Aircraft Ratings

As we know, at present, the aircraft rating system is a fairly basic part of the overall flight rating and is quite simply aircraft dependent (from the 5 green of the newest jets through to the reds of the smaller, older props)

My suggestion is, as part of the performance overhaul, the ratings should be revised based on flight distance, in a similar manner to which the seats are evaluated, this means that on flights under say 250km most a/c have a high rating, but by the time your at 1500km your left with predominantly jets and for the long haul segment (over perhaps 3500km?) predominantly widebody jets. The given distances are just examples, but I think this kind of rating system would give a more realistic use of different aircraft types on routes.

Perhaps a basic formula of “(cruise speed x cabin width x 2)/flight distance” so a Q400 would receive a 5green rating on a flight of 500km, but by the time it’s 3000km it’s neither liked nor disliked and at 6000km it’s 5red.

A 737 by comparison would maintain 5green up to 1200km and would maintain positive green bars until 6000km

And the 380 can effectively double those figures again 5green up til 2500 and staying positive until 12000km

Obviously with the widebodies it’s not exactly perfect, but with some tweaking I think it’s a good starting point.

Hi,

I think that is an excellent idea. Can I however ammend your proposal ?

Why not give turboprops 5 green bars on distances under 250 km, 4 green bars up to 1000 km, and then loose one green bar per 500 km.

Regional jets could get 4 green bars under 250 km, 5 green bars up to 1500 km, and then loose one green bar per 500 km.

Narrow bodies could be rated like regional jets, but keep their 5 green bars up to 2000 km.

Wide bodies would also start with a lower rating, get 5 green bars from distances upwards of 1000 km.

I don’t know if the distances are okay, but I would discourage the use of jets on distances below 250 km. Well, discourage… 4 green bars still seems a good score.

I would also encourage the use of wide bodies sooner than what you propose. Or give an increasing penalty to narrow bodies sooner than in you proposal. It may make the game more realistic.

And whilst at it… the default prices for long haul flights are a bit low ;)

Jan

Yup, and even make it so the small props (twin otter, islander, cessna) have some slight appeal on the shortest of routes where you might find them (for island hopping perhaps)

Or a (large) formula should fit more to the reality to find how liked a plane is.

Till today I don’t understand why a 1988-built Boeing 747-300 should be that worse in comparison to a 1988-built Boeing 747-400. The plane is the same. Some winglets added and what? That’s all what a passenger knows about a plane standing at the gate. 1988 the Boeing 747-300 had - let’s say - GE CF6-80C2B1 and the Boeing 747-400 […]C2B1F, what means even the sound of a late-built 743 and a early-built 744 isn’t even different - at least for PASSENGERs. We’re talking about their mood and I don’t know any “standard people” who would hear “Oh, yeah, that’s a C2B1 and that’s a C2B1F!”. It’s time for AS1.6 and so the new aircraft management (as we’ve seen in the pics of Frankfurt). With these individual decisions you can make this part of the game real.

Saying a Boeing 747-300 is worse than a Boeing 747-400 because it is… just a Boeing 747-300 isn’t how this works in real life. Of course there are some other reputations but that doesn’t make such a difference. Pretty sure any passenger would prefer a Boeing 747-300 from Cathay (e.g.) than a Boeing 747-400 of Ryanair - if you know… :D

Agreed, same as passengers won’t even really know the difference between different versions of the 737, Dash 8 or CRJ. Assuming the passengers see a nice fresh interior and nice seats they dont know if the aircraft is 3months, 3years or 30years old. Passengers for example see propellers on the likes of the Dash and assume it’s old and see jets on a 737-300 and assume it’s new. Anyway hope we can see it overhauled in 1.6 so it’s looking good.

Hi,

that is why I suggested (on the old forum) to rate the interior of the plane. A new cabin configuration could get 5 green bars and loose a green bar every two months or so.

At this moment the maintenance is rated as one of the image factors. Real passengers don’t have a clue if an airline cuts corners, and rating the maintenance in the game is a bit useless as we can’t cut corners anyway… if you don’t shedule enough maintenance, your plane is grounded. As far as I am concerned, maintenance rating can be replaced by cabin rating.

Many flag carriers still operate older 747’s and 737’s. The age-rating could perhaps be recalibrated, so a plane keeps it’s last green bar until the age of 14 or so. I understand the game should be balanced, to avoid that some players grow too fast. But as long as you can lease 10 new planes for the price of one 12 year old plane, the opposite is true ;)

Jan

But then you have to overhaul the cabin configs every two months and that would mean that there would have to be an ‘overhaul configs’ button on the aircraft pages if you want to use the same config.