Allowing mild head/tail winds

I would like to start with saying how amazing this game is in the past 6 months I have been on it. I have an idea which could make this game.even better. Allowing mild delays of up to 10mins or early arrivals of up to 15mins if there is a head or tail wind. This could be random. Also if the slot for that 5min is full we could make them wait for so long (up to 5mins) and an arrival + a head or tail wind means could be up to 15mins late. It will be displayed on the arrival board on the remarks page. 

The reason I say only 15mins late is so they can depart on time if it is a 20min turnaround.

You can have a look here. It goes as well for the wind. It's on the agenda ...but will need time before it will be implemented here in the game.

You can have a look here. It goes as well for the wind. It's on the agenda ...but will need time before it will be implemented here in the game.

Variable winds =/= variable arrival times. If this request is solely playing the “roulette” of whether you get headwinds/tailwinds based on either a random number generator or a database from NOAA or some other agency.

As i stated in my post in the thread you quote. I think variable arrival times will hurt new players. I think the wind idea based on real-world data is a WONDERFUL IDEA!

Yeah not for the variable arrival times but a wind database maybe. 

So if winds are implemented, what would be the real in-game effect on the player?

Real world has winds, so should AS.

But not in a random matter. My suggestion is to simplify things by making a few assumptions. Generally winds aloft go from west to east. So using this generalization, this should be done so, that any flights where the initial heading is 225-315 degrees, subtract 10% of the speed of the aircraft. If heading is 45-135 degrees, add 10% to the speed. Any other heading would be cross wind so subtract only 5%.

And what exactly should effect this on a return flight?

And what exactly should effect this on a return flight?

Well, westbound you suffer, eastbound you benefit. Just like in real life. There are already elements like turnaround times that differ between legs. So flying LHR-JFK takes longer than JFK-LHR. Just like RL.

BTW that would effectivly put an end to the wide spread use of b737-900er on TATL, for the same precise reason as in real life :wink:

I like it, Great idea but it might make problems with airlines that have tight schedules. 

Well, westbound you suffer, eastbound you benefit.

And in total? Absolutely the same ....

Yes, but the difference comes from the fact that certain planes cannot do it westbound or at least take a payload hit. Also “cross wind” flights would take the hit both ways.

That may be done on other aspects like ETOPS operations. But especially wind is not that generally usable like you imagined it.

But especially wind is not that generally usable like you imagined it.

But isn’t that the case in RL ? If you look at any TATL flights, they are scheduled longer westbound than eastbound due to winds. That is also why they have different range depending on the direction. This becomes evident with B757, certain times of the year they need to divert these planes to refuel in places like Halifax on the westbound legs due to winds.

One widebody case that I can quote on that, is the Qantas SYD-DFW-BNE-SYD rotation. They can do SYD-DFW nonstop, but not vice versa, hence the stop in Brisbane on the westbound leg.

In AS, this might mean less use of the B737-900ER on long haul, as the plane could not do the the westbound legs on the most extreme sectors.

But isn't that the case in RL ? If you look at any TATL flights, they are scheduled longer westbound than eastbound due to winds. That is also why they have different range depending on the direction.

True, I made the same experience flying FRA - HAV and back.

FRA - HAV = 11h (due to a much longer route)

HAV - FRA = 9h

We know this, but the jetstreams are not in the "position" every day. So a flights benefits more or less from it. It will be difficult to have the correct corridor for the jetstream.

We know this, but the jetstreams are not in the "position" every day. So a flights benefits more or less from it. It will be difficult to have the correct corridor for the jetstream.

Exactly, so it's best to leave them out.

We know this, but the jetstreams are not in the "position" every day. So a flights benefits more or less from it. It will be difficult to have the correct corridor for the jetstream.

yes and no

we know how is map of winds in world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream

http://www.intellicast.com/National/Wind/JetStream.aspx

so for game you can make fix zone with fix wind

we don't have delays in game (rain, strike, weather) its same thing

we know that on north of 23 - 65  degrees and south of 23 - 65 degrees wind blow to east

in equatorial zone from 23 north to 23 south wind blow to west

So for game you can make jet streams in 3 zones, (north, equator and south) with fix route and speed

edit:

and you can make that jets stream is effective on 5000+ km route

mmmh ... will have that in mind, but at the moment I don't see that this is an addition we all have waited for ... so yes, we can do this, but the priority will be very low ;)

Although this might seem like a small think, it might actually turn out to be a major game changer if implemented.

In the game B737-900ER is a widely used long haul narrowbody with a range of some 7200 km. Deducting 10-15% for headwind would mean that you only have a range of about 6500 km left, which would mean that at least some of the most extreme uses of this aircraft would no longer take place. We would be forced to see more widebodies in AS.