Jump to content

Photo

New World for Utilizing Modern Aircraft


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

Poll: New World Stats. (144 member(s) have cast votes)

Time period?

  1. 2000 - 2020 (20 years) (48 votes [29.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.45%

  2. 2005 -2025 (20 years) (77 votes [47.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 47.24%

  3. 2010 - 2025 (15 years) (27 votes [16.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.56%

  4. 2005 - 2020 (15 years) (11 votes [6.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.75%

Time Speed?

  1. 15 min / day (93 votes [64.58%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 64.58%

  2. 20 min / day (51 votes [35.42%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 35.42%

Should we have this new World?

  1. Yes (135 votes [93.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 93.75%

  2. No (9 votes [6.25%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.25%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,461 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

We'll have to wait till they get here...

Or we could push it.



#22
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

Or we could push it.

We most certainly should... I would like to see a lot of the aircraft on the 'approved and to-do' list to appear in-game soon!



#23
konj1

konj1

    whatever

  • Member
  • 562 posts

User's Awards

3       3    3      

I think the more logical and economical ATR 72 should be the starting ATR instead of -42.

 

Some bigger version of Bombardier CRJ and/or Embraer E-jet might also be added as starting aircraft if the world starts in 2005 or 2010, or Avro RJ100 if it starts in 2000 (or maybe year 1995 should also be an option?)



#24
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

I think the more logical and economical ATR 72 should be the starting ATR instead of -42.

 

Some bigger version of Bombardier CRJ and/or Embraer E-jet might also be added as starting aircraft if the world starts in 2005 or 2010, or Avro RJ100 if it starts in 2000 (or maybe year 1995 should also be an option?)

RJ100 if it starts in 2000 makes sense, but if you check the starting aircraft of all worlds, aircraft that have been only in service for less than 5 years tend not to get added as the starting aircraft (e.g. A320-200 for worlds starting in 1990), so the large CRJs and E-Jets will probably not be added in a 2005 world

 

The exact mix of starting aircraft should be determined when the final duration and starting year of the world is determined, not before.



#25
globair1

globair1

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 31 posts

User's Awards

14    5    15   
Any hope for this world to appear.....

#26
berubium

berubium

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 331 posts

User's Awards

        

I brought up a similar idea back in February (which TNT also supported) & I agree that it would be fun to play a world with modern planes to start with (I really like playing the game with modern regional aircraft).  I'd prefer a game world that started in 2010 or 2015, so that most current aircraft would be available from the get-go.  I find 15 years a bit short, but I'd still give it a go (I voted for the scenario that was 15 years only because it started in 2010).  I wouldn't mind if it lasted 20 years, but 25 would be good too (I think 2010-2035 would be a great game).

 

For those people concerned with the lack of new plane types being brought into the market, perhaps we could maybe have degradation over time be a larger factor in this game, which could prompt players to renew their fleets (if they choose) a bit sooner; not to mention that there are still plenty of other game worlds available for those who aren't interested in this type of game.  We could also (or instead) assign some arbitrary end dates for production of certain aircraft that have been on the market for awhile, such as the Boeing 737 NG series, Boeing 767 series, Airbus A320 series, Airbus A330/A340 series, CASA turboprops, Ilyushin IL-96 series, etc.  That would prompt some fleet renewal for airlines operating those aircraft.


Berubium.png


#27
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,461 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Guess the crew is still busy at managing AE4. We just gotta wait.



#28
Aviator48

Aviator48

    Empire Airliner

  • Member
  • 239 posts

User's Awards

3    2   

TNT, I am like you and many others, needing a modern world. I agree with you. ^_^


AE is the best.

SicS89qs.jpg

jetstream/globe

sfkORg2.jpg




#29
globair1

globair1

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 31 posts

User's Awards

14    5    15   
Are we going to get any new world in the near future?

#30
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,461 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Are we going to get any new world in the near future?

Probably not. Quite surprised how many people actually supporting it.



#31
globair1

globair1

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 31 posts

User's Awards

14    5    15   

Probably not. Quite surprised how many people actually supporting it.


Argh too bad...

#32
globair1

globair1

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 31 posts

User's Awards

14    5    15   
Now we have one additional aircraft type for this world - A330neo

#33
konj1

konj1

    whatever

  • Member
  • 562 posts

User's Awards

3       3    3      

I was thinking, most good worlds take 30 years for me... I would like to see some R world spanning like S1, from 1990 or 1995 to 2025. Maybe modify either R5 or Rd.



#34
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,461 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

I would love a world that starts at 2005 or 2010 to 2025 to 2030. With 15 minutes speed. It would last for 2 months only, which would be pretty good for people who love playing fast. Most worlds last for 3 to 4 and sometimes more months. 



#35
globair1

globair1

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 31 posts

User's Awards

14    5    15   
Any possibilities? :P

#36
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,461 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Any possibilities? :P

Probably not.



#37
bAnderson

bAnderson

    Timeless

  • Member
  • 2,139 posts

Well, I wouldn't order A340-500 or B777-200ER to be honest.


What's wrong with 772ER!?

wgOP4y0.jpg


#38
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,461 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

What's wrong with 772ER!?

High fuel consumption 



#39
bAnderson

bAnderson

    Timeless

  • Member
  • 2,139 posts

Not really, compared to 762ER.


wgOP4y0.jpg


#40
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,461 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Not really, compared to 762ER.

2 wrongs doesn't make things right. It still have high fuel consumption. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users