Has there been any consideration for applying this penalty to cargo operations? Seeing carriers flying 757Fs 15 times a day between asia and europe and the US is annoying. Wasnt the "too small" penalty created to keep people from spamming 757s on trans atlantic pax routes in the first place or am I incorrect? Just my two cents.
I suggested it somewhere recently :)
However my suggestion's parameters would a bit different than for pax:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,78696.msg463801.html#msg463801 (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,78696.msg463801.html#msg463801)
and more generally the whole thread, which is about the same issue:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,78696.0.html (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,78696.0.html)
Cargo doesn't care about the "size" of the plane. If it fits, it ships.
Be happy. 8)
we have talked about this a lot and it does need some kind of fix. JumboShrimp had a few proposals. I hope they do get looked at at some point otherwise realism will go way off
Mike
Quote from: Zobelle on October 20, 2018, 07:31:10 PM
Cargo doesn't care about the "size" of the plane. If it fits, it ships.
Be happy. 8)
Some part of it is nice, but some isn't. And the situation described by Jumbo Shrimp or just mentioned by Maxair is indeed a bit frustrating.
If I go for a full cargo airline, I would firstly think "ok, I'll build my fleet around 1 large and one very large aircraft". But then I realize than in many, many situations I don't even need a VL, maybe only two large ones (or just a 757 if I don't care about the leftovers). I sure could use a VL, but I could do everything with the 757 and rip off any kind of concurrence using VL aircraft.
There are obviously virtuous players (in GW#2, André flying 763F and Il-96-400T and almost no large freighter, for example, or Cactus with the A330F and the 747-8F), but the issue is that it is so easy that in the end it will inevitably lead to some gamey behaviour like it happened with the 757 pax.
Indeed, most of the cargo players in cargo heavens already use way more the 757 than any other freighter, which:
- undermines any VL a/c
- differs a lot from realistic behaviours
- forces competitors of the 757 users to level down
Here are the figures for in-service units in GW#2, year is 2018 (stating also 737F and A32xF, but those were only recently released)
757-200PF 2304
767-300F 1332
777F 793
A330-200F 739
737-700F + 737-800BCF 364
747-400F + 747-8F 146
A320P2F + A321P2F 129
Il-96-400T 100
And, without any surprise, the n°2 is the smallest of the VLs, but still only 57% of the number of 757PF...
Quote from: Zobelle on October 20, 2018, 07:31:10 PM
Cargo doesn't care about the "size" of the plane. If it fits, it ships.
Be happy. 8)
No it doesnt but a carrier would rather fly 7 frames daily then 14 to the same destination. Ideally you would try to put the freight on as few frames as possible.
Quote from: Maxair on October 20, 2018, 09:07:39 PM
No it doesnt but a carrier would rather fly 7 frames daily then 14 to the same destination. Ideally you would try to put the freight on as few frames as possible.
That's where I think we need to balance things. AWS can't absolutely mimic real life situations, not always. It's a game, needs players way more than there are RL airlines, needs competition, and thus instead of 3xDC-10 on thick domestic routes in western Europe, you'll find 12 737/727/DC-9, that's inevitable and this part is also fine.
It's only the excess that should be limited.
^^^^^^^^
Agreed 100%.
Can demand be increased then globally to mimic actual IRL?
I'm against "too small" being applied to anything besides "medium" and below aircraft. The fact you need to tech stop is bad enough penalty usually.
the basic concept in AWS that cargo gets's (all being equal) evenly divided onto the available flights is causing this.
There should be something like a frecuency limit for cargo in AWS where per airline anything over two daily frecuencies get's counted as just e.g. 1/2 a flight more when cargo is devided.
EG:
3 Airlines on route A to B with 60.000KG actual demand.
Airline A has 1 flight, airline B has 2 flights and airline C has 4 flights (2+ (05.x2) = 3) gets counted as 3
Airline A Airline B Airline C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight 1 10.000 10.000 7500
Flight 2 - 10.000 7500
Flight 3 - - 7500
Flight 4 - - 7500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total all flights: 60.000
The formula can be vastly refined obviously, but something along those lines to reduce the effectiveness of frequency spamming.
Mike
Quote from: Zobelle on October 21, 2018, 08:55:05 PM
Can demand be increased then globally to mimic actual IRL?
I think there's no way. I asked the cargo demand from Brazil be reviewed, but as a concidence, the RL cargo figures I showed Sami was preety much similar to AWS' figures, so he was satisfied with that - despite the fact that pax figures in AWS are much higher than in real life!
And, as I said in another post proposing techstop penalties and small aircraft penalties for cargo flights, I am against it because there are places from which a very large aircraft is inviable for longhauls. I and my opponent from GW2's Brazil are resorting to 737Fs where there's sufficient HC demand because all the other cargo can be carried in the pax aircrafts.
Quote from: MikeS on October 21, 2018, 10:30:42 PM
the basic concept in AWS that cargo gets's (all being equal) evenly divided onto the available flights is causing this.
There should be something like a frecuency limit for cargo in AWS where per airline anything over two daily frecuencies get's counted as just e.g. 1/2 a flight more when cargo is devided.
Perhaps the solution for frequency spamming is to review how profitable these flights can be. The fact that a cargo aircraft can be profitable at 15-20% load factor is a big incentive for strategies like this.
The too small penalty would be applied the same as it is with passenger flights. If youre flying a 737-700 on a 2700 mile segment with 1500 daily demand then you suffer a slight penalty. Having the same penalty apply to cargo isnt a stretch at all.
Definitely a stretch and unnecessary complication. Too many factors at hand to make a blanket assessment there.
I'd say let's not implement artificial restrictions but bring on connections and let everyone figure out the best way to operate based on their airline model. If I am operating a hub and spoke system I will certainly not be flying 15x 757Fs at 25% LF between airports but maybe 2 or 3 times a 747F with 90% LF during set arrival waves.
Quote from: Helix on October 22, 2018, 04:25:32 AM
I'd say let's not implement artificial restrictions but bring on connections and let everyone figure out the best way to operate based on their airline model. If I am operating a hub and spoke system I will certainly not be flying 15x 757Fs at 25% LF between airports but maybe 2 or 3 times a 747F with 90% LF during set arrival waves.
Maybe you'll be the nice guy, and that's fine indeed, but you risk downsizing at some point because the reality is that even players in cargo megahubs use the 757 to spam: JS, who confesses he's not happy of the situation (in the other thread), and for example also Cattlecar in GW#2, which is the airline transporting more cargo per year in the game.
And both are located... in Hong-Kong, what a surprise.
The other HKG player in GW#2 used some 747-200F in the 80s, transitioned to the 747-400F, but then was forced to downsize when Cattlecar was founded, as his 747 profits plumet in no time. All are in storage now. Catai Asia still insisted on having VL freighters, has 184 777F, but also 285 757PF :-\ And Cattlecar is the main 757PF user, at 481 units.
Then, the 2nd larger 757PF operator is based in... Frankfurt and Munich, yes.
I'm not saying that "too small" is the best solution, but there is indeed something to do. And if JS agrees on this, that's quite astonishing.
As for connections, yes, but I'd say that's another point, it won't be released real soon, and in the meanwhile something needs to be done.
Quote from: Zobelle on October 22, 2018, 04:02:28 AM
Definitely a stretch and unnecessary complication. Too many factors at hand to make a blanket assessment there.
What is unnecessary is flying 15 757F per day between HK and FRA. I dont think the fix is complicated at all. "Too small" does its job with pax flights. It could do the same with cargo. Sure its not perfect but its better then the status quo.
Yet, those that select the 757PF are making a strategic choice of using a marginally useful passenger type within their fleet, thereby significantly complicating fleet transitions. See my airline in GW2 right now - I have 1000x 777, tree-fiddy 737-classics and a few hundred 757s. I need to replace my classics, but if I go to a 4th type, I'll set AWS records for how fast an airline with 120+ billion in cash goes bankrupt. I will have a similar issue coming up in GW1 where I have A32x, 757 and MD11's where the MD11's need to convert to 787s soon...
Quote from: Maxair on October 22, 2018, 11:37:42 AM
What is unnecessary is flying 15 757F per day between HK and FRA. I dont think the fix is complicated at all. "Too small" does its job with pax flights. It could do the same with cargo. Sure its not perfect but its better then the status quo.
The obvious other way to process the allocation is by capacity, instead of doing it by frequencies.
But as is, I don't think there is any way to up-root allocation by frequency from the system. The roots are just so deep. There have been penalties applied to the frequency allocation, but I don't think frequency ever ceased to be the #1 variable in equation.
Quote from: MikeS on October 21, 2018, 10:30:42 PM
3 Airlines on route A to B with 60.000KG actual demand.
Airline A has 1 flight, airline B has 2 flights and airline C has 4 flights (2+ (05.x2) = 3) gets counted as 3
Or reduce impact of each subsequent flight (pax or cargo) by 1/2. Meaning 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8
Going through the numbers, flight #30 would add 0.0033 to frequency for total of approx. 4. So the 30 flights prior would be counted as 4 much bigger flights, which at that point would be basically allocating by capacity.
Quote from: schro on October 22, 2018, 01:05:38 PM
Yet, those that select the 757PF are making a strategic choice of using a marginally useful passenger type within their fleet, thereby significantly complicating fleet transitions. See my airline in GW2 right now - I have 1000x 777, tree-fiddy 737-classics and a few hundred 757s. I need to replace my classics, but if I go to a 4th type, I'll set AWS records for how fast an airline with 120+ billion in cash goes bankrupt. I will have a similar issue coming up in GW1 where I have A32x, 757 and MD11's where the MD11's need to convert to 787s soon...
BTW, the Default Cargo price has been beaten down in GW1 so badly that it is now at the cost of fuel to fly it.
It must be a bug in the Default Cargo price setting. I will report it in the bug forum.
Quote from: schro on October 22, 2018, 01:05:38 PM
Yet, those that select the 757PF are making a strategic choice of using a marginally useful passenger type within their fleet, thereby significantly complicating fleet transitions. See my airline in GW2 right now - I have 1000x 777, tree-fiddy 737-classics and a few hundred 757s. I need to replace my classics, but if I go to a 4th type, I'll set AWS records for how fast an airline with 120+ billion in cash goes bankrupt. I will have a similar issue coming up in GW1 where I have A32x, 757 and MD11's where the MD11's need to convert to 787s soon...
If you decide to be a mixed-but-cargo-oriented airline, then yes, it will complicate your life during renewals, but make it much prettier between them.
If you decide to go mainly for pax, then I could question your choice, bar a few places (and HKG is one of them)
However If you decide to go 100% cargo, then the 757 is a no-brainer, and if you have any A320P2F or 737-700F, that will be just for fun, you could rely on herds of 757 and just a few VL for your really thick routes. You'll just be invincible.
I'm not saying the 757 is a dream for its users (JS in his other thread points out the limits of it), only that it undermines the profitability of very large cargo aircrafts, which ain't very good for the fun of the game.
Edit: And if you decide to have 2000 a/c, renewals will always be a reaaaaal pain, no matter what fleet choice you made ::)
Plus, we all perfectly know that you could just gather planes, swap schedules from 737 Classic to 737 NG/MAX or A32x and then adjust later. Your renewal would thus last 30 mins real time.
There's 3000+ airports in the world... why the F care about one airport. If someone wants to run a 2000 aircraft airline flying too 200 destinations, more power too them. Still going to end up in 2nd place at the end of the Game.
Great job spending those credits, Sami Appreciates™
Talentz
Beyond all of the tall of frequency limitations and such, the simple fix seems to be fleet type relief. Simply not counting cargo aircraft (to an extent, maybe 1-2 types) could alleviate the spamming with smaller planes. If I could add, say, A300-600F without my commonality jumping $150m a week I would gladly add that instead of, say, the 757f that was the discussion on page 1.
I'd vote for leaving things as they are. This is supposed to be a capitalist game, so players need to compete after looking at all the variables. I don't understand why people want "socialist" "big brother" free-trade restrictions put in place that imposes artificial constraints on other players.
Simon
Quote from: Maxair on October 22, 2018, 11:37:42 AM
What is unnecessary is flying 15 757F per day between HK and FRA. I dont think the fix is complicated at all. "Too small" does its job with pax flights. It could do the same with cargo. Sure its not perfect but its better then the status quo.
Profits over practicality. Welcome to the business world. 8)
Cargo doesn't complain about "cramped seats" nor lack of refreshments. That is strictly a meatbag problem.
Quote from: groundbum2 on October 22, 2018, 03:34:28 PM
I'd vote for leaving things as they are. This is supposed to be a capitalist game, so players need to compete after looking at all the variables. I don't understand why people want "socialist" "big brother" free-trade restrictions put in place that imposes artificial constraints on other players.
Simon
Even the most capitalistic countries puts restrictions on trade. It's not about being "socialist" or "big brother" or whatever, it's about allowing people to be, simply be.
In the case of AWS, these restrictions already exist, they are the 3 fleet limitation or the "too small" penalty. One can complain that they are not well made or could be better if so, but in the end they are here so no it stays a game and not a turkey shoot for just a happy few (and one could argue that it's already a turkey shoot as more and more airline BK in the course of a game).
In other words, barriers, no, but obstacles, yes.
(remember that the one of the reason we don't kill each other might be thanks to obstacles: a law is an obstacle)
Quote from: groundbum2 on October 22, 2018, 03:34:28 PM
I'd vote for leaving things as they are. This is supposed to be a capitalist game, so players need to compete after looking at all the variables. I don't understand why people want "socialist" "big brother" free-trade restrictions put in place that imposes artificial constraints on other players.
Simon
Agreed, That or make it so only VL aircraft can carry HC.
Quote from: Zobelle on October 22, 2018, 05:23:12 PM
Agreed, That or make it so only VL aircraft can carry HC.
At that point I'd rather see a 4th category of cargo that only VL a/c can handle. Would make more sense, in my opinion.
Like: "You want the juicy stuff? Ok, but then invest, don't play small: you can be king of the hill, but not with the tool that undercut others.
Saying this because if HC can be handled only by VL, I can say goodbye to my 90 737F, I'll need only one A330F and could abandon all other routes (too small demand).