First of all, I like to congratulate the Airlinesim team - they have no doubt created the best airline simulation game out there and I have played everyone of those simulation games and found them lacking in necessary capabilities and functionality. However, like every other creation that is ground breaking, there must be a constant effort to bring improvement and blaze a new trail. This is why I have a simple suggestion enhance the game for those of us that find it important.
I suggest that A/S start a new world in which all Aircrafts are allowed to maximize their natural capabilities without any ‘biases’ or ‘spoilers’ added to dampen the enthusiasm that some aircraft might otherwise receive. This may be news to many however, it is indeed true that A/S’s operational model does use some inbuilt ‘spoilers’ or ‘bias’ on certain Aircraft models to make it less popular or so as to maintain a ‘balance’ (as one staff once told me). Most of the affected aircrafts are ones coming from non-western origin however you can find a few that are also western. I will give an example. NO! …I will give several examples.
The Tupolev Tu-204/214 family is horribly afflicted and affected by this reality in A/S. First, they are deliberately given a horrible fuel burn (fuel burn should be comparable or similar to the much older B757, but it is far from it.) In A/S, the TU-204 barely improves on the TU-154’s economy. As if that was not enough, A/S goes on to remove the model’s cargo carrying capacity completely! Here is an aircraft that is the size of a B757 which they have denied the abilities to carry undercarriage cargo just so that there might be some …uhm…‘balance’. For the records, the TU-204-100 is well documented to burn 3.2 tons of fuel per hour on the average where the venerable TU-154M returns a 5.4 tons per hour. This is equivalent to roughly 1050 USg/hr for the Tu-204 and 1750 USg/hr for the Tu-154M. As far as the cargo issue goes, I have said all there is to say on that matter. Two years ago, I had a long debate on the cargo carrying capabilities of Tu-204. I supplied evidence, links, data and even video evidence, all to no avail. Here is a link to the discussion on this forum;
The AN-148's likability for instance is only 3 bars. Why? No one knows except to assume that this is another one of the 'balances'. Even old jets such as BAE/Avro RJ have a full 5 bars in likability. The fuel consumption of Ilyushin IL-96-300 is nothing but travesty!. I am not suggesting making it an eco-ship however, ....give me a freaking break!. The Fokker 70 has questionable fuel burn figures - I do not understand how the F70 could burn more than the F100. Something is amiss (blame it on the 'balance' again?). In most if not all instances, Russian airplanes are especially systematically afflicted with one 'spolier' or another - either the fuel burn is exaggerated or the likability is not up to par or something else is tweaked such as price. One could perhaps live with disadvantages that are reality-based but some of the ones being mentioned are undoubtedly a product of biased presumptions!
I am no longer interested in campaigning or lobbying for a change in the way A/S does business. I am simply proposing that A/S should experiment with 'Worlds' which have significant differences in the execution of some things, so as to create excitement and a little ripple. In most airline simulation games, you get to see a few 'worlds' with peculiarities or rules that could make it fun. I think A/S should try having one such world. So without much ado, ....I am suggesting that A/S implement a world in which all unnatural or unrealistic 'spoilers' are removed. A world were true life performance would be the only consideration, where politics and prejudices would have no place! One cannot deny that the aircraft that have been given the best and most favorable data and performance advantage in A/S are the ones that players gravitate towards. Could it be possible to have a game in which all performance data and capabilities are based on reality and not some game induced balance (advantages or disadvantages)? I am willing to bet that there will be a lot of people willing to have a go at such a game.
So you suggest to have a world full of cheap russian/ukrainian and in the future chinese aircraft model which are not even used in reality by airlines worldwide - even in the own country (and even from money-savers like the crazy irish low cost carrier who would sell his family for a good deal)? Something must be wrong with these aircraft and as long as they much cheaper then the comparable western models there is at least am image with these aircraft which prevents airlines worldwide to use these aircraft.
But in the same way you suggest something completely wrong, you are right in some facts you posted. The consumption of a Fokker 70 shouldn't be higher than Fokker 100. And the missing cargo capacity for the Tu.-204/214 are another thing. On the one hand we have a problem in having aircraft data we can trust on (that is especially in the eastern aircraft model a big problem as the values offered by the manufacturer are not correct and only marketing values). On the other hand we have some data wrong and we are glad for every ticket send to our support - especially within the next few hours/days as we are preparing a new server and a data patch - with sources (hopefully better than wikipedia) ;) And another thing is the current performance system which may lead to a wrong consumption as well as the consumption is calculated i.e. on the weights. Therefor feel free to send us the information to the support and we will have a look at the aircraft.
... Something must be wrong with these aircraft and as long as they much cheaper then the comparable western models there is at least am image with these aircraft which prevents airlines worldwide to use these aircraft.
...
The reason is simple.
While the thread opener might be correct about the naked performance data he overlooks the important part:
Airbus or Boeing offer a carefree package around their aircraft like spares supply, 24/7 customer support, crew training, planning, delivery reliability or at least compensation, etc.pp...
The Russian industry still suffers from their Soviet heritage. They will sell you airframes far below western prices, but that's it. With this, all you get is some crap customer support from a company of which you never know if it still exists when sun's rising the next morning.
What's the use of the cheapest - and probably well engineered - aircraft when the customer is confronted with uncertain operation, poor support, or simple noncompliance to western standards?
AS only has the performance data to determine the "success" of an airframe, but doesn't incorporate all the things behind those aircraft deals.
Going with this simplyfied way, we'd truly have a game world full of Russian or Chinese cheapo equipmet as SK said.
Such "spoilers" and "bias" is highly welcomed in order to balance.
So you suggest to have a world full of cheap russian/ukrainian and in the future chinese aircraft model which are not even used in reality by airlines worldwide - even in the own country (and even from money-savers like the crazy irish low cost carrier who would sell his family for a good deal)? Something must be wrong with these aircraft and as long as they much cheaper then the comparable western models there is at least am image with these aircraft which prevents airlines worldwide to use these aircraft.
But in the same way you suggest something completely wrong, you are right in some facts you posted. The consumption of a Fokker 70 shouldn't be higher than Fokker 100. And the missing cargo capacity for the Tu.-204/214 are another thing. On the one hand we have a problem in having aircraft data we can trust on (that is especially in the eastern aircraft model a big problem as the values offered by the manufacturer are not correct and only marketing values). On the other hand we have some data wrong and we are glad for every ticket send to our support - especially within the next few hours/days as we are preparing a new server and a data patch - with sources (hopefully better than wikipedia) ;) And another thing is the current performance system which may lead to a wrong consumption as well as the consumption is calculated i.e. on the weights. Therefor feel free to send us the information to the support and we will have a look at the aircraft.
I believe this conversation is going in a direction unintended. No one, ....I repeat, no one has suggested "a world full of cheap russian/ukrainian and in the future chinese aircraft model which are not even used in reality by airlines worldwide" That very statement itself smacks of such unabashed prejudice and condescending tone that it is almost pointless continuing this conversation. Currently, A/S has 11 game worlds and 11 servers running. There is hardly any variance or variety in the projections and realities simulated in the games. Essentially, you can take the same formula for success in one game and execute it for all others with a reasonable expectation of accomplishing the same effect. What I am suggesting should make sound business sense for A/S officials - to inject a little variety and color by creating a world scenario that is different. How could that be so hard to understand or perceive?
My earlier entry can be summed up in the last paragraph; "........I am suggesting that A/S implement a world in which all unnatural or unrealistic 'spoilers' are removed. A world were true life performance would be the only consideration, where politics and prejudices would have no place! One cannot deny that the aircraft that have been given the best and most favorable data and performance advantage in A/S are the ones that players gravitate towards. Could it be possible to have a game in which all performance data and capabilities are based on reality and not some game induced balance (advantages or disadvantages)? I am willing to bet that there will be a lot of people willing to have a go at such a game."
Those who do not want such a world can always play in the other 10 or so game worlds - at the end of the day, it is a question of choice and preference. I have not suggested giving such alternative aircraft extraordinary or unreal advantage to the detriment of western aircrafts. All I am simply saying for such a game world is this - remove all game induced obstacles, ‘spoilers’ and ‘biases’ stacked up against the Russian and non-western aircrafts and level the playing field to reflect reality based performances and capabilities. If the Aircraft truly has poor fuel burn or other performance issues or even comfort issues, then let it be reflected without fabricating undue and unnecessary extra ‘obstacles’. In much the same way that one could create a game world that reflects and mimics the 70’s or 80’s, the suggested game world could become a hit with the ‘different’ scenario it presents where the success of the aircraft is based purely on performance and the market forces in the game world, rather than integrated and systemic ‘spoilers’ to create a ‘balance’! Such a game world would certainly demand a different approach and also generate a different type of interest from enthusiasts without impacting those who already love things as they are in other game worlds. It is a business case for broadening appeal and I can’t see how that can be bad.
Will there be an announcement on the data patched, i.e. what has changed? Not in detail, but just briefly. For example it would be nice to know if fuel consumption or turnaround times of planes have changed, airports have been moved to different geographic positions or their demand has been adjusted, etc..
So you suggest to have a world full of cheap russian/ukrainian and in the future chinese aircraft model which are not even used in reality by airlines worldwide - even in the own country (and even from money-savers like the crazy irish low cost carrier who would sell his family for a good deal)? Something must be wrong with these aircraft and as long as they much cheaper then the comparable western models there is at least am image with these aircraft which prevents airlines worldwide to use these aircraft.
Well @sk you surprise me with this statement. In a bad way (make no mistake). I have no special love for russian , chinese or american aircraft. But you should open a little bit your eyes and take a look at the current server. What do you see ? Because i see that most of the servers are full of cheap Bombardier DH4's (some worlds have more then 5000!!!) and Boeing 737-700 BGW.
I see no difference between a world full of russian/chinese and american/canadian aircraft. Where is Airbus in all this ? At the moment it is together with Boeing the biggest aircraft builder in the world. But for some strange reason it's negatively biased in this game if you compare its economics to Boeing. That's just plain wrong.
Seriously. Is there a reason the fuel burn hasn't been fixed on the -700 yet? This isn't a new issue and it seems like a pretty simple typo. Would also be nice to have the Q400 vs. ATR rebalanced.
Well @sk you surprise me with this statement. In a bad way (make no mistake). I have no special love for russian , chinese or american aircraft. But you should open a little bit your eyes and take a look at the current server. What do you see ? Because i see that most of the servers are full of cheap Bombardier DH4's (some worlds have more then 5000!!!) and Boeing 737-700 BGW.
Yes in the game Q400 comes better than ATR in cost per seat on any route I have tested in route economics tool. In real life, it is the opposite, as I have now read on many websites, e.g. http://aeroblogger.com/home/blog/atr-72-bombardier-q400/
it looks like ATR 72-600 is much cheaper (7 million) but in AS it's only 2 million
and has up to 30% lower fuel consumption while in AS it's only less than 5%
The irony of the story of ATR vs Q400 as implemented in A/S is this; If the game had not introduced some 'bias' or 'spoilers' to the ATR, then the ATR would have had superior economics but slower speed whereas the Q400 would have higher fuel burn but superior speed and in so doing the game would have been very balanced. But as it is, everybody goes for the Q400 because it clearly has all the advantages with no shortcomings. It is no wonder that there are over 5000 produced in some game worlds!
Like I said in one of my earlier threads;
“I can certainly understand and appreciate the need for the game designers to execute some form of balancing act (execution rules) within the game so as to reflect reality and balance as much as possible. However, one must admit that some of it is prejudiced at the very least! There are currently thousands of Dash-8 Q400 running all over the game world, are there not?? Much more so than in reality! There are thousands of B737-900s flying routes that are in reality the exclusive preserve of wide-bodies?? How many real airlines fly such long-leg flights with 737-900s in reality?? The aircrafts that have been given the best and most favourable data and performance advantage are the ones players gravitate towards. At the end of the day, the game will carve out its own reality whether you like it or not! But to burden certain types of planes with too many unreal handicaps just so as to discourage widespread use is unfair and smacks of prejudice!”
It is no wonder that there are over 5000 produced in some game worlds!
Aside from the prejudice, I cannot imagine how many airlines would simply collapse within a couple weeks of certain tweakings to current aircraft like the Q400A. I know this is about new game world design and all, but there was a huge outcry from the giant companies when AGEX had more impact on the economy and caused a few of them to go under. There'd certainly be a similar outcry for modifying current game worlds.
Again, new game worlds.. who knows? That's the AS team's purview and prerogative.
A new game world with different realities is all we ask for - it makes too much business sense and it also allows for excitement by presenting a different perspective.
I can foresee that - in the new game world without old aircraft. People will go for B737-900ER BGW/-700 as usual, cause they are the best planes that you can get in the game.
In addition, with the crazy range that B737-900ER HGW (W) offers. There is no reason to use A320 series.
The 320 is (IIRC) in Airlinesim also better than the 737-800. There is a problem with some aicraft which are having wrong data. The 737-700BGW i.e. which only uses fuel of aprox. the half of any other aircraft of this size. To be honest - there were complains about the extrordinary efiiciency of this aircraft, yes - but we had not in focus that it is that much. We are currently discussing the data and I'm sure that the data will be checked and changed.
As far as the 737-900ER(W) is concerned, IIRC its an awesome plane, and really the best in its class untill the A321NEO comes online.
The fact that is overpowered ingame, has to do with that some factors seem to be very hard to incorporate. For example, in real life slots for the 737NG are sold out (most of them) untill the MAX comes online, so there is only limited amount available. But the major point is, that IIRC it isn't used on sectors longer than let's say 5 hours, because people prefer twin aisle, in general more spacious, cabins on longer stretches.
Lets take DL for example: They will use them on the transcon routes (ATL-LAX/SFO/SAN etc) because those routes are only succesful when you run them at 5/6 daily rotations, and thus u need smaller planes to be able to fill them. However, crossing the atlantic people prefer bigger, more spacious planes to travel on (with exception of some 757s, used on secondary routes)
Isn't it possible, in the future, to incorporate passenger ratings on different kind of missions (medium haul/long haul, Hub to hub travel, turn around times on short stretches, giving an 737-900 the advantage over big planes on short runs) , similar to the inflight service rating?
Although the current discussion takes this thread off its intended purpose (somewhat), I will however oblige you since you already started. I do agree that the B737-900 is the best in its class when considering current offerings however I must take exception to the insinuation that the 737-900 in whatever form is capable of trans-atlantic flight with a full load. Even Boeing has acknowledged that much. The only single aisle aircraft that is optimized and fully capable of that mission currently is sadly the aging B757. Boeing has acknowledged severally that the B737-900 is not a full replacement for B757 because it is not capable of all the missions B757 is capable of - chief of which is trans-atlantic missions. However, we must recognize that this is a game and it does have its limitations (after all they cannot be reasonably expected to create wind conditions and all other exacting factors). The aircraft that would have been an easy plug-in for replacing the B757 is the TU-204 with Rolls Royce engine, probably an updated RB211 using the core of a Trent 500 rather than the core of the old RB (this has been discussed and considered by R/R in the past, if there was a demand, such an engine could be called Trent 400). But I digress.....