If the entire seat block option is disabled, how are you supposed to control the pax to cargo ratio on combi planes?
Seems like rather a sledgehammer solution to a very minor problem.
Seat block is necessary early in the game as many destinations have limited demand vs aircraft capacity but still profitable when flown (cheap fuel).
In any case, seat block could be exchanged with a reduced seat configuration (more work and more costly,but doable).
At the end of the day, it's a strategy game with different tactics and if you think an airline is over doing it just report it....
Mike
Aircraft minimum size limits per airport won't be imposed as that is not realistic.
Seat blocking feature will not be disabled as that has not been abused nor caused otherwise any issues either.
(however there is the theoretical chance that seat block could be used to fly many big planes on a smaller-demand route in order to keep the slots, but we haven't seen anyone doing this - and it would be against the rules since it's not a "true / normal operations" as defined by the rules)
Quote from: Sami on June 28, 2019, 12:40:07 PM
Aircraft minimum size limits per airport won't be imposed as that is not realistic.
Seat blocking feature will not be disabled as that has not been abused nor caused otherwise any issues either.
(however there is the theoretical chance that seat block could be used to fly many big planes on a smaller-demand route in order to keep the slots, but we haven't seen anyone doing this - and it would be against the rules since it's not a "true / normal operations" as defined by the rules)
well, yes, but on the other hand: slot trading is realistic. and paying 10M for a slot. and ghost flights (slot hogging). and...
really, i am very much looking forward to a functioning CBD on the pax side. it will help with a lot of these issues :)
Just to verify....
The new wind models were not added to GW3 correct? I am seeing payload limitations when I schedule flights which leads me to believe that the last 36 years of scheduling may be at risk as we started the game under the old system.
GW2 and onwards
Hello Sami,
in GW2 the 747 is coming up, and i am curious to know if the combis are now "active" or not going to be included? There was a post about them being added in a month - so that should have happened already. But havent seen any notice of them in the update documentation. An information would be appreciated :)
Best regards
Dani
Sadly in GW2 i already committed to the DC10 Combis, but Thanks for adding the 747 Combis!
Looking forward to 747-400 combis & "v2" fuel consumption on the 747 and other widebodies :)
Hello Sami!
If you have a minute to spare: it would be great to get an update on the previews to see what is in the pipeline and to know what you are working on :)
And also I wanted to check if the B744M is going to be available in GW2 (History and Future)? Would be helpful for fleet planning.
Thanks for all your hard work!
Dani
Thanks for adding the D328NEU Sami!
But have you considered our Lord and Savior CV540/580/5800/freight conversion?
"All aircraft models include now (internally used) values that determine the length and width of the passenger cabin. These values will be used by the new cabin configuration systems/features (to be previewed later on in more detail)."
That sounds like a dream! Imagine: an A340-500 that is not smaller than an A340-300. Or a CRJ705 that is actually the same size as the CRJ900! ... Sami, make it real please!!! :)
@Sami: would be great if you could maybe make the data available to us here, so we could check the data and discuss it before it gets relevant - and so we dont have to possibly face annoying inconsistencies. :-[
The hits keep coming for the Baade....
Quote from: schro on September 30, 2019, 04:00:35 PM
The hits keep coming for the Baade....
Do players actually use the Baade?...
We should have a plane challenge, select only non-desirable planes in a limited GW set up (NA/EU/Aisa). Spooky challenge!
Talentz
Boo! Your lack of turbo Convair is bad, and you should feel baaaad!
Cabin update is good. But it will be really useful if PAX will start to worry about how good their seat will be.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on September 30, 2019, 07:33:34 PM
Cabin update is good. But it will be really useful if PAX will start to worry about how good their seat will be.
They do in some aspect already in terms of pricing ;)
Will the new aircraft seat configurations also be used to determine the number of cabin crew required for each aircraft? For example, will a 156 seat A319 require 4 crew, whereas a 149 seat A319 will only require 3?
Can we please get a seat bank or warehouse so that putting in 10 business class seats doesn't cost a million dollars?
Sami, on the cargo calculations, was this the issue?
New York has 100 tons a day
JFK/LGA/EWR/HPN/ISP split it equally for 20 tons potential demand each
There is 25 tons of supply to each of those airports, 125 tons total in New York
The system was saying "there is 125 tons of supply at HPN" rather than saying "there's 125 tons of supply in the New York market"
I think there may be an issue of the demand not being subtracted correctly when it moves from one airport to another. For example, I have flights to JFK and EWR, supplying capacity in excess of demand. But LGA now (after the bug fix) shows actual demand (unserved), and in fact it is growing.
Great set of quality of life changes, much appreciated!! ;D
Yup, lots of nice changes / improvements.
are the QoL changes documented anyplace? I've taken a break from AWS (nice not to be on the 30 minute treadmill) mainly due to the innane up/down/left/click/down/left/click x20 routine of running a large fleet. If there's been improvements (like send 20 aircraft to D check at once, buy multiple missing slots with one click, easier 7 day scheduling) etc then I'll come back into the next game..
Simon
Quote from: groundbum2 on October 24, 2019, 11:52:59 AM
(like send 20 aircraft to D check at once, buy multiple missing slots with one click, easier 7 day scheduling) etc then I'll come back into the next game..
Simon
Great list - all not added yet.
uhhhh... changes to cargo? one month gradual transition? that sounds... well, certainly a change!
Quote from: dandan on November 16, 2019, 12:23:00 PM
uhhhh... changes to cargo? one month gradual transition? that sounds... well, certainly a change!
This is awesome. A month by month gradual change will make it so we can't figure out where all of our revenue is going. The way this reads is that actual demand could be significantly reduced in some cases which will bankrupt many airlines (thus, making it a customer service issue in my mind).
Quote from: schro on November 16, 2019, 12:36:31 PM
This is awesome. A month by month gradual change will make it so we can't figure out where all of our revenue is going. The way this reads is that actual demand could be significantly reduced in some cases which will bankrupt many airlines (thus, making it a customer service issue in my mind).
oh, yes, certainly bad news for cargo-airlines in multi-cargo-airport-areas
Option one was to implement the fix overnight, which isn't a good idea. Option two is to keep the issue present in the games which may last still over a year, which isn't happening either (since the effect of the issue was too high in some areas). Hence the gradual change to the updated version.
perhaps Sami could make available a spreadsheet showing routes currently flown that will suffer a >10% decrease in demand, sorted by gameworld?
It seems the numbers are in the system, just not visible..
Simon
Quote from: groundbum2 on November 16, 2019, 12:52:06 PM
perhaps Sami could make available a spreadsheet showing routes currently flown that will suffer a >10% decrease in demand, sorted by gameworld?
It seems the numbers are in the system, just not visible..
Simon
yes, and make like a estimation of what demand will be in the end
Quote from: Sami on November 16, 2019, 12:43:21 PM
Option one was to implement the fix overnight, which isn't a good idea. Option two is to keep the issue present in the games which may last still over a year, which isn't happening either (since the effect of the issue was too high in some areas). Hence the gradual change to the updated version.
The system doesn't store enough detailed data about route performance for a player to make a determination as to which routes are suffering from the change. We have no way of gaining insight into what demand changes have occurred over time unless we manually scrape the data from the route planning pages periodically and track it outside the game (ain't nobody got time for that, other than maybe Jumboshrimp).
Should be interesting to see how it shakes out, but I joined a game world because I saw a lot of cargo opportunities (approx 1 game year ago in MT) and the description of this update makes it seem like my airline is in the crosshairs for bankruptcy.
It's not an easy choice to make (gradual change vs instant change vs wait a year), but I'd contend you will make far more angry customers by significantly nerfing demand (assuming that's the outcome) than having it run too high.
@schro
Well, on the other hand the airline running major cargo ops from JFK, EWR, LGA and PHL makes absolutely no sense. Should we just leave it as is?
Myself being based in AMS, should I turn every airport in the Netherlands as major cargo hubs, 90% the size of AMS?
This side effect from the bug fix that resulted in an even bigger bug was known from the start, the forums were full of mentions of it. Thus, there were different options on the table for the players:
- do nothing, keep their ops as before, and expand with caution -> they will have only minor changes to do
- exploit the bug with moderation -> moderate changes
- go all out -> face major changes / rick of bankruptcy
One can argue that this is not fair to the last category, however by exploiting a bug they knew was a bug and doing so even though they knew it would eventually be fixed... No, in my opinion this is not unfair.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on November 16, 2019, 01:33:38 PM
@schro
Well, on the other hand the airline running major cargo ops from JFK, EWR, LGA and PHL makes absolutely no sense. Should we just leave it as is?
Myself being based in AMS, should I turn every airport in the Netherlands as major cargo hubs, 90% the size of AMS?
This side effect from the bug fix that resulted in an even bigger bug was known from the start, the forums were full of mentions of it. Thus, there were different options on the table for the players:
- do nothing, keep their ops as before, and expand with caution -> they will have only minor changes to do
- exploit the bug with moderation -> moderate changes
- go all out -> face major changes / rick of bankruptcy
One can argue that this is not fair to the last category, however by exploiting a bug they knew was a bug and doing so even though they knew it would eventually be fixed... No, in my opinion this is not unfair.
Fixing the JFK/EWR/LGA by one airline could be as simple as disallowing bases to be within X miles or within another's catchment area which would have a far smaller impact. The point of CBD is that any base in the Netherlands _could_ become a massive cargo hub...
As far as this being a "known bug", I refer you to the Bug Reports subforum and request you to link me to where it was posted as a bug in there. I've been relatively inactive over the past few months and only kept up with the general, bug and feature request forums when I checked in. Are you saying that players are obligated to stay up to date on all forum happenings in order to know that there's some large bug that's not posted in the Bug Forum? My process for deciding to join MT was as follows: 1. Check out demand in a few bases. 2. Find a few locations with large amounts of unserved demand. 3. Open airline and play. I would hope that's no different than any other player.
Boeing should consider a program similar to "Cash for Clunkers" but instead, "757-200PF leases for 747-400BCF leases" in MT.
Definitely needed a fix for displayed actual demand. Way too high. In theory, ever route you open should be an investment. Rapid expansion should largely become a thing of the past.
Talentz
Quote from: schro on November 16, 2019, 02:04:54 PM
The point of CBD is that any base in the Netherlands _could_ become a massive cargo hub...
Yes,
any, but not
every.
Has the change already deployed?
Yes it is, but apparently, the exploit will be there for quite some time:
The update is effective in all current and future game worlds. For all currently running games the update is introduced gradually: The system does calculations with the updated (11/2019) and non-updated (10/2019) versions and compares the numbers, and initially chooses the higher of these two. Over the next month or two the balance is moved gradually towards the new version. This gives time to react to the changes in the environment.
When I plugged in 01/17/2020 as the date 2 months from now in MT world, it will be game date 12/28/2019 vs. current game date of 12/27/2011. So the phase in period is going to be up to 8 game years (!!!). That's too long, IMO.
Can we please have a hard cut? Otherwise it's impossible to know when the full effect is there and it makes it practically impossible to efficiently redeploy capacity where required as it will be a very slow creeping death.
Welcome the change, but this delayed rollout is not a good idea.
Quote from: Infinity on November 17, 2019, 10:16:39 AM
Can we please have a hard cut? Otherwise it's impossible to know when the full effect is there and it makes it practically impossible to efficiently redeploy capacity where required as it will be a very slow creeping death.
Welcome the change, but this delayed rollout is not a good idea.
yes, its more difficult
Agreed, hard cut and we all know what to expect.
A hard cut would put my airline out of business, but a slow cut would also make me not know how I need to transform it. I suppose I'm boned either way, or perhaps we get some indicator of where things WILL go if all things stay constant....
Well its already happening. You can tell how a route will fill out just by looking at it and seeing how much actual demand is displayed. Under 10% is not good. 11%-29% is meh. 30%+ are good routes that can potentially reach 100%.
Were just back to how it was before ~
Talentz
That's a wonderful new feature. If my penultimate experience wasn't in USSR, I'd join immediately!
Thanks Sami!
I'm still undecided about the feature. Would have preferred and update to the performance values. The low purchase price used to be the incentive. but in any case it brings a new dynamic to the game and that is always appreciated.
(just doesn't feel good if you can only survive in the game on subsidies)
Mike
Quote from: MikeS on December 20, 2019, 01:33:19 AM
I'm still undecided about the feature. Would have preferred and update to the performance values. The low purchase price used to be the incentive. but in any case it brings a new dynamic to the game and that is always appreciated.
(just doesn't feel good if you can only survive in the game on subsidies)
Mike
You're possibly right, and the fine tuning for the subsidies of the feature might require a GW or two of experience and feedback. But while up until now it required a lot of talent and experience to play these soviet birds (bar the Il-18 and a few others), they're now available to everyone. If it levels things a little too much, it's not really funny, but if it only makes things
doable, there it becomes interesting.
I played IL-18D in current HaF game. Worked very well until 1979. Then the year was 1980, and fuel nearly killed me. Even with subsidies, playing soviet steel will always be dangerous.
The fuel subsidy makes sense, the subsidy on price, not so much. I remember paying 600k$ for IL14s when similar western planes were around 3/4M$. But that was not the incentive to play them. The incentive to play them was that they were available now - while there was a 4 years wait for their western counterparts. The more plane-restricted a game is, the more seductive soviet steel is. For a temporary use, that is.
Sami, what changes to the dashboard were you making/planning... to announce I assume before the start of the new GW?
Talentz
Haha, I figured so!
QuoteUpdates
Office and Routes pages have a new chart "Total fuel usage" showing the actual weekly total fuel usage in kg/lbs for your airline.
Route information page's expanded statistics now show the actual fuel usage in kg/lbs for each sector and each day.
Dashboard now shows the Operating profit / loss (and other more meaningful figures will be added later on too).
The airport infrastructure expansion feature is fine-tuned with the aim to make the infra expansions from level 1 to level 2 more frequent.
Grouping of comparison values for different averages (such as Load Factor, revenue and fuel usage) for Dashboard and Routes pages is now the same as in Office page. The value "last week" means the totals from previous full week (Mo-Su) and "week before" are the same values from a full week before that (current ongoing week not relevant).
Passenger distribution for Baghdad airport updated to make the Iraq war effect smaller. [only for new games]
Berlin Brandenburg airport opening date updated to late 2020. [only for new games]
Fixes
New aircraft pre-launch system did not respect the player's chosen order between different models within the same new a/c order when allocating production slots.
Calculation of monthly game statistics had a memory error; fixed.
New aircraft pre-launch system did not respect the player's chosen order between different models within the same new a/c order when allocating production slots.
Can we have more details on this ?
Hmmm... these indepth fuel figures are quite interesting. Some 10yr Vet theories are not holding as much fuel as they claim to be.... heh.
Talentz
the Baghdad fix is really welcome. Won't p*** local players anymore. Brandenburg is cool for more realism(though some say 2120 would be a more accurate date...)
Quote from: Talentz on December 20, 2019, 10:06:14 AM
Hmmm... these indepth fuel figures are quite interesting. Some 10yr Vet theories are not holding as much fuel as they claim to be.... heh.
Talentz
Which theories are these you speak of?
sorry, but the fuel consumption graph is really... pointless. another one of the straight lines in the office.
has anyone seen route-fuel-consumption info? i couldnt find it.
what what certainly be more useful than the graph: actual good information on aircraft fuel consumption instead of the "average consumption information". would be great if the plane data would be comparable.
Quote from: schro on December 20, 2019, 01:54:31 PM
Which theories are these you speak of?
Frequency and smaller aircraft > all. The basis of almost all AWS strategies prior to these past couple of (major) updates. Showing use actual fuel usage really starts to paint a picture on what really works better.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say Sami was slowly countering one of the known design shortcomings of the original AWS coding we've grown accustom to over the years.
Depending on your play style, your views can go either way, lol.
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on December 21, 2019, 10:43:44 AM
Frequency and smaller aircraft > all. (.../...)
It works....only up to a point. Many of my competitors killed themselves pushing this too far.
I've long held to the belief that there is code at midnight each game day that splits the days passengers between the available flights for the next day.
I've seen a change, fairly large from a year ago. A year ago it split pax fairly evenly between flights, so a 747 and a Viscounts would each get 50% of pax on a route. But within the last year there has been a bias introduced to take a look at the size of each aircraft so now the split would be maybe 60/40, all else being equal.
Simon
Variable tax update..
How will it work for airlines in EU where multiple countries have various tax rates?
Will it be based on your HQ for all your bases or will each base be taxed individually?
I suspect you will have made it HQ but believe it should be taxed by base individually otherwise you can see airlines at lower tax countries opening into other bases and challenge players there unfairly. But then again that can be an interesting dynamic.
Same way as already now/before. Your HQ is the tax base.
Where does the US 27% rate come from? C Corp (what a small regional airline would be) should be 21%.
KPMG is the data source.
Quote from: Sami on January 21, 2020, 07:29:05 AM
KPMG is the data source.
Oh, I see what they did there. They added an arbitrary amount to estimate for state and local taxes that may or may not exist, depending on where one is based....
Quote from: schro on January 21, 2020, 12:12:52 PM
Oh, I see what they did there. They added an arbitrary amount to estimate for state and local taxes that may or may not exist, depending on where one is based....
if there are 50 different tax rates throughout the USA, it becomes hard to simulate properly. So an approximation like KPMG did seems good enough for a hand grenade, in my book.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 21, 2020, 12:42:47 PM
if there are 50 different tax rates throughout the USA, it becomes hard to simulate properly. So an approximation like KPMG did seems good enough for a hand grenade, in my book.
We'd all just declare ourselves Delaware Corporations...
shro: Living dangerous with your flightradar24 signature, Greta might throw one of gazz's hand granades your way :D
Wonder how many more years before "flight shaming" leads to "game shaming" ... hopefully Sami has been secretly
collecting everything on locomotives to bring us RailwaySIm 8)
Or maybe he'll just let our company image drop if we don't plant enough virtual trees per available seat/mile ::)
Mike
ElectricChooChooBoogalooSim
what the hidden sense of removing demand pie chart from airport info ?
now it is impossible to search for new base carefully - because we dont know whether it is suitable or not.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on February 18, 2020, 02:38:25 PM
what the hidden sense of removing demand pie chart from airport info ?
now it is impossible to search for new base carefully - because we dont know whether it is suitable or not.
it's not impossible. I still do a route planner for the first 2 pages from the new airport (before opening) just to check it's suitable..
Simon
Quote from: MuzhikRB on February 18, 2020, 02:38:25 PM
what the hidden sense of removing demand pie chart from airport info ?
Like the changelog said, it's obsolete and not needed anymore. The division shown was the airport's base statistical value and was not directly comparable to the demand / route type proportions actually calculated by the system. And with possible future updates it's even more unnecessary to be shown.
Quote from: Sami on February 18, 2020, 05:43:18 PM
The division shown was the airport's base statistical value and was not directly comparable to the demand / route type proportions actually calculated by the system.
It was still quite useful though. To know if an airport is mostly domestic, will have decent LH, etc. Especially if choosing an airport to start a GW, when you can't look at the route planning and see what's there, and especially if you're not a longterm player who has an ok idea of what demand exists.
Quote from: Sami on February 18, 2020, 05:43:18 PM
Like the changelog said, it's obsolete and not needed anymore. The division shown was the airport's base statistical value and was not directly comparable to the demand / route type proportions actually calculated by the system. And with possible future updates it's even more unnecessary to be shown.
Never saw an airport that said 100% domestic have any international routes though for example.
Quote from: Sami on February 18, 2020, 05:43:18 PM
Like the changelog said, it's obsolete and not needed anymore. The division shown was the airport's base statistical value and was not directly comparable to the demand / route type proportions actually calculated by the system. And with possible future updates it's even more unnecessary to be shown.
how should I check whether airport is basically suitable for me ?
make hell of clicks via route management ? just to find out that there is no LH demand ? instead of just looking into piechart ?
Indeed, it will be highly missed. We fanatics know pretty much which airport is suitable (or not), but casual players will be having a hard time. I understand that it won't matter at all once city based demand is implemented...but it isn't yet! So please, can we have the pie chart back?
Yea this makes the already clickomania game more clicky, i do apriciate the research part burt now its getting a bit to much. I dunno if the CBD system is planned as whatever airport can get lh or domestic depending on who starts to fly, or fly where, how much, but that isent so logical compared to the real world. Then u got to add stuff as financial forces, gov intencives, infrastructure etc. Removing it now before that is the scheme i think is premature.
The pie chart was a useful guide for finding new bases (even if not "perfectly accurate").. where I'm based, not such a big deal in 1988, but in larger markets, and when the EU opens up, I'd better prepare some "Cortana... next airport" preset commands! Sorry to see that go.
I am not a fan of eliminating the minimum 0.05% interest payment on money in the bank. Since AWS does not model things like airlines with wholly-owned subsidiaries, owning (or partially owning) other airlines and support organizations (regionals, Delta Ground Services, LGS SkyChefs, etc), stock prices (with buybacks and dividends) the base interest payment allowed for a substitute way for an airline to "park" its excess cash. My current airline has around $18 billion in free cash with my only liabilities being balanced due on aircraft purchases. A real airline would be doing something with this money. Taking away that 0.05% is a big step away from reality, in my opinion.
Sami, hope you are all well (even if possibly flying less)!
Wanted to check if we can have a 747-400M for a future GW ppplleeeaassee? Would be really a great addition. And maybe a correction of the whole family in regard of fuel consumption.
Plus, any idea on when we can expect the new seating model to be implemented? :-[
Can we help with any? Like sort out data for the 400M?
I couldn't tell from the demo screenshot, but I hope the underlying route changes allow
x easy 7 day scheduling, ie create a route, say EGLL/KLAX, then assign it to an aircraft group that presumably has 7 planes in it
x allow cargo and pax loads, including LH/LC/LS splits, to be different for each leg
x ideally put a route into a price "group" such that a group could have a % +/- from default pricing
x possibly put routes into aircraft groups such that a group could contain spare aircraft to cover B/C/D checks..
If the route changes don't make 7 day scheduling embedded in AWS then I'd have to wonder what the benefit is for the player?
Simon
x data for inbound/outbound flights stored on different levels, so that one can sort easier for load factors (especially on assymetric services).
x possibility to group flights/routes (its annoying to change H/S/L splits or blocked seats when you have to do everything 7 times!)
I didn't see slots on the screen, I presume it's there somewhere..
S
Quote from: groundbum2 on May 26, 2020, 03:44:51 PM
If the route changes don't make 7 day scheduling embedded in AWS then I'd have to wonder what the benefit is for the player?
Simon
I am the 1% that doesn't care ~ =)
Talentz
I may be having a bad brain day, but after the update forcing everyone to login again, I'm not seeing anywhere to check a box for a cookie to remember I'm logged in. So if I check the site again 6 hours later, I have to login each time.
The 'permanent' login is on by default when using the full login page. If you check the "public computer" checkbox then it gives you only 1 hr session (which extends if you are still online after 45-50 mins).
But at the header's quick login dialog there is no space for the checkbox so it only gives you the non-permanent login.
(==> login for example from the front page or airwaysim.com/Login/ to get the permanent session)
That'd be it. First two times I logged in from the forum header, because it's always the forum page I open. 3rd time I went to the actual login screen instead to look for the permanent button, and so it's now staying logged in.
Are the latest changes supposed to be in effect in all gameworlds? Not seeing it in AG.
Updates to stats/availability of individual models typically only apply to new gameworlds. EMB120 changed from small to medium some time ago, but that's still small in AG too, I think. Will be same deal with today's updates to it.
So, the change to the aircraft UM was brilliant, for me at-least with my larger airline, able to buy 50 AC at a time.
However, I'm sure sure if this is intended, but my HATF airline now has 60+ AC in operation, but I still can only lease 3 aircraft at a time. 2% of 50 is 1, so I should be-able to get 4 per week right? Or does the extra UM usage only work with aircraft purchases? What am I missing?
Cheers, Tungstennedge
Quote from: tungstennedge on March 29, 2021, 10:59:20 AM
So, the change to the aircraft UM was brilliant, for me at-least with my larger airline, able to buy 50 AC at a time.
However, I'm sure sure if this is intended, but my HATF airline now has 60+ AC in operation, but I still can only lease 3 aircraft at a time. 2% of 50 is 1, so I should be-able to get 4 per week right? Or does the extra UM usage only work with aircraft purchases? What am I missing?
Cheers, Tungstennedge
2% of fleet size with a minimum of 3.
You won't get a 4th weekly until you hit 200 planes.
Quote from: schro on March 29, 2021, 01:07:27 PM
2% of fleet size with a minimum of 3.
You won't get a 4th weekly until you hit 200 planes.
I just ordered 4planes from used market with a fleet of 182....
Quote from: schlaf on March 29, 2021, 04:06:17 PM
I just ordered 4planes from used market with a fleet of 182....
I'm guessing that might get attributed to rounding or be a relevant item for a bug report?
Quote from: schro on March 29, 2021, 05:47:19 PM
I'm guessing that might get attributed to rounding or be a relevant item for a bug report?
I normaly dont report bug that I do like ;D But youre welcome to make one if you want :)
(but my guess is that it's all about rounding)
Ahh i see, thanks. I understood the change as 3+2% of fleet, not or.
just to bring it back to the frontpage... been half a year now that someone posted here :,(
And almost another half has passed by
Great news re AUS/NZ open skies!
Is anything in development for AWS? Seems to have been a while since any major updates or news.
Regarding the Dornier 328JET. Is it still really necessary to limit its cruising speed to be considered in the same fleet as the turboprop?
I ask after the fact that we have been able to move schedules across different types for a while now and, afaik, that was the main limitation when considering same fleet cruising speeds.
Quote from: ArcherII on March 27, 2023, 01:01:22 PM
Regarding the Dornier 328JET. Is it still really necessary to limit its cruising speed to be considered in the same fleet as the turboprop?
I ask after the fact that we have been able to move schedules across different types for a while now and, afaik, that was the main limitation when considering same fleet cruising speeds.
It's the fleet commonality cost that is the factor.
If and when the commonality model is refreshed to be more flexible (e.g. prop and jet not in same fleet group but share 90% of training and maintenance commonality), then this can be re-visited (remind me then :P).
Though, on the other hand. With current same fleet group combo, I suspect nobody is using D328JET anyway in tandem with D328props, so it could be done either way....
Yes, but my question is really about the relationship between fleet types and their locked speed. With the ability to switch schedules, that should no longer be a limitation. If one thing is affecting the 338JET popularity, it's its dysmal speed.
The same could be said about the 737 Classic and the NG. They are different fleets because their speed varies .04 Mach. Same with the DC9 series and the MD80 series.
Edit: if the limitation is in the commonality costs, then I would guess you could tweak those costs up accordinly. Most players would accept a bit higher costs in Mx and commonality for those fleets if it meant those would end up in the same fleet.
Quote from: Sami on March 27, 2023, 01:15:27 PM
It's the fleet commonality cost that is the factor.
If and when the commonality model is refreshed to be more flexible ....
Much simpler solution suggestion - get rid of this much disliked, over-protection of the meek absurd commonality costing model altogether, that sees the most ridiculous cost multiplications (often costs increase over 10x :o ) when you have a decent airline and you adopt 4 or more fleet types. It ruins the game reality. Nobody ever uses half the aircraft types such as Concorde, since you couldn't have too many of them and that takes up 1 of the precious 3 types.
Perhaps a better idea is to limit the number of small / medium flights that can be slotted at airports as airports progress up the "infrastructure" and "traffic" levels. That would stop these slot-hogs that successfully (and completely unrealistically) base hundreds and hundreds of silly little prop planes at places like LHR / JFK / CDG etc.
Quote from: Cornishman on April 08, 2023, 01:13:56 PM
Much simpler solution suggestion - get rid of this much disliked, over-protection of the meek absurd commonality costing model altogether, that sees the most ridiculous cost multiplications (often costs increase over 10x :o ) when you have a decent airline and you adopt 4 or more fleet types. It ruins the game reality. Nobody ever uses half the aircraft types such as Concorde, since you couldn't have too many of them and that takes up 1 of the precious 3 types.
Perhaps a better idea is to limit the number of small / medium flights that can be slotted at airports as airports progress up the "infrastructure" and "traffic" levels. That would stop these slot-hogs that successfully (and completely unrealistically) base hundreds and hundreds of silly little prop planes at places like LHR / JFK / CDG etc.
Nope.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on April 09, 2023, 08:45:34 AM
Nope.
Luvs ya Gazzz, and there's lot's we've agreed upon over the years, but I read it over and over and over in so many other people's posts . . . get rid of the ridiculously high, insane, unrealistic, much unwanted commonality costs!
Or was your 1 word reaction against the "hundreds of silly little props at major airports" . . . or "nope" to both suggestions?
Sorry mate but that very action of just going -
Nope! to something that so many complain about is not helpful. We've all heard the same old reason why the commonality cost model exists and frankly too many of us are tired of the same old "stick-in-the-mud" refusal to fix things in this game - it needs some shaking up mate (meant in the nicest possible way as someone who loves this game on the whole and wants it to continue and thrive).
...and worst: undocumented! Lots of airlines go broke because they dont even realize this illogical game-concept.
The fleet commonality penalty really hurts when moving to fleet replacement. This, I think, is what generally causes my previous airlines to bankrupt in the long run.
Quote from: Cornishman on April 08, 2023, 01:13:56 PM
Much simpler solution suggestion - get rid of this much disliked, over-protection of the meek absurd commonality costing model altogether, that sees the most ridiculous cost multiplications (often costs increase over 10x :o ) when you have a decent airline and you adopt 4 or more fleet types. It ruins the game reality. Nobody ever uses half the aircraft types such as Concorde, since you couldn't have too many of them and that takes up 1 of the precious 3 types.
Perhaps a better idea is to limit the number of small / medium flights that can be slotted at airports as airports progress up the "infrastructure" and "traffic" levels. That would stop these slot-hogs that successfully (and completely unrealistically) base hundreds and hundreds of silly little prop planes at places like LHR / JFK / CDG etc.
Rewarding fleet commonality (and discouraging lack of commonality) in aircraft is one of the things that makes this a "strategy game", rather than just a click fest to get your aircraft in the air.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 12, 2023, 01:20:11 AM
Rewarding fleet commonality (and discouraging lack of commonality) in aircraft is one of the things that makes this a "strategy game", rather than just a click fest to get your aircraft in the air.
Well that is technically a correct statement, not unlike declaring there is a strategy in the relatively clever way a hamster manages to negotiate every tread he takes in that hamster wheel . . . we're all just going around and around here like hamsters in a wheel with every new GW and the same old restrictions -> therefore using the same old tactics. It eventually becomes a rather tired and worn-out strategy when other strategies could be adopted to freshen things up a bit.
Again - so many complaints about this - don't you think we could do with a new challenge?
But fleet commonality is not really rewarded either, 737s are not all grouped (I know IRL classics needed updates to get them more in part with NGs, but this can be an aircraft upgrade in game); the 757-767 was created with the concept of commonality, but again not a thing in game; smaller commonality groupings for training and other expenses are not in the game at all and lastly the Dornier Jet is just being punished for actually being a common type. So the argument for it being correctly implemented it's not really there.
And if you want to talk about strategy avoiding large fleet changes to circumvent the commonality penalty makes it so trijets (MD-11 I'm looking at you) are still being ordered in masses thru 2035, same with 737 classics, DC-8s and many others like this, because it's easier to stay on the same fleet for 50 years and pay a higher fuel bill, than to even attempt a fleet change.
A strategy game that attempts to simulate the real world need to have rules to achieve this, but those rules should be things like ETOPS to have a better reason to have to go to tri/quad jets to cross oceans and then transition to twins when ETOPS become a thing or manufacturers discontinuing an aircraft because the new shinny airplane will take its production line and many other things that have been mention here, but not strategy based on arbitrary rules, with no foundation IRL, to protect a group of player that could be protected in other ways as Cornish suggests; a real life restriction is min and max pax capacity on flights to airports, restricting turboprops from operating at certain peak times or even banning them from an airport all together or something else that is a mixture of reality with our own thing, but not the arbitrary rule we have now.
The fact that the penalty is undocumented is indeed problematic. OTOH, lowering it, or even erasing it, would lead to horrible consequences (big boys would be even bigger). I fully agree with Jumbo. That's a rule that forces you to THINK.
A proper warning system, when laying your hands on new airplanes (no matter the way you odo that), could tdo the job. After all, I have a warning when I set up a 321-200 on a 40 demand route. I could have one when ordering a TU204 while already flying 320s, MD80s and B733s.
Hundreds of silly props... well, that's another topic. I've been guilty once, 350 S2000s in MAD, for not even 20% of market share. There was no slot despair that time, so I don't think it was evil. It could have been, indeed. There is some punishment, still. In the same game, I had 10 S2000 flights from MPL to ORY, for 600 demand, and was crushed by ORY's 733s. I did set up 4 daily Y42D flights instead, things went much better. Yep, Y42D. real single aisles would have been even better, of course.
Said another way, there are mechanics against abuse of props. Slot costs also are a protection. I did pay mpore than 5M$ for slotting one daily route from ATL, in current speed game. Settign up a 30-seater in those conditions is insane (RoI would be several years, just to pay for the slots). But trouble is the same : some of those mechanics are not easy to spot for the beginner (slot costs certainly are obvious. Penalty beyond excessive frequency is not. Fleet commonality is a slow, quiet killer).
Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.
Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all. There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilising only 3 fleets? I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years. Loads of us do. It's no longer clever! TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.
over and out
Quote from: Cornishman on April 14, 2023, 08:22:28 PM
Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.
Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all. There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilising only 3 fleets? I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years. Loads of us do. It's no longer clever! TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.
over and out
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Quote from: Cornishman on April 14, 2023, 08:22:28 PM
Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.
Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all. There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilising only 3 fleets? I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years. Loads of us do. It's no longer clever! TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.
over and out
Agree
Quote from: Cornishman on April 14, 2023, 08:22:28 PM
Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.
Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all. There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilizing only 3 fleets? I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years. Loads of us do. It's no longer clever! TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.
over and out
Very well put, the "feature request" at least from my observation is getting less and less post, I believe it to be for a lack of change or implementation of any suggestion, but even more than that I've seen that not even a one word reply is obtained (I would like to assume that they are still read, but with no response I don't know if that threat is just being largely ignored). Also on the point of old tactics, I left the game for years and when I came back I saw very little change (apart from cargo) and even with the changes that did happen (which many were hidden) using the same old tactics from years ago, I've had 2 very good airlines, were my biggest challenge has been the lack of management tools we have to achieve the way I want to run my airlines, creating a mass of menial and repetitive task to achieve the desired outcome that I can only do because I have more time and patience to do it than others, so it feels like going to the gym to do reps in a very boring and monotonous way, rather than playing a dynamic and fun sport to achieve the same result, just having significantly more fun while doing it. (not the best metaphor, but it's what came to my head now).
I can appreciate that what we are asking for requires work and time, but after years of waiting I feel that something could have been achieved and regrettably it feels like being in a rut of which many don't want to get out from and very little is being done to do so.
Do share your thoughts on the planned changes to the website (see the previews) and of the changes to bug/feature organisation (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,91601.0.html) which I've been planning for a while.
The website/interface change is the first one to come since that is absolutely necessary to keep things maintainable here.
Quote from: Sami on April 15, 2023, 09:59:50 AM
Do share your thoughts on the planned changes to the website (see the previews) and of the changes to bug/feature organization (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,91601.0.html) which I've been planning for a while.
The website/interface change is the first one to come since that is absolutely necessary to keep things maintainable here.
Thanks for this info, I will definitely check it out.
Quote from: Sami on April 15, 2023, 09:59:50 AM
Do share your thoughts on the planned changes to the website (see the previews) and of the changes to bug/feature organisation (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,91601.0.html) which I've been planning for a while.
The website/interface change is the first one to come since that is absolutely necessary to keep things maintainable here.
Will do Sami - You must please accept my comments are not "criticisms" because as I said clearly above - we LOVE this game, but we do need new tactical challenges. Just making the same old tactics over and over is not much challenge any longer. So I appreciate that you do care about this.
Thanks
While we have Sami engaged, can I ask the simple question - is City Based Demand ever actually going to happen?
For pax, it would really need the flight connections too, which I have performed a feasibility study already, so that is technically doable.
Quote from: Cornishman on April 14, 2023, 08:22:28 PM
Alright Gazzz - I just give up trying.
Seems the powerful few are so stuck with it the way it is, no desire for any change or spicing the game up at all. There is no voice for anyone here to get any changes. I gave up years ago posting anything on the "Features Request" post since it's years since anything meaningful was ever done about the countless great suggestions posted there. Anywhere anyone tries to plead for some new life to a game we all love (despite it getting very boring without any changes) we are either completely ignored or we get the same old few die-hards who resist any kind of change. Are people seriously content to re-use largely the same old tactics over and over and over every new GW - and then think they've been really clever - carefully navigating their way through utilising only 3 fleets? I honestly wonder at my own sanity here too sometimes - I suppose I just live in hopes to see some new love & life breathed into this. I know how to manipulate the game to work for me - have done for years. Loads of us do. It's no longer clever! TBH, sadly my finger hovers almost daily over the metaphoric "delete all" button as the game is stale in my humble opinion and I see little chance the vast numbers of us calling out for some changes will ever make any difference.
over and out
3 fleet limit before (lack of) commonality charges start to accrue is in fact a clever way to limit unchecked growth.
I have (more than once) posted the famous "Chesterton Fence" quote (look it up) as a reply to people who want to do away with something without knowing its utility, without fully considering the consequences of removing it.
And without suggesting any mechanism to replace its function.
Quote from: Sami on April 15, 2023, 04:25:22 PM
For pax, it would really need the flight connections too, which I have performed a feasibility study already, so that is technically doable.
Cargo is always a good place to start, since it is 90% the same, and can be tested widely without breaking the pax system.
I think the key requirement for the flight connections is that it would be dynamic, without player having to specify anything, that the system finds the best connections in the background.
But a better place to discuss would be in the Feature forum, under its own topic.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 18, 2023, 02:56:21 AM
3 fleet limit before (lack of) commonality charges start to accrue is in fact a clever way to limit unchecked growth.
I have (more than once) posted the famous "Chesterton Fence" quote (look it up) as a reply to people who want to do away with something without knowing its utility, without fully considering the consequences of removing it.
And without suggesting any mechanism to replace its function.
Personally, I've never suggested just doing away with it - merely to try a game without to see what happens.
In fact, the converse to what people think could be true. There's actually no evidence that the fleet limit benefits anybody. It's just always been "known" that it protects smaller players but we have no comparison or actual evidence. I really don't think it does! It certainly doesn't check unlimited growth for the really big airlines - I NEVER stick to three fleets and ALWAYS finish in the top 3 or 4 airlines (when I play seriously and don't merely experiment). What it does is tie the hands of "second tier" airlines who are big enough for the penalty to really bite, but not big enough to have almost unlimited cash. They are the ones (say in 5th to 15th place) that could provide some actual challenge to the big airlines and make the games more interesting, but they are stopped from doing so.
The "small" airlines aren't big enough to feel the benefit and the big ones are too big to feel the penalty.
I kinda think it's like taxes work in real life. The government (particularly a left wing one) will harp on about taxing the rich more and helping the poor, but all that happens is that the middle-ground people lose out, because they're the ones working hard and paying most of the tax, while the rich get richer and the poor struggle along as before. But it's "known" that they are good for the poorer people so they get voted in every 10 or 15 years, have exactly zero benefit and then get kicked out again.
Well, I KNOW what I would be doing at my HQ - currently ATL. There is a smaller player there, with barely 30 planes, who survives because I can"t afford medium planes.
OTOH, the rules shall be really, really, really better indicated. An opponent of mine did reach quickly 300 planes, with 12 fleet groups. He didn't survive 11/09, of course. And it shows the other argument, which noone never answers : if you kill the commonality penalty, winning will just be a matter of clicking more. The tactics this guy did apply will be suddenly working well. The more time you'll spend, the more you'll earn. End of strategy. Nothing to think about, just be a zombie.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on April 18, 2023, 08:43:14 AM
Nothing to think about, just be a zombie.
That's where I come in. :laugh:
Quote from: knobbygb on April 18, 2023, 04:48:47 AM
Personally, I've never suggested just doing away with it - merely to try a game without to see what happens.
I have participated in other aviation simulations before fleet commonality was introduced. Before fleet commonality, every big airline got bigger and bigger by flying every and all types of aircraft and engines. Fleet commonality helps keeps the simulation from into turning into free-for-all. While real world airlines do not have such a penalty. they do pay a higher price for maintenance, facilities, stocking parts, employee expertise, etc. when they have huge, varied fleets.
On the other hand, I would like to see if we can find a way to help ease the fleet commonality regulation in two ways:
1. Allow an airline to have a limited number of air framers and engine suppliers in both a
mainline fleet and a
commuter fleet - say2 or 3 of each type.
2. To find some way (in very long scenarios) to ease the penalty when transitioning from one fleet type (especially from props to jets) to a more modern type. This would, I believe, go a long wat to lessen the number of bankruptcies and help all players ease their airline away from props - which in this game seem to prevail many decades beyond their real-world counterparts.
If, if, if. And when we get connecting flights along with CBD for pax, all this issues with limiting the amount of fleet types would not be really needed. The demand model would work diametrally different than it does right now, where we have a set amount of demand out from the airports we are based in, which would mean that some routes would call for a lower sized model (or larger).
Anyways, if if if if we get the connecting flights in the mid term, trying to "solve" the commonality issue would be a waste of time.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 18, 2023, 02:56:21 AM
3 fleet limit before (lack of) commonality charges start to accrue is in fact a clever way to limit unchecked growth.
I have (more than once) posted the famous "Chesterton Fence" quote (look it up) as a reply to people who want to do away with something without knowing its utility, without fully considering the consequences of removing it.
And without suggesting any mechanism to replace its function.
Sorry mate - am I missing something here . . . I have countless times made alternative suggestions. All across the "Features Request" entries you will find countless suggestions and alternatives by so many different people. Go and read them ! ** Then as Sami says just below this - go to the dedicated thread and read many alternative suggestions there. You cannot just say " And without suggesting any mechanism to replace its function." to pull some punch to your comment as it is most inaccurate.
Even right here in this post up above I make the suggestion that as bases grow in "Infrastructure Level" and "Traffic" Level" then so too how about restricting those bases incrementally with limits first on "small" category and then also on "medium" category planes, so that by the time your LHR / JFK / HND / ORY - etc. become category 7 or 8 then no more than a dozen or two small planes and mediums too.
That way if you develop a base to all extents with everything you can - watch out as they grow, your routes will be cut and you'd face a hell of a time trying to reschedule simply onto large / very large for those routes.
This then opens the whole world to having a few bases - let's say I take JFK and LAX and then 2 or 3 medium / domestic bases and maybe 1 or 2 small backwater bases - and I can operate my 747s and 737s and 777s at the big bases, and then E-jets and Dash 8s at the medium and then a nice variety of little small planes at the backwaters. Oh yes, and also, I can make use of just 7 Concorde out of JFK to LHR and CDG - coz guess what - I'm no longer tied up in crappy red tape restrictions.
AND - If I choose instead to run an airline from say Kenya or Nigeria or Myanmar or Peru - I can freely select all sorts of variety of planes to bring a whole new vigour to the game.
PLEEEEEEEZE guys, you've had years and years and years of countless GWs all going round in the same old restricted circle. Give someone else's ideas a go. Or do you want more and more folk to just give up on the game and just leave?
Please move here for the fleet commonality talk, there's already the basic plan in place based on earlier user request/ideation: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,82188.0.html
Question about today's changelog: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58865.msg544726.html#msg544726
The Ilyushin Il-114 updated data will be available on all game worlds where it hasn't launched yet, or just on new game worlds? Thank you!
New games only.
Any idea when to expect some new features/concepts/... in gameplay?
- Upgrade of forums is planned for tomorrow (postponed from today).
- Next up is the public testing of the new website/systems (week or two, have to pick up the pace since I'm behind my target on this!).
- After that we'll go live with the new website (hopefully not that much to test, since the base system has been live on other projects for some time already).
- Then incremental total and ground-up upgrades of the game interface to mobile-compatible interface with all-new "AirwaySim v.2.0" code base. At the same time some changes to features where ever realistic for the same workload ( = no sense in renewing some features to the new v.2.0 with new code that would be going away soon anyway).
After so many years with the old format on mobile... I just had to force desktop mode to make it usable to me.
Oh you old timers ;D
(btw. I also mentioned in Discord that the colors of this new template at forums would need a bit more contrast in my mind. But I will look into that later, to see if my eyes will get used to this or not - since the previous colorscheme was a bit more colorful)
Not sure if this is a bug or just a symptom of ongoing tinkering under the hood, but I keep getting logged out of the game in the middle of doing something. Not just kicked out of the game I'm in but completely logged out. It's happened 3 times in the last couple of hours. I cleared my cache after the first time but it's happened twice since then.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 09, 2023, 04:45:21 PMNot sure if this is a bug or just a symptom of ongoing tinkering under the hood, but I keep getting logged out of the game in the middle of doing something. Not just kicked out of the game I'm in but completely logged out. It's happened 3 times in the last couple of hours.
Please do a complete logout on all devices, then log back in. Let me know if that helps. (shouldn't do that of course...)