(comments) AirwaySim v.1.3 news, previews & info

[jvernikos]

Hi sami I just wanted to ask a feature if possible for the 1.3 update. Connecting flights. I guess this can be quite a hard to code feature but I believe it could improve the game extremely for smaller airlines which encounter problems of demand and max out lets say at 30-40 planes. It might also help prevent the creation of super large airlines based at airports like narita, jfk, heathrow.

This can be achieved for example by having lets say demand on the route LHR-NRT. If for example the ticket price for this flight were 500 and another regional carrier would offer LHR-Istanbul-NRT for a total of 400 then demand would go through the second one. I believe this would create a much more dynamic world and airports like Istanbul, Rome, Dubai, Mexico City, Honolulu and many more could obtain a much more important role and give headaches to the larger airlines. Offcourse there will have to be many more this taken into account such as total flight time (which would need to be calculated in tandem with the price, for example total travel time only +2 hours), CI etc...

This I believe would make game worlds much more competitive and people that are now based in huge airport like LHR would have to think..."should i base at istanbul and create the largest transit airport?"

[JumboShrimp]

Hi sami I just wanted to ask a feature if possible for the 1.3 update. Connecting flights...

...I believe this would create a much more dynamic world...

+1

I think, of all the new features and enhancements, this is by far #1 feature needed for AWS.

Sami definitely has it on his radar screen.  The question is if this feature could fit into 1.3 upgrade, or if 1.3 will be just an incremental upgrade...

[schro]

Will the new restriction against large class planes being disallowed at insignificant airports impact fuel stops for those types or is that not considered in this restriction?

[alexgv1]

I'm happy you did the steep approach limitations on LCY sami. It was mentioned a few times in feature requests. It shows you have been listening to players

Now I just hope more people who know of other airfields with this restriction (it isn't the only one) come forward and share their knowledge.

[Dave4468]

I love the LCY idea, nice to see that sorted but just noticed the A318 is missing from the "allowed" list. Will it be added or can the system not handle the low fuel take off and stop at Shannon it does?

[jimsom]

Stockholm-Bromma, ESSB/BMA has a noise and weight restriction, like London City.
It looks like the same list as for LCY could be used here without any problems really, it's very similar.

[Sami]

Added sizeclass 1 & 2 restriction to BMA. It's really MTOW 50tn limit but this is close enough.

[alexgv1]

I love the LCY idea, nice to see that sorted but just noticed the A318 is missing from the "allowed" list. Will it be added or can the system not handle the low fuel take off and stop at Shannon it does?

Probably because it would have to include the whole fleet group, so you would still get A319/A320/A321s flying out of LCY which is what this measure is designed to stop.

[Zombie Slayer]

Chicago Midway (MDW) is limited to aircraft 753 and smaller. Not sure what the historic limits are, but in theory anything can stil fly into/out of MDW in AWS if you take a range/passenger penalty. Any chance MDW can be added to the limited list?

Don

[ACfly]

YTZ (Toronto city airport) can only support turboprop planes - - no jets, given the short runway and city bylaw on noise.

[Saul Goodman]

So If I understand, slot restrictions will arrive with new version.  Probably a feature that could benefit most.

Personally, I would like to see a choice of games where in some games certain restrictions could be relaxed so we can have a more competitive game.  Ie.  not slot restrictions, a higher limit on number of bases, a higher limit or no limit on number of aircrafts we can deploy at a base.   

[jimsom]

Added sizeclass 1 & 2 restriction to BMA. It's really MTOW 50tn limit but this is close enough.

Great, could we also maybe get an update for the curfew? (Closed between 2100 and 0600lt)

[Bolier Dweller]

First read this, https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg137990.html#new

Second notice on the new features that he is adding Sami is now giving us two options for closing routes. We can not close the route and return the slots or close and keep the slots. Now does any one else see a problem here? Perhaps we should have a time limit on how long you should be allowed to hold on to the slots? And possibly pay a fee for not flying the route but holding the slots?  Thoughts any one?
PS, love the other features so far!

[Sami]

Reason for update: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26169.0.html

Slots are gone in not used in 2 months (https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/Routes/Slots/#Keeping).

[Sigma]

First read this, https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg137990.html#new

Second notice on the new features that he is adding Sami is now giving us two options for closing routes. We can not close the route and return the slots or close and keep the slots. Now does any one else see a problem here? Perhaps we should have a time limit on how long you should be allowed to hold on to the slots? And possibly pay a fee for not flying the route but holding the slots?  Thoughts any one?
PS, love the other features so far!

This isn't a new feature. 

You've always been able to cancel a slot and hold the slots for a period of 2 months before they were released to the public again.

The only change sami made was that you're now able to close multiple routes at once and do this.  Previously the option to keep slots was only available when closing singular routes.

[pascaly]

1.3 looks great Sami, good work as always.

The changes to 'airline creation/founding" sounds very interesting.  Can't wait for more details on that one.

[Dave4468]

* Added new game rule (v.1.3) that prevents slot misuse on high demand routes: Each airline is allowed to have a maximum of 40 daily departures to each destination (on average) per each weekday. This is a 'hard limit' on all routes, not depending on the true route demand or anything (would be too complicated). Just a simple rule to prevent endlessly routing 50 seater planes to a route with 10 000 pax demand...

All my previous complaints addressed. 

[schro]

* Added new game rule (v.1.3) that prevents slot misuse on high demand routes: Each airline is allowed to have a maximum of 40 daily departures to each destination (on average) per each weekday. This is a 'hard limit' on all routes, not depending on the true route demand or anything (would be too complicated). Just a simple rule to prevent endlessly routing 50 seater planes to a route with 10 000 pax demand...

All my previous complaints addressed. 

I wonder if that will count tech stops under the hood....

[mgrisoli]

Hello guys! Thanks for coding so addictive game!
I've a question that may be it's already covered for the next release but I'll ask for that anyways...
When you update a route, like timing or turn around it drops from the aircraft schedule regardless of having conflicts with other routes.
This forces you to go back to the schedulling screen to add the route again to the aircraft.
I assume this is to force the execution of a conflicts checking algorithm.
Is that possible to have those conflicts checked when the route is updated and not have it dropped when there are no conflicts?
It's a pain in the back when you are making adjustments to fix the delays for too quick turn around and just want to expand intervals between routes, for example.
Good game anyways I can't wait to see the enhancements for 1.3.

[JumboShrimp]

Hello guys! Thanks for coding so addictive game!
I've a question that may be it's already covered for the next release but I'll ask for that anyways...
When you update a route, like timing or turn around it drops from the aircraft schedule regardless of having conflicts with other routes.
This forces you to go back to the schedulling screen to add the route again to the aircraft.
I assume this is to force the execution of a conflicts checking algorithm.
Is that possible to have those conflicts checked when the route is updated and not have it dropped when there are no conflicts?
It's a pain in the back when you are making adjustments to fix the delays for too quick turn around and just want to expand intervals between routes, for example.
Good game anyways I can't wait to see the enhancements for 1.3.

+1
Good idea.