So I understand there is a new feature that takes into considering winds and all that...
Now I have a few questions.
In GW2, I'm flying a bunch of jolly nice Viscounts. In my spec the nominal range is 1470nm. So I scheduled a route from Melbourne to Perth, which 1461nm. It gave me the warning that the plane wasn't able to fly it but it depends on aircraft configuration. Because the nominal range says 1470, I planned it.
Then I couldn't plan it in a schedule though, saying I don't have an airplane to fly it.
Upon further inspection, I noticed that the route from Melbourne to Wellington which is 1394nm has a full load of pax flying INTO Wellington, but is limited to 6 pax on the return flight. Similar story to Auckland, which is unlimited one way, and maxed to 4 pax on the return flight.
Now, either those New Zealanders are extremely heavy or those headwinds must be pretty damn serious...
Either way, it makes little sense that you get a 50 pax penalty on a 1400nm flight...
It's not some defined "penalty" of any sort, but that's how it goes and works (in real life too) and calculation is rather simple too. Please read the manual about Equivalent Still Air Distance https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Aircraft/Performance/
The route has approximately 35 kts headwind component on the other way, making the ESAD ~1850 nm which is beyond the range of the a/c. Hover over the blue question mark at route editor to view the details.
The early era and slow props are very limited on such routes (for example cross the Atlantic) and faster jets not so much. I mean when operating very close to the maximum range of the aircraft.
(Displayed nominal range is the still air range)
I agree the wind penalty is really harsh, it's getting me EGLL- East coast USA, but at the same time it adds an interesting change to the game such that the old tactics don't work. I like the challenge.
Simon
I wasn't doubting anything it just seems a VERY harsh penalty... But if it's based on real life, I suppose it's good.
bite on the 1889 nm flight getting icreased by 511nm due to winds and airways
Looking for a good tech-stop could be tricky for South American operators. From Quito going to Tokyo, westbound leg has to stop at Honolulu to avoid the jetstream from Japan to American westcoast. Stopping at Vancouver on the return leg is just nice but un-flyable on the other way round. :laugh:
Quote from: Dasha on March 28, 2019, 02:14:28 PM
I wasn't doubting anything it just seems a VERY harsh penalty... But if it's based on real life, I suppose it's good.
https://aerosavvy.com/headwinds-and-tailwinds/
Quote from: dandan on March 28, 2019, 02:59:48 PM
https://aerosavvy.com/headwinds-and-tailwinds/
Too much technical twaddle for me but thanks :D
Ok, so... You really shouldn't be thinking about a plane's range in terms of distance, but more terms of time. The ratio of time to weight but we will keep it simpler for this discussion. Plane X can only fly for 8 hours before it needs to land. It doesn't matter how far it travels, that's a hard limit. When a plane is flying the wind is either pushing it forward or back. If the wind is pushing then the plane moves faster and can go further in it's 8 hour maximum, is the wind is pushing it back, then it goes slower and can't go as far.
It gets even better when we roll out historically correct airports and 1955 runways. Add in CBD-Pax and the amount of b******* will be at absurd levels ~
Players will wish they could go back too the old days when the biggest problems were 1 yr gaps in their 707 deliveries 8)
Talentz
Quote from: Talentz on March 28, 2019, 06:32:12 PM
It gets even better when we roll out historically correct airports and 1955 runways. Add in CBD-Pax and the amount of b******* will be at absurd levels ~
Players will wish they could go back too the old days when the biggest problems were 1 yr gaps in their 707 deliveries 8)
Talentz
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quick, gonna get me a bunch of DHC-4... ;D
(350m runway required)
Quote from: Talentz on March 28, 2019, 06:32:12 PM
It gets even better when we roll out historically correct airports and 1955 runways. Add in CBD-Pax and the amount of b******* will be at absurd levels ~
Players will wish they could go back too the old days when the biggest problems were 1 yr gaps in their 707 deliveries 8)
Talentz
Hard Pass. How about 4K runways everywhere with equal demand but slot sets that cost 150k/day and no fuel stop nerf.
Interesting tidbit regarding flights from Perth to the Eastern seaboard with the headwinds - it wasn't until Ansett and TAA introduce the 727-200 Advanced was non stops to Perth were a regular occurence.
I'm afraid that's going to be the case for me as well :)