155 replies to this topic

[Hake.]

I think that is a great idea. Charge by size?

That would work well, although there won't be too many small aircraft stopping over past 1970.

[sound_guy0918]

I love this idea. As was pointed out, no one can beat political restrictions. Just another thing, there should be stopover gates, a fraction of the cost of an actual gate, just to account for use of an Apron and other airport resources.

 

I suggest that every airport gets a prefix or suffix to allow fuel stops.  You should be able to stop anywhere for fuel only (no pax on/off) as long as it fits within your home country's political restrictions.

 

Examples:

 

EWR - xLNK - LAX for B307 transcon

ORD - xYQX - xORK - AMS for DC6 transatl

JFK - xBDA - xSID - LOS for DC6 transatl

SFO - xHNL - xAWK (would need added) - HND for DC6 transpac

 

However flying:

 

MIA - xHAV - BOG in a B307 would be illegal based on existing political restrictions.

 

The fuel stop time penalty should be the same as the existing Turn Time.

 

I agree that the "gate" cost should be some fraction of the existing gate cost for each airport.

 

By allowing fuel stops anywhere you get to discover the routes that make the most sense for how you want to run your airline, rather than choosing from a short drop down list of the most common historical stops.

[Hake.]

Fox, cost would depend on number of passengers, as it's information we already have in the system.
Sound, TATL through ORK? Sounds implausible as it didn't open until 1961 . And yes, breaking restrictions would be against rules. I also say by clicking via, you can type in any code and as long as the runways at all 3 airports fit the proposed aircraft it would be fine.
A further suggestion of mine is that a turn time is added when landing and took off from that airport.

[sound_guy0918]

Sound, TATL through ORK? Sounds implausible as it didn't open until 1961 .

 

Yeah, I didn't do my research on that one...but just like JFK wasn't called JFK, etc. there are anachronisms in the game that don't really affect the game play...I should have said Shannon, I guess...

[Hake.]

I see your point, Fox. It seems more logical to do it like that but I think it should be made symplistic as it would be easier to implement. Bear in mind there is a flat rate for gates, no matter whether you fly an EC120 or an A380.

[LLC]

As far as I'm concerned-
This is amazing and it should be a thing!
 
One thing I would say though:
Using your example of LAX-NRT-PVG then I think that the route should be assigned on the LAX-PVG screen and NRT is chosen as a stopover on yet another dropdown box. I do not think the routes should be assigned LAX-NRT-PVG as this could end up being very confusing!
Stopovers should NOT allow passengers to get on and off, and so routes with stopovers should be done from the overall route. 
 
Stopovers should not be allowed to exchange passengers because using them would: 
1) allow people to cheat political restrictions and fly within other countries as long as that plane had come from their home country
2) Make flight capacity difficult to manage as how do you get people to get off/ get on independently when you can only change overall route price as some want to go LAX-NRT, some LAX-PVG, some NRT-PVG. How would all these three be allowed in one ticket price? LAX-NRT and NRT-PVG pax would be paying trans-pacific fees for potentially a few hundred miles
3) Your above example highlights why stopovers should be just that: an hour or more's inconvenience (and this should be reflected in pax's attitude towards them!) that extends the range of an aircraft
 
Basically:
1) Passengers should not be able to exchange at stopovers
2) LAX-NRT-PVG should be managed on the LAX-PVG screen with a dropdown box allowing you to select a stopover point.
 
That's just my opinion!

What about real-life situations where there are limited reciprocal agreements between countries that allow passengers to exchange at stopovers ?

Is there a way to research this so the Realistic worlds are in fact Realistic as far as that is concerned ?

wikipedia.org Freedoms_of_the_air

1st the right to fly over a foreign country without landing[4] Toronto - Mexico City by a Canadian company, overflying the USA
2nd the right to refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreign country without embarking or disembarking passengers or cargo[4] Toronto - Mexico City by a Canadian company, stopping for fuel in the USA
3rd the right to fly from one's own country to another[4] Toronto - Chicago by a Canadian company
4th the right to fly from another country to one's own[4] Toronto - Chicago by a US company
5th the right to fly between two foreign countries on a flight originating or ending in one's own country[4] Doha - Bangkok - Kuala Lumpur by a Qatari company
6th the right to fly from a foreign country to another while stopping in one's own country for non-technical reasons[4] Dubai - Cairo - Paris by an Egyptian company
7th the right to fly between two foreign countries while not offering flights to one's own country[4] Kuala Lumpur - Jakarta by an Italian company
8th the right to fly inside a foreign country, continuing to one's own country[4] Chicago - New York City - Toronto by a Canadian company
9th the right to fly inside a foreign country without continuing to one's own country[4] Beijing - Shanghai, as an Italian company

a diagram of the nine freedoms,
with blue circles indicating the
operating airline's domestic market
and red or yellow circles indicating
foreign markets

[Hake.]

Realism is all nice and well, but we need to consider how difficult coding is. Stopovers would be fun, but it seems unneeded to have more than fuel stops right now, as we have so much else to focus on for AE4. I suggest for AE4 it's just refuelling, then for AE5 if it works out we could get it implemented .

[iquit]

Realism is all nice and well, but we need to consider how difficult coding is. Stopovers would be fun, but it seems unneeded to have more than fuel stops right now, as we have so much else to focus on for AE4. I suggest for AE4 it's just refuelling, then for AE5 if it works out we could get it implemented .

Disagree. Real connecting pax is the most wanted AE4 feature (at least for me). It somewhat balance the game by allowing airlines in small countries to compete with those in big countries. The current hub system is too exploitable (as we have seen in O1 last round before it resets).

[TNT88]

This stopover thing is good idea, but then again extremely long-haul flight usually ended up with low demand, which is not realistic in some cases. LHR - SYD in real life have quite high-demand, although in the game, it only generate around 100 - 200 passengers demand per day, which would be problematic if we want to established the long-haul routes. I mean, i don't think it's realistic enough to put 2 flights a week from LHR - SYD isn't it?

[jakecp]

I agree

[Qantas A380]

This would be good for airlines with only on airport in their country like Qatar Airways. So People could Fly Melbourne to London

[EthansInControl]

AE 4.0 ~ 2020

[edu2015]

It would also be interesting to maintenance of the passages with established values are pre example:

  Route: REC-GRU

Up to 40% one determindo value ($ 200)

From 41% to 60% other value ($ 189)

61% to 80% other value ($ 180)

81% 100% other value ($ 1,000)

This would make it more competitive and would be we could get more aircraft and win more or lose more.

[DJHonore]

Kinda like multiple stops in one route? I absolutely LOVE the sound of that, it adds more realism to the game.

[Maicom_MR]

Wow, sounds good, I like a lot the realistic and the stopovers logic. +1

[DJHonore]

Honestly I support the idea. It would favor a route like LAX(KLAX) - SEA - FAI

[Trolley_Trev]

It would be good for regional flights that do a milk run style of flight. Eg, BNE - GLT - ROK - MKY - TSV - CNS

[AeroMass]

Hi y'all, new here and boy is this game lorra lorra fun!

 

I would say that properly modelling connecting passenger flow work is perhaps the only major feature I miss here. I would LOVE for the passenger flows to be "routed" by the model over all available connections, even if it meant slightly fickle passenger loads as the model constantly recalculates in the background e.g. once for every day (as I guess it is impossible to rebalance everything every time any connection is added/altered).

 

This way a company based out of a small airport/country could build a true hub by catering to pax not served otherwise by p2p. This would also make building true hub-and-spoke networks possible.

PS1. Regarding stopovers - in RL the stopovers for short-range oldtimers flying long routes were longer than just refuelling stops in many cases, allowing passengers to deplane, stretch or sometimes overnight at the location. Perhaps a "comfort factor" should be introduced to properly model that.

 

PS2. I am not that sold on having to adjust prices for every possible connection or even activate it. I love how the current system pretty much does everything for me, and makes engaging in a price war unnecessarily time-consuming - it is better to find a monopoly or underserved route. I would much rather have an option for my pricing to be balanced out automatically for every possible connection - e.g. the current system that apparently gives me 50% for every connecting passenger is absolutely fine. The only question to solve is what to do when a route goes over two or more hubs (I would not exclude that, as this is the way it works in RL as well - e.g. when flying from RIX to a remote airport in the US)

[NotSureWhatToUse]

I likee this idea. Will it increase revenue your revenue or stay the same? Just wondering. Anyone let me know cause if it will then it will be good for all of us