(admin note: splitted messages from this thread: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,6064.0.html )
Those improvements sound great. Thanks!
And something to work together with one or more other airlines?
In my opinion thats one of the first things that have to be done!
I know it wll be a lot of work to program, but game would be so
much better !!
Thx, iCook Airways
Yes i agree with iCook,
Maybe somthing along the lines of:
iCook Airways (HUB: Brussels)
SupraJet (HUB: Leeds/Bradford)
LEG 1: Brussels to Leeds B. operated by iCook Airways
LEG 2: Leeds B. to Dublin operated by SupraJet
So this automatically give both routes image +10 and PAX are more likely to travel on a codeshare route than your competitors.
Robbie ;D
Thx Robbie, thats what I wanted to say! :)
Brilliant Idea?
Still no plans to include flights originating from different airports than the airline's hub? I am really looking forward to seeing this feature included in the simulation, will add so much realism to the software.
That will make the game better, I think. I suggest to add a Holding/Airline function, freighters and a booking system to spy out the competition ;)
And I pay for my AC insurance, but it doesn't happend anything. :o
I recognize that must be very complex, but it whould be great. How was it to add this functions in a very new version ;D
I hear some really good ideas on here, and I love the improvements so far. Another fairly minor one I'd like to see, is the ability to pre-schedule different plane types to cover a route when the assigned plane is down, i.e. flying a route with an available CRJ-700 if the CRJ-200 normally flying the route goes down. Or even a totally different plane, such as say a Dash-8-300. I see such things occasionally in real-world operations, particularly the first example (which totally throws a kink into my schedule sometimes, I assure you...) In this last game (my first, I admit), I lost much money because I couldn't simply toss an available aircraft onto a route whose regular plane was down for Class-C's.
Also, a way to advertise connecting flights would be wonderful. Say, for example, I have one plane running from TRI to LAX, then another from TRI to LGA after the first plane returns to TRI. Being able to advertise a 2-stop route from LAX to LGA (LAX-TRI-LGA) would be very helpful, but currently I don't see any way to make that happen. After all, why should we not be able to use our network most efficiently? Just a thought.
Also, a thought on the whole codeshare/comp flight idea. Unless we want to run the ticket office manually, which would be a pain, here's an idea: make codeshares automatic among alliances. If one alliance has a flight terminating in a given city (again I'll use TRI since I'm most familiar with that one), and another member has a connector flight departing that city, pax transfer between the two should be allowed for. Ex: ASA flight 6230 reaches TRI from ATL, drops 41 pax, and departs back to ATL with a new load. Meanwhile, a Chautauqua flight arrives at another gate from CVG, drops 36 pax, picks up 48 including 16 from Flight 6230, and heads back to CVG. Both are RW regional airlines operating under the same parent line (Delta), and both are members of Skyteam alliance. All the pax know is that they bought a Delta ticket from ATL to CVG with a connector at TRI.
A similar, and probably more relevant example: Judy A. buys a ticket in Seattle on Delta, going to Charlotte, NC. She reaches TRI from CVG, changes planes, and takes a US Airways plane on to Charlotte. Sound weird? Happens every day. And those aren't even the same alliance: Delta is Skyteam, USAir is Star Alliance. Normally, at least LOL. I have seen Star Alliance planes come in flying Delta Connection colors. Point is, Delta and US Airways sometimes codeshare to get their pax where they want to go. The ticket and baggage stickers stay the same, only the color of the plane changes. And both airlines get a piece of the profits.
Like I said, jsut a thought. Hopefully one worth thinking about.
[attachment deleted by admin]
I will be playing game #4 but only as a really small carrier. I want to see what it is like to have 30 pax planes flying the skies. Maybe a fleet of Saab 340s.
Quote from: swiftus27 on April 04, 2009, 06:41:21 PM
I will be playing game #4 but only as a really small carrier. I want to see what it is like to have 30 pax planes flying the skies. Maybe a fleet of Saab 340s.
It's not fun. Unless you are flying short routes with big demand
I am just too focused on another game to do much more. Small planes that I dont have to pay much attention to will be much more fun.
I know the feeling about being focused elsewhere, but small carriers (like I was in game#1) are always just a step ahead of bankruptcy unless you have many planes flying or own all your planes. Lease costs will kill you at that size (as I , unfortunately, found out). Ditto for personnel :(. Your luck may be better, but I just couldn't make enough cash even with all planes flying above 75% load on short hauls. Try maybe running out of a large international with a 24-hour schedule; I ran out of a regional that was closed from 2300-0500 and I suspect I lost a lot of potential traffic that way.
Anyways, best of luck to you in Game #4! I stayed small the first time so I could learn the game and because I started really late in the game; I'm going to try my luck at becoming a major airline in the next one. See all of you there!
[attachment deleted by admin]
Please note, I've changed some things that allow the v.1.0 and the next version to be run in parallel ... Let me know if you spot any inactive / non-working pages in the current games due to this change.
Thanks for the new pre-scheduling feature! :) It will be VERY handy!
What is a MSN number?
I am very happy for both the pre-scheduling and the redone aircraft market. I think the fact that brokers will do maintenance on planes will be a major benefit as well!
I really like all the changes to the aircraft system. Good job Sami!
Except, what's the point of placing aircrafts from a bankrupt airline back in the pool before they appear on the used aircraft market again?
In reality, the aircrafts are placed with new airlines almost eminently after there former owner/operator goes BK.
A few weeks to clear up all the paperwork etc. and then they are of to there new home.
Sometimes, lessors even take repossession of there assets before the airline is actually bust, and place them with new operators instead.
The positive effect of this is that there's usually a decrease in price when there's a lot of aircraft available at the same time. We won't get this in the game if all aircrafts end's up in a "quarantine" pool for a long time before they gets on the market again.
Just look at the aircraft formerly operated by XL, ATA, Futura or even Aloha. Most of them are flying with new operators sine a long time. The only ones who is still on the ground is the ones that no one wants. It's all about being fast enough to scoop up some good deals when available.
nice work Sami i love the pre scheduling bit, are we able to start marketing for a route before the aircraft arrives as well?
Eh... I did have marketing for some routes I created before my ordered aircraft came or new route scheduled aircraft was at C-check. You see at route image page all your created routes and when they are last flown. Routes that have no flight days (like 4th November 1980) are routes that have no aircraft. So you can start marketing still if your aircraft is coming after 2 weeks... I remember doing this at Game#1.
AA
You can market a route if you have created it. Having aircraft assigned to it or not makes no difference, like A.Alien said.
oh yeah, strange i didnt think of that before :S
About the new updates... Mostly about the closure of airports. I was pondering if one loses int status like Haneda in Tokyo will the int routes to be moved automatically to Narita?
is it possible to get the new loan system in use to the current games?
Awesome sami! ;D Thanks for the update!
Great! Thanks, Sami!
Denis
Quote from: sami on July 07, 2009, 10:53:42 AM
- New feature: New aircraft production start & closure dates can be randomized for each game if needed. System can move the dates back or forward a max of 1,5 years for each model upon game world creation so that the dates are not known to players.
I can not tell you how happy I am to read this. I have been begging for this for a long time. Finally, the people who can sit at their machine all day every day will no longer have this massive advantage.
Sami:
If this kind of work and these kinds of fixes are what we can expect after you take a vacation, I encourage you to go on holiday every other week.
Well done, sir!
Hey Sami,
tell me the name of the stuff and where to get it - I could need some of those pills! Thanks for your great efforts and improvements! You're da Man!
Denis
The only problem with the current system is that you can spite your lessor by changing the seating right before returning the aircraft. People can put 10 first class seats on a 747. This may need to be looked at.
THANKS SAMI!!!! I see you moved this into its own thread and you already implemented one of the ideas stated!
We look forward (approaching impatiently) to a new game.
ever more realistic ... but where does it stop going? ::)
lol Sami! I was wondering when you were going to "close" your improvements thread for open discussion.
Everyone kept posting and I thought " Its only a matter of time.."
Talentz
I'm loving the changes we're seeing in 1.1, Sami!
(And not just because the last 2 things you've implemented came from my suggestion, as I'd be surprised if they hadn't crossed your mind before)
With dynamic production end dates these one thing that needs smoe attention:
Some not very popular models in popular fleet type may see very short prodution runs with the new dynamic model.
What if the system checks which models production ends in the same fleet type currently at the same time, and those models are tied to end at the same time in the dynamic model too?
ie 767-200 stays in the prduction as long as 767-200ER (if they stay in the curent model, can't remember)
Sami,
I know that I suggested this long ago.
I like reading about the planes that we are using. I love the little historical tidbits.
Could you put a wiki link in the plane's description linking it to the wiki page for that aircraft?
Planes like the Dassault Mercure have very interesting histories. They only built 12 of those planes yet I have seen many of them being purchased in-game.
The new order queue looks nice =)
In regards to the new production system doing the "one for you, one for him" approach...
I like it. It's definitely more realistic than what we've got now. But...
If I'm the launch customer and order, say, 50 x 767-200. And then, by the time production begins there's a queue of, say, 400. Which is pretty likely. What then?
Do my planes make up both #1 and something close to #400? Because, while mixing deliveries up is common, pushing a customer back many, many months or likely even years out is not. Now, I know with the dynamic production the queues won't always get out of hand, but queues of 2-3 years on a popular launch aircraft shouldn't be uncommon, and it's my understanding that the production queues won't vary that drastically so we'll likely still see that. We just won't likely see queues of 5+ years.
Basically, it should be mixed up yes. But the person who orders the 400th-410th ones should not get his first one within a few months, then another every few months thereafter just like the guy who ordered #1-10. That's not a good solution for anyone involved. I would think that not allowing it to "mix up" an order more than, say, 1-year beyond the forecasted delivery would be acceptable. Any more than that and, in the real world, there would be significant contract repercussions.
QuoteIf I'm the launch customer and order, say, 50 x 767-200. And then, by the time production begins there's a queue of, say, 400. Which is pretty likely. What then?
With the old delivery system, you would get your 50 aircraft first, over the course of 8 months or so. With the new system, you'll still get your aircraft first, but over the course of 3-4 years. Depending on how popular the aircraft is.
QuoteWe just won't likely see queues of 5+ years.
I am not convinced of this. Its more likely we will continue to see very long production lines due to fact there will be more "aircraft" to be delivered within the game time frame. Its just you wont have to wait 5 years before you get your first aircraft. It'll be 6 months or so.. at the cost of your order taking 3 years to fill instead of 3 months.
Though, this is mostly speculation until the system is ready for testing/playing.
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on July 13, 2009, 11:39:49 PM
With the old delivery system, you would get your 50 aircraft first, over the course of 8 months or so. With the new system, you'll still get your aircraft first, but over the course of 3-4 years. Depending on how popular the aircraft is.
Which is what I understood to happen based on Sami's description. But it just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not "still" getting my aircraft first. I might get the very first one, but then the next 50 could be bound for someone else if 50 orders were put in prior to launch. Who knows when you'd actually get the 50th one. In fact, theoretically you could
never receive an entire full order because it will keep moving further and further out as more people put in orders and "cut in line". If a plane is launched 3 years before production and the queue is 3-years long by launch, someone coming along 2-years after launch, a full 5 years after I put in order in, should not instantly start receiving planes at the same delivery rate I've been getting them at. Nor should I be burdened with incredibly high fleet maintenance costs because I just took delivery of a single model of a plane I thought I was getting 50 of, but turns out I'm gonna have to wait a few more months for the next one -- that alone could bankrupt a carrier with the way commonality costs are handled here.
And what happens if I put in another order later for more? I'll start getting
those planes before I'm even a fraction of the way through my original order. In fact, all I've got to do to ensure a steady stream of planes is to keep putting orders in. Assuming a somewhat equal distribution of orders as the system divies up the "one for you, one for him", the way around this will be to put in lots of orders for a few planes each will ensure a much more immediate fulfillment than a single large order of the same size. The total plane order will be the same quantity, but 50 orders of 2 planes each will result in a bunch of planes delivered at the beginning of the queue and a bunch of planes at some later point. I'll still net 50 planes, but I'll receive them in much friendlier 'waves' (again, assuming equal distribution of the dividing up of production slots).
And all competitors have to do to disrupt any expansion plans is to put orders in for the same model planes as I've got -- they'll completely kill my expansion options. In 6 months time I could go from thinking I'm getting 50 new planes coming down to just 5 with the rest coming sporadically over many years. It's completely unrealistic.
It's not at all realistic and doesn't even make sense. And it's a huge contradiction to a previous feature that Sami noted, and that's the ability to freeze your delivery dates, a feature I was very much looking forward to. Mixing up plane orders makes perfect sense, and I agree is very realistic. But it should be limited, so that no single order of planes has deliveries extending out more than a year at most beyond their original anticipated date.
Yes, I agree with the basis of your argument. Though I just didnt go into detail like you did :P
~ From what little info that is alvb, this is the conclusion I came to as well.
I am hoping Sami will release more info on how the delivery system will work before coding and having us beta test it.
That way we can correct problems or issues before he spends hours of hard work coding only to have us complain and stomp our feet :laugh:
Talentz
I am only one of the many other people that are excited for this new change in AirwaySim. Though, the question running in everyone's heads is...will the V.1.1 be ready before the current game worlds finish? Jet Age#1 has only 30 real days left into its game, Jet Age#2 has 34 days which is in over four weeks time. BUT the players playing in Air Travel Boom only have little more than two weeks left of game play...will they have to wait up to 16 days for Jet Age#2 to finish before the race to have a headquarters for their airline in a big city and good condition used aircraft for their airline in the new V.1.1?
To just explain my question like a normal person, this is what I'm trying to say:
Will the V.1.1 be ready before or after the current game worlds finish? I'm not hassling anyone to hurry up with the updates, I'm just curious. :laugh:
Quote from: Sigma on July 14, 2009, 01:17:33 AM
I'm not "still" getting my aircraft first. I might get the very first one, but then the next 50 could be bound for someone else if 50 orders were put in prior to launch. Who knows when you'd actually get the 50th one. In fact, theoretically you could never receive an entire full order
I don't know where you're getting all this .. but. If there is no order queue at the moment and you order a bunch of planes they will be quoted the delivery for example as follows: (today is Jan-90, prod rate for example 12/month): #1: 02-Mar-90, #2: 18-Mar-90, #3: 29-Mar-90, #4: 08-Apr-90, #5: 18-Apr-90 etc.
There are empty slots for other orders at 05-Mar, 09-Mar, 12-Mar, and so on. But it someone else makes an order it does not push back your orders, their dlv dates are put into these empty slots in between your deliveries (if space available there) - just opposite as probably the production rate grows if there are plenty of orders (and your deliveries start after 6 months when the prod. rate change comes into effect).
If an airline orders 50 examples of some aircraft they surely do NOT receive them to their fleet in a very short timespan...
Quote from: Dorito_25 on July 14, 2009, 06:12:15 AM
I am only one of the many other people that are excited for this new change in AirwaySim. Though, the question running in everyone's heads is...will the V.1.1 be ready before the current game worlds finish? Jet Age#1 has only 30 real days left into its game, Jet Age#2 has 34 days which is in over four weeks time. BUT the players playing in Air Travel Boom only have little more than two weeks left of game play...will they have to wait up to 16 days for Jet Age#2 to finish before the race to have a headquarters for their airline in a big city and good condition used aircraft for their airline in the new V.1.1?
To just explain my question like a normal person, this is what I'm trying to say:
Will the V.1.1 be ready before or after the current game worlds finish? I'm not hassling anyone to hurry up with the updates, I'm just curious. :laugh:
The 1.1 will not be in the current games. This is why there have been no new game worlds. We are waiting for those to finish so we can start with a fresh new one.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 14, 2009, 10:20:09 AM
The 1.1 will not be in the current games. This is why there have been no new game worlds. We are waiting for those to finish so we can start with a fresh new one.
Hmm... I thought we were waiting for Sami to finish developing the new version so a new game could be started. The question was will there be a period where the old games have finished and there will be no games running due to delays in rolling out version 1.1? I suppose there will have to be if version 1.0 and version 1.1 games can not be operated simultaneously.
Quote from: Kontio on July 14, 2009, 10:24:32 AM
I suppose there will have to be if version 1.0 and version 1.1 games can not be operated simultaneously.
Yes they can be.
And target is to put the 1.1 live as soon as it's done and tested, hopefully before ATB has ended or very close to it.
That makes a lot of sense. Looking forward to it!
So, what will the 1.1 version scenarios be?
Quote from: sami on July 14, 2009, 07:53:22 AM
I don't know where you're getting all this .. but. If there is no order queue at the moment and you order a bunch of planes they will be quoted the delivery for example as follows: (today is Jan-90, prod rate for example 12/month): #1: 02-Mar-90, #2: 18-Mar-90, #3: 29-Mar-90, #4: 08-Apr-90, #5: 18-Apr-90 etc.
There are empty slots for other orders at 05-Mar, 09-Mar, 12-Mar, and so on. But it someone else makes an order it does not push back your orders, their dlv dates are put into these empty slots in between your deliveries (if space available there) - just opposite as probably the production rate grows if there are plenty of orders (and your deliveries start after 6 months when the prod. rate change comes into effect).
If an airline orders 50 examples of some aircraft they surely do NOT receive them to their fleet in a very short timespan...
I was "getting it" based off what I read, and what Talentz also understood it to be. Hence why I asked for a clarification of what you meant.
I see now what you mean and I like it.
How does the system decide how many slots to put between yours? Does it simply alternate? Or if production reaches a threshold does it skip to 1 out of 3 or more?
Quote from: Filippo on July 14, 2009, 01:37:51 PM
So, what will the 1.1 version scenarios be?
I'm hoping we get another ATB scenario. :P
Quote from: Brockster on July 14, 2009, 01:43:21 PM
I'm hoping we get another ATB scenario.
You will. Slightly modified perhaps. And something else too, haven't decided yet.
Quote from: Sigma on July 14, 2009, 01:42:59 PM
How does the system decide how many slots to put between yours? Does it simply alternate? Or if production reaches a threshold does it skip to 1 out of 3 or more?
That's not done yet but it should have some sort of smart logic on that, based on the prod. queue of the model, and predictions on how popular it will be and so on. No exact details yet.
Can anyone actually say what the new game will include - for example:
1) Airplane catering & Income
2) Stock Market
3) Aircraft crashes and damages
4) Airline Takeover options
5) Airport development
6) Building acquisition i.e. offices, depots
7) Disasters and events
I look forward to hearing from anyone with insider information.
Regards
Oh noes! Another ATB time frame..
Quote from: sami on July 14, 2009, 07:53:22 AM
If an airline orders 50 examples of some aircraft they surely do NOT receive them to their fleet in a very short timespan...
This is what I understood the most. Large orders will take years to complete. On popular aircraft(s), though. With no further details provided, we can only guess what else may or might happen in regards to productions slots and how they work, ect.
Taking the above into account, how long can one expect to take doing a 150 aircraft fleet replacement program with the new production system? My guess is the days of doing fleet replacements before 8 yr D checks are due, is no longer an option.
Also, growth via new aircraft mass quick leases will be almost fully stopped. Now that you have to wait a bit longer.
Each has its pluses and minuses, for sure.
Though Sami, do you have any information in regards to "stacking" orders? Say I order 50 aircraft. Then the following day I order 50 more. How does the production queue hand that? 1 big order or 2 different orders with different assigned slots?
We love to bother you, eh? :laugh:
Talentz
Quote from: Dalisa on July 14, 2009, 09:18:48 PM
Can anyone actually say what the new game will include - for example:
1) Airplane catering & Income
2) Stock Market
3) Aircraft crashes and damages
4) Airline Takeover options
5) Airport development
6) Building acquisition i.e. offices, depots
7) Disasters and events
I look forward to hearing from anyone with insider information.
Regards
Just take a look at the Announcements Forum, where Sami lists all changes as he integrates them into the new version.
As of now, none of what you've listed there, nor would I expect them as Sami's made no mention of them being forthcoming anytime soon.
Wait...before ATB finishes...that's so soon! Little over two weeks away! I should start thinking about where I should have my headquarters...*sigh* I have school commencing on Monday for the second semester and there is no way I will have time to play...I can get really addicted to this game.
One question...how many people will be allowed to play in the new games (or what you think or plan to have in the new games)? 200? 175? or 375 again? I don't think there was an answer...all I heard was people begging and pleading not to have a 375 people game.
I want future game that nobody knows whats the fuel prices will be etc. Like 2009-2030 and gamedays should be max 15min :)
Now its easy, becaus we know what happend in the past.
Quote from: Flightman on July 15, 2009, 11:36:39 AM
and gamedays should be max 15min
That's not going to happen.
Id feel sorry for the sim if it was 15 minutes.
Yeah. I even thought 20 minutes was almost too fast on the private game. :P
Quote from: Brockster on July 15, 2009, 01:25:21 PM
Yeah. I even thought 20 minutes was almost too fast on the private game. :P
24 minutes would be more logical: 1 minute=1hour.
Quote from: sami on July 14, 2009, 08:33:05 PM
You will. Slightly modified perhaps. And something else too, haven't decided yet.
I would love to have:
ATB
Jet Age
Original 1992 - 2005
That would be awesome!
I am still all for many smaller games versus a few large ones.
i think that if there are smaller games then there should be multiple hubs. I hope multiple hubs will be inculded in this version of the game.
^^^
disagree.... smaller games for the noobs. One continent. Like the USA with 100 players.
One continent, no new hubs. Guys.... the whole hub thing is going to be a monster to program. I don't expect it until 1.2
i ment that hubs would be good for a 100 player whole world game it would not work for a 300 player whole world game unless instead of following real life airports add runways as their capacity filled.
Quick question regarding flight and turnaround times. Have turnaround times been adjusted to roughly reflect industry standards? It should not take 70 minutes to turnaround a 757-200. And has there been some scale put in place to account for head/tailwinds? For example a flight from the east coast of the US to Europe should take roughly 1-1:30 hours less than the return flight.
I dont think Sami is figuring in weather. Perhaps, since planes have to always go back to where they came from, it has already been figured in?
From the main page
"The v.1.1 should go live within the next few weeks."
Saddest thing I've read all week. :'(
Swiftus, is your weather remark related to turnaround time or the east/west flight time difference? Weather delays certainly affect turnarounds but once the plane is in the air it will always reach its destination faster traveling east than traveling west. There simply needs to be one multiplication factor to cover this. For instance, a flight from Philadelphia to Paris is about 7 hours and the return is about 8 hours. Therefore there is a factor of 8/7 x the time of the eastbound flight and this equals the westbound flight time. This could simply be modeled onto all other flights.
No, there would need to be a TON of multiplication factors involved. Planes dont travel at 090 or 270 only.
How would you calculate a Buenos Aires to Paris flight?
With what you are asking, the sim would have to be able to calculate each airport A --> B including both the mileage and weather. I am not saying that it is a bad idea at all. It is just not a plausible one. There are a million things to incorporate before this becomes a thought.
Quote from: highways1 on July 22, 2009, 03:39:58 PM
Swiftus, is your weather remark related to turnaround time or the east/west flight time difference? Weather delays certainly affect turnarounds but once the plane is in the air it will always reach its destination faster traveling east than traveling west. There simply needs to be one multiplication factor to cover this. For instance, a flight from Philadelphia to Paris is about 7 hours and the return is about 8 hours. Therefore there is a factor of 8/7 x the time of the eastbound flight and this equals the westbound flight time. This could simply be modeled onto all other flights.
Judging by a quick check of PHL-CDG in both real-life and in AWS using the same equipment, It looks to me like Sami has essentially split the difference.
In real-life it's 7h45m going East and 8h25m going West. In AWS it's 8h00m -- or pretty close to splitting the difference. So, on average, as long as you're flying both to and from, it'd work out the same.
But it isn't as easy as you describe anyway -- while that works perfectly for traffic moving due east and due west, what about stuff going mostly North/South? The factor of difference involved changes depending on the overall direction of the flight.
Good points, I'd just like to see it but if it is impractical there are a lot of other things first to get done as you mentioned.
I understand... I'd rather find ways to incorporate demand-getting features first... Like in-flight meals, discount programs, clubs for exclusive guests... Something that will help with competition other than airline prestige and prices.
Sometimes people will pay more to fly with an airline if they wait in a leather chair for their flight.... have their special diet meal inflight... and get points to use for future flights.
WOOOOO HOOOOOO
Read today's note from sami!
Congrats Sami and a big applause for your efforts on 1.1! Looking forward to seeing it for real!
Denis
but who can stop Sami? Or rather where Sami stop? We will be the next episode! ;)
sounds great - i am saying sami did hard work :) - i hope its will be sounds exciting game
Sami, what about suggested long-game? Let's say 1970-2015... I think this could add realism....
Another idea I like is future game. But I know it would be hard because off planes, demands, etc in future (especially in crisis)..
One more week ehh...Well I'll be sure to try and be in the game as quick as i can. Even if it is 2am in the morning! :laugh:
The updates say/explain and look fantastic. I love the ordering system because i was thinking before "I don't want both my planes to have the same configuration". And I think the "slots" idea was the best idea I've heard. I think Sami has definitely out-done himself. My parents are really impressed of this website...and they don't even play it. They just have to listen to my 30 minute conversations about the game. ;D
Quote from: Samo on July 28, 2009, 12:40:48 AM
Sami, what about suggested long-game? Let's say 1970-2015... I think this could add realism....
Another idea I like is future game. But I know it would be hard because off planes, demands, etc in future (especially in crisis)..
That long of a game for a demo is way too long. Sami has to make money
Quote from: ekaneti on July 28, 2009, 01:20:50 PM
That long of a game for a demo is way too long. Sami has to make money
Umm... I don't think he was talking about a demo. I think he was talking about a next game scenario. :P
My ideal would be for 15 year games
1950-1965
1975-1990
2005-2020
Okay I'm very happy that we got a new version available.. been waiting for it for ages but now that I read what kind of games we get I'm a little disappointed. We all spend time and energy to make the game more realistic and a 1 continent world is not very realistic. Plus it rules out half the world. We already see slot problems on the big airports in the big games like this, and now you will get a lot more if 200 players go at Europe. Basically if you start at LHR you will win and if you join one or two days later, you won't have any slots left at those airports.
It would ruin a lot of aircrafts too and it will limit growth very much. So unless this game is smaller and shorter it could work well but with 250+ people for the same timespan, I don't think it's much fun especially at the end.
Ofcourse I'm ready to be proven wrong...
Sami, can you tell us times for the games? Like what eras?
Quote from: Dasha on July 28, 2009, 05:16:01 PM
Okay I'm very happy that we got a new version available.. been waiting for it for ages but now that I read what kind of games we get I'm a little disappointed. We all spend time and energy to make the game more realistic and a 1 continent world is not very realistic. Plus it rules out half the world. We already see slot problems on the big airports in the big games like this, and now you will get a lot more if 200 players go at Europe. Basically if you start at LHR you will win and if you join one or two days later, you won't have any slots left at those airports.
It would ruin a lot of aircrafts too and it will limit growth very much. So unless this game is smaller and shorter it could work well but with 250+ people for the same timespan, I don't think it's much fun especially at the end.
Ofcourse I'm ready to be proven wrong...
I do disagree somewhat.
What I forsee is that everyone that doesnt start at Heathrow or a similar sized airport will actually fly there first and try to take up demand. LHR is great for international travel. I will find that everyone else will simply target LHR early to ensure that they don't get taken out by it first.
Quote from: Dasha on July 28, 2009, 05:16:01 PM
Okay I'm very happy that we got a new version available.. been waiting for it for ages but now that I read what kind of games we get I'm a little disappointed. We all spend time and energy to make the game more realistic and a 1 continent world is not very realistic. Plus it rules out half the world. We already see slot problems on the big airports in the big games like this, and now you will get a lot more if 200 players go at Europe. Basically if you start at LHR you will win and if you join one or two days later, you won't have any slots left at those airports.
It would ruin a lot of aircrafts too and it will limit growth very much. So unless this game is smaller and shorter it could work well but with 250+ people for the same timespan, I don't think it's much fun especially at the end.
Ofcourse I'm ready to be proven wrong...
I think it's a great idea personally.
The whole airport size thing isn't that big of a difference. The only difference is that the scope has changed. There's no reason to think that the microcosm of Europe is any different than the world as a whole. There's huge airports, big airports, small airports, and tiny airports. Whether or not LHR dominates the game matters not if you're talking about a Europe game or a worldwide game, if they can dominate one they can dominate the other (and they do), so it won't change anything. There's always people at big airports and little airports and everything in between. The difference is that, instead of finding themselves spread over thousands of miles, they'll simply be within hundreds of miles.
As for slots -- you're right, they will go fast. BUT they will be a lot more varied. It will be significantly harder for a single airline to control LHR when there's 200 players vying to get into it than when there's only, say 20 on continential Europe trying to get into it. Every single player in the game is going to be trying to get into those big airports. It won't be like JA#1 where,
years into the game, I was still finding myself as the sold provider of service to some fairly large airports in the US. Or where a single airline controls such a vast majority of the slots into an airport that they CANNOT be taken down. If they own the slots you can't fly against them. They are completely impenetrable and invincible. Look at the top airlines in every game, they established themselves by quickly gobbling every single slot in their home airport that they could right from the start. It's the secret to winning. When you're buy yourself, one of 200 players playing over 2000 airports, you can take your time. When 200 players are all trying to get into a half-dozen major airports, you are NOT going to find yourself alone in your homebase with you controlling 85% of the traffic, no open slots, and able to do whatever you please because no one can fly alongside you. You're gonna have to FIGHT to get those guys off routes into your homebase. Forcing players together facilitates competition.
As for planes -- yes, it will make a change, but probably not as much as you think. Europe's still a big place, there's still going to be room for long-range aircraft. There will definitely be a need for wide-bodies because the slot competition is going to force density. But the best thing is that, unlike all other games, smaller planes will prove much more viable. When there's a substantially smaller number of routes to choose from, and a much denser number of airlines, suddenly flying that route to pick up those 40pax might actually make sense. Smaller planes, the one the game is full of that no one EVER buys, will suddenly have an actual use. The downside is that the game's economic model still doesn't lend itself well to smaller regional airlines, however the positive is that most everyone will be on the same footing as you, so that won't particularly matter much. I think the aircraft will be far more varied with only the longest-range of aircraft being wholly unnecessary.
And don't forget, the one continent game is MEANT to be a true challenge... the proverbial gauntlet thrown down to all us. I like it!! Of course you could look at me and say, "Well, all you do is go bankrupt so what do you care?" Well I don't bankrupt on purpose, I have tried various things to not do so and will continue to try ideas until I get this game correct. I intend to do as well as I can.. I can't wait for the new games.. see you all in game.
OH, and what if the one continent game starts in the 1940's???? Now THAT would be even MORE interesting and even more a challenge (but at least we wouldn't have to worry about airbus, mds and boeings that have 200+ seating capacities.. people would have to think and plan! Imagine that!)
I know the next set of games are due this Friday evening (European time) but do we know of a definate time that they will start at?
Quote from: ekaneti on July 28, 2009, 01:40:55 PM
My ideal would be for 15 year games
1950-1965
1975-1990
2005-2020
My ideal would be for
25 year games.
1950-1975
1975-2000
2000-2025
I'd have to say 20 year games would be ideal for me.
1950-1970
1970-1990
1990-2010
acctually the last one maybe from 1995 to 2015
Quote from: oggie84 on July 29, 2009, 08:50:19 PM
I know the next set of games are due this Friday evening (European time) but do we know of a definate time that they will start at?
Yeah I want to know that too. It may be midnight in Australia or any other Ocieana/Asian countries such as New Zealand, Japan, Singapore. Although the first game day is usually 24 hours for fairer game play...but I still want to get there first! :laugh:
Just a quick v1.1 question. Are passangers going to still heavily prefer small jets (B737/A320) over jumbos or big twinjets like the B777?
2008-2028 Sounds great ;)
Quote from: highways1 on July 30, 2009, 02:50:10 PM
Just a quick v1.1 question. Are passangers going to still heavily prefer small jets (B737/A320) over jumbos or big twinjets like the B777?
aww...i HATE narrowbody a/c but i LOVE widebody, it looks better aesthetically to me 8)
Quote from: Flightman on July 30, 2009, 08:53:38 PM
2008-2028 Sounds great ;)
i kinda like the fuel crisis where all the poorly run airlines BK :)
Yup, why modern era games should be allways :EASY ??? I Would like Hard game, but modern era!
Quote from: Flightman on July 31, 2009, 05:36:14 AM
Yup, why modern era games should be allways :EASY ??? I Would like Hard game, but modern era!
Sami doesn't make the games Easy or Hard, the stats do. There are simply easier eras in the industry than others.
Sami can make it more harder to add players more ~400 1 game instead of 2. And future game 2008 --> High fuel prices...
That's true...but then he will get a lot of complaints that the amount of players is too annoying. Too be honest...I prefer it the way it is.
Good job Sami!
But I do see what you're saying, but I can't exactly make a point because I haven't been in a modern era game ...yet.
Quote from: Flightman on July 31, 2009, 06:36:03 AM
Sami can make it more harder to add players more ~400 1 game instead of 2. And future game 2008 --> High fuel prices...
I don't know in which game you played by ATB already had Hight fuel prices in 2008. The prices felt in December due to the crisis.
Okay,
I want to run an experiment in the ATB-style game and I wanted your
I won't say the name of the city yet, but it is a smaller USA city compared to many of the big international hubs. In fact, there will be no international travel outside one or two stops in Canada and Mexico.
I want to fly 1 leg routes only.
I just don't know if I should ask everyone to leave this city (ill say its name later) alone. In return, I promise to nnot fly two leg routes.
Thoughts?
What does your experiment consist of Swiftus, as one leg routes are primarily the ones that I have flown in the past.
I will fly out of KCLE (Cleveland Hopkins)
It is not a large airport and does not have any of the international routes. I am hoping that people limit their competition as I will not be taking theirs up from any other airport.
I am trying to measure the profitability of a single route (no bouncing off another or hub).
I have played games where I always do ABCBA routes. I want to see the difference.
On the other hand, if someone wants to try to "douche" me and fly through KCLE, I reserve my right to retaliate.
Once you will have expended on all profitable routes (including the 30pax ones) you will have to do again the ABCBA routes. That's the issue of small airports.
No, that's part of my experiment.
Always have new airplanes. Lease all decent used planes.
I want to compare this with the results of previous games where I did the ABCBA routes.
Interesting experiment, but don't forget that it is difficult to compare, because strategies evaluations depend on the general market condition and competitive movements of the other particiants. E.g., if the availability of your preferred airplanes will be limited due to demand, you will get a different result. Also your demand development may differ enormously. But I like the idea and please let us know your observations and share it with us - I have the same approach as you do normally and will implement it in a new manner, I have not tried yet. So let's see. Sorry, gotta go... F5...
Denis
Didnt take long for someone else to start in Cleveland. I am glad that I opened my mouth. ANYWHERE in the world and they start there... Seriously!?
Come down to IAH .. Whos up for the challange? 8)
Talentz
and now I am waiting for 1800 UTC all over again... GRRRRRRR!
Okay now the game has started there is something that bugs me straight away...
The production line of the A340-300 is closing in 6 months after the game starts... That's a little bit fast in my opinion.
I very much like the new ordering system that is very very nice but why close a production line when no orders come? Specially at the start of the game that is a little fast.
Specially since I'm sure there will be people who WANT the A340 later but can't afford it now..
perhaps if there are orders, the line will be extended.
That is something Sami talked about awhile back. Instead of set dates for open/close they are more static based on demand
Quote from: Dasha on August 01, 2009, 12:56:36 PM
Okay now the game has started there is something that bugs me straight away...
The production line of the A340-300 is closing in 6 months after the game starts... That's a little bit fast in my opinion.
I very much like the new ordering system that is very very nice but why close a production line when no orders come? Specially at the start of the game that is a little fast.
The line is closing because the real model has closed in about that time too. If enough orders are received the line will stay open. That works just like inteded.
Okay if the production stopped around that time it makes sense... not a big fan of Airbusses so I wouldn't know..
Otherwise great job sami on the new version...
Quote from: sami on August 01, 2009, 01:14:17 PM
Forgot to mention this before .. but here goes:
* Improvement: Adjustments to pax calculation.
o Seat config type is now very much more effective. You cannot get a longhauler to work in HD seat config anymore. Generally HD seats work in flights less than 60 mins, and standard seats in ~3 hrs flights max (Y class).
Well, it remains to be seen how "very much more effective" these new seating requirements will turn out to be.
Sure, the way it has been up until now (HD for all) was not very realtistic and also contributed very much to the exaggerated numbers we have seen in the previous games in terms of income and value of certain airlines.
But the way you have outlined the new system seems an extreme step in the opposite direction. I wonder why there could not have been a more subtle attempt to "fix" this problem.
If standard seating will only be usable up to 3 hours, that will be a mayor disadvantage to many people in more remote locations or those who are not centrally located in a certain country/ market. For instance, airlines based on the east or west coast of the US will have to use premium eco seating to most major markets, where as airlines located centrally can do with standard seating???
Please compare to real world environments. Eco seating in the US is the same across all airlines on all flight - be it 45 mins. or 6 hours!
Even worse is was this will mean for long-haul flying. The way you have outlined the system, I understand that you will have to use premium seating in any class on
all long-haul flights, to get a good or any LF at all???
If we take a few well known long-haulers and configure them accordingly, this is what we get:
B767-300: 182 seats max in all premium eco.
A330-300: 272 seats max
B747-400: 312 seats max !!! (for that matter, the numbers between the A333-B744 are way off)
These numbers are
eco only, and as far from reality as possible. If we start putting in FC and BC it´s almost funny: B744 - 8 FC, 40 BC, 176 EC =
224 Total So please, share with us the logic behind this idea and how airlines are expected to "work" with above numbers? :o
There is no question about the need for a better systems than the one before - but this may well be, at least in theory, a step to far. There are many ideas floating around about this subject, maybe you should reconsider and have an "open" discussion about it.
And if not, then please give a more detailed description about what is possible and what not, in which class on which duration etc... there is
no fun in having to try it all out just to know.
gaffair
Quote from: gaffair on August 01, 2009, 02:20:08 PM
If standard seating will only be usable up to 3 hours, that will be a mayor disadvantage to many people in more remote locations or those who are not centrally located in a certain country/ market. For instance, airlines based on the east or west coast of the US will have to use premium eco seating to most major markets, where as airlines located centrally can do with standard seating???
::)
Well if you are a passenger and you fly 5 hours or 2 hours to your destination. On which flight you wish to have a better seat. Think about it that way.
The location of your airline is irrelevant there. If you offer bad seats for 10 hour flight and someone comes and offers better seat comfort on same route, he will get the pax - if other variables are the same. If you are flying the route alone, you will lose some pax because of bad comfort. But the effect is not 100% -> 0% in an instant.
And the seat what you see on regular jetliner today in Y class is the Y standard seat, not HD seat, pretty much..
Quote from: sami on August 01, 2009, 02:26:50 PM
::)
Well if you are a passenger and you fly 5 hours or 2 hours to your destination. On which flight you wish to have a better seat. Think about it.
:laugh: nice answer!
The rest of my post is irrelevant I guess. If you show me a real world expample of this "new logic" I´ll shut up or a B744 configured with ~ 250 seats ::)
I´m just trying to bring to attention and perhaps prevent something like we have seen in the games before.
Quote from: sami on August 01, 2009, 02:26:50 PM
And the seat what you see on regular jetliner today in Y class is the Y standard seat, not HD seat, pretty much..
Yes, so why are planes configured in
premium configs then? My A306 is configured in premium with 200 seats! :o That´s just not realistic...
Quote from: gaffair on August 01, 2009, 02:33:59 PM
Yes, so why are planes configured in premium configs then? My A306 is configured in premium with 200 seats! :o That´s just not realistic...
What makes you say it is not "realistic"? That is the default config for the plane assigned by the broker / previous owner. You can change it to whatever you want as you know.
The standard config is either standard-all Y, or for bigger planes premium Y & C. In A300's case though it could have standard-Y & premium-C, but the default configs are quite simple.
Sami, I gotta say I think you've gone a little overboard here. When I fly from the east coast of the US to Los Angeles it is a 5 hour flight, and trust me almost everyone who takes this flight is sitting in standard seating. To me this really only becomes a factor on flights from Europe to Asia or other routes longer than about 4500 NM.
I don´t get it... sorry
You say that anything over 3 hours needs premium seating in eco. I say that´s not realistic, and I´m sure I not alone in this belief. Then you say todays airlines use standard seating in eco, but continue saying all "larger" planes in AWS will be configured in premium seating in all classes and ppl can change it later on. So why have them configured this way at all???
Why can´t all planes, small or large be delivered with standard seats and the owner can decide to "upgrade" later on?
Whatever, let´s see what happens when ppl will fly their A330´s with under 200 seats and try to make money, especially when oil begins to rise...
Sigh .. Try it first, complain then, okay. Sorry, too tired to explain/argue this.
And I did not say that you MUST have the higher class seat if you have a longer flight (like 5h). I said that you should have it to get the max benefit, or other way around, have it to not lose some pax'es because of that.
The longer the flight is and the worse the seat is the less attractive it will be. And when it passes certain flight time mark the attractiveness will drop faster.
And all aircraft are not configured in premium seats. Read my prevous message.
Here is what I am hoping that Sami meant:
1. Airlines who use/used dense seating on everything will have more of a penalty.
2. Pax will prefer to use higher seating types more on longer flights. Meaning, there is more of a penalty for dense and standard seating comparted to the higher types.
The problem was that too many people had cattle car planes that didnt fare poorly enough against other planes that had better seating and similar pricing.
See above, exactly what I just said but a tad more eloquently due to more sleep.
I can remember a similar discussion some months ago, I was the "complaining idiot", 2 days later the game was reset ;)
We will see how and if it works out. If the outcry happens then, too bad.
So then, if you´ve gathered some rest, please if possible give a bit more detailed description toward what point of duration certain seating qualities start to have a pax-penalty.
Like HD from 0-xx mins , standard from xx-xx mins, and what about premium on short duration. Do you get a pax bonus if you fly prem seats on a 1 hour flight? That would save us all a lot of money on config experiments and headaches...
Besides that, I still think all planes should be delivered in standard configs. If I lease A320 for ORD-DFW I can get flying right away since it´s config is standard. If I lease an A306 I have to pay $1mil+ to reconfigure it to standard (since it´s config is premium) before I can put it on the route. If you don´t see an imbalance in that, I guess you are very tired...
gaffair
Another point that Gaffair mentioned that hasn't been fully explained is:-
*How can an A330-XXX or any other similar aircraft with 200 odd premium seats (thats the best you'll get by the way) make any sort of profit on a route over 5000NM after all costs etc have been deducted?
Are customers going to pay $XXXX amount more than what they would have usually paid? Because that's what will have to happen so that it actually turns a profit. You'd have to put prices way above the default level and that certainly won't pull the punters in.
Hi guys.
I think the implementation of a benefit for flying passengers more comfortably is an important addition to the game. In the earlier games, we have seen the effect of seat configurations within the categories become almost irrelevant - so we all stuffed those damn complaining chickens into the steel/composite cages and raped their wallets and told them to be happy. The effect was that competitive moves were limited to price and capacity. By now implementing a benefit to delivering higher comfort, the game has been moved to a level where those 'soft factors' finally matter. It also corresponds strongly with the evolution of the airline industry: Compare flying economy class from Frankfurt to New York in 1990 and in 2000 and in 2009. There are enormous differences, which have made an impact on the key success factors. Personally, I cannot confirm that all American carriers fly the same economy seats on domestic routes, but perhaps others are better informed.
I can understand the thought that this may impact far stronger than we all might anticipate at this point, two hours before the game commences ticking. But Sami has shown again and again that he has that special talent to calibrate those additions in a very intelligent manner. And even if for some reason we may conclude this to be inappropriate during the next days, we can be quite sure that Sami would just quickly make some modifications. But for now, as far as I can see, nobody is flying yet any planes at all and everything about this hence remains speculation.
Denis
Here's some real life seatmaps for Lufthansa:
Long-haul:
http://www.lufthansa.com/cdautils/mediapool/media_695186.pdf
Short-Haul:
http://www.lufthansa.com/cdautils/mediapool/media_697250.pdf
It will just mean that the profits are a bit tighter. Many have commented in the past how there needs to be more realism in the game regarding profits and surely this is just part of that?
Dave
Quote from: gaffair on August 01, 2009, 03:13:54 PM
I can remember a similar discussion some months ago, I was the "complaining idiot", 2 days later the game was reset ;)
We will see how and if it works out. If the outcry happens then, too bad.
So then, if you´ve gathered some rest, please if possible give a bit more detailed description toward what point of duration certain seating qualities start to have a pax-penalty.
Like HD from 0-xx mins , standard from xx-xx mins, and what about premium on short duration. Do you get a pax bonus if you fly prem seats on a 1 hour flight? That would save us all a lot of money on config experiments and headaches...
Besides that, I still think all planes should be delivered in standard configs. If I lease A320 for ORD-DFW I can get flying right away since it´s config is standard. If I lease an A306 I have to pay $1mil+ to reconfigure it to standard (since it´s config is premium) before I can put it on the route. If you don´t see an imbalance in that, I guess you are very tired...
gaffair
I dont want to be told any of this. I dont want to have all the exact information. Learn it on your own. I don't want all the code so I can quickly exploit it like other people did in previous games.
Also, people made WAY too much money on long haul flights because of this. I a mglad for the change.
Quote from: gaffair on August 01, 2009, 03:13:54 PM
Like HD from 0-xx mins , standard from xx-xx mins, and what about premium on short duration. Do you get a pax bonus if you fly prem seats on a 1 hour flight? That would save us all a lot of money on config experiments and headaches...
Besides that, I still think all planes should be delivered in standard configs. If I lease A320 for ORD-DFW I can get flying right away since it´s config is standard. If I lease an A306 I have to pay $1mil+ to reconfigure it to standard (since it´s config is premium) before I can put it on the route. If you don´t see an imbalance in that, I guess you are very tired...
Sigh. A300 is totally different type of aircraft then A320. I said that already before how the def. configs are chosen but A300 is just there in between as it can be both long range and medium range plane.
And the exact settings of the seat effect will not be available but some rough guidelines are already given, more in manual later on..
Quote from: d2031k on August 01, 2009, 03:23:21 PM
Here's some real life seatmaps for Lufthansa:
Long-haul:
http://www.lufthansa.com/cdautils/mediapool/media_695186.pdf
Short-Haul:
http://www.lufthansa.com/cdautils/mediapool/media_697250.pdf
It will just mean that the profits are a bit tighter. Many have commented in the past how there needs to be more realism in the game regarding profits and surely this is just part of that?
Dave
As Dave's links show, you may fly absolutely different variants in your routes, which still does not say much about the quality differences within the categories. But remember that Lufthansa has an average load factor of under 70% on long-hauls. This tells us much about the current state of the industry.
Denis
Ok, fine I´ll just shut up then, eventhough I was just speaking out in the best interest for the game and the players...
I´m quite sure this discussion will gain momentum again once the game starts running. ;)
As the seat update was posted with the company image effects, am I correct in thinking that the updates are designed to work in tandem.
So, for example, a company with a high CI can charge more per seat and thus justify less, but better quality seats? Similarly, a company with a lower company image will have to pack more seats in, thus reducing seat quality?
This will then hopefully create more realism as premium carriers will be able to take the C and F class pax more easily? I know this is how its supposed to work in the previous games, but it was less noticeable.
Airtran gets people to fly out of KCAK instead of KCLE due to ease of parking and the fact that their 717s all have business class seating.
Quote from: gaffair on August 01, 2009, 03:34:10 PM
Ok, fine I´ll just shut up then, eventhough I was just speaking out in the best interest for the game and the players...
I´m quite sure this discussion will gain momentum again once the game starts running. ;)
Well, no! Don't shut up. What are we gonna do during those two last hours until the clock starts ticking...? :'(
Denis and I are in 100% agreement here.
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 01, 2009, 03:41:29 PM
Airtran gets people to fly out of KCAK instead of KCLE due to ease of parking and the fact that their 717s all have business class seating.
1. We don't have parking facilities in this game :P so that's irrelevant.
2. Do they pay more to fly out off KCAK on 717's in all business class seating?
Quote from: DenisG on August 01, 2009, 03:42:27 PM
Well, no! Don't shut up. What are we gonna do during those two last hours until the clock starts ticking...? :'(
Well, you can wait for the next person to come in here and express his legitimate concerns just to have them overruled by the likes of you :-\
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 01, 2009, 03:44:28 PM
Denis and I are in 100% agreement here.
How sweet! ::)
October 1st 2009 returning October 4th 2009.
KCLE ---> KATL Direct with Continental was $158
KCAK ---> KATL Direct with Airtran was $158
See below:
http://www.airtran.com/aircraft/boeing_717_seating_configuration.aspx
Also starting at $49, they allow you to upgrade seats.
http://www.airtran.com/business_class.aspx
Quote from: gaffair on August 01, 2009, 03:57:53 PM
Well, you can wait for the next person to come in here and express his legitimate concerns just to have them overruled by the likes of you :-\
How sweet! ::)
LOL ;D
Quote from: gaffair on August 01, 2009, 03:57:53 PM
Well, you can wait for the next person to come in here and express his legitimate concerns just to have them overruled by the likes of you :-\
How sweet! ::)
If you want me to take up your argument in order to keep the discussion going for another 2 hours, I will immediately! ;D
Denis
Quote from: swiftus27 on August 01, 2009, 03:58:05 PM
October 1st 2009 returning October 4th 2009.
KCLE ---> KATL Direct with Continental was $158
KCAK ---> KATL Direct with Airtran was $158
See below:
http://www.airtran.com/aircraft/boeing_717_seating_configuration.aspx
Also starting at $49, they allow you to upgrade seats.
http://www.airtran.com/business_class.aspx
Tell me your not being serious about that example??? That's like 500NM! So what difference does that make whether you fly business or not? It's hardly going to hurt you sitting in a HD seat config aircraft on that short flight.
All Airtran are doing is perfect business sense - being a 'niche' airline in the market to differentiate themselves from their competetitors.
The point being was having 200 odd seats on an aircraft (lets say A330-300) that flys over 5000NM. The customer would need to pay way more for a premium seat than what they had to if they were flying in a standard seat. The default values don't differentiate between these configs so it would be impossible to make a profit without putting prices higher than the default. Even harder if a competitior flys the same route. All we wanted to know was whether the default values have been calculated to be higher than what they were originally in ATB?!
Personally I like the changes and it is a must for the game.
The problem for me now is: are we going from one opposite to another opposite?
I think the logic is good when there are 2 airlines competing with each others AND the demand is smaller than the supply.
Think about a route with 1000 pax demand and there is only ONE airline offering the services. A 40% LF means only 100 pax (take a 200 pax A/C as an example). I understand that we are a new airline and the market has no confidence for us, but I still cannot convince myself for such a low LF. For me, it is contradicting between the LF and the demand.
If there is a demand and there is only one route, how many customer will care about the CI and RI and seat type? I doubt about it. The reason we have cheaper flight, better seat config, better CI and RI are because of the competition. When there is no competition (specially in the very beginning of the game), are those pax calculation formule really concern a pax ?
Quote from: marjo on August 01, 2009, 07:17:49 PM
Think about a route with 1000 pax demand and there is only ONE airline offering the services. A 40% LF means only 100 pax (take a 200 pax A/C as an example). I understand that we are a new airline and the market has no confidence for us, but I still cannot convince myself for such a low LF. For me, it is contradicting between the LF and the demand.
Simply because the public does not know about your service yet - that is the "route image".
Company image measures also the same thing companywide, but it may also have negative effect (ie. "I know that firm but don't want to fly them"). Route image measures only how known the route is.
Added some info to the manual:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Aircraft/Config
Quote from: marjo on August 01, 2009, 07:17:49 PM
If there is a demand and there is only one route, how many customer will care about the CI and RI and seat type? I doubt about it. The reason we have cheaper flight, better seat config, better CI and RI are because of the competition. When there is no competition (specially in the very beginning of the game), are those pax calculation formule really concern a pax ?
You can't think about it as 1000 people that are lined up at the airport waiting for someone to show up in a plane. What you really have is 1000 people that your Route Strategy people tell you
would be willing to go somewhere
IF they knew about an airline that would take them. If they don't know about that new airline they're either going to drive or they're simply not going to go. The pax figure is not an actual figure, it's a guesstimate provided by your Route Strategy department (it even says so at the bottom of the graph), and is a
potential of traffic, not necessarily what you're going to see.
It takes time for all those people that want to go to know about your airline flying that route (Route Image). And then, separately, takes them a little while to trust your airline as not some fly-by-night hackjob airline (Company Image).
Nice description from Sigma.
In addition to that, let's say you have 1,000 effective pax a day on a heavy business route. If you have those pax flying the route on average twice a months, you will have carried 15,000 different people in those four weeks. Assuming both destinations to be located in very urbanized areas, with a high percentage of 5% of population regularly traveling by plane, you would have to spread your offer on average over a population of 500,000 in order to reach these 15,000 pax.
Denis
regarding the seat config change, can i ask if the formula (pax preference) is based on pax comfort of just type of seating? Cause passengers can also feel "FAIR/GOOD" when you're using High Density.
Guys, you sound like McKinsey consultants asking the CEO of a company about his demand formula... Please... Stop it! My stomach gets sick from this logic.
Denis
Quote from: toyotaboy95 on August 02, 2009, 12:17:40 AM
Cause passengers can also feel "FAIR/GOOD" when you're using High Density.
You are right as if you put in only 20 HD seats in a plane that can take 400 seats you will get the "good" comfort mark. But that's something I have to think for future releases perhaps, by introducing seat pitch values to config screen .. may go overly complicated though.
But in reality that won't be a problem ever in my mind. As you wouldn't leave a plane that empty and in other (majority) cases are with small planes that can only take HD seats which means they are small and you only fly short routes .. or if you wanna fly a 4 hour route with B1900 ... be my guest and try it. At least I wouldn't want to travel on such flight ;D
Sami,
As noted above, I support the changes to the demand model of the game, but I believe I have found one fairly significant fault... It seems that you're bound to start off with similarly-low LF whether you're running a plane with 65 seats, or a plane with 200 seats.
Long and short of it -- the new model of low-LF on route establishment seems to give just about every plane a roughly equal start in LF. We all seem to start at 50% at default pricing (or whatever it is, the point is everyone's roughly the same). That's not realistic. If an airline flying a 200-pax jet into an airport is running identical marketing programs to mine, he should be gaining just as many new customers as I am. If he's managing to fill his plane up to 50% with 100 people a day, then I should be able to completely fill by 65-pax plane up with no problem because my marketing should be equally effective. But, it's not. My plane, like his, is running 50% at default. I'm only getting 35 new passengers for the same marketing dollars spent. In effect, he's actually getting more "Bang for his Buck", because he's spending the same on Marketing, but getting a much larger result. Not only does he have the previously-identified problems of significantly lower overhead costs because he's flying a larger plane (as the problems with regional jet expenses in this game has been oft-mentioned), but he actually gets significantly more revenue as a result of his Marketing as well.
In the end, from what I can see from looking at my own numbers very extensively the past 2 days as well as what I can see from the Stats, it appears to be extremely difficult, if not very near impossible, to yield an appreciable net profit using anything much smaller than about 100 pax. Those of us who flew them in previous games were always behind the others, but we could make do and made plenty. Now, however, I can't see a way to get my 65-75 pax planes to earn enough revenue to cover the overhead costs associated with them because they simply cannot enough people onboard paying a good fare to meet the critical mass necessary to overcome the overhead expenditures to operate that flight. I've played extensively with my pricing, and I can do little to change my overall revenues, I just get more or less people paying enough in fares to add up to roughly the same dollars in the end; none of which is close enough to cover the overhead. Just as an example, to market myself on 3 routes and do minimal CI marketing, I was spending 50% of my revenue on Marketing alone. If the little planes can't get full at decent pricing, you simply can't cover the overhead.
EDIT: I thought of a more concise way to explain this -- it seems from what I've gathered without the benefit of being to utilize a beta world and try numerous things much quicker, that what is happening is that your RI and CI are affecting your Load Factor, when what they should be effecting is the total percentage of the route demand that wants to fly on you. Your LF is a factor of the Pax that know about you, and the equipment that you choose to service them with, it should have absolutely nothing at all to do with your RI or CI.
If the demand for a route is 1000/day, and a CI & RI of 0 means that 100 of them a day would be willing to fly on me, then if I service that route with a plane that seats 75 people it should be somewhat close to full (removing time of day, frequency of flight, etc from the equation). If I fly it with a plane that seats 400 it should be pretty close to empty. That doesn't seem to be the case now. It appears the plane will fly (roughly) half-full no matter what equipment it is. If I'm flying a 150-pax plane on a route that's flying half-full, so I decide to swap it with something with 75 seats, suddenly the 75-seat plane flies half-full too which doesn't make sense.
Quote from: Sigma on August 03, 2009, 03:46:33 AM
Sami,
As noted above, I support the changes to the demand model of the game, but I believe I have found one fairly significant fault... It seems that you're bound to start off with similarly-low LF whether you're running a plane with 65 seats, or a plane with 200 seats.
Long and short of it -- the new model of low-LF on route establishment seems to give just about every plane a roughly equal start in LF. We all seem to start at 50% at default pricing (or whatever it is, the point is everyone's roughly the same). That's not realistic. If an airline flying a 200-pax jet into an airport is running identical marketing programs to mine, he should be gaining just as many new customers as I am. If he's managing to fill his plane up to 50% with 100 people a day, then I should be able to completely fill by 65-pax plane up with no problem because my marketing should be equally effective. But, it's not. My plane, like his, is running 50% at default. I'm only getting 35 new passengers for the same marketing dollars spent. In effect, he's actually getting more "Bang for his Buck", because he's spending the same on Marketing, but getting a much larger result. Not only does he have the previously-identified problems of significantly lower overhead costs because he's flying a larger plane (as the problems with regional jet expenses in this game has been oft-mentioned), but he actually gets significantly more revenue as a result of his Marketing as well.
In the end, from what I can see from looking at my own numbers very extensively the past 2 days as well as what I can see from the Stats, it appears to be extremely difficult, if not very near impossible, to yield an appreciable net profit using anything much smaller than about 100 pax. Those of us who flew them in previous games were always behind the others, but we could make do and made plenty. Now, however, I can't see a way to get my 65-75 pax planes to earn enough revenue to cover the overhead costs associated with them because they simply cannot enough people onboard paying a good fare to meet the critical mass necessary to overcome the overhead expenditures to operate that flight. I've played extensively with my pricing, and I can do little to change my overall revenues, I just get more or less people paying enough in fares to add up to roughly the same dollars in the end; none of which is close enough to cover the overhead. Just as an example, to market myself on 3 routes and do minimal CI marketing, I was spending 50% of my revenue on Marketing alone. If the little planes can't get full at decent pricing, you simply can't cover the overhead.
That actually as been a problem with the RI coding changes since beta2. It was adjusted at the launch of public. Its been like that ever since. This is probably one of more important things to be worked on. Now that the new aircraft system will keep the masses happy...
But yes, Its been noted.
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on August 03, 2009, 04:13:00 AM
That actually as been a problem with the RI coding changes since beta2. It was adjusted at the launch of public. Its been like that ever since. This is probably one of more important things to be worked on. Now that the new aircraft system will keep the masses happy...
But yes, Its been noted.
Talentz
I know that there have been problems for some time with the operation of smaller jets. I've run a regional airline to become the largest airline in its game, so I'm fairly familiar with the problems that they have in the game and, clearly, have modified my strategy to suit. But getting passengers to fly on them was
never a problem. In fact, it's actually been the polar opposite, with passengers greatly preferring them to the point of absurdity. But that's not my point. My point is that with the new changes in demand, that problems on the expense side that smaller jets have has been
greatly exacerbated, to the point where they simply do not work anymore. At least not to start. Once your RI is up, it'll be same as before. But getting there is extremely difficult.
Hmm, I have started as usually with my regional route model and accordingly with my regional props. In fact it is hard to get income up. Currently, I am running at barely break even on total costs. Still, I find this ok, considering that the game has just been running two game months. Which new airlines manage to break even within the first 6 months in reality? I do not know many.
I find this nice because as usual many people will be surprised, once the lease rates kick in and they have no big cash reserves. I will stick to my strategy and work it out somehow. Although, I would add that my LF was at 38% as I flew default prices. Due to price reductions and image rise, I now get to 55% roughly. However, this means a lot of upside potential, once we get going. The goal must simply be to get image and LF up during the first four months, so you can break even on total cost basis. I think I am on track to meet that quite nicely.
Denis
Sigma, thanks for the info. As the combination of routes and competition are endless I cannot extensively test all these .. And like Talentz said that's a problem we've had in the past too but seems that fixing one thing will lead to issues somewhere else. But to add .. the system is not counting the Load Factor (so it does not just calculate 100 LF minus company image effct and you will have 60% LF .. it calculates how many seats you can sell with the prices and other specs you have) ..
Like said I'm planning to take a closer look to the system to next versions perhaps.
Oh yes.. and was there a thread somewhere on how to improve the regional's status?
On another note, the production of the Airbus A340-300 had ended in ATB2. Now that is obviously a side-effect of the new ordering system, as no-one had the cash to order a new A340 when the game started. I think there should be an initial time-period of say a year after a game has started before production lines are shut down due to no orders, as it does take time to make enough cash to order new large aircraft. :-\
Quote from: DenisG on August 03, 2009, 08:02:11 AM
Hmm, I have started as usually with my regional route model and accordingly with my regional props. In fact it is hard to get income up. Currently, I am running at barely break even on total costs. Still, I find this ok, considering that the game has just been running two game months. Which new airlines manage to break even within the first 6 months in reality? I do not know many.
I find this nice because as usual many people will be surprised, once the lease rates kick in and they have no big cash reserves. I will stick to my strategy and work it out somehow. Although, I would add that my LF was at 38% as I flew default prices. Due to price reductions and image rise, I now get to 55% roughly. However, this means a lot of upside potential, once we get going. The goal must simply be to get image and LF up during the first four months, so you can break even on total cost basis. I think I am on track to meet that quite nicely.
Denis
I'm fairly sure that I'll be able to pull my regional out as well, but it'll be by the skin of my teeth, whereas operators of larger equipment were making net profits from Day One, just like under the older model. It's not so much that I think the smaller model is unrealistic, it's that it's not on a level playing field. If anything, the margins (or lack thereof) of regionals in this game is far more realistic of the airline industry in general. But few people would want to play a game where they had to wait 2-3 years to afford their next aircraft.
Quote
Oh yes.. and was there a thread somewhere on how to improve the regional's status?
You know, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't any consolidated thread that deals directly with that, no.
I see this change positively.
I don't have the problems with it that you all do.
I don't like people all starting off with 100% LF. That ruined the need for marketing and route image.
OMG, so there's a challenge in this game now???? WOW! People, this shouldnt be a cake walk.
Quote from: TFC1 on August 03, 2009, 12:44:20 PM
On another note, the production of the Airbus A340-300 had ended in ATB2. Now that is obviously a side-effect of the new ordering system, as no-one had the cash to order a new A340 when the game started. I think there should be an initial time-period of say a year after a game has started before production lines are shut down due to no orders, as it does take time to make enough cash to order new large aircraft.
There is. But the line closure was decided before the game time even started based on the date when it ended in real world.
Quote from: sami on August 03, 2009, 02:00:39 PM
There is. But the line closure was decided before the game time even started based on the date when it ended in real world.
Ahh...ok, I understand. :)
Quote from: DenisG on August 03, 2009, 08:02:11 AM
Hmm, I have started as usually with my regional route model and accordingly with my regional props. In fact it is hard to get income up. Currently, I am running at barely break even on total costs. Still, I find this ok, considering that the game has just been running two game months. Which new airlines manage to break even within the first 6 months in reality? I do not know many.
I find this nice because as usual many people will be surprised, once the lease rates kick in and they have no big cash reserves. I will stick to my strategy and work it out somehow. Although, I would add that my LF was at 38% as I flew default prices. Due to price reductions and image rise, I now get to 55% roughly. However, this means a lot of upside potential, once we get going. The goal must simply be to get image and LF up during the first four months, so you can break even on total cost basis. I think I am on track to meet that quite nicely.
Denis
Heres the problem no ones monthly leases have kicked in yet, you prepay the first 4 months. If you are barely breaking even now there is no way you can make it once leases kick in about 2 months from now. I have a 737 fleet and I calculated that I will barely make it once I start having to pay my monthly leases.
Quote from: comet3506 on August 04, 2009, 03:04:48 AM
Heres the problem no ones monthly leases have kicked in yet, you prepay the first 4 months. If you are barely breaking even now there is no way you can make it once leases kick in about 2 months from now. I have a 737 fleet and I calculated that I will barely make it once I start having to pay my monthly leases.
Just remember that, if all goes well, your LF will be higher by then too. And, once you hit break-even, even pax over that on your LF is mostly going straight to the bottom-line.
Quote from: comet3506 on August 04, 2009, 03:04:48 AM
Heres the problem no ones monthly leases have kicked in yet, you prepay the first 4 months. If you are barely breaking even now there is no way you can make it once leases kick in about 2 months from now. I have a 737 fleet and I calculated that I will barely make it once I start having to pay my monthly leases.
Hi comet,
with break even on total cost basis, I have calculated the future leases into the equation. So right now, I will be at around zero, as leases kick in. And I find this ok, considering the game months so far. And as you mentioned, it will be difficult as always for those that have expanded rapidly and will find pretty high cash costs from this month on... So now the game becomes real challenging...
Denis