AirwaySim

for me, the great thing and biggest motivation to play AWS is the change and improvement of it over time. i am currently not in any gameworlds, but i check the forums from time to time - and to my disappointment, there have been [except for a few minor aircraft-data-updates] no changes to AWS this year at all. player numbers are much lower than they were when i started playing AWS, so possibly i am not alone with my opinion?

so my -slightly provocative- question: is AWS dead?

Nope. Still here and going strong, or that's the plan at least  ;D

Just personally had to prioritise in keeping the real life afloat with all the recent things in the world and in the family. But let's just say, without details, that things are looking better now.

n.b. Forums are definitely quieter since some of the chatter has moved to our Discord.

(Waves Hello)

-Discord

I sometimes don't play for 9 months... only to start up again to play a game world, have a great time and come back next time around half year or a year later to have another round of fun.

I'd love to see some new features like codesharing.

I've played this game on and off for a good 10-12 years and have to say that it's always been something I will throw myself at for 9 months then have a few months off

It's taken this long to learn the things that work and run a successful airline

When I first joined I wished it would have faster game worlds, more fluffy features like enhanced onboard offerings etc but now I've got older I still find the existing games more than enough to satisfy

Yes. I came back after a long hiatus to give it another try. I got laughed at before because I said it's the same players eating up the same markets every time.

I tried opening a small airline in Calgary, Canada. No threat to anyone, just four aircraft that didn't compete on anyone else's route. Then the usual suspect comes in and drives me out of business. I wouldn't care if I didn't have to pay for this game, but there's no fun in it unless you know exactly how to be in the top 1%. Yes, I get that's real life, but I play this game to get away from that.

I won't be given this game anymore money. It's pointless.

Quote from: TorontoGooner on November 09, 2021, 12:24:30 AM

I tried opening a small airline in Calgary, Canada. No threat to anyone, just four aircraft that didn't compete on anyone else's route. Then the usual suspect comes in and drives me out of business. I wouldn't care if I didn't have to pay for this game, but there's no fun in it unless you know exactly how to be in the top 1%. Yes, I get that's real life, but I play this game to get away from that.

Sorry to hear that, but you can't expect to sustain an airline with only 4 A/C. This isn't rocket science, and I'm sure anyone can run an airline if they read the manual and advice/guide from the forum. And running for a top positions is a little bit harder as you have to make effort in both spending brain for a sound strategy and time to execute it

QuoteI wouldn't care if I didn't have to pay for this game

Quote
I won't be given this game anymore money. It's pointless.

And wow, how much does it cost for a week playing the game? It's 0.44-0.55 Euro per week, depend on the package you buy. You talked like you spent thousand of Euro/Dollars on the game. I'm pretty sure the income from all players are barely enough for servers and stuff, not the mention the labor cost and effort of the management team

Without you, the party isn't any less fun. Ciao

Quote from: Mr.HP on November 09, 2021, 04:30:50 AM
Sorry to hear that, but you can't expect to sustain an airline with only 4 A/C. This isn't rocket science, and I'm sure anyone can run an airline if they read the manual and advice/guide from the forum. And running for a top positions is a little bit harder as you have to make effort in both spending brain for a sound strategy and time to execute it
And wow, how much does it cost for a week playing the game? It's 0.44-0.55 Euro per week, depend on the package you buy. You talked like you spent thousand of Euro/Dollars on the game. I'm pretty sure the income from all players are barely enough for servers and stuff, not the mention the labor cost and effort of the management team

Without you, the party isn't any less fun. Ciao

This is the attitude that will kill this game.

I can't grow my airline because if I do I'll get swamped on the new routes by the usual suspects. This party (game) couldn't be less fun right now. Perhaps it's time to listen to customer feedback instead of ploughing on regardless?

The issue is when and where you enter the game.  It always works out best if you get in a game world when it opens.  If you enter later, think SMALL.  Pick a city with underserved routes with less than 75 pax a day and choose a type of aircraft appropriate to the route where you will not be a threat to anyone.  And definite choose a city that has no one else based there.  The Beginners Games are a great place to play and strategize.  If you chose a city like ATL, LHR or LAX, yes--you will get walked all over.  Try a small city feeding to a large one like OMA.  It feeds MSP, ORD, DTW, DFW and many others.  Also small cities like ICT, LIT, BTR.

I have been a loyal fan for several years and find it a very small investment and it gives me something to do when I wake up in the middle of the night and can't go back to sleep for an hour or two.

I am truly amazed that Sami has done such a great job in coding this game, a task which I find very daunting.  It's just supposed to be fun.  Now let me get back to the Jet Age.

I disagree with getting "squashed" in LAX, ATL, LHR ect. If you get any slots in those airports you are nearly invisible as there isn't enough slots to force oversupply routes enough to cause bankruptcy.  They are by far the easiest places to play IMO.

I am surprised by the amount of people who don't like competition. It's a fact of life and part of this game. No airline can single handedly BK another airline. If you manage your airline well, it can survive anything. If you don't, then you'll end up bankrupt.

If you don't like competition, there are games out there that are essentially a sandbox game. This is not one of those.

Lastly, I am not one of the "usual suspects" as I've only been playing for a little over 3 years. But I'm doing just fine for myself. Just takes time and strategy to hit the targets of the airline you want to run.

Quote from: tungstennedge on November 11, 2021, 04:13:08 AM
I disagree with getting "squashed" in LAX, ATL, LHR ect. If you get any slots in those airports you are nearly invisible as there isn't enough slots to force oversupply routes enough to cause bankruptcy.  They are by far the easiest places to play IMO.

Perhaps that was not the best choice of words but I did have a point to make.  If you chose to enter a new game at a major airport, pick your starting aircraft carefully.  Avoid the temptation to overexpand.
The trick with large, well-served airports is to keep a close eye on the slots.  What was showing all pink zeros yesterday may suddenly show an 0800 opening but those things come with practice and you need a slot to land.  I hate to see a returning user put off by feeling that others gang up on him.  It is highly competitive and there are a lot of guys (maybe some gals?) that are really great players, like yourself.  But people are very forthcoming with advice when you get in a jam.  There are players who will mentor new users. 

Quote from: tungstennedge on November 11, 2021, 04:13:08 AM
I disagree with getting "squashed" in LAX, ATL, LHR ect. If you get any slots in those airports you are nearly invisible as there isn't enough slots to force oversupply routes enough to cause bankruptcy.  They are by far the easiest places to play IMO.

Depends on whether you have opposition. When you are alone in Algeria or Egypt, noone is gonna be a problem, and you basically play solo. OTOH, if you begin to play in big-but-not-that-big airports, in competition-rich areas, yeah, the game can end up cutthroat. IIRC, when I played there, Detroit was a bloody battle, while JFK (too big), Memphis or Kansas City (too small) were cakewalks. And when I play in the EU, I tend to see many opponents BK while I'm growing. Even CDG is not big enough in terms of demand to slot-protect its locals, and can be extremely dangerous for the non-veteran.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on November 15, 2021, 09:27:34 AM
Depends on whether you have opposition. When you are alone in Algeria or Egypt, noone is gonna be a problem, and you basically play solo. OTOH, if you begin to play in big-but-not-that-big airports, in competition-rich areas, yeah, the game can end up cutthroat. IIRC, when I played there, Detroit was a bloody battle, while JFK (too big), Memphis or Kansas City (too small) were cakewalks. And when I play in the EU, I tend to see many opponents BK while I'm growing. Even CDG is not big enough in terms of demand to slot-protect its locals, and can be extremely dangerous for the non-veteran.

This is interesting because you are absolutely correct. Anything but the biggest airports suddenly gains a huge spike in difficulty, as large airports, but not as big as LAX, LHR, and ATL seem to attract as many players as the largest airports, but have in reality a fraction on the demand. I imagine in a world where ATL has 200mil pax/year Detroit would only have 60-70mil, and only a couple less players in some worlds. It obviously depends on competition, but the three airports I listed are the only ones, maybe add ORD in there which reliably slot lock in every world no matter what.

Such a shame. There are the weirdest of rules and implimentations that seem to be bluntly defended - with the greatest of respect Sami - just bluntly defended and actually they have no function but to undermine the game satisfaction here.

I just reported what I believed must have been a bug - but nope... I got shot down like always !  >:(

We all know the HUGE penalties that can apply if you have an airline with about 500 planes if you dare to add a 4th fleet. Even just for a short while during a fleet transition, you PAY a heavy price for this.

Well I just got caught out by another ridiculous rule:  I want to replace 140+ DC.8s with about 110 new 767ER.  Routes need reworking coz 767s need longer T/A.  I've never used the feature before whereby you create a slot but select the box to tick - "Do not buy slots for this airport"  if you further read the "What's this?" explanation here is exactly what it says about this feature:  You may choose not to buy the airport slots for new routes. This feature can be used to pre-plan routes and to 'activate' them later when you have suitable aircraft or a busy airport has new slots. 
Keep in mind that you can not fly a route if it does not have slots. To get the slots later, simply edit this route and the system will automatically try to get the slots.

So I spent yesterday making lots of nice PLANS of how to restructure my fleet without committing to anything and went to bed yesterday half-way through my plans. Today when I switched on I found to my horror - I have been charged a total of about $300 million in Fleet Commonality charges for adding a 4th fleet. I never flew a single mile with any 4th fleet but I received a blunt answer back in the Bug Report that "this is normal"

I am so p*ssed-off right now - I could honestly just fold this GW and all others and spend my gaming time and money elsewhere.  This is grossly unfair in a GW where I have struggled and struggled to keep the airline alive despite intense competition.  That is a HUGE amount of money to forfeit for NOTHING !   For having tried to plan something.

Quote from: TorontoGooner on November 09, 2021, 12:24:30 AM
Yes. I came back after a long hiatus to give it another try. I got laughed at before because I said it's the same players eating up the same markets every time.

I tried opening a small airline in Calgary, Canada. No threat to anyone, just four aircraft that didn't compete on anyone else's route. Then the usual suspect comes in and drives me out of business. I wouldn't care if I didn't have to pay for this game, but there's no fun in it unless you know exactly how to be in the top 1%. Yes, I get that's real life, but I play this game to get away from that.

I won't be given this game anymore money. It's pointless.

I have to agree with this sentiment as it's been my experience. Plus my real job entails the same kind of planning. I just don't have the capacity time wise or mentally to try and compete with the top 1% for a fake game business and have to focus on my own real life fleet planning. Literally on the forums it is like real life politics trying to lobby the admin to increase your clout via mechanics and game rules kind of similar to real life. While airlines, trains and ocean shipping are consolidated in real life other sectors are very fragmented like trucking. However, there is a balance needed in gaming otherwise you lose out the majority for a select few.

Honestly I don't get all the hate towards the admin/developer nor the "1%" (whoever this is supposed to be). Assuming you mean the top scoring airlines or the ones with the most pretax income, I probably belong to those 1% myself. And let me tell you, I failed miserably in my first few attempts. I only got better by learning from my mistakes AND by listening to more experienced players. In the end, everyone pays the same amount of money to play the game and everyone gets to play the same game with the very same game mechanics, rules, and bugs. The only difference between players is experience, skill, and commitment.

@Cornish: Totally agree in this case. This sucks.

Quote from: Cornishman on November 16, 2021, 02:29:33 PM
Such a shame. There are the weirdest of rules and implimentations that seem to be bluntly defended - with the greatest of respect Sami - just bluntly defended and actually they have no function but to undermine the game satisfaction here.

I just reported what I believed must have been a bug - but nope... I got shot down like always !  >:(

We all know the HUGE penalties that can apply if you have an airline with about 500 planes if you dare to add a 4th fleet. Even just for a short while during a fleet transition, you PAY a heavy price for this.

Well I just got caught out by another ridiculous rule:  I want to replace 140+ DC.8s with about 110 new 767ER.  Routes need reworking coz 767s need longer T/A.  I've never used the feature before whereby you create a slot but select the box to tick - "Do not buy slots for this airport"  if you further read the "What's this?" explanation here is exactly what it says about this feature:  You may choose not to buy the airport slots for new routes. This feature can be used to pre-plan routes and to 'activate' them later when you have suitable aircraft or a busy airport has new slots. 
Keep in mind that you can not fly a route if it does not have slots. To get the slots later, simply edit this route and the system will automatically try to get the slots.

So I spent yesterday making lots of nice PLANS of how to restructure my fleet without committing to anything and went to bed yesterday half-way through my plans. Today when I switched on I found to my horror - I have been charged a total of about $300 million in Fleet Commonality charges for adding a 4th fleet. I never flew a single mile with any 4th fleet but I received a blunt answer back in the Bug Report that "this is normal"

I am so p*ssed-off right now - I could honestly just fold this GW and all others and spend my gaming time and money elsewhere.  This is grossly unfair in a GW where I have struggled and struggled to keep the airline alive despite intense competition.  That is a HUGE amount of money to forfeit for NOTHING !   For having tried to plan something.

When you making a planing-schedule using "Do not buy slots for this airport" your airline still employs all the staff needed as if the aircrafts was flying with passangers. That, together with the problem you write about, should be changed!

Thank you Andre / schlaf / all the guys who commented in our alliance forum - thanks all for your kind words of support.  Thanks also to Sami (in advance) for listening to me on the subject a bit more than at first. I reported this as a Bug - but was initially told it is all correct to have done what it did to my airline, yet we can all see this is grossly unfair in what it does to your airline costs. 

Further to Sami's advice, I have made an entry about it in the "Feature Request" forum where I simply suggest - it is not fit for purpose (which is just  planning) and therefore please just remove it altogether unless it (preferably) could easily be fixed.

I've not played for 3 months as I got bored. I figured out the formula to get #1 in lots of areas and could apply it rote by rote in game after game. The sheer tediousness of using a click click interface on a 1000 plane fleet drove me bonkers - I know a better GUI could do this in one keystroke and after 20 years in IT I've a good idea what is easy to do and what takes a lot of effort. The sheer obstinacy "that's how it is" drove this paying customer away.

tips - get more players so it's more interesting rather than the same faces in the same locations
         do this by getting pax cbd implemented and really listening to what the players want, for me much better big fleet GUI

Simon

Same for me, while I have not been playing for nearly as long very few world manage to engage me anymore. Big fleet GUI is a pain. Price micro should be easy to implement, but its not so everyone charges 104%. Seven days should be one button. Ive also seen scheduling in other games where for each plane, you drag certain flights along the time of the week- I found this particularly engaging and would be infinitely more attractive to new players.

At the end of the day, with the game seemingly being developed by one person with other focuses, progress will be slower than interest in the game increasing. Hopefully a change of mindset, or getting more players onboard via mobile, or taking on more help from the development side of the game could help revive interest. Maybe if Sami follows through and actually tests a world without OOB could be very fun, but for now I await changes before I commit more time to this beloved but dying game.

Well said Simon and tt !   There is far too much obstinate, "this is the way we do it / that is the way it is", coupled with the few obstinate supporters who evidently would also go-along with an argument that the world is flat just so as to be seen as being loyal.... or whatever their reasons. Well that's OK, there will always be those that hate any changes and they too can have their opinions of course.

The overall game is wonderful... it really is, to me and to many.... but you have to allow criticism and act upon it... not dig your heals in!  For example, the Features Request pages on this forum are probably the biggest waste of time.... very little ever comes of anything anyone ever says or suggests there.  That is a problem.

Let me ask you all this.  If the features many of you are crying for are implemented, how much per week are you willing to spend for AWS?   

No problem with paying more for a better version / development of this game. It's really not expensive as things stand when comparing to other games out there, but in it's current state - it is too full of limitations and too "stuck-in-the-mud". Just my humble opinion
Jack

Quote from: swiftus27 on December 07, 2021, 02:36:02 PM
Let me ask you all this.  If the features many of you are crying for are implemented, how much per week are you willing to spend for AWS?

Easily quadruple the existing price. I am surprised that the game can even exist at current price; I have just had a look, there is 1,078 players in all GWs. That's ~2,000 EUR per month; I suspect it can cover the hosting costs, let alone to earn something so to be motivated to develop the game further...

The standards will probably differ, but I would say, with implementation of majority of the improvements proposed by players, 10 EUR per month is realistic price.

The attractiveness could be increased through discounted pricing on quantity - I currently play 4 GWs, so 40 EUR per month would be indeed too much entertainment; but 10 EUR for one GW and 20 EUR for 3 or 4 GWs sounds sane to me.

I too have become less and less motivated to play the game --> REASONS:  too stale and absolute blank refusal to listen to anything anyone ever suggests (very much with you on that one Cornish). Always just excuses why nothing is going to change, unless occasionally being told that there are plans for the future -  ad infinitum!

But it is really something that should be of concern to the owner/manager of this game that, as you say Continental, there are apparently 1078 players and you get to see - what, about 30 or 40 people at most who regularly get involved in anything here in the forums?  Heck, this particular thread started with a survey that totalled just 36 responses !  OWCH.   and then, of those 36 that can actually be bothered to take part in these threads, 50% voted that either this game is dead or that it needs to be rescued !  WOW.  If you don't listen to that and take action then you really don't care about your customers!

Harsh but honest.

I realize how difficult it is to create a business simulation of any kind.  I have some limited experience in this area.  So, AWS fits the bill for some, and not for others. 

I do not have access to any subscription numbers, but from observing the number of players in each game and the name of the airlines and players in each game, I would say things are stable.  It seems to me that AWS has a certain group of loyal players, and from time to time, it sometimes attracts new players - some of whom get disenchanted for several reasons.  Some obviously stick with it and learn through experience.  Some leave for good.  Some come back every so often.to try again.  The loyal followers remain.  But, let's face it.  Even though there a good number of aviation enthusiasts in the world, most are interested in memorabilia, schedules, photos, aircraft, etc.  How many in this relatively elite group want to build and manage their own airline?  Then, if it takes a lot of work, who wants to participate?

Why do some potential players get frustrated and leave?

No one doubts that it takes a long time, a lot of trial and effort, a lot of bankruptcies, and a lot of work to figure out the ins and outs of the AWS program.  This is not unusual with any type of simulation.  Every simulation has its quirks.  While AWS tries to replicate the real world, the constraints of the program can make the simulation only so real.

Some would-be-players seem to think real-world practices will always work in AWS.  Sometimes they do.  Sometimes - not so much.

For instance:  Why are there alliances before the 1990s?  Why can a player use a 1950s prop well past its real-world life expectancy - at least until noise regulations require replacement? Why will simulation passengers continue to fly on old prop aircraft in high numbers when competitors offer non-stop jet service?  A player has to sometimes go against real-world practice to be profitable in AWS.  This can frustrate new players with high hopes for an easy form of entertainment based on their enthusiasm for commercial aviation.

I also understand that passenger demand in a simulation has to be based on some standard.  It is simply not possible to cater to local needs throughout the world.  I also understand the requirement for AWS to provide an atmosphere that allows competition and not domination.  I have learned to live with this and make the best of it.  However, a new player might not understand that in AWS there is usually more demand from a mid -sized city to an international destination than to a major city.  For example, in the AWS 60's and 70s more passengers want to fly from IAD to Johannesburg than to LGA, CLE, CVG, STL.....!  Cargo to almost any international destination is profitable.  Demand between real-world cities in the US is always in the 30 - 50 range, while a route to many British airports will be 100+!

As to the 30 - 50 passenger demand, it seems to me that very few aircraft manufacturers make aircraft that fit the AWS demands.  Aircraft either lack the range or they have high passenger capacity.  Neither fit into many AWS routes.  (I have learned how to adapt to this situation, but these flights are not very lucrative.)

It seems to me that any player who chooses to fly turbo props between mid-sized cities will struggle with low demand, aircraft with restraints, aircraft from multiple companies with engine makers - more than intercontinental aircraft types and engines.  Combining turbo props with jet aircraft can lead to a challenging AWS financial situation.

Also, competition, as noted is good; however, competing with long-time well-established players and airlines can be very frustrating to newcomers.

All of this - and more - can contribute to why a player joins and why a player may move on.

Just a quick comment here from the side. Some of you say that nothing is listened and nothing is done based on user feedback - that's not true and exactly the opposite! I do have a grand plan on how to develop things, but a large portion of the good ideas is from the players, especially many of the smaller things and UI improvements. And same for the bug reports - I'm very greatful of the observations there.

But these welcome suggestions and observations do necessarily not mean that I would be jumping through hoops quickly and without consideration to implement every suggestion, and that's why "your idea" is not necessarily implemented. And since there has been, and there is, the bigger idea on how to develop the sim in the long term making drastic changes to the core and major concepts or structures just when some single user requests it is not very likely. (And for that reason I am rather surprised to read that the strategical development decisions are thought somehow to be a matter of public voting?)

For the pricing and things: Since I do have a real job and my livelihood is not tied to the success here, and AWS is so niché genre simulation, AWS is always a steady side-business. And I'm very pleased of that - we've been around for so many years now! Hiring several full-time employees is of course not a reasonable thought, nor a risk worth taking in my mind. Unless we wish to make this into a kids mobile game with jewels, gems and bonus points one could buy, and perhaps that way create more revenue. But that's not at all where you guys want this to go, I'm sure. :) And for that reason I also wish to keep the pricing reasonable, and I'd feel for example doubling the price would perhaps scare away some people. I like doing this and coding AWS, and money is not the main motivator, and I'm happy on the financial status and balance. Or to say it in other words - it can't be a freeware hobby project due to the time it takes, but I'm happy to manage AWS a side-gig next to my real work, since this is mentally very rewarding and we have a nice community here too. And of course the financials have been good enough that I have been able to hire freelancers for temporary projects, like the mobile UI design, which has been a big investment.

For the forums: The recent years have seen a strong trend where these traditional forums are losing focus and people are moving to other medias. For AWS the Discord is fairly active, but we'd like to keep the forums alive since these are good archives and nicely tied together with the main website/system. If you have thoughts on how to make these more lively, let me know. But I think the division of the social side into multiple platforms/medias is inevitable, like in all other social media platforms globally.

And also, it seems that some of you missed by latest news update from last week too: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,89289.0.html

Uh-huh, OK Sami, I hear you  :)  You may well be correct that you feel the opposite is true, that then means something is regularly done in response to feedback ?  If you say so, but I dont' see that as a customer to be honest. I mostly just watch but don't often get involved to comment - anyway I also greatly respect that you say this is a niche game for a niche audience. I fully agree and for sure, a lot of that consideration needs to be taken when we talk about this subject.  No, I also don't want jewels and gold coins like those crappy mass games for kids  :laugh: :laugh: - It was good to point that out Sami.   But also, it is true that your existing audience has an appetite for something a bit more (stopping well short of the jewels  :laugh: )  Anyway - a healthy debate is one where a lot of varying opinions are being brought forward.
David

Quote from: Sami on December 07, 2021, 03:55:34 PM
... Unless we wish to make this into a kids mobile game with jewels, gems and bonus points one could buy, and perhaps that way create more revenue....

ok, no, please do not go into the direction of pay-to-win-mobile phone games! they are terrible (except for pocket planes, which is kind of fun but ... exhausting!). and i would not call them a simulation in any case

but airline simulations are not a niche. there is also airline empires that i like for how price management works and customers seem smarter ;) . and the ife options are kind of nice, even if not very intuitive - but they exist and make a bit of a difference. and yes, the connecting passengers there are a good feature (although they are an approximation that certainly doesnt live up to the standards Sami sets for AWS). and the flight planning in airlinesim is great, also the way different kinds of passenger seats can be selected is great.
and both of them have hundreds and hundreds of players more than AWS. still in my opinion, AWS is the best - but maybe instead of limiting to this statement, we should be looking at what is great in those other simulations, and try to go and try to learn from their strenghts.

and i like the project "nonprofit" character of AWS. and i dont mind Sami making decisions - someone has to, and it is not a democratic process, that is fine (and i have been annoyed with lots of decisions myself, like the employees in aws that stay with the airline for 200 years ;) ). but maybe it would be helpful if the community could be helpful and do some work? just think of the "airport data"-collection-tool. when it was released, lots of people made efforts, to some extent quite coordinated, to get data collected. maybe the community could be integrated, not making the decisions on where the journey goes, but possibly being able to provide data for aircraft and Sami could just take a look over it and say: thats fine, accepted. (which in turn would mean he could use his time better for those important works and decisions).

regarding player numbers: it seems to me, there is a lot of "hardcore" players with their total expertise doing research and all, and there is some basic casual players, but they dont stay long in the game. maybe it would be helpful if those werent excluded from the game so much as its currently the case (and there are quite a few factors that i mentioned before how possibly that could be done). and more players would certainly also enrich the game for those hardcore players.

p.s.: thanks for that update, i was very delighted when i read it. and i hope that other improvements are now going to be easier to be implemented and gameworlds easier to be managed

Quote from: Viscount Bailey on December 07, 2021, 04:36:12 PM
Uh-huh, OK Sami, I hear you  :)  You may well be correct that you feel the opposite is true, that then means something is regularly done in response to feedback ?  If you say so, but I dont' see that as a customer to be honest. I mostly just watch but don't often get involved to comment - anyway I also greatly respect that you say this is a niche game for a niche audience. I fully agree and for sure, a lot of that consideration needs to be taken when we talk about this subject.  No, I also don't want jewels and gold coins like those crappy mass games for kids  :laugh: :laugh: - It was good to point that out Sami.   But also, it is true that your existing audience has an appetite for something a bit more (stopping well short of the jewels  :laugh: )  Anyway - a healthy debate is one where a lot of varying opinions are being brought forward.
David

Sami actually implemented a few suggestions just in the latest AoF launch. We started 5 years earlier and he added a couple of aircraft updates. As he mentioned, he listens to feedback and if it can fit into the grand scheme of things it gets added. All of that came from feedback from both the Forums and AWS and was gameplayer pushed start to finish.

The issue is everyone has a different opinion on what they wish AWS was, and it can't be 300 different ways. Just because something someone wants isn't implemented doesn't mean it's not heard.

We recently were able to start ordering more than 3 planes a week. That was honestly a risky move Sami made and it makes it easier for big airlines to grow even larger and faster to take room from smaller airlines. But it was done and likely calculated.

I think it's perfectly fine to voice opinions of coarse, but we should also have realistic expectations of our requests.

without doubt, many players wouldn't be able to afford the rates you mentioned! EUR10 a month, that is EUR120 a year, for a game?

Quote from: Continental Sky on December 07, 2021, 03:12:50 PM
Easily quadruple the existing price. I am surprised that the game can even exist at current price; I have just had a look, there is 1,078 players in all GWs. That's ~2,000 EUR per month; I suspect it can cover the hosting costs, let alone to earn something so to be motivated to develop the game further...

The standards will probably differ, but I would say, with implementation of majority of the improvements proposed by players, 10 EUR per month is realistic price.

The attractiveness could be increased through discounted pricing on quantity - I currently play 4 GWs, so 40 EUR per month would be indeed too much entertainment; but 10 EUR for one GW and 20 EUR for 3 or 4 GWs sounds sane to me.

I think we've reached an impasse. The developer has stated he's in the exact spot he wants to be, cost neutral, a bit of hobbyist coding, and has no intention of changing anything. And on the other hand are lots of players, myself included, with ambitions for the next level of AWS who are getting increasingly vociferous in the face of do nothing.

Seems to be walk or shut up time to me..

Simon

Quote from: groundbum2 on December 09, 2021, 07:46:24 PM
and has no intention of changing anything.

No, I did not say that. Don't twist my words please.

Anyway, I am inclined to close this thread, since I have already answered the questions here, and also the completely separate announcements have been posted for everyone to see. But I still see some sort of negativity continuing here, of which I'm not very happy. Again, if you wonder why 2021 has been very quiet, I urge to read the public announcement I made and read a bit between the lines at the first part to truly understand it (can't go into details in public really). But that doesn't mean AWS would be somehow going away or being stopped. No.

to clarify what sami probably is referring to... https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,89289.msg526326.html#msg526326

i was very glad to have read about all the work that was done in the background in 2021, and i am looking forward to all the upcoming changes!
nonetheless i would be very happy if there could be a "backlog" of upcoming works/changes displayed, not with a timeline, but with a prioritization. and maybe an open forum with ideas could help you with finding the best decision for AWS, possibly even with outsourcing some of the work.

Quote from: MikeS on December 09, 2021, 05:42:24 AM
without doubt, many players wouldn't be able to afford the rates you mentioned! EUR10 a month, that is EUR120 a year, for a game?

Probably, I see the total sum is a bit high; but when you look on a weekly level, as it's charged now, it's 2 or 3 eur per week. If someone enjoys a game, I still don't think it's too much - it's a beer in local pub, or a betting slip, or pack of cigarettes, majority of people have those small entertainment expenditures, so the space can be found.

Quote from: MikeS on December 09, 2021, 05:42:24 AM
without doubt, many players wouldn't be able to afford the rates you mentioned! EUR10 a month, that is EUR120 a year, for a game?

A lot of MMOs charge around $15 a month as a subscription, and have between them millions of subscribers..

Quote from: Sami on December 09, 2021, 07:54:04 PM
No, I did not say that. Don't twist my words please.

Anyway, I am inclined to close this thread, since I have already answered the questions here, and also the completely separate announcements have been posted for everyone to see. But I still see some sort of negativity continuing here, of which I'm not very happy. Again, if you wonder why 2021 has been very quiet, I urge to read the public announcement I made and read a bit between the lines at the first part to truly understand it (can't go into details in public really). But that doesn't mean AWS would be somehow going away or being stopped. No.

Hey Sami, we get your probably a bit annoyed / upset with this thread seeming to be negative.  I don't see it as negative - the one thing I think that all people here would agree is that what you have done up to now is fantastic. Me too... I know I can "moan-on" a bit myself and at times seem to be negative.  We all get frustrated at things and want somewhere to go to voice our opinions.

I hope you don't close this thread because  it would almost be a little like the ostrich burying its head in the sand (totally a misconception that happens by the way  :D )  It is a healthy thing to let folk speak about it... just extract all the positive suggestions and comments and then hear the the grumbles and decide if anything needs dealing with those grumbles.  If we don't hear both the beautiful things and the ugly things in life then we only learn half of what is to be learned.

So I'm sure it won't be the last time I grumble (heheee  ;) ) but please just use this as a bit of knowledge what your followers are calling out for.
We luv's ya really Sami !  :D
Jack

I think Sami's point isn't necessarily the feedback, but the manner in which it is presented...

Quote from: tungstennedge on November 11, 2021, 04:13:08 AM
I disagree with getting "squashed" in LAX, ATL, LHR ect. If you get any slots in those airports you are nearly invisible as there isn't enough slots to force oversupply routes enough to cause bankruptcy.  They are by far the easiest places to play IMO.

Yup, and the direction has been to fewer and fewer slots, meaning more and more boring in slot deficient airports.

AWS is not dying, it is evolving.

====

I've been a member for several years and played the long games twice, both times dropping out not too long before the end. I come back every couple of months to check the forum and see what's up.

AWS is a blessing. It is smart, sophisticated, dynamic, fun, I love the community and appreciate Sami's moderation. As a business owner, I learned a lot from this game.

Here are my 2 cents on the directions of improvement.

1) The basic stuff. The interface requires a face-lift. One simple improvement that would make a world of difference would be a dynamic page of real-game-time airport arrival and departure timetables with all of the delays and cancellations. That should be fairly simple from the programming perspective. The reason this is important is that this is a good time killer to get through the end of the game day. It would pain-relief the major annoyance of waiting.

A replica of flightradar24 would be lovely, but probably too much from a programming perspective.

2) The big issues. There is just an unbearable amount of time wasted doing repetitive tasks like plane scheduling that AI can handle just as well, but significantly faster. Ultimately, both times this was the reason behind my decision to BK.

Micromanagement required to play narrows the player community down to people, who have time in abundance. Unfortunately, I am not one of them. Instead of playing the airline strategy, this becomes the game of operations with some strategic inputs.

I hope this will change with CBD in pax service, the introduction of the hub-and-spoke model, further developments to allow brand marketing, services in the air (seats, service classes beyond first/biz/economy, food, entertainment etc), and services on the ground (check-in, luggage, lounges, terminals). Naturally, the game should move to managing the rules, not operations.

From the economic perspective, this game has known inputs that are unknown in RL (like demand on the route) and oversimplifies the demand model. Business, leisure, VFR clients cannot be managed separately, airline product is narrowed down to seat type selection, turnaround time is the same for legacy and low-cost, alliances do not allow connecting traffic, there are no code-shares, interline agreements, and so on. Bringing the RL countries' GDP, wealth distribution, mobility, cultural ties etc into the game calculus would allow the game to be thrilling all the way til 2036 or even beyond with some new plane types.

====

I find this game fun and I would love to be able to support Sami's further effort not only through game credits purchase but through other means, like Patreon or direct donations to allow hiring assistance at Sami's discretion. I think, as a community we can crowdfund certain projects, thus bringing major improvements closer. I personally would love to volunteer to help with some of those issues.

Quote from: MidWorld on December 25, 2021, 07:54:35 PMIt is smart, sophisticated, dynamic, fun, I love the community and appreciate Sami's moderation.

[...]

Instead of playing the airline strategy, this becomes the game of operations with some strategic inputs.

I fully agree with everything you wrote, but I highlighted these two points above. I am relatively new to this game, but like it and plan to play long games, hopefully will manage to do it.

Waste of huge amount of time for repetitive micromanagement tasks is indeed big drawback of this game; the scheduling you mentioned is one issue, but there is, at least for me, another much more annoying issue that shows how some functions are made in a completely user-unfriendly way.

In interface for opening new route or route planning, as far as I can tell, airports can be sorted only by their size, name or code; I was not able to find any other option. Name and code are absolutely useless, who cares for the code if there is sufficient demand. Remains the size, which is usually not reliable - oftentimes smaller airports can have higher demand than airports of bigger size or traffic. As a result, if I see that demand drops below my desired target on, let's say, second page of results, I still cannot be sure that 7th or 11th page does not hide an odd airport with huge demand. Routes for first 20-30-40 or so aircraft in a base are relatively easily found, but after that, as good routes get exhausted, I have to open literally 100 or 200 pages to find suitable routes for one single aircraft. I'd say it is much worse for cargo than for pax.

It's beyond my understanding why there is no other option to sort airports in route search page, say by pax demand and supply, cargo and potential cargo demand and supply, number of pax, pax fee, landing fee, percentage of available slots, etc., those are all factors to decide when opening a new route. I am pretty sure it does not require PhD in nuclear physics from programming point of view, and would be enormous help in locating suitable routes without opening new page for every single airport pair.

I think this is fairly deliberate, if the big fat juicy routes were presented first then it would take out a lot of the "hunting" in a game. Since the demand is largely static, a lot of players record these numbers to spreadsheets etc, then can use these to find the juicy worms.

Simon

OK, I see your point, but I don't agree.

Charm of this game should be in decision-making process, not in data mining. When looking for expansion, a dozen of questions arise:

- Should I go for this route where demand is barely enough to cover airplane capacity and there are no competitors, or that route where demand is huge, but so is the supply.
- Should I go for overnight route that departs at 23:55 and arrives at 04:15, or play it safe and go for a daily route.
- Should I leave default ticket prices, or increase, or decrease, and for what percent.
- Should I go for this route where pax demand is abundant but cargo is zero, or that route where pax demand is two thirds of plane capacity, but cargo is full.
- Should I go for turnaround time with 15% delay probability in order to fly every day, or go for 1% delay probability and skip one day for A-check.
- Should I assign this route two flights a day with ATR or one flight a day with MD-87.
- Should I go with stopover, to have full capacity, or direct flight with limited capacity.
- Airport fees there are three times more expensive than in my base airport, lemme calculate if it is profitable to fly there at all.
- That aircraft is ideal for these 10 route pairs, but that means another fleet for me; lemme check is it worth it.
- This aircraft is cheaper to purchase and cheaper for maintenance, but 30% slower than that aircraft; lemme calculate if that one extra route a day will cover the cost difference.

...and so on, and so on. Inevitably, each of the questions above has another alternative: "Lemme see used aircraft market, maybe there is an affordable plane so to cover both options!".

So, instead of focusing on those questions, one needs to open hundreds of tabs and harvest the data. If those data, the ones I mentioned in my previous post, were readily available, in a sorted table, it still does not mean too much for success or failure, the data themselves do not provide answers to above questions at all, one still has to make right decisions to succeed! It just takes out the cumbersome manual work.

If I don't have time to collect the data in Excel, or am not willing to select/copy/paste for hours, I have to do it again and again, every time I want to deploy new aircraft. I don't think it's a sensible concept. In addition, at least from what I read somewhere here on forums, cargo demand is not static, but shifts from potential to actual demand, based on supply.

Regarding route data if those numbers would be easy to find or scrape because they are presented in an easy table, all of your next steps would be almost trivial to script.

Quote from: Crazybernie on January 17, 2022, 04:58:06 AM
Regarding route data if those numbers would be easy to find or scrape because they are presented in an easy table, all of your next steps would be almost trivial to script.

Didn't know that script can be used to play the game and have advantages over common players
Where's the fun in that?

Quote from: Mr.HP on January 17, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Didn't know that script can be used to play the game and have advantages over common players
Where's the fun in that?

It's not allowed to run scripts against the actual game server, but if you manually make a copy of some data, in a spreadsheet for example, then it's yours to do what you want with. How would you draw the line as to what 'advantages' you are allowed to use in your own  time on your own PC?  You could 'scrape' the data by capturing browser screens I guess.  I'm not sure exactly where the line would be.

Quote from: Mr.HP on January 17, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Didn't know that script can be used to play the game and have advantages over common players
Where's the fun in that?

Does Hitler in the bunker need to come back out and explain it to others players?

Quote from: knobbygb on January 17, 2022, 08:07:46 AM
It's not allowed to run scripts against the actual game server, but if you manually make a copy of some data, in a spreadsheet for example, then it's yours to do what you want with. How would you draw the line as to what 'advantages' you are allowed to use in your own  time on your own PC?  You could 'scrape' the data by capturing browser screens I guess.  I'm not sure exactly where the line would be.

Oh i see. I was under the impression that the scripts run directly into the game. If its like you said, i think its should be fine

Running scripts that control the game is not fine , i am just pointing out that presenting tables in easy tables would make it almost trivial to run scripts from your computer to control the basic mechanics of the game.

However due to the fact that the data changes slightly with every request to the servers and because you would need to run a pretty predictable amount of request to refresh the data , therefore Sami can easily spot people that would attempt that.

However having spreadsheets that require manual data input is fine. The important thing is that the game mechanics need to be run by real humans.

In my case due to Peanuts bk in London last friday I spent like almost 6 hours to rapidly schedule planes at one point i was tired and went to bed. Result next morning a competitor opened in LHR and had accumalated a respectable amount of slots.  If there was a script to run the scheduling that player wouldn't have stood a chance.

in MT, I was absent 2 critical days in the beginning (father had covid while visiting us, takes time). Result? My powerstart was not as powerful as usual, and my opponent in GRU is still alive and thriving. That's life. And that's what is great : you have to actually play to achieve success. I'm under my objectives, and I know why. It leaves space to others.

Quote from: Crazybernie on January 19, 2022, 04:56:34 PM

However having spreadsheets that require manual data input is fine. The important thing is that the game mechanics need to be run by real humans.

Totally agree. It takes time and effort to build the data, and players doing that should be rewarded

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 19, 2022, 05:04:33 PM
in MT, I was absent 2 critical days in the beginning (father had covid while visiting us, takes time)

Sorry to hear that, hope your father and family is fine

Quote from: Mr.HP on January 20, 2022, 02:57:18 AM
Sorry to hear that, hope your father and family is fine

Thanks. Fortunately, vaccines do protect people good enough, so the harsh times IRL are behind me. Dominating BRazil will prove harder than forecasted, and that's fun, ultimately. Maybe even I'm gonna fail, which would be a great lesson as well.