Recognition of connecting traffic?

[azflyer]

I just completed the free demo and noticed that there is no recognition of connecting passengers; is this true for all the scenarios, the recognition of only Origin and Destination (O&D) traffic?

One other thing I noticed in the demo is u can only have 1 hub, can u have more than 1 hub in the payable scenarios? I did not see anything regarding the number of hubs and connecting traffic in the game manual or features section which I was I ask here.

IMO, the game(demo) is awesome except for these two issues!

Thx in advance for your responses,

AZflyer

[Sami]

Multiple bases will come in next game engine version, in a month or so.

Connecting pax is a huge task (if/when made properly) and is not planned yet, but should be included at some point.

[azflyer]

Thx for the quick reply. I'm looking foward to the multiple hubs/bases, will add a fun and interesting angle to the game!

The added dimension of connecting pax would truly make this airline sim the best/most realistic out there IMO, bar none. I will just have to wait patiently until then   Keep up the good work!!!

[ekaneti]

Thx for the quick reply. I'm looking foward to the multiple hubs/bases, will add a fun and interesting angle to the game!

The added dimension of connecting pax would truly make this airline sim the best/most realistic out there IMO, bar none. I will just have to wait patiently until then   Keep up the good work!!!

Not so fast. Ive played an airline sim that did indeed include connecting traffic and it wasnt so much fun as you think. The game becomes very very complex given all the connecting possibilities. Then you have to decide how much of your flight you want to devote to connecting traffic and make sure that lines up with all your other flights, or else youll have empty seats. Example 737 LHR-CDG, 737 CDG-FCO. You set aside 20% on LHR-CDG for FCO connections but on CDG-FCO you only set aside 10% for LHR connection. Thus youre going to have some empty seats on LHR-CDG. And that is with similar equipment types. Wait till you connect a 737 to a A380.

[altmants]

Yea, I also played a game with connection factor added in.

Connecting traffic makes it harder than you think.

For example, if you schedule 3 flights from from Orlando to Washington Dulles, and you have 1 Washington Dulles flight leaving for Tokyo in the morning at 8am. Your Orlando flights won't arrive in DC in time for the connecting flight.

Secondly, price models go crazy. For example...you are the only non-stop between DC and LAX, yet your load factors are low, but your prices are not overpriced. There is about 1000 passenger demand between the two cities, your asking yourself what is wrong! Here's why:

Lets say IAD to Chicago has 5 carriers doing that route. Prices are low IAD->ORD $60
Chicago has 4 Carriers doing ORD->LAX making prices relatively low as well ORD->LAX $150

Connecting Passenger Price = $150+$60 = $210 from IAD to LAX via ORD

You currently charge IAD->LAX    $280 because you have no competition on that route.

If the game factors in connecting traffic, ppl who need to go from IAD to LAX would be paying 25% less going through Chicago.

Therefore you would need to adjust your price of your route despite you have competition.

Now, take what I said and x60 routes....It takes a while figuring out all the prices you need to get a profitable load factor.

[azflyer]

It may seem like more work, but to me it makes the game more challenging and fun as well as closer to the real thing. I'd love the challenge of scheduling connecting banks at a hub, deciding if I should offer point-to-point service without the possibilty of connections, or opening up a "focus city"....all the more true-to-life!

[knutm1980]

Not being a programmer, though I would stick my money on it being a nightmare to calculate this sort of stuff. Having to deal with not only city region demand, but then additional inbound flights diversification if thats the word. People flying to your airport would be less of a threat in thi scase, definatly a boost to pax demand in v1.2..as double legs will no longer be allowed, destroying the potential for large airlines from smaller/less dense and isolated airports. It would be trully awesome though! That and a frequent flyer mile club. 

[type45]

no more multi-legs means a good base and country to start will be very important in next game it will be better to find some country have a few airports with good demands

and for the connecting traffic I think maybe something can be added: consideration of time cost in transiting somewhere. Direct flight should always be able to charge more than transiting
Why direct flight can charge higher price is because of 2 things: first, passengers need to wait and spend sometime in another airport if they take transit flight, but direct flight can let you save up all of this; second, compare with hub to hub and transiting ,airlines have a higher cost in serving direct flights between two group of destinations. much more planes will be needed and more landing fees, etc will be needed for that.

[knutm1980]

Not to forget about the fuel burn involved in landing and taking off.

[Sami]

For connecting pax one of the main issues is the ease (= hardness) of management of the connections/prices/schedules for players.. With even 50+ routes it's already a nightmare unless thought out carefully.

[Cluseau]

How about keeping it simple then.

When you have connections through a hub, put in a system that looks at:
- Connection time (increases demand the closer the flights are together)
- 'Global' setting for connection discounts (eg if a 'person' connects through my hub I'll discount the ticket by 10%).
- Are direct flights available? If not and the only way from A to B is through my hub, then I will see an increase in demand
- Thus connections through hubs would have to be considered when calculating demand from A->B, and prices dictate who people fly with on all available routes (as would travel time)

Maybe too complicated, but it takes the micro-management away from the gamer...

[mramelet]

Hey finally a topic from what I was looking for.
IMHO the game would have much to gain to have this feature because if you chose a small O&D airport, you'll never have the chance to run intercontinental flights, and you are stuck with small aircrafts, low passenger demand, and there is no use having a big network.
I would also go for the simple version
- Limit connection for flights arriving between 1 and 4 hours before my flight start (if my plane takes off at 10 am, then all planes landing between 6 and 9 am are elligible)
- Add this connection manually (otherwise, possibility would be infinite)
- Competition works the same way as normal route. The only difference would be that there is a very big preference for direct flights, that would reduce as well the number of "fantasist" routes. I mean who flies from JFX to LAX via ORD while there are so many direct flights?
Maybe there should be a fee for opening this route, so that people just don't open route for fun, and to catch even 1 or 2 passengers?
- Ignore delays and cancelled flights. Your passenger has chosen to fly for you, let's imagine that somehow he will come to destination, even if
he has to take the next one and sleep in the airport :-)

I think anyhow it should not become too complicated and put the player into micromanagement too far.
But it would be really great to have an added value of a strong network. And give a chance to small/medium airports that are currently stuck with small O&D demand

[JumboShrimp]

I think micromanagement (by player) every possible connection would be a bad idea.

How about this:

1 - The system figures out all direct (non-stop) connections as it does now - This is Phase I
2 - The satisfied demand (by direct flights) is subtracted
3 - Then, phase II of the calculation would be to go through every city to calculate 1 stop possibilities.

4 - Let's start at, say JFK. and go through all combinations that have demand (demand left after non-stop flights).
5 - Let's say one of the routes with demand is JFK-LAX, and the demand is 4000.  2500 out of 4000 was satisfied by direct flights.  1500 out of 4000 is still pending.

6 - Go through all the routes with a/c flying them and gather candidate 1 stop routes that can connect JFK-LAX.  Suppose it is early in the game and there are only 2 routes (with 1 stop):
JFK-DFW-LAX
JFK-DEN-LAX
7 - Now take the unused capacity of the above routes - unused capacity after capacity used in non-stops is subtracted.  Take the minimum of JFK-DFW and DFW-LAX route capacities for the JFK-DFW-LAX.
8 - take the pending demand from step 5 (1500), and allocate it to the 1 stop candidates using some algorithm.  The algorithm should discout the 1500 by some factor reflecting the fact that some people don't like to transfer and other variables

This would be a barebone implementation, with no changes to user interface, no specific pricing discounts to be set up by player (price of JFK-DFW-LAX would be sum of JFK-DFW plus DFW-LAX), no allocation of capacity by the player.

I think even this barebone implementation would enhance realism greatly.  Some bells and whistles (such as discounts) could be added to this later.

[GDK]

Not so fast. Ive played an airline sim that did indeed include connecting traffic and it wasnt so much fun as you think. The game becomes very very complex given all the connecting possibilities. Then you have to decide how much of your flight you want to devote to connecting traffic and make sure that lines up with all your other flights, or else youll have empty seats. Example 737 LHR-CDG, 737 CDG-FCO. You set aside 20% on LHR-CDG for FCO connections but on CDG-FCO you only set aside 10% for LHR connection. Thus youre going to have some empty seats on LHR-CDG. And that is with similar equipment types. Wait till you connect a 737 to a A380.

Which game you played? Is it online game also?