Add returning cargo demand (Potential and Actual) to route screens

[JumboShrimp]

On route screens, Add returning cargo demand (Potential and Actual).

Text value is sufficient, but please add formatting for easier reading / glancing at the values, such as 42,900kg instead of 42900 kg

Currently we have a single value, actual outgoing demand, so instead of this one single value, we would have 4 values.

[ts96]

Would make things much easier! 

[Tuckernut]

Agreed!

[DanDan]

absolutely!

[JumboShrimp]

This would be such a tremendous QoL improvement to the game that we would not even notice we are under a lockdown....

[Zombie Slayer]

Yes, please. Missed this when it was initially posted but would save so many clicks with most all cargo demand  very asymmetrical!

[JumboShrimp]

Yes, please. Missed this when it was initially posted but would save so many clicks with most all cargo demand  very asymmetrical!

This would really be a life saver as far as all the clicks, because asymmetry in demand is something that does not necessarily have any rhyme and reason.  Say my flights to France (from a big cargo airport in the US) have vast majority of cargo outgoing.  Neighboring Switzerland - a complete opposite.

So we don't know when we need to click.

Also, a set of 4 numerical values would train us to look at the numbers instead of straining our eyes to read the tiny print on the graph.

[LemonButt]

Since there is no daily variance in cargo potential/actual demand, the cleanest thing to do IMO is just display the average roundtrip values.  Since ABCBA routing isn't a thing (currently) you could also do something with the supply values, but really all you want to know is whether there is "hidden" demand on the return route you're not seeing.

This would just mean taking the existing "estimated pax demand" and "estimated cargo demand" and just updating the values to reflect the average of the roundtrip.  i.e. A to B has 100 pax and 1000 cargo and B to A has 200 pax and 100,000 cargo.  The display values would say average potential round trip pax demand = 150 and average potential round trip cargo demand = 50,500.

They are both "average" and "potential" even with the static pax model because RI, pricing, etc. reflect actual demand possible.  Plus, pax will eventually use CBD and follow the same logic.

[JumboShrimp]

Since there is no daily variance in cargo potential/actual demand, the cleanest thing to do IMO is just display the average roundtrip values.  Since ABCBA routing isn't a thing (currently) you could also do something with the supply values, but really all you want to know is whether there is "hidden" demand on the return route you're not seeing.

This would just mean taking the existing "estimated pax demand" and "estimated cargo demand" and just updating the values to reflect the average of the roundtrip.  i.e. A to B has 100 pax and 1000 cargo and B to A has 200 pax and 100,000 cargo.  The display values would say average potential round trip pax demand = 150 and average potential round trip cargo demand = 50,500.

They are both "average" and "potential" even with the static pax model because RI, pricing, etc. reflect actual demand possible.  Plus, pax will eventually use CBD and follow the same logic.

I don't think Average would work very well.  If you have 100k totally asymmetrical demand and the system displays 50k average, if you supply 50k, you are leaving 50k on the table.

IMO, the more info the better, and adding some extra text values (all 4, 2 potential and 2 actual) has zero extra load on the server (in round numbers).  Getting the other leg values does have some server load , which would be needed one way or another.(average or full info with 4 numbers).

[LemonButt]

You would still have the regular graphs and see that the average is much higher or lower than the one way route and to check the return leg.  The other way to do it would be just to display the difference with larger numbers being more asymmetrical.  Either way I think showing the outbound and return legs on the same page will create confusion.

[JumboShrimp]

You would still have the regular graphs and see that the average is much higher or lower than the one way route and to check the return leg.  The other way to do it would be just to display the difference with larger numbers being more asymmetrical.  Either way I think showing the outbound and return legs on the same page will create confusion.

Maybe you are misunderstanding the request.  It is not about charts.  Just 4 labels, 4 text values:

Potential Outgoing: Value 1
Actual Outgoing: Value 2
Potential Returning: Value 3
Actual Returning: Value 4

It could also be 2x2 table.

These values would in upper portion of the page where we now have a single value Estimated Cargo Demand

The chart at the bottom of the page would stay as is, showing only the outgoing demand.

There could possibly be some Super Duper implementation down the road, but why go another 2 years with insufficient data and a clickfest, when a simple solution, probably taking 2 hours of programming can serve us 2 years, before Sami can potentially get to some alternate presentation.

[groundbum2]

+1 for putting all numbers on first page. It takes a lot more effort for cargo to click to return page, and to scroll down to the charts, and to try and read the sidewise writing that is obscured by the charts themselves (bug raised previously). It's a lot more tedious than whizzing down the pax numbers...

Simon

[DanDan]

or maybe how about combining the outbound and incoming route-screens completely. since it would also be also interesting for assymetric pax demand.

[Mort]

or maybe how about combining the outbound and incoming route-screens completely. since it would also be also interesting for assymetric pax demand.

+1 for this. The order of the airports in the URL might purely serve for which way round the pair of airports are listed on the single page.

[JumboShrimp]

+1 for putting all numbers on first page. It takes a lot more effort for cargo to click to return page, and to scroll down to the charts, and to try and read the sidewise writing that is obscured by the charts themselves (bug raised previously). It's a lot more tedious than whizzing down the pax numbers...

Simon

Quite often, you don't even know you should be looking at the returning flight page.

There is some logic to which direction of the cargo predominates (I guess) but I bet 99% of the players can't explain it..

Which would be a great reason to show all 4 relevant values, as I posted earlier.

It is not about charts.  Just 4 labels, 4 text values:

Potential Outgoing: Value 1
Actual Outgoing: Value 2
Potential Returning: Value 3
Actual Returning: Value 4

It could also be 2x2 table.

[gazzz0x2z]

+1 with Jumbo. In China, most demand is incoming, and if you just look at the usual screen, you'll never find any good cargo route.

Just an example from my Dubai Airport : Shanghai area has 23 tons potential from Dubai, and only one ton back.

[JumboShrimp]

+1 with Jumbo. In China, most demand is incoming, and if you just look at the usual screen, you'll never find any good cargo route.

Just an example from my Dubai Airport : Shanghai area has 23 tons potential from Dubai, and only one ton back.

From Newark, 95% of destinations have greater outgoing than returning, 5% the opposite. Say, France, Spain, UK have the flow out, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium the other way.

In Turkey, Istanbul has 90+ % predominated by outgoing, Antalya has 90% going in the reverse direction.

So, really no way to know if one needs to click (and wait) for the returning demand page.  Very time consuming and tiresome if the player is checking 50 or 100 potential destinations.

I think this one has astronomical ratio between amount of frustration experienced by 100s of players / the amount of programing needed for a quick fix

[Talentz]

Actually, it would be better just to redesign the route planning page. Yes, a quick fix for cargo display would be greatly helpful. However, with CBD-pax not far off, the entire page will need to be worked to accommodate the changes.

How far are we off from that time? Your guess is as good as mine. But that shouldn't stop us from thinking about the coming future. Perhaps instead of just cargo numbers, how about a new thread for route planning redesign in general. We can start working on that idea process and give Sami something to work towards.


Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

Actually, it would be better just to redesign the route planning page. Yes, a quick fix for cargo display would be greatly helpful. However, with CBD-pax not far off, the entire page will need to be worked to accommodate the changes.

How far are we off from that time? Your guess is as good as mine. But that shouldn't stop us from thinking about the coming future. Perhaps instead of just cargo numbers, how about a new thread for route planning redesign in general. We can start working on that idea process and give Sami something to work towards.


Talentz

Redesign may take 1-2 years, and I am talking 1-2 hours.

I would be happy to contribute to the ideas of re-design some of the UI elements, once some really easy to implement quality of life ideas are done.

[spiff23]

I'm sure we all have our own tricks to minimize clicks and given this is a longer run thread, I usually duplicate tabs for open route once I land on a spot, then open the route and look at th return globe.  If worth while, and you need tech stops just reopen on the other table and add tech stops...not to side track, but given a lot of cargo needs a tech stop, it would be awesome to add a feature if redesigning things to add the tech stop from the set up screen once you click open (reverse of take away tech stop on open routes)...just a thought if super complicated on above points