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

[JumboShrimp]

This is calculated automatically daily, and only applies if you have more than 10 planes "idle" (= no routes or for sale) at the same time.

It would be nice to have this "slacker" factor increased a bit.  Me being a slacker, I routinely have 20-30 aircraft sitting waiting for me to get around to scheduling them...  

There are players doing 7 day scheduling, waiting to have all 7 ready before actually scheduling x 3 fleet groups = 21 aircraft.  I think increasing this to somewhere between 20-30 would be helpful.

[ucfknightryan]

So basically the alliance full of airlines that like to hoarde 300+ useless planes to inflate their CVs are upset with this new change. Not too surprising.

In the real world, major airlines also don't have 100+ parked 737s or DC10s, etc.

In the real world scheduling one 737 doesn't make the operating costs of your DC-10s more than double.  The problem of swapping fleets when you have 3 fleets in use is the only reason I have ever had a large number of aircraft sitting idle, and I don't appreciate your insinuation that my objection to this had anything to do with inflating my CV.    Anyway my objection seems to have at least potentially been addressed by adding the ability to mothball aircraft in the desert, so we'll see how that works out.

[[ATA] - lilius]

Ok we are discussing a small fee for parking the planes against keeping a fleet of 20 planes grounded for maybe half a year on a slow production line. It must be alot more expensive to keep planes grounded waiting for a set of seven as you are already doing than paying the fee of parking even if there is no direct cost attached to it today. Right Jumbo?

[JumboShrimp]

Ok we are discussing a small fee for parking the planes against keeping a fleet of 20 planes grounded for maybe half a year on a slow production line. It must be alot more expensive to keep planes grounded waiting for a set of seven as you are already doing than paying the fee of parking even if there is no direct cost attached to it today. Right Jumbo?

I am not commenting on the whole Parking scenario, just on the small portion of it - the idle aircraft, that I tend to have more than 10, sitting around most of the time, even when my intention is to fly them all.  Even now, when in my mind, I am pretty much caught up with scheduling, I have 18 aircraft sitting around...

[Zombie Slayer]

So basically the alliance full of airlines that like to hoarde 300+ useless planes to inflate their CVs are upset with this new change. Not too surprising.

In the real world, major airlines also don't have 100+ parked 737s or DC10s, etc.

Yeah, I lease a ton of planes out. I put every plane visible to the public for lease below market value with rare exception. The only useless planes I put on the market are ones I have retired from service with my airline. Please take your opinion and shove it....

[Infinity]

So basically the alliance full of airlines that like to hoarde 300+ useless planes to inflate their CVs are upset with this new change.

We do not hoard aircraft, we lease them out. There is absolutely nothing wrong about that, and it benefits not only us. Automated Checking upon leasing or even automated checking in general would have alleviated any problems that exist with it, but no, due to some b*tch *ss crybabies (always the same guys who never manage to run a working airline, as per use) we now face severe penalties for providing smaller airlines with more affordable leasing options.

Why don't you put up a feature request demanding the Company Value stat be removed? That would fit right in with you. You can't win it for the life of it, so you just complain about it. Shame on you for being such an envious person.

[knobbygb]

I'm loathe to get involved as there is the usual mudslinging going on...

Generally the changes are a good idea:  

Making major changes mid game (AGAIN):     Airwaysim used to have a professional, well managed 'feel' to it - IMO at least.  It no longer does.  I like that we all get to have some input into the game, but Sami seems (again, just IMO and no offence intended) to have become more 'reactionary' and always trying to please one group of people or another.  I liked the older 'dictator' style more.  Yes, let us have out say but please feel free to ignore us more often!  Just like real democracy really, hehe.  Having said that:

A couple of points/requests/suggestion:

Can the "Automatic check while on sale" option be split into two options for C and D checks, as it is for 'normal' automatic checks?  I would generally want the C checks to occur automatically but then the aircraft to be removed from sale when the D check was due.

If the scrapping age is to be reduced to 10 years, why not also allow ANY aircraft with an expired D Check to be scrapped?  After all, the whole point of this exercise is to encourage us to get rid of old aircraft more efficiently/promptly, yes?  You still have a minimum eight year limit but it seems a waste to have to store these a/c for two years when we know 100% we will never use them again.

I also disagree with the concept of stored a/c not counting towards CV.  Under the current financial modelling (which while incomplete and unrealistic does kinda work) this does not make sense.  How can you own something with a certain value, yet it not count towards the value of your company?  Either it has value or it doesn't.  Planes in long term storage are not worthless.  If the idea of these changes is to encourage aircraft disposal, then this is counter-intuitive:  It will make it more likely for those of us (me included sometimes) chasing "CV stats" to NOT store aircraft which we may otherwise do so.

[xyeahtony]

I'm sorry i didn't mean to upset anyone. I just find it mildly amusing that every time there is a rule change that threatens' Elite's dominance in AWS, there is a major uproar and whine fest like no other, from only a select few. And its funny how its always the same select few that have complaining to do.

Nobody likes a UM littered with useless planes. And in real life, airlines have to do pay to park planes. Planes don't just sit around for free doing nothing.

[JumboShrimp]

If the scrapping age is to be reduced to 10 years, why not also allow ANY aircraft with an expired D Check to be scrapped?  After all, the whole point of this exercise is to encourage us to get rid of old aircraft more efficiently/promptly, yes?  You still have a minimum eight year limit but it seems a waste to have to store these a/c for two years when we know 100% we will never use them again.

Or have the "Scrap" option always available, regardless of age or D check.

I also disagree with the concept of stored a/c not counting towards CV.  Under the current financial modelling (which while incomplete and unrealistic does kinda work) this does not make sense.  How can you own something with a certain value, yet it not count towards the value of your company?  Either it has value or it doesn't.  Planes in long term storage are not worthless.  If the idea of these changes is to encourage aircraft disposal, then this is counter-intuitive:  It will make it more likely for those of us (me included sometimes) chasing "CV stats" to NOT store aircraft which we may otherwise do so.

Agreed that the aircraft in storage should have some value, so maybe the compromise would be to value aircraft in desert storage at scrap value.  If player brings it out, does the C/D checks, brings it up to par so that it can fly, at that point normal value should be restored, up from scrap value.  Or, maybe in general, any aircraft that is not flight worthy (with expired C/D checks) should be valued at scrap value, whether it is in storage, on sale or in player's fleet...

[[ATA] - lilius]

I'm loathe to get involved as there is the usual mudslinging going on...

Generally the changes are a good idea: 

Making major changes mid game (AGAIN):       Airwaysim used to have a professional, well managed 'feel' to it - IMO at least.  It no longer does.  I like that we all get to have some input into the game, but Sami seems (again, just IMO and no offence intended) to have become more 'reactionary' and always trying to please one group of people or another.  I liked the older 'dictator' style more.  Yes, let us have out say but please feel free to ignore us more often!  Just like real democracy really, hehe.  Having said that:

Myself I enjoy these changes mid game. Remember these games are ultra long now and a bit too static in my opinion. These changes wont be in any way gamebreaking for anyone either. In real life you cant start a company and be sure that settings will be equal until the game is over either. As it is now we can pretty much see into the future.

[Sami]

Agreed that the aircraft in storage should have some value, so maybe the compromise would be to value aircraft in desert storage at scrap value.

The whole aircraft valuation calculation will change anyway with the accounting changes; it will have a separate value at the books that depreciates over certain time (this value is used in company net worth, ie. company value, calculation) and then there's a separate value that is used when selling the plane (ie. suggested price; your staff will suggest a selling price based on market conditions and a/c condition, age etc.). When this is implemented long-term stored planes will be counted normally towards overall wealth, if there's still some value left in the books.

[knobbygb]

Is it a bug  that I now can't remove an aircraft from sale because the C-Check is expired? 

The "Aircraft Listed for Sale" button on the aircraft information screen usually takes you to the "sell aircraft" screen - even if it's already for sale.  But this is no longer allowed.  So for now we can't remove any of those aircraft from sale, or change the details for that matter.  Is there another "Remove Listing" button that I can get to another way?

I guess this should be logged as a bug, but it will only be an issue for a few days until all a/c with expired-checks will automatically be removed from sale anyway.  Between now and then I guess we're stuck or is there any way of "getting to" those aircraft?

[knobbygb]

Myself I enjoy these changes mid game. Remember these games are ultra long now and a bit too static in my opinion. These changes wont be in any way gamebreaking for anyone either. In real life you cant start a company and be sure that settings will be equal until the game is over either. As it is now we can pretty much see into the future.

Yes, I agree actually, from a gameplay point of view.  I guess what I was referring to was the way this is affecting the stability of the system.  There seem to be a lot more minor, niggly bugs being logged each time the system is changed and these are requiring on-the-fly fixes which then risks further problems...  There seems to be no proper user testing or version control/change tracking (although I admit that's difficult to judge from the outside). Anyone who's worked with software knows it's virtually impossible to make changes to a live system without some soft of knock-on problem.  The issue I've just mentioned in the post above is a prime example of unforseen, minor 'bugs' creeping in.  I'm not having a go at Sami here either, just trying to make constructive discussion.  I really think these changes could be introduced in a more controlled way - in more consolidated batches with proper warning and testing and that could STILL be done mid game if required.

[Sami]

Is it a bug  that I now can't remove an aircraft from sale because the C-Check is expired?  

yes, fixed.

There seems to be no proper user testing or version control/change tracking

Yes there is..

I really think these changes could be introduced in a more controlled way

Such minor changes like these do not require a separate beta testing period. Bigger changes (like the new passenger allocation system introduced earlier) are tested separetely.

[knobbygb]

yes, fixed.

Yes there is..

Such minor changes like these do not require a separate beta testing period. Bigger changes (like the new passenger allocation system introduced earlier) are tested separetely.

Thanks for that.  40 aircraft suddenly automatically coming off sale and thus going for auto C-Check "sometime in the next 5 days" would have been pretty bad, hehe. I am being a 'good boy' and trying to tidy up my mess...

And I'm really not having a go at you.  Your work is much appreciated.   I realise you're in a kind of no-win situation.

[LemonButt]

but no, due to some b*tch *ss crybabies (always the same guys who never manage to run a working airline, as per use) we now face severe penalties

The problem is people abuse the system and when people abuse the system they become some of the largest airlines in the game.  Not all large airlines abuse the system, but those who abuse the system are large (I hope that makes sense).  Therefore, new rules/restrictions are always going to be targeted at large airlines whether they engaged in said abuse or not.  Unless sami hires the AWS Police or a bunch of babysitters, automation has to be used which is why we are where we're at today. 

The new rules that hurt large airlines nearly always hurt small airlines even more because large airlines have the cashflow/capital that it any new fees/charges are nothing more than a nuisance.  If you're a small airline with 20 aircraft and can't get a broker to buy your aircraft and are forced to do heavy checks, you could end up bankrupt pretty easily.

[JumboShrimp]

The problem is people abuse the system and when people abuse the system they become some of the largest airlines in the game.  Not all large airlines abuse the system, but those who abuse the system are large (I hope that makes sense).

The new rules that hurt large airlines nearly always hurt small airlines even more because large airlines have the cashflow/capital that it any new fees/charges are nothing more than a nuisance.  If you're a small airline with 20 aircraft and can't get a broker to buy your aircraft and are forced to do heavy checks, you could end up bankrupt pretty easily.

And not doing heavy checks, either by returning the aircraft just prior, or hoping that a broker will buy an aircraft prior to D check, aircraft that is worth less than the price of D check, how is that not abusing the system?

[NorgeFly]

I have to say, I'm not really sure what all the complaining is about.... The changes seem like logical additions.

Relatively small parking charges... Seems like a sensible addition to me. Airlines don't park aircraft for free.

Auto-C/D checking option for aircraft on sale... Definitely a positive thing. In the past I have had aircraft in sale for a long time and didn't realise that they'd expired meaning no one was likely to buy them. Now that shouldn't be a problem. Also, as Sami said, the used market won't be littered with aircraft no one will use.

Some people have been using the used market as a place to unofficially store aircraft (me included on occasion) - now they don't need to. They can either store them, sell them or scrap them.

The only real potential issue would be if someone had dozens of aircraft on the used market with expired checks that all now get bounced back and land up being checked at the same time. Unlikely to be a huge problem for anyone I'd imagine.

On the whole, a thumbs up from me. More options and flexibility with aircraft and tidying up the used market too.

[Cardinal]

Some people have been using the used market as a place to unofficially store aircraft (me included on occasion) - now they don't need to. They can either store them, sell them or scrap them.

Exactly. People like to hurl the word "abuse" around a lot, the fact is that because there wasn't any way to store aircraft long-term, and because the used marked served that function whether it was intended to or not, and because 15 years is a long time to keep a plane you don't want anymore (and neither does anyone else), a lot of "useless" planes wound up on the UM. The improvements in scrapping rules and the new storage function address this, but they are just that: improvements and new features that several users, veterans and newbies alike, have been asking for.

[Sami]

The only real potential issue would be if someone had dozens of aircraft on the used market with expired checks that all now get bounced back and land up being checked at the same time. Unlikely to be a huge problem for anyone I'd imagine.

Like I already posted I figured out this too, and will probably do so that initially the system only warns of this and the actual market takedown won't be activated until later ..