Aren't you the "Fruits Rouges" guy?

bomp

Updated the Northern Air. I think this looks much better than my old design.

Better, but still not good. 

First of all, what's up with that logo? An upwards tick and the letter N? You could do better than that.

Secondly, what's up with the font? It's visible now, but the choice is still sub-par.

Thirdly, the colours (and gradient) you've used just clash with each other. It's a mess.

Fourthly, where'd the door outlines go? You kind of need those.

I'd go back to the (literal) drawing board, maybe check out BFS' Northern gallery beforehand. 

Hello, my in-game airline is Key West Airlines. If anybody is willing to give some feedback on this livery that is much appreciated.

As a livery, this kind of stands out to me. The color choice (salmon and blue, contrasting colors), font (something default), and logo (a generic beach scene) don't especially strike me as well-thought-out.

In terms of coloration, Key West should either follow the Floridian standard of bright tones (red, orange, and I guess salmon), or take advantage of its surrounding by water and go for cool colors (blue, teal, aqua, etc.). Mixing both together leads to clashing, although there are some rare circumstances (America West, for example) where it just happens to work. I'd recommend the website coolors.co as a place to find numerous complementary palettes, although I should note that not all the colors they suggest actually look nice on planes. 

For the font, the late 90's had what I'd call "the Last Serif Standing," as well as the "Sans-Serif 101" period. Many airlines either brought out the last and best of serif designs (United's Battleship Grey, TWA's final livery, Delta's "Wavy Gravy," etc.) or experimented with sans-serif fonts (Swissair's final scheme, Japan Airlines' "Arc of the Sun" livery, Sabena's final scheme, etc.) around now. For Key West, the American trend of a serif font would be nice to see here, but in a darker and more noticeable color than salmon (try looking at Oggey's "Independence" for reference). 

The logo may be what I have the most qualms about. It's generic, uninspired, and the fact it needs to be cut into an ovular shape proves its misplacement on an aircraft. Key West may be known as a vacation destination, but beaches don't tend to do well as logos. I'd recommend making a simple palm tree logo instead, or making a wordmark logo with "KW" somewhere in an Air Florida-esque livery.

The livery you presently provide isn't great, but it's a good start towards making a refined, time-applicable livery. I'm excited to see what you come up with.

Reserved for AFC Paris-Palaiseau

It just needs a simple range/payload demand curve. Code exists in other sims...

I think that the main issue with a "simple" fix like that is best described by your response in http://www.airline-e...de-share/page-2. 

 

 

Sorry I can't, I have bills, jobs, startup projects,  a life and adult things to do. 

It's going to be a long while before many things are even added to AE 3/4/whatever considering we all (including Yuxi) have things to do and lives to live. 

8400 feet as per this airliners.net thread (bottom reply).  

That is, however, not how planes work in real life. One of the main issues I've seen with take-off performance is that it doesn't vary like payload does because of range. Rather, it's a fixed value where being over a specific number means you can fly, and being below it means you cannot, even if there are many examples that contradict it.

London Luton is a good example of this, with a 7100-foot runway. Courtline, ATA, ECU Air / Air Ops Europe and others have all flown the L-1011 into Luton at some time. This, however, is possible because the 8400-foot statistic refers to at MTOW, which assumes that the aircraft is completely full of fuel, passengers, and cargo. This, however, is untrue mostly because aircraft flying out of Luton most likely didn't use a full load of fuel (and hence were under MTOW, using less runway). 

The same can be seen at many airports globally, where airports fall short of the 8400-foot line but still had L-1011 service. New York-Laguardia (7000 ft), Maui (7000 ft), Chicago-Midway (6500 ft) and others had some form of L1011 service, although all came with restrictions (LGA had regular service possible because most routes were limited in range, DL flew LAX-OGG as OGG-HNL-LAX on the return to deal with runway length, and MDW could only have occasional L1011 flights from ATA during rare circumstances in which the aircraft didn't fly far). 

Allowing the L-1011-1 into LTN in-game would require a change in how runway length usage is calculated, with factors like weight-and-balance and winds and whatnot taking part in limiting your actual range or payload from airports. 

Do y'all remember when the Avion Airport Replay Discord was still active? 

It's the aircraft age factor I'm thinking of. Cost isn't an issue currently

Looking at your airline, the average age of the 757-300 fleet is 1.41 years, and for your airline, it's 1.14 years. I wouldn't consider age a problem at all where you are right now. That being said, your reputation will drop as age increases — ie. running twenty-year-old aircraft is not a good idea. I personally tend to replace my aircraft when they reach around 10-15 years of age (depending on their versatility) — that way it keeps the average fleet age (the important metric) down. There are exceptions, such as the Saab fleet (which I keep around for longer because they're useful and cost-efficient) or niche aircraft like the 757-300, which I know is a low-cost, high margin plane that ceases production. 

Because of this should I compete in the routes by pushing lower prices or should I just stick with routes that arn't being serviced by the 2 major airlines. 

I'm sure others will have a different strategy, but mine personally would be to do the following, especially in a very crowded world:

Initially, try and avoid competing directly with large carriers. As much as you can try to undercut their prices, they can do the exact same to you, but with one large difference: the large airline can run one or two routes with losses when all others are profitable; you cannot survive when all your routes are unprofitable. Initially, stick with lucrative yet underserved routes — it's common to find that people will sometimes ignore routes with huge demand, which you can exploit. I'd recommend only facing another competitor head-on when you are of a large enough size, so that way one or two loss-making routes because of competitions won't overly impact your bottom line. 

Some would disagree with me. Some would say that direct competition is a good way to serve markets with large amounts of demand when few routes have sufficient demand to warrant flights. Others would argue that not competing at all allows your airline to slip "under the radar" and grow large, then wiping out any competition. Neither is wrong — the key part of Airline Empires is to find a strategy that works for you. And it's not the same in every market or hub on the globe, so know that each world and country work differently. 

Hopefully this helps you. Good luck and enjoy playing!

petition to include layer masks because they make nicer lines compared to fuzzy select

I searched maple leaf.That is the real logo,made by tronto maple leafs (owner).

Perhaps what OtakuWeebster was saying was that you should try making your own logos. Pre-existing logos you download from a Google search is 1) stealing, but perhaps more importantly, 2) uncreative (and yes, I know that people do it anyway). If you look into the gallery, I just made Northeastern's maple leaf a few days ago in GIMP. If you want, I can help you make your own logo.

The pinned tutorial is from 2011, and has lost relevance. Wsoliman's tutorial is woefully inadequate. Many denounce GIMP as being simple, and complex to use. I present to you my own, complete tutorial on GIMP and its inner workings. Note that this tutorial is based on the macOS operating system.

Step 1. Download

The official website for GIMP is www.gimp.org. From there, you may download and install it onto your computer. Note that GIMP works for Windows, macOS, and Linux (pick your poison). From there, add it to your list of applications and launch it. You should get a blank screen that looks somewhat like this:

Step 2. Add Templates

You guys all know where Med's templates are. As a refresher, they're here. Download them, and then keep them in a safe and organized place so you know where to access them later (and while you're at it, consider helping Med out with a donation or something?). Once you've done that, double-click on the template to add it into GIMP. The .psd should be recognized by GIMP and opened automatically. If it does not, right-click on it and then click "Open With" and then select "GIMP." As an example, I've picked the 737-800. It should look something like this:

Step 3. Layers

A key aspect of GIMP (and most painting programs) is the layering options. Think of them like an onion, in which one layer goes over another. Note that Med has arranged his templates so that the base layer is in white ("FUSELAGE," for example), and all details (ie. "FUSELAGE EFFECTS") go above it. When painting, make sure that your paint goes in a new layer between the base layer and the detail layers. That way, the paint looks accurate. Also know that some templates, like the 737, offer multiple variants. Clicking on the eyeball will make layers visible or invisible: you can make the regular wing invisible and the wingletted wing visible, for example, to change the variant. That looks something like this:

Step 4. Painting

Now is when you can really get to town. I'm going to use a real-life airline for an example, in this case, something simple like Delta. First and foremost, remove all unnecessary layers. In my case, I've removed the eyebrow windows and the metal overlay.

Now, you get to add a new layer. Directly below all the layers are the layer modification tools: the left-most one will add a new layer. Position it where you'd like, and then name it something memorable. Below, I've created a new layer for the fuselage, and called it "FUSELAGE_PAINT."

Here's the fun part. Select a colour with the two swatches of colour on the left-hand side: change the top one to the colour of your choice. In Delta's case, it would be their signature blue colour, which I've added.

But, how do you paint within the lines? The answer: select tools. The left-hand side is full of tools for this purpose. Most are self-explanatory: the rectangle select tool makes rectangles of the size you drag, the ellipse select tool does basically what the rectangle select tool does, but for ellipses, etcetera. Free select lets you either hand-draw what you want or make a custom polygon out of straight lines. My favourite tool, however, is the paths tool, which is arguably the most complicated. Basically, it works like the free select tool, except you can click-and-drag to add curves to your pathways. When you're done, click "selection from path." I've done this below with the Delta 73H's belly paint.

You may ask now: what about the overhang? This is solved with layer masking, which is straightforward when you figure out what it is. This is going to differ from SKY's tutorial, but the principle is roughly the same. Using the base layer ("FUSELAGE," in this case), go to Layer > Mask > Add Layer Mask > Layer's Alpha Channel. On the paint layer, use the rectangle select tool to crop the layer to be the same size as the fuselage's (Layer > Crop to Selection). From there, repeat what you just did with the base layer, adding a layer mask to the paint too. Both layers should now have a layer mask on them. All you have to do now is hit Cmd-C on the fuselage's layer mask, and Cmd-Z it to the paint's. From there, hit the anchor below the list of layers to adhere the new layer mask. Voilà, conforming paint. 

All you really need to do is keep doing this for all the other layers (tail, engines, etc.) until you get a plane that resembles your aircraft. You can also use other tools to add touches you want (ie. the text tool for registrations or aircraft titles), or use File > Open as Layers in order to add logos or whatnot to your livery. 

Step 5. Finishing Touches

In order to add realism, consider adding details to make your livery realistic. You can do this by blocking windows, changing door outline colours, etc. in order to get an aircraft that looks like it could work in the real world. I've finished the Delta 737-800 below, complete with registration. 

Step 6. Exporting

To export a GIMP image, just use Cmd-E and hit enter. It'll create an exported .png image directly next to the .xcf file in which you've saved the image. From there, all you need to do is upload it and add it here.

And voilà! You have successfully created a livery! Most stuff on GIMP is relatively straightforward, but if you need any help (gradients, colour exchange, etc.), feel free to ask me. I highly recommend trying to replicate a real-world livery, getting to know how to use GIMP successfully before you go on to try to make your own unique livery. 

New GIMP sucks, to be honest.
2.8 is way simpler to get around for me and it’s much easier on my eyes.

This is a nice one. Good job!

 

Tbh, GIMP is not my favourite. I've it in my computer but haven't opened it for years.

I don't know why. I think it's because I don't like the interface.

GIMP is no one's favourite. It's hideous, unusually complex, and unintuitive. The only thing it has going for it is that it's free and powerful: something that has kept me with GIMP as much as I dislike it. I'm changing over to Photoshop first chance I get.

My main issue with a North American livery contest is that most people already have a North American airline in the gallery. Assuming that you can't post pre-made liveries, you'd have to create your own, which is difficult when most major cities are already the hubs for 2+ pre-existing carriers. You'd end up stepping on a lot of people's toes.

N664US, Denmark, Danske, CPH, DK

I'm... shocked? In awe? I'm not really sure how to describe it. 

First and foremost, I guess I'd thank the judges for the effort they put into putting this whole contest together. 

I'd also like to specifically congratulate @OtakuWeebster and @Leebro for submissions and victories, as well as all those who competed for their time and effort. Many designs in this contest were strong, and it was intriguing to see how all of you would create an original livery in a region where many pre-established carriers exist.

Thank you all once again!

R0 is in 1979... any sort of replacement for the DC-9 and the end of production aren't for the next few years. Nothing really ends up replacing the DC-9 for a while, so I'd keep replacing old planes with new DC-9's until the time comes. I personally like either upgauging to the B737-300 which keeps the same range, or switching to the BAe 146's for the same capacity with less range. 

"C2" sounds kind of... unnatural. If you try and put it into a situation in which airline names would be used, it seems kind of choppy."

"Thank you for flying C2 Airlines."

"I'm flying C2 to Edmonton."

The name also doesn't fit well with the whole "legacy carrier" effect. It sounds low-cost, and I wouldn't consider flying a "C2" in business class transatlantically if I heard it off of name alone.

Not to mention, a name should have some history behind it. If it's going to be "C2," then the name should at least be derived from something with two C's. I personally still think CAS was a better name... although if you pull something of a JAS (Japan Air System), you might get by with sticking with the name rather than its acronym. "Canadian Air System" is still on the rough + choppy side though.

Here's my two cents on this.

Today's rebrandings are all about keeping the core elements, and reforming the rest of them. I figured that what's most important here is the bear (which is on the Californian flag) and the sunrise colours (yellow, orange, red). Doing that, I got this:

I really hope the changes I've made aren't too radical to the brand's integrity. You previously said that you want something akin to Alaska, so I went for a low-costy approach. 

Best International: Tokyo-Haneda (HND), more specifically in the international terminal. The domestic terminals for JAL and ANA are on the older side, but they are better off compared to most airports in the US. Haneda's international terminal is new, spacious, clean, and offers great ramp views (including the spotting deck). It's on the large side in terms of walkability, but it's rather pleasant to stay in. My runners-up would be Seattle-Tacoma (SEA), New York-JFK's T4 (JFK), Seoul-Incheon (ICN), Oslo-Gardermoen (OSL), and Singapore-Changi (SIN). 

Worst International: Los Angeles (LAX) overall. As much as some terminals (T2, T5, TBIT, etc.) are on the spacious, new, and airy side of things, some of the terminals haven't been updated since construction, or retain the same layout. T1-T8 were not designed for today with all the space TSA takes up and the number of passengers flowing through, leading to traffic into the airport, long lines at every terminal, and cramped and crowded gate areas. Runners-up in this category include Rome-Fiumicino (FCO), Atlanta-Hartsfield Jackson excluding Terminals T and F (ATL), Honolulu (HNL), London-Heathrow (LHR), New York-Newark (EWR), and Paris-CDG except for 2E and 2F (CDG). 

Best Regional: San Jose, California (SJC). As much as it's on the smaller side, it's bright, clean, and modern. I appreciate that both short gate distances and space for TSA lines are present here. I guess it doesn't count as a regional airport anymore with all the international flights, but I guess it's regional enough considering the destinations it serves. Runners-up in this category include Bergen (BGO), Busan-Gimhae (PUS), and Portland (PWM). 

Worst Regional: I'm going to have to award this to Santorini, Greece (JTR). Small terminal with little inside that can barely support a single flight, let alone multiple. It was fine to fly into but a pain to leave from. Other notable examples of bad regional airports include Osaka-Itami (ITM), Geneva (GVA), Kona (KOA), and Burbank (BUR). 

Is this even still a thing?

Well, first and foremost, most alliances in the forum are dead. Many (with the exception of DWA, Venture, Unitedwings, and Aloft) have been inactive for quite some time, and have seen little if any meaningful content published on the forums within the past year or so. 

Joining one of these alliances mainly serves a purpose in the Gallery, in which cooperation with an alliance adds both prestige and realism to the brands published there (after all, if you're making fake airlines, you might as well make fake alliances to accompany them). Most also run their own private, member-only alliances in the Realistic worlds, so there's that advantage as well. One of the least-spoken benefits of joining a forum alliance, however, is the community aspect. As "elitist," "preoccupied," and "snobbish" as some perceive alliance members, a sense of belonging, camaraderie, and openness exists, whether that's for help and suggestions or just talking about what's on your mind to a group of like-minded people. 

As to how to create an alliance, I'm not exactly sure. The mods haven't exactly been all too active on this forum, and taking over a dead alliance is just about impossible. If you haven't noticed, joining an alliance isn't much easier. You (mostly) need to establish a presence on the gallery for realistic, appealing brands over time and to get to know a few members before your application is seriously considered. Regardless, it's a process that pays off in the long run.