Just to let you know where all my time has gone over the past few days (not including my full-time job or graduate school), I've finally finished the new aircraft database. Not only will you be able to choose from 130 different aircraft, but also be able to outfit those aircraft with the engine of your choice.
You can find the new aircraft here.
Not that we won't add more aircraft later on, but these aircraft are final for the time being. We will not be adding any new aircraft for a while since our attention will now be focused on updating the city database and finishing the endless coding that needs to be done. Due to this, any recommendations for additional aircraft cannot be accomidated.
Update 9-1-04 New Aircraft Database
Started by miller22 (inactive), Sep 01 2004 03:05 PM
#1
Posted 01 September 2004 - 03:05 PM
#2
Posted 01 September 2004 - 03:30 PM
Here's a question - well first, the list looks great! I love variety. Speaking of that, what effect will the choice of engines make? Cost? Efficiency? Speed? Comfort or noise reduction? Operating costs? Just wondering as op costs were not on the database page.
#3
Guest_pinault76137_*
Posted 01 September 2004 - 03:33 PM
Great Job on the A/c and the engines update.
:):):):):):):):):)
When might a reset come? And how are you going to handle it (what are we going to keep if anything)
:):):):):):):):):)
When might a reset come? And how are you going to handle it (what are we going to keep if anything)
#4
Posted 01 September 2004 - 03:37 PM
I removed operating cost for two reasons:
1. A lot of research has gone into this list, and while we're only in Alpha testing, we do have competitors.
2. The new aircraft operating cost will be calculated by fuel flow and not a base cost. Soon there will be no more "operating cost" but block costs will be calculated using several factors, the most significant of which being fuel flow.
The engine choices affect much more than asthetics. Each different engine changes:
1. A lot of research has gone into this list, and while we're only in Alpha testing, we do have competitors.
2. The new aircraft operating cost will be calculated by fuel flow and not a base cost. Soon there will be no more "operating cost" but block costs will be calculated using several factors, the most significant of which being fuel flow.
The engine choices affect much more than asthetics. Each different engine changes:
- The final cost of the aircraft
- The runway required to operate the aircraft
- The operating cost (fuel flow)
- Speed
- Range
#5
Posted 01 September 2004 - 03:43 PM
OOH! Good one! Speaking of runway length required being adjusted by engine type, here's another thought (although, maybe a bit TOO much, for now anyway): will there be runway considerations when it comes to range? For example, when MHT's main drag was 7001', there was speculation of a UA flight to the Denver hub. However, in order to get off the ground, they would have to trade pax for fuel to get off a short strip and carry enough to go all the way to KDEN. Since the lengthening to 9000' we've already seen Southwest add in a flight to LAS, non-stop. More runway means a slower acceleration, less fuel burned on takeoff which effectively extends the range (as you know), or rather, the shorter runway would decrease the effective range. Will this be reflected in the sim? To distill it, will you still be able to fly from runways shorter than the reecommended but with reduced range (and higher fuel consumption)?
[Edited on 9/1/2004 by Skycap]
[Edited on 9/1/2004 by Skycap]
#6
Posted 01 September 2004 - 03:56 PM
Whow Miller, your rock! It seems I've got to get my schoolbooks on aircraft engines back from the basement This is a big step forward for AE. Good work! (and now let the competition begin mwehehhehe )
The addition of the runway length parameters will increase feeder traffic to larger airports, and exclude smaller airports from intercontinental traffic, great job!
Maybe you can also make a system which simulates bird strikes, so the engines need to be replaced from time to time. The older the engines are, the more fuel they use, the more environment tax you have to pay, the more maintenance cost...
Let the pilots perform flex takeoffs (Airbus & Fokker (RTOT takeoff)) to increase engine life and decrease maintenance costs, maybe in return the pilots want to earn a little bit more or require additional training. However flex operations have a greater fuel burn, so it's up to the player
Greater fuel burn???
Strange, but true. This is because:
*Assuming an uninterrupted climb, you will take longer to reach the more economical cruise altitude.
*Engines are less efficient when not at full thrust.
Whooooow
[Edited on 1/9/2004 by EuropAir]
The addition of the runway length parameters will increase feeder traffic to larger airports, and exclude smaller airports from intercontinental traffic, great job!
Maybe you can also make a system which simulates bird strikes, so the engines need to be replaced from time to time. The older the engines are, the more fuel they use, the more environment tax you have to pay, the more maintenance cost...
Let the pilots perform flex takeoffs (Airbus & Fokker (RTOT takeoff)) to increase engine life and decrease maintenance costs, maybe in return the pilots want to earn a little bit more or require additional training. However flex operations have a greater fuel burn, so it's up to the player
Greater fuel burn???
Strange, but true. This is because:
*Assuming an uninterrupted climb, you will take longer to reach the more economical cruise altitude.
*Engines are less efficient when not at full thrust.
Whooooow
[Edited on 1/9/2004 by EuropAir]
#7
Posted 01 September 2004 - 04:42 PM
It's gonna be fun with all these new planes, but a few observations:
- MD11 price? It seems to have doubled.
- There's an a380 but no 7E7?
- I assume 747-200C is a cargo version - if so then it has more seats than a 747-400...
- MD11 price? It seems to have doubled.
- There's an a380 but no 7E7?
- I assume 747-200C is a cargo version - if so then it has more seats than a 747-400...
#8
Posted 01 September 2004 - 04:54 PM
The old MD-11 was depreciated before you bought it. Now all prices are list prices and the aircraft will depreciate themselves
There is not enough data on the 7E7 yet.
747-200C is the combi which should not be in the database.
There is not enough data on the 7E7 yet.
747-200C is the combi which should not be in the database.
#9
Posted 01 September 2004 - 05:14 PM
Okay.
#10
Posted 02 September 2004 - 01:28 AM
Wait, all the airlines start out with $5,000,000.00, which isn't enough for ANY of those aircraft. What do us small airlines do?
#11
Posted 02 September 2004 - 02:05 AM
remember u get 2 free aircraft and there is something that is called leasing:oWait, all the airlines start out with $5,000,000.00, which isn't enough for ANY of those aircraft. What do us small airlines do?
Miller I have to say the 717 range can't be right. I have flown a 737-300 almost cross-country PIT-SNA and I know for sure a 717 cant do that. Also boeing specs for it say it only can do about 2545km (1527mi) and the 737-300 4180km (2508mi). A lot of the 737 you said can't go more than 2,000mi. That is wrong all the 737 can except maybe the -200.
#12
Posted 02 September 2004 - 03:22 AM
Originally posted by ithboy
remember u get 2 free aircraft and there is something that is called leasing:o
Wait, all the airlines start out with $5,000,000.00, which isn't enough for ANY of those aircraft. What do us small airlines do?
Miller I have to say the 717 range can't be right. I have flown a 737-300 almost cross-country PIT-SNA and I know for sure a 717 cant do that. Also boeing specs for it say it only can do about 2545km (1527mi) and the 737-300 4180km (2508mi). A lot of the 737 you said can't go more than 2,000mi. That is wrong all the 737 can except maybe the -200.
I didn't know that they were free. Yay!
#13
Posted 02 September 2004 - 05:21 AM
I've got some decent data on the 7E7 - all except the fuel burn, so far. I'll get it up here when I get home in the morning.
So far it looks like 3 models will be offered, -200, -300 and I think -400, not sure about the tag on that one. One will be standard, one longer range - hmm... maybe there were only two models. Let me consult my "source" and I'll be right back!
So far it looks like 3 models will be offered, -200, -300 and I think -400, not sure about the tag on that one. One will be standard, one longer range - hmm... maybe there were only two models. Let me consult my "source" and I'll be right back!
#14
Posted 02 September 2004 - 05:23 AM
Stupid work ISP blocked my access! Oh well - wait 'till morning!
One other plane not in there is the 747-SP. Any reason? Limited production? Specialty market?
Lastly, did you want me to put together a database of Russian aircraft from makers like Tupolev, Illyushin, etc? I've got all that stuff.
[Edited on 9/2/2004 by Skycap]
One other plane not in there is the 747-SP. Any reason? Limited production? Specialty market?
Lastly, did you want me to put together a database of Russian aircraft from makers like Tupolev, Illyushin, etc? I've got all that stuff.
[Edited on 9/2/2004 by Skycap]
#15
Posted 02 September 2004 - 06:57 AM
Antonov and other russians would be nice It seems we've only stuck Western planes.
#16
Posted 02 September 2004 - 07:05 AM
Antonov? Got them too - along with Yakovlev, Sukoi, etc...
#17
Posted 02 September 2004 - 12:49 PM
Some aircraft are not included because of the inavailability of some data critical to the calculations we make.
There is very limited operating and performance data for russian aircraft.
There is very limited operating and performance data for russian aircraft.
#18
Posted 02 September 2004 - 01:25 PM
Illyushin IL-86
Four 28,660 lb. Kutznetsov NK-86 turbofans. (Also, CFM56 for greater range)
Max Takeoff weight: 454,150 lbs.
Max Payload: 92,593 lbs.
Max Cruising Speed: 512 kts
Takeoff field length: 8,530 feet
Landing field length: 6,500 feet
Range with max payload: 1945 nm
Flight Crew: 3
Seating: up to 300
FIrst Prototype flown December 22, 1976
First Flight: October 24, 1977
First Service Entry: December 26, 1980
How's that? Just need fuel burn and prices?
Four 28,660 lb. Kutznetsov NK-86 turbofans. (Also, CFM56 for greater range)
Max Takeoff weight: 454,150 lbs.
Max Payload: 92,593 lbs.
Max Cruising Speed: 512 kts
Takeoff field length: 8,530 feet
Landing field length: 6,500 feet
Range with max payload: 1945 nm
Flight Crew: 3
Seating: up to 300
FIrst Prototype flown December 22, 1976
First Flight: October 24, 1977
First Service Entry: December 26, 1980
How's that? Just need fuel burn and prices?
#19
Posted 02 September 2004 - 02:02 PM
-typical cruise speed with full payload
-Thrust specific fuel consumption for both engines
-range with full fuel and range with full pax
typical seating
-list price
-depreciation (impossible to find on non-US airline aircraft)
I'm not going to make up the numbers for the aircraft. It takes me about an hour to update the database so if we do add more aircraft I'll wait until I have enough.
-Thrust specific fuel consumption for both engines
-range with full fuel and range with full pax
typical seating
-list price
-depreciation (impossible to find on non-US airline aircraft)
I'm not going to make up the numbers for the aircraft. It takes me about an hour to update the database so if we do add more aircraft I'll wait until I have enough.
#20
Posted 02 September 2004 - 02:24 PM
I know it may take away the realistic edge this game has, but could you make up some numbers?
Would it spoil the game that much? If you look at similar aircraft and try and guess depreciation?
Would it spoil the game that much? If you look at similar aircraft and try and guess depreciation?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users