Jump to content

Photo

Solution to Constant Expansion


  • Please log in to reply
398 replies to this topic

#61
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

To limit the unrealistic aircraft utilisation, maybe reduce the utilisation cap from 20 hours a day (140 hours per week) to 14 hours a day (98 hours a week)? Enterprising Spamlines can still max out their aircraft, but in a slightly more realistic way....

While you could do that, many airlines have their aircraft do more than 14 hours a day. for example just look at QF127/128 which basically takes up 24 hours including the turn time.



#62
SIALimited

SIALimited

    Pato Seal of Approval

  • Member
  • 38 posts

But do the flight crews stay on for the turn or is it a fresh flight crew on board and if so does AE simulate that?



#63
Sheepy

Sheepy

    N/A

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

User's Awards

        

You are all barking up the wrong tree.  The problem is not that the costs are not high enough the problem is that there are simply WAY to many passengers,

 

This is definitely somewhat true.

The issue is, in part, in AE, the way the demand system works.

In the game, it's logical for me to start 1x weekly flights from Auckland to every single Chinese city there is.

Would this fly in real life?

Of course not.

In the real world, the demand is concentrated on a fairly small number of routes, whereas on AE, it's as though the concentrated demand is on all routes.

 

I'll take an example of Cathay Pacific.

 

It's European network basically consists of HKG-LHR, CDG, AMS, FCO, MXP, FRA and DME.

In the game, airports in Europe with at least 200Y demand, enough for a daily flight, number about 45. There are countless more with less than this, a European network made up of more than 70 destinations is not at all unviable.

Unless you're Emirates, serving every medium sized airport in a continent simply doesn't happen.

 

This suggests that, in general,

 

1. O&D demand should be significantly reduced between city pairs, as the real life demand between two cities includes demand for nearby/connected cities. (Also, just another unrelated suggestion, a GDP + Population + Tourist numbers calculation might produce interesting results, possibly better than just total pax numbers for an airport)

2. Passengers traveling for business should almost always prefer high frequency flights involving connections.

3. Low frequency flights should attract lower yielding leisure travelers.

4. To achieve points 2 & 3, business passengers should be generated each day and choose available flights accordingly, and leisure/family paxes should be generated weekly in most cases.

5. Alliance hubs should play a far bigger part, to encourage more higher frequency services to fewer destinations.

 

This would help because

-Ridiculous destinations would become unviable, 

-Overall demand, and therefore potential for expansion, would be drastically reduced

 

The differentiation between business and leisure is necessary due to their different frequency demands, and 2x weekly flights to tourist destinations are not unrealistic, e.g. AKL-DPS and many European flights to Havana.

 

Business pax unable to find a flight on the generation day should perhaps go into the weekly pool, to facilitate 1x weekly flights to places like Kinshasa, where the lower frequency is sensible.

 

 

An inherent issue with this, however, is that we would likely need far more worlds, as worlds would quite literally run out of demand...


Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance

and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u


#64
Oggey

Oggey

    Disgusting, sick, and nasty member

  • Member
  • 1,006 posts

Sounds very reasonable 

 


12ca1c99cc.png


#65
QK Flight Industries

QK Flight Industries

    a Wandering Guide to AE and Beyond

  • Member
  • 2,135 posts

An inherent issue with this, however, is that we would likely need far more worlds, as worlds would quite literally run out of demand...

 

If the worlds were smaller (e.g. 100-200 airlines), your idea might just work. However, resources v. worlds needed might still be relatively insane for Yuxi to try to implement.

 

As for recommendations for improvement to demand, that all sound brilliant.


16590230781_7cc5cf6013.jpg

Sig.png

AXUbLwK.png

It's really me, now. #backtoAE


#66
KJS607

KJS607

    The O.G. Savage

  • Member
  • 3,860 posts
  • Website:https://www.thetravelsavage.com/

User's Awards

6       3   

Perhaps pilot-training could be implimented differently? IE, if Alta airlines goes bankrupt, a glut of pilots moves to the market, lowering the wage pilots expect because supply and demand and such. This could be split up further so that if it was Alta Express that died, but the mainline carrier was fine, it would only be a glut of pilots who fly small planes.

Also maybe do something with Unionized/Non unionized workers.

I am liking this suggestion. Pissy unions could be fun ^_^


msg-1341-0-50048700-1680446869_thumb.png

 

I did a thing: thetravelsavage.com

 


#67
Slider

Slider

    Slider

  • Member
  • 89 posts

Seriously. Just pause. The real world is not a template for AE in it's current form. AE is free to use. Everybody seems to want added realism that would be a drag to program, & the degree of realism??? Get real, this pass-time would be a lifetime of work & the ROI for programmers---players who want everything would have a $20K a year April 1 coin-fee? Hey, I would like the option of a business class lounge where I can decide if it should have showers, actually only airlines that have overnight flights should be able to build showers. 

 

Competition? This is an open website & open game w/ 1,000's+ "users".  IT CAN'T BE MADE REALISTIC UNLESS IT WAS "PAY IN" & had a hard-cap of like 80 users worldwide & the more a user paid the bigger their airline could be.

 

This ought be re-booted & the topic should be "Creating more Realism on the basis of what AE presently has as a foundation".

 

My first vote would be to trash the ability for me to determine if a passenger can purchase a pillow from me, & instead make maintenance costs anything but fixed.



#68
Slider

Slider

    Slider

  • Member
  • 89 posts
but if 'random' events were included, and there was no assurance fuel prices would actually rocket, a more 'realistic' sense of uncertainty in the industry would be established.

---My intent is not to flame. I don't understand what your saying. ----random, no-assurance, more "realistic" sense of uncertainty"----Huh? Random = No Assurance....a more "relaistic" sense of uncertainty, that sounds like "water that tastes more like water". The 787 is in a slew of AE gameworlds...realistically I think it was believed that the degree of sophistication would 'cause delivery delays...but a 4 month grounding & no resolution of y it was grounded, but fixes to other problems that were found? Even that is almost an unrealistic sense of uncertainty.

 

A better argument is that realism by by default is not good? Seriously? Then what is the point of this topic. It seems to indicate a "problem" that is not realistic becuase it is searching for a "solution" & that is in the "default" reality of the current AE foundation. Rambling about AE4? The point to that is pointless until us average users have a sense of when it will roll-out & are asked for suggestions. Again this is not to flame you....but by "default" it isn't a good idea to suggest a "better argument", and the argument is that less realism is good which implies more is bad which implies every response to this thread has been a waste. May the wind be at yourt face.



#69
QK Flight Industries

QK Flight Industries

    a Wandering Guide to AE and Beyond

  • Member
  • 2,135 posts

but if 'random' events were included, and there was no assurance fuel prices would actually rocket, a more 'realistic' sense of uncertainty in the industry would be established.

---My intent is not to flame. I don't understand what your saying. ----random, no-assurance, more "realistic" sense of uncertainty"----Huh? Random = No Assurance....a more "relaistic" sense of uncertainty, that sounds like "water that tastes more like water". The 787 is in a slew of AE gameworlds...realistically I think it was believed that the degree of sophistication would 'cause delivery delays...but a 4 month grounding & no resolution of y it was grounded, but fixes to other problems that were found? Even that is almost an unrealistic sense of uncertainty.

 

A better argument is that realism by by default is not good? Seriously? Then what is the point of this topic. It seems to indicate a "problem" that is not realistic becuase it is searching for a "solution" & that is in the "default" reality of the current AE foundation. Rambling about AE4? The point to that is pointless until us average users have a sense of when it will roll-out & are asked for suggestions. Again this is not to flame you....but by "default" it isn't a good idea to suggest a "better argument", and the argument is that less realism is good which implies more is bad which implies every response to this thread has been a waste. May the wind be at yourt face.

 

I think you're missing the point. Yuxi is looking for feedback on how the game can be improved, made so that it is more difficult for airlines to expand like parasites. You've mentioned that the development for some of these ideas are beyond the scope of a free to play game, and that's true, but there's no way to improve without generating ideas and feedback. Each post on here provides that feedback, whether it involves more realism or less realism.


16590230781_7cc5cf6013.jpg

Sig.png

AXUbLwK.png

It's really me, now. #backtoAE


#70
Slider

Slider

    Slider

  • Member
  • 89 posts

Having AE mirror the Real Word is an unrelistic "want". 

 

Missing the point? Enter any gameworld that is 20%/30%/40% complete & unless a player has decided to mimic a real airline & concede any desire to pursue top 10 in what is ranked, you probably ain't gonna find any realism...which out to delight FoxTrident becuas in his words "Realism" is not by default good. Realistically, the title of this thread is "solution" which infers a "problem", no? Feedback? Sort of obvious, too many airlines, too many airplanes, too many hubs, too many routes, too much profit gernerated off of routes that are too optimistically demand based, too rapid delivery of aircraft, etc....by the end of year 1 if your doing things "right" what your airline earns in 15-20 mins/1 day would be the envy of most real world airlines profit for 1 quarter.

 

Considering that a solution is the request, I don't see how new gameworlds predicated upon some player "want" or epiphany (sic) is the resolution...that would be just one more world with the same underlying problems. An AE airline becommes "mega" & the solution is that no solution exists. So, you have to look at the basic foundation & "solution" needing "resolution" means a "flaw" exists. The flaw? It's too easy to make money...what does a player do with money? They buy airplanes. What do they use to expand? Airplanes! Wow, a solution...make it much more difficult & time consuming to realistically earn money (harder-longer to get new airplanes) & I bet that would have an impact on constant expansion. No?



#71
Slider

Slider

    Slider

  • Member
  • 89 posts

likewise I concede that I haven't a clue what your saying either. 

 

I agree with what I think you said in that too much realism is not good.

 

Yet, "Realism" is not by default good. ....huh? No realism, such as the manner by whih a plane is ordered & the follwoing month it is delivered, ain't good either & sort of lends a solution to how to drawdown on constant expansion...longer waits for aircraft that are marginally realisitc 3 months.



#72
Slider

Slider

    Slider

  • Member
  • 89 posts

"Real" good tea...or..."Real" bad tea? :rofl2:



#73
KJS607

KJS607

    The O.G. Savage

  • Member
  • 3,860 posts
  • Website:https://www.thetravelsavage.com/

User's Awards

6       3   

This really has gone very off topic. Tea?

 

At this rate, I do not see this topic continueing much longer.


msg-1341-0-50048700-1680446869_thumb.png

 

I did a thing: thetravelsavage.com

 


#74
Slider

Slider

    Slider

  • Member
  • 89 posts

I agree that it has gone off topic.

 

W/ all due respect to Yuxi it was sort of a rhetorical topic. The "only" solution that AE players could provide, is for them to "change" their behavior & "make believe" that constraints exist...but that isn't going to happen. The AE Development solution is to make it more difficult/longer to get airplanes, becuase airplanes = expansion & expansion results in unrealistic profits based upon the current demand model.

 

I didn't think or see this topic as relating to AE4 or the "future", the topic relates to the "present" & what AE "is".



#75
jonhen

jonhen

    New Member

  • Member
  • 8 posts

there are loads of great suggestions contained in the previous posts and maybe i've missed this already, but here goes.  Some players might actually like a game world in which they can build mega airlines...and that's entirely fine.

 

We have 'Special Worlds' where artificial constraints are placed on us (one hub for example), so why not just create special 'mega worlds' with no restrictions on growth size and it becomes an option...play it, or not, your choice?

 

With the non-mega worlds maybe place an artificial plane limit on the game (either in terms of total number of planes you can have on your books, or limit the number of aircraft types you can own or a combination of both). 

 

As someone pointed out earlier, we all play different styles and have different ambitions for our own airline, so why create some standardised  system that restricts that ability?  I'm personally not in favour of this becoming an uber realistic sim, but giving players the option seems reasonable?



#76
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

placing constraints on the size of a fleet is essentially useless in restricting airline growth. airlines will simply upgauge  their flights to larger aircraft, while offering the same number of seats.



#77
Sheepy

Sheepy

    N/A

  • Member
  • 1,935 posts

User's Awards

        

placing constraints on the size of a fleet is essentially useless in restricting airline growth. airlines will simply upgauge  their flights to larger aircraft, while offering the same number of seats.

Hence why a 'total fleet seats' could be sensible in some worlds.

 

 

Anyway,

 

I think one option is simply to unrealistically punish airlines simply for being big, as a percentage of their turnover or whatever.


Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance

and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u


#78
Slider

Slider

    Slider

  • Member
  • 89 posts

Actually, realism isn't the correct term. AE is a game & impossible to duplicate every facet of operating a true airline under true market conditions (volcanoes?!?!). The need is for increased functionality over "important" parameters of operations. Is it important to be able to sell a pillow? For some it might be. Would increased functionality over maintenance, fuel purchassing, labor be good additions, probably.



#79
Mickeyj

Mickeyj

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 69 posts

I think the idea of doing more, than just buying planes and expanding gets boring after a while. I would like to see a little more realistic things added. Maybe having it set up to where you have to get approved to set up a new route.



#80
jbushill

jbushill

    New Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

deleted by user






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users