Airline Mogul Forum
Airline Mogul => General Chat => Topic started by: Dora on October 14, 2007, 08:53:09 am
-
Will it be considered an abuse if a player put all the routes in 0.5 but not violating 2x0.5 per route?
It is a very efficient way in making money.
-
Will it be considered an abuse if a player put all the routes in 0.5 but not violating 2x0.5 per route?
It is a very efficient way in making money.
it's not against the rules.. but it is abusing 0.5 freq
-
It's not against the rules, however, do consider that it's actually very easy if you want to compete on those routes, because 0.5 frequency routes tend to be a walkover.
-
It's not against the rules, however, do consider that it's actually very easy if you want to compete on those routes, because 0.5 frequency routes tend to be a walkover.
Yes, but if it's one vs. one at that airport then the legit airline will only be able to compete on half the routes of the cheater airline. The 0.5 routes effectively doubles your airplane's hours by violating the laws of physics.
That's why I want the game to have a limit of one 0.5 frequency route per plane.
-
Yeah, I know, but all I'm saying is that they're useless when someone competes with them.
-
Yeah, I know, but all I'm saying is that they're useless when someone competes with them.
True.. :wink:
-
I do hope there will be a cap of two 0.5 route per aircraft in the future. However, since that doesn't exist and the rules still allow 1x 0.5, I play the game in the most profitable way possible within the rules.
-
I do hope there will be a cap of two 0.5 route per aircraft in the future. However, since that doesn't exist and the rules still allow 1x 0.5, I play the game in the most profitable way possible within the rules.
Meaning you use 0.5 routes too?
-
Yes, because it's absolutely legal and I even took extra steps to confirm with Stephen about my intended strategy before the round even began.
No game is 100% accurate. Play it as a game, not a sim.
-
Yes, because it's absolutely legal and I even took extra steps to confirm with Stephen about my intended strategy before the round even began.
No game is 100% accurate. Play it as a game, not a sim.
:D .. that's why you get so many passengers..
-
It's not against the rules, however, do consider that it's actually very easy if you want to compete on those routes, because 0.5 frequency routes tend to be a walkover.
Yes, but if it's one vs. one at that airport then the legit airline will only be able to compete on half the routes of the cheater airline. The 0.5 routes effectively doubles your airplane's hours by violating the laws of physics.
That's why I want the game to have a limit of one 0.5 frequency route per plane.
well really i think you should only be able to fly half routes to your own bases. like 1 frequency for any airport that is not a base/focus city. since our rule is that you cannot start a flight from anywhere except a base, it would only make sense that a one way flight could not come back from there the second day. so i see it as either that, or leave it as it is. it's a half frequency, with high fares, or one frequency with lower fares, but only making about 1.5 times the money. a little weird when you think about it..
-
hi there,
if the 0.5 Freq Routes are such a problem why don´t you delete the 0.5 Freq and start at 1.0 ??
However i think it´s more realistic if we can choose ONLY whole numbers (only full circle).
In real life it is not possible to fly from your base to a city and next route start at your base!
0.5 Routes are a good chance to fill up Aircraft hours for a better usage but it is not really realistic.
-
hi there,
if the 0.5 Freq Routes are such a problem why don´t you delete the 0.5 Freq and start at 1.0 ??
However i think it´s more realistic if we can choose ONLY whole numbers (only full circle).
In real life it is not possible to fly from your base to a city and next route start at your base!
0.5 Routes are a good chance to fill up Aircraft hours for a better usage but it is not really realistic.
You can have 2 0.5 frequency routes on one plane. Say the plane flies LAX-JFK and LAX-BOS on a 0.5 frequency. Here's what you'd get:
Day 1: BOS-LAX; LAX-JFK
Day 2: JFK-LAX; LAX-BOS
etc.etc.etc.
-
I don't care if there are rules about the 0.5 flights, but be consistent about it. Last round we were all told that it was ok to have two 0.5 flights, now it's changed again?
If it's going to be such a problem to have 0.5 flights, then just eliminate the option altogether.
Some flights come in setting their price at $39 just to run out the competition right off the bat and it's easier to send in two 0.5 flights into the same destination to make up the money.
-
Just fyi, there's already a 7-page thread about the various 0.5 freq issues here http://www.stephenm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2307
-
hi there,
if the 0.5 Freq Routes are such a problem why don´t you delete the 0.5 Freq and start at 1.0 ??
However i think it´s more realistic if we can choose ONLY whole numbers (only full circle).
In real life it is not possible to fly from your base to a city and next route start at your base!
0.5 Routes are a good chance to fill up Aircraft hours for a better usage but it is not really realistic.
I don't care if there are rules about the 0.5 flights, but be consistent about it. Last round we were all told that it was ok to have two 0.5 flights, now it's changed again?
If it's going to be such a problem to have 0.5 flights, then just eliminate the option altogether.
Some flights come in setting their price at $39 just to run out the competition right off the bat and it's easier to send in two 0.5 flights into the same destination to make up the money.
Getting rid of the .5 option would not allow for long distance flights, also, think of a .5 like this, You fly from City A to City B on day, but not the way back, then the next day, you'll fly from City B to City A. The problem is that people abuse .5s and treat it as if it was 1 flight. I personally think a limit of 2 or 3 .5s per aircraft is good enough to let .5s still be possible in the game, but not let people abuse .5s to put more hours in their planes. I think I remember Air Elbonia in another thread stated that they are working on solution to .5 abuse before they would implement this idea.
-
I don't care if there are rules about the 0.5 flights, but be consistent about it. Last round we were all told that it was ok to have two 0.5 flights, now it's changed again?
To my knowledge, this rule still applies.
-
Air Klymaxia's case is being dealt with by DanielD. I won't comment on it because I can't. I have no knowledge about it at all but there is a reason behind everything our staff do.
-
Air Klymaxia's case is being dealt with by DanielD. I won't comment on it because I can't. I have no knowledge about it at all but there is a reason behind everything our staff do.
I'm just waiting to hear back from him.
My understanding of the rule was two 0.5 flights per destination and not two 0.5 flights per aircraft.
-
Deleted.
-
My understanding of the rule was two 0.5 flights per destination and not two 0.5 flights per aircraft.
Per Daniel, it is now only one 0.5 flight per destination and as many 0.5 flights as you want.
Per Stephen, and Daniel about 2 hours ago, it is still 2*0.5 max.
-
In Daniel D's thread, he said we should use 0.5 freq logically.
When talking about logic, it will be another problem in AM if we should play it realistically or not.
I'm really confused...
-
Well personally I am striving to play the game realistically. So I will not have 2(0.5 freq routes) going to an airport even it it means I make more profit from just 1 (1 freq route). It does not make sense to me to be able to fly to a place and then magically reappear at your base and fly again which is in most cases what is happening with 2(0.5 freq) routes. My realistic playing will put me lower in the rankings but it will give me the persoanal satisfaction that I know I am playing well trying to make it realistic. I think this is a better way to go. Some people play to win and that is fine. I play to enjoy and have fun and more realism is part of that.
-
Well personally I am striving to play the game realistically. So I will not have 2(0.5 freq routes) going to an airport even it it means I make more profit from just 1 (1 freq route). It does not make sense to me to be able to fly to a place and then magically reappear at your base and fly again which is in most cases what is happening with 2(0.5 freq) routes. My realistic playing will put me lower in the rankings but it will give me the persoanal satisfaction that I know I am playing well trying to make it realistic. I think this is a better way to go. Some people play to win and that is fine. I play to enjoy and have fun and more realism is part of that.
Well, what I see the .5s as is the plane doing a overnighter, then leaving the next moring to the base. Then the 2nd .5 can go to another city that follows that. So in my opinion, it is realistic, but I don't like how people make all of their routes .5s, in my opinion, it defeats the purpose of having it in the first place.
-
From what I understand, having all routes in 0.5 freq are both illogical and unrealistic...
The profit cannot simply be counted on in one single day.
-
From what I understand, having all routes in 0.5 freq are both illogical and unrealistic...
The profit cannot simply be counted on in one single day.
If you want realism, then you can't have 0.5 flights. Even for the long haul flights, since that aircraft has to get back to your base. If you only have a oneway flight, then your aircraft is stuck at the destination's airport. If it's going to flyback, then you might as well load it up with passengers and bring them back to your destination.
Another realistic option is to fly your aircraft from one destination to another. So, I could have my flight leave Toronto bound for Ottawa and then leave Ottawa for Montreal, then back to Toronto.
I have been on flights that would stop in a city to pick up more passengers and refuel while continuing on to my destination. I once flew from Trenton, Ontario to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan where we picked up passengers and refueled then continued on from there to Quadra, British Columbia.
-
This is a limitation in the game, because it works as a 24 hour clock for simplicity. In real life, airlines are not restricted at 24 hours when it comes to fleet allocation. The 0.5s for longhauls is therefore a compromise.
-
This is a limitation in the game, because it works as a 24 hour clock for simplicity. In real life, airlines are not restricted at 24 hours when it comes to fleet allocation. The 0.5s for longhauls is therefore a compromise.
I agree with you that it's a compromise of using 0.5s restricted to longhaul flights.
The problems now are players like to use 0.5s on all short hauls, given that dc-3 can't go for longhaul.
Using 0.5s on all short hauls can't be a compromise at all.
-
This is a limitation in the game, because it works as a 24 hour clock for simplicity. In real life, airlines are not restricted at 24 hours when it comes to fleet allocation. The 0.5s for longhauls is therefore a compromise.
I agree with you that it's a compromise of using 0.5s restricted to longhaul flights.
The problems now are players like to use 0.5s on all short hauls, given that dc-3 can't go for longhaul.
Using 0.5s on all short hauls can't be a compromise at all.
100% agreed. I can only hope it can be fixed the next round. As for this round, use the 1x 0.5s as much as you want - it's permitted and profitable afterall.
-
I´m also being realistic and I don´t have any 0.5 routes (I think), but my position on the charts is dropping a lot
-
I´m also being realistic and I don´t have any 0.5 routes (I think), but my position on the charts is dropping a lot
that seems to be more related to you starting in a less growth oriented area, aka less of a superairport.
whilst it might be slow to start, it might be very viable in the long run, since all the people at LHR and ATL will face very stiff competition in the not so distant future, whilst your less profit oriented airport might grow slower, but might(or might not!) have you as almost monopoly, hence giving you more profit in the medium run.
i think you choice is very good, because hub'ing in say LHR has two kind of people, and only one kind that has fun: a) the kind that knows they will come out on top against competiton due to a plan and a clue b) the kind of people who think its a good solution to base off LHR and who might end up being driven out of it very fast, as soon as mr a) as money to drive them out with frequency.
i think you are in for a less glorious but alot less dangerous ride, and possibly ultimately also alot more fun than the hotshot approach
-
100% agreed. I can only hope it can be fixed the next round. As for this round, use the 1x 0.5s as much as you want - it's permitted and profitable afterall.
See, that's where I disagree with some people here. I want to play the game logically and realistically, and I think a lot of other people do too.
Unfortunately, as Pacific points out the most profitable way to play the game is to exploit the flaw in the rules and blatantly ignore logic and the laws of physics. Yes it is legal under the current rules, but in my mind that doesn't make it right. That's why I want the 2x 0.5 routes per plane rule - it closes that loophole in the rule and brings the rules in line with logic.
-
I´m also being realistic and I don´t have any 0.5 routes (I think), but my position on the charts is dropping a lot
that seems to be more related to you starting in a less growth oriented area, aka less of a superairport.
whilst it might be slow to start, it might be very viable in the long run, since all the people at LHR and ATL will face very stiff competition in the not so distant future, whilst your less profit oriented airport might grow slower, but might(or might not!) have you as almost monopoly, hence giving you more profit in the medium run.
i think you choice is very good, because hub'ing in say LHR has two kind of people, and only one kind that has fun: a) the kind that knows they will come out on top against competiton due to a plan and a clue b) the kind of people who think its a good solution to base off LHR and who might end up being driven out of it very fast, as soon as mr a) as money to drive them out with frequency.
i think you are in for a less glorious but alot less dangerous ride, and possibly ultimately also alot more fun than the hotshot approach
you forgot that I could create a base on a popular place and a new one on a small place to complement my plan :)
-
Was going to start a new post, but found this one. Completely agree with them caribbean badgers!
Is anything going to be done in the future about this?
One airplane
One focus city
Many many multiple .5 routes to different airports
Awesome for revenue generation, obviously.
This is just logically impossible, although since the game allows it, I guess it's condoned? I'd rather play the game with a modicum of realism.
-
i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.
-
i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.
That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.
-
blast - I do think the .5 routes have their place. In this 1950's era we are in, that just gets exaggerated even more with the slower planes than the 2000's of last round. Here's an example. Base in Washington DC. Have one .5 route to London, and another .5 route to LA. That way the plane stays overnight, every other day, in LA or London. That does make a lot of sense to me. Base-to-base .5 trips make a lot of sense too. If you had 6 bases, you could do 6 one-way flights between them, and wind up in the same place to do it all over again the next day, as you already said.
For the most part, here's an example I'm getting at.
Base (and this is just an example) in Chicago. You have one plane. You fly that plane on a .5 route to St Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, Nashville and Cleveland. Once you do the .5 from say St. Louis to Chicago, and then Chicago to Kansasy City, how does the plane magically reappear in Chicago or Memphis for the next flight?
-
i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.
That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.
well then maybe there could be either allowed .5 routes to continents that your base is not on, or this will help to slow growth, and increase reliance on alliances.
blast - I do think the .5 routes have their place. In this 1950's era we are in, that just gets exaggerated even more with the slower planes than the 2000's of last round. Here's an example. Base in Washington DC. Have one .5 route to London, and another .5 route to LA. That way the plane stays overnight, every other day, in LA or London. That does make a lot of sense to me. Base-to-base .5 trips make a lot of sense too. If you had 6 bases, you could do 6 one-way flights between them, and wind up in the same place to do it all over again the next day, as you already said.
For the most part, here's an example I'm getting at.
Base (and this is just an example) in Chicago. You have one plane. You fly that plane on a .5 route to St Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, Nashville and Cleveland. Once you do the .5 from say St. Louis to Chicago, and then Chicago to Kansasy City, how does the plane magically reappear in Chicago or Memphis for the next flight?
ok i do see your point. however the dc-london, dc-la route does NOT make sense to me. because it wouldnt be staying overnight every other day. it would have one way from dc-london, .5 london-dc, .5 dc-la, .5 la-dc, .5 dc-london. which means it would only be in london and la every 5th day. correct?
but i do see the point of .5 routes needed for routes outside of your continent. so maybe if those could be allowed, but not .5 routes to the same continent except for your other bases. i'm not sure how possible that is
-
you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base.
You are not actually starting a route on that one, you are completing the second leg on day 2, and it's like that on many places in the world. One example is Atran at MMX, they do not have a base there, but have a plane that comes in from Moscow in the evening and stay there overnight, and go back before the devil gets his pants on. That's why 2 0.5's per plane is the way to go.
-
you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base.
You are not actually starting a route on that one, you are completing the second leg on day 2, and it's like that on many places in the world. One example is Atran at MMX, they do not have a base there, but have a plane that comes in from Moscow in the evening and stay there overnight, and go back before the devil gets his pants on. That's why 2 0.5's per plane is the way to go.
no see legs are one way flights though. if it was a la-london flight, on the other person's example, with a stop over in washington, i could see. but you cant do this if washington dc is your base, because you cant start from la to go to london. i see the dc-london one way flight because that's all you can do with turnaround time. so really you are doing .5 dc-london, staying overnight, .5 london-dc staying overnight, .5 dc-la staying overnight, .5 la-dc staying overnight, and so on. although for that you only get counted for 2x.5's. and when you have two .5's in a day, you're saying that your plane is staying overnight at two different airports.
-
you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base.
You are not actually starting a route on that one, you are completing the second leg on day 2, and it's like that on many places in the world. One example is Atran at MMX, they do not have a base there, but have a plane that comes in from Moscow in the evening and stay there overnight, and go back before the devil gets his pants on. That's why 2 0.5's per plane is the way to go.
no see legs are one way flights though. if it was a la-london flight, on the other person's example, with a stop over in washington, i could see. but you cant do this if washington dc is your base, because you cant start from la to go to london. i see the dc-london one way flight because that's all you can do with turnaround time. so really you are doing .5 dc-london, staying overnight, .5 london-dc staying overnight, .5 dc-la staying overnight, .5 la-dc staying overnight, and so on. although for that you only get counted for 2x.5's. and when you have two .5's in a day, you're saying that your plane is staying overnight at two different airports.
But it still makes perfect sense for cities of smaller distance. See the example I have stated above, I can even draw what I am talking about if you want me to. Also, remember that the planes are operating 24 hours a day, so if the plane can do it, then it's possible.
-
i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.
That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.
ok sorry i didnt read this right at first. so i did now and will respond. if you do this, you have .5 a-b, then you still have .5 b-a, and .5 a-c. but this time you're talking about Day 1: .5 a-b. Day 2: .5 b-a, .5 a-c. Day 3: .5 c-a, a-b again. this means Day 1 is .5, but day 2 is really 1 freq, not .5. and if you could do 1 and not .5, then you should. that could be where you take .5's away. so you're flying back from b-a without it counting against you, and i think without you paying for fuel or pilots, or counting it against you in your 24 hour flight time.
-
i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.
That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.
ok sorry i didnt read this right at first. so i did now and will respond. if you do this, you have .5 a-b, then you still have .5 b-a, and .5 a-c. but this time you're talking about Day 1: .5 a-b. Day 2: .5 b-a, .5 a-c. Day 3: .5 c-a, a-b again. this means Day 1 is .5, but day 2 is really 1 freq, not .5. and if you could do 1 and not .5, then you should. that could be where you take .5's away. so you're flying back from b-a without it counting against you, and i think without you paying for fuel or pilots, or counting it against you in your 24 hour flight time.
Not really. Remember that the planes are working 24 hours a day in this game. So that means I have been using that overnight example wrongly myself.
And you're still wrong.
Lets say that the last flight of that DAY is the is a .5 from A to B.
Then the FIRST flight of the NEXT day is a .5 from B to A. No 1 freq yet.
Depending on the routing, the last flight of that NEXT day should a a .5 freq A to C still nothing.
THe plane returns the next day to City A as the FIRST flight of the day and it restarts.
So still, 2 .5s make sense, I also did draw out a 12 hour flight example.
As for utilizing .5s, I only use them only when I need thm and not exceed 2 per plane. I only have 1 2.5 freq and hte rest are well rounded out 1s or 2s.
-
i think i said somewhere else (maybe earlier this thread) that .5 routes should only be allowed between bases. since you cant start a route at any other airport besides a base. then do away with .5 routes except for the bases and only be whole numbers. then if you do a .5 route to another base, the aircraft then has to fly out of that other base. then you could have people maybe doing .5 one way and .5 the other way because it's more profitable. not sure about that point, or if it would even be more profitable. it's the same route, but the other way.
That wouldn't work though, since many people might not have a base on another continent, and .5s are sorta needed for that. As I've stated quite a few times, I'm in the boat that says .5s should be limited to only 2 per plane. THat way, it can be done realistically (one night, the plane will be overnighting at City B after flying in from City A, and then in the morning it comes back from City B and in the end of that day it goes to overnight in City C, then comes back to City A that next morning, and the cycle starts all over again. Same logic would apply for some long distance flights.
ok sorry i didnt read this right at first. so i did now and will respond. if you do this, you have .5 a-b, then you still have .5 b-a, and .5 a-c. but this time you're talking about Day 1: .5 a-b. Day 2: .5 b-a, .5 a-c. Day 3: .5 c-a, a-b again. this means Day 1 is .5, but day 2 is really 1 freq, not .5. and if you could do 1 and not .5, then you should. that could be where you take .5's away. so you're flying back from b-a without it counting against you, and i think without you paying for fuel or pilots, or counting it against you in your 24 hour flight time.
Not really. Remember that the planes are working 24 hours a day in this game. So that means I have been using that overnight example wrongly myself.
And you're still wrong.
Lets say that the last flight of that DAY is the is a .5 from A to B.
Then the FIRST flight of the NEXT day is a .5 from B to A. No 1 freq yet.
Depending on the routing, the last flight of that NEXT day should a a .5 freq A to C still nothing.
THe plane returns the next day to City A as the FIRST flight of the day and it restarts.
So still, 2 .5s make sense, I also did draw out a 12 hour flight example.
As for utilizing .5s, I only use them only when I need thm and not exceed 2 per plane. I only have 1 2.5 freq and hte rest are well rounded out 1s or 2s.
i think one of the problems with our arguments is that the distance between a-b and a-c vary if 1-b takes 12 hours each way, but a-c only takes 4 hours each way, then a-c should be forced to go a-c and c-a in the same day. resulting in a 1 frequency, and not .5.. then you could do .5 12 hr, and 1freq 4hr each way. 20 hrs+turnaround. then you can do this : Day 1: a-c 4 hr, c-a 4 hr, a-b 12 hr. Day 2: b-a 12 hr, a-c 4hr, c-a 4hr. Day 3: a-c 4hr, c-a 4hr, a-b 12hr. etc.
but then say you total 21 hours. you have 3 left. how can you then put another .5 route on an airport that's 2 1/2 hrs away and have it work right? the dop wouldnt really be dop. you'd have to divide the dop in half if you only fly a route every other day in order to get the real dop. or else you're doubling on your profits.
-
Here is what I'm saying:
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4558/myroutemapitmakesperfecrj9.jpg)
On the 3 hour part, like I said, I try not to go past 2x .5s per plane, what I would do is see if there is any shorter runs I can put it on that would allow a 1x (1 had 3 hrs left on my newest plane, thats where I used it on the 2.5 on a 106nm route), if not, then I just leave it alone. My loss, heck yeah, but thats just how I play. I can make another one explaining this, but with what one of my planes is doing right now. What it looks like we might not be understanding each other here.
-
Excellent drawing! Yeah, when I say "overnight", in game-lingo overnight = instantaneous with 24hr planes.
-
Here is what I'm saying:
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4558/myroutemapitmakesperfecrj9.jpg)
On the 3 hour part, like I said, I try not to go past 2x .5s per plane, what I would do is see if there is any shorter runs I can put it on that would allow a 1x (1 had 3 hrs left on my newest plane, thats where I used it on the 2.5 on a 106nm route), if not, then I just leave it alone. My loss, heck yeah, but thats just how I play. I can make another one explaining this, but with what one of my planes is doing right now. What it looks like we might not be understanding each other here.
that's how you play, but i'm pretty sure that's not how most airlines on here are playing. you do the right thing, but others dont. therefore on the last three hours, it should be 1, 2, or 3 frequency, not .5, 1.5, and 2.5.
now i am probobly one of the most guilty people with half routes. i'm using them because currently it's legal and everyone else is. and in order to compete, in most instances, you have to do what others are doing. if the "law" was changed, i'd abide of course.
i think we're kind of saying the same thing in different ways..? not sure. because i understand the whole day one a-c, day two c-a a-b, day three b-a, a-c thing. but when you start the route, if a-c and a-b were the same distance (say 11hrs total), then you could make it a-c and c-a in the same day. and a-b and b-a in the same day. meaning you should be forced to have 1 frequency, making a non-overnight stay. instead of a .5 and an overnight stay.
another idea just came to me. how about we keep .5 routes as they are, but add for every .5 route you do, you have to pay an overnight fee. this can vary per airport, or be a percentage of your dop for the route. 5% maybe. so you make 200,000 on a jfk-london route, you pay 10,000 for an overnight parking fee. this of course is waived if it's your bases you're flying between
-
i feel totally lost right now..... :shock: ...we've been arguing (politly may i add :lol: ) back and forth, yet i don't know what we've agreed on... :shock: .. lol
-
no wait i got it. lol. ummm well see still can do the d1: a-c 12hr. d2: c-a, a-b. d3: b-a. but you can't do what you're drawing. what it looks like you're drawing is 12hr a-b, 12hr a-c in day one. but if they're 12 hrs, and you can make two 12hr flights in a day, there's nor reason you couldnt do a-b and b-a in one day, and a-c, c-a in the next day. this of course like i was saying with the profit, would have to have either a better calculation or be divided in half, as you're flying between a-b one day, and a-c the next, and continueing every other day. so doubling the profit would continue.
-
My post was more of a "just wondering" if there would ever be a code change to sync up with a bit more reality.
-
no wait i got it. lol. ummm well see still can do the d1: a-c 12hr. d2: c-a, a-b. d3: b-a. but you can't do what you're drawing. what it looks like you're drawing is 12hr a-b, 12hr a-c in day one. but if they're 12 hrs, and you can make two 12hr flights in a day, there's nor reason you couldnt do a-b and b-a in one day, and a-c, c-a in the next day. this of course like i was saying with the profit, would have to have either a better calculation or be divided in half, as you're flying between a-b one day, and a-c the next, and continueing every other day. so doubling the profit would continue.
Ok, what you're saying is confusing me. You also have to consider, since the route (or leg) is being run at .5, you're actually saying that specific route is operating on 12 days of the 24 in the month if they were actual 1 freqs. If you operate A-B at one, then you won't be able to run C-B since you used up all the hours. Also, you're not operating 2 planes on .5s, or the route twice so no doubling from what I understand from all the examples I've seen prior (where you have a airline putting 2 .5s on each route.)
Another thing to consider, you're running the route at 24 .5s per months, as opposed to 48 .5s per month (what 2 .5s per route or 1 freq would do). So it is not the same as what you're saying, since you've actually have half the supply of seats than you had if you did a 1 freq on a day. And that makes it easier for the plane to be filled to be profitable since the Demand of the flight is possibly much more than the supply of seats that you'd be offering.
~Edited by LOT 737-300 @ 17:32 Eastern US time.
-
sorry yes i screwed that up as you're right as far as you could only fly a-b. and you'd need another plane to fly a-c if you wanted to fly that. which is how i think it should be. because if you do .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 etc whatever, you're saying you go
a-b
b-a, a-c
c-a, a-b
but there's no reason you couldn't have gone a-b and b-a at the same time. so then if you say .5, you're talking about
a-b
b-a
a-c
c-a
a-b
etc
that's how it should be meant. not im going to put .5 on two routes, and it's going to only go one way the first day i put it, then it can go two ways the next time. like i was saying before though the only way it could do that is if a-b was 14 hrs, but a-c was only 7 hours. so you could start with the a-b because it'd be all it could do that day because it couldnt make it back. so the following is a-b = 14hrs, a-c = 7hrs
a-b (14hrs...can't make it back on 10 hrs)
b-a, a-c (21hrs)
c-a, a-b (21 hrs)
b-a, a-c (21 hrs)
c-a, a-b (21 hrs)
and so on.
but what does everyone think on the overnight fees?
-
sorry yes i screwed that up as you're right as far as you could only fly a-b. and you'd need another plane to fly a-c if you wanted to fly that. which is how i think it should be. because if you do .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 etc whatever, you're saying you go
a-b
b-a, a-c
c-a, a-b
but there's no reason you couldn't have gone a-b and b-a at the same time. so then if you say .5, you're talking about
a-b
b-a
a-c
c-a
a-b
etc
that's how it should be meant. not im going to put .5 on two routes, and it's going to only go one way the first day i put it, then it can go two ways the next time. like i was saying before though the only way it could do that is if a-b was 14 hrs, but a-c was only 7 hours. so you could start with the a-b because it'd be all it could do that day because it couldnt make it back. so the following is a-b = 14hrs, a-c = 7hrs
a-b (14hrs...can't make it back on 10 hrs)
b-a, a-c (21hrs)
c-a, a-b (21 hrs)
b-a, a-c (21 hrs)
c-a, a-b (21 hrs)
and so on.
but what does everyone think on the overnight fees?
See my above post (which I edited). Insted of offering 48 .5 freqs on that month (which is what a 1x should do, and appears to be what you are suggesting), you're actualy offering 24 .5s per month (or 12 1xs per month.)
Also, they don't need equal flight times, what I used was a very generic 24 hr example. I could add cities D, E, F, G, Z, even Я! All those are all whole numbers (over .5), in the end of hte day, it can fly from city Я to city C and hte distance between that can be 25 nm where the difference between B and A is 200nm, as long as it fits within the 24 hr system of the game, I don't see a problem with it.
~EDIT, I just thought I wanted:
Ok, lets say that the Beginning of day 1, you did B-A, then did all that, then went Я-C at the end of it, the next day, it would be the return from С to Я and do that all over again until the end of THAT 2ND day, where it would then go from A-B. Cycle restarts like in the original "A/B/C" example, but with a few more varables added in. If you still have 3 hours left on the plane, then why not fly a 1x route that is nearby?
-
no im not suggesting 48 .5's. but i'm not exactly understanding your argument there. i wish some other people would get in on this. i'd like to see what other people besides the two of us see our argument as. and who's more on the right. and someone without an opinion would be great. lol.
-
as the guy behind the actual route script... here's how i see it (and yes, it largely matches LOT 737's drawing).
You're allowed to arrive and depart from any airport SO LONG AS one of those airports is a focus city of yours, or an alliance focus city you have access to. (otherwise, round trips wouldn't make sense). So. if you're flying AP1 - AP2 at 1.0 frequency, you're selling tickets in both directions.
This means, that the drawing holds up, because it essentially goes AP1-AP2-AP3 day 1, then AP3-AP2-AP1 day 2. provided either AP2 is an available focus city, or both AP1 and AP3 are available focus cities. (it doesn't matter which.)
the scenario that is allowed at present in game that's terribly illogical and defies the laws of physics (yet is at present perfectly legal) is the following.
assume AP1 is a focus city and all following are one-way flights.
AP1-AP2;
AP1-AP3;
AP1-AP4...AP1-APx.
at no point in the 24 hours does the plane make the hop from the appropriate number of one-way flights back to the originating city. I can write in something to automatically put in a ghost return flight, but this doesn't always work as i've presently got no way in the backend to catch which route has the ghost return flight; or worse yet, no way to optimize which has the ghost return flight as the third one-way is created. logically any airline would want a ghost return flight on a 25nm route as opposed to on a 1000nm route.
Now. i know how to easily generate the code so that only planes flying less then 2 one-way flights have available to them one way options. that's easy. BUT it's incredibly... incredibly shortsighted. and that part bothers me. See the following.
assume the following: AP1 is a focus city; AP3 is a focus city; all flights are one-way flights.
AP1-AP0;
AP1-AP2;
AP2-AP3;
AP3-AP4
The above is completely valid, and it is comprised of FOUR one way flights. shock. awe. STILL i can't just say 2xfocus cities it passes through. as what if it did this instead?
AP1, AP3 are focus cities, all flights one-way flights.
AP1-AP0;
AP1-AP2;
AP1-AP3;
AP1-AP4
That's 4 one-way flights, and it passes through 2 focus cities, but two of them are officially illogical routes.
I'm hung up on, and have been for a little while, sorting out how to detect this scenario and enact the proper rules. and not only that, how to do so efficiently. (i assume nobody will play if it takes more then 25 seconds for the create route page to load each time. in fact, i get annoyed if it takes over 5 seconds.).
oh-ho-ho. it gets even more fun still.
What if.
AP1 is the only focus city an airline has but it does this: (all one-way flights).
AP1-AP2;
AP1-AP2;
AP1-AP3;
AP1-AP3;
AP1-AP4
that's five one-way flights. and it's perfectly logical by the laws of physics (as it winds up being AP1-AP2-AP1-AP3-AP1-AP4, reverse the next day). it also abides by the reigning rules of the game of the 2x.5 rule.
-_-. anyone got ideas to help me make a robust, yet logical and reasonable check for any loops in routes, and the ability to pass through multiple focus cities within the present, non-timetabled format?
-
Yes, a two 0.5 route limit per plane is shortsighted, but I think that the benefits outweigh the cost. With the slow 1950's planes, being able to effectively double your plane's hours is a huge and unfair loophole in the rules. Also, using lots of 0.5 routes but still staying within the laws of physics is very difficult to coordinate, and not many players are capable of doing it. So with a short-term two 0.5 route limit you'd be eliminating a lot of "cheating" routes and only a few legit routes. As a quick, short-term fix I think it's the best way to go.
For a longer-term fix that allows legit 0.5 routes but bans cheating ones, you can't look at the number of 0.5's per plane. Instead you have to look at a plane's endpoints. In other words, where does a plane spend the night? No matter how many routes of whatever frequency a plane has, it can only have two endpoints. That's the real logical issue.
An endpoint is an airport a plane arrives at with a 0.5 route and doesn't depart from with a 0.5 route. If the airplane operates only 1 frequency routes then the endpoints could be anywhere in the network. Focus cities don't factor into it at all - it's just where the plane ends up.
So as an immediate short-term fix, put a limit on 2x 0.5 routes per plane. Once you figure out how to code a 2x endpoint limit per plane rule into the game, replace the short-term fix with the longer term fix.
-
Yes, a two 0.5 route limit per plane is shortsighted, but I think that the benefits outweigh the cost. With the slow 1950's planes, being able to effectively double your plane's hours is a huge and unfair loophole in the rules. Also, using lots of 0.5 routes but still staying within the laws of physics is very difficult to coordinate, and not many players are capable of doing it. So with a short-term two 0.5 route limit you'd be eliminating a lot of "cheating" routes and only a few legit routes. As a quick, short-term fix I think it's the best way to go.
you do not double the planes hours. 0.5 routes are close to useless on routes with competition, they are of limited use outside the initial growth phase.
For a longer-term fix that allows legit 0.5 routes but bans cheating ones, you can't look at the number of 0.5's per plane. Instead you have to look at a plane's endpoints. In other words, where does a plane spend the night? No matter how many routes of whatever frequency a plane has, it can only have two endpoints. That's the real logical issue.
the problem was there before the round, its not a new thing, be happy that the admins dont do knee jerk reactions and implement fixes where all implications are not apparent.
there is no real 0.5 fix unless there is a coded limit, to resolution of which air elbonia asked people to help if they know how. arbitrary limits are almost impossible to continously enforce, and difficult to communicate to whole playerbase.
So as an immediate short-term fix, put a limit on 2x 0.5 routes per plane. Once you figure out how to code a 2x endpoint limit per plane rule into the game, replace the short-term fix with the longer term fix.
there is a limit of such a 2x 0.5 rule on destinations.
apart from the logical discontinouity, which indeed exists, i dont see a gameplay problem per se. many airlines fly 3x or 4x weekly to destnations, which is a viable way of allowing connections, which 0.5 should represent.
-
You need to read my post closer. I'm suggesting a long-term, hard-coded fix to the problem that removes the logical problem but still allows as many legitimate 0.5 routes as airlines want.
I'm asking for a limit of 2x endpoints per plane, which is completely different than 2x 0.5 routes per plane or 2x 0.5 routes per destination.
I just suggest the 2x 0.5 routes per plane limit as a short-term fix until the longer-term fix can be implemented.
I know that fixing this problem would hurt some airlines (including yours), but that's the price you pay for playing the game illgoically. When you exploit loohoples you can't complain when those loopholes are closed.
-
I'm just wondering, could the extra time people say the planes gain might actually be because it did not count the time the plane should've spent on the ground? Anyways, I'm gonna try to stick more to realism (at least following the laws of physics) and try not to use .5s more than twice per plane. I'm not aiming to be #1 overall, just have a sustainable airline.
-
no, you dont gain time, you cut capacity in half.
the current formula plays out in a way that, when there is no competition, its better to fly a 0.5 route for 3000 rather than a 1 frequency for 1500.
i have routes where someone put a 1x frequency for 1300 with a full plane, where a 0.5 frequency of the same plane barely makes 100% at 1500 price, hence the guy with 1 frequency clearly wins.
wherever there is competition, 0.5 will quickly be replaced by higher frequency, since thats the only way to make money.
0.5 only works well when you are monopoly in a market.
-
no, you dont gain time, you cut capacity in half.
the current formula plays out in a way that, when there is no competition, its better to fly a 0.5 route for 3000 rather than a 1 frequency for 1500.
i have routes where someone put a 1x frequency for 1300 with a full plane, where a 0.5 frequency of the same plane barely makes 100% at 1500 price, hence the guy with 1 frequency clearly wins.
wherever there is competition, 0.5 will quickly be replaced by higher frequency, since thats the only way to make money.
0.5 only works well when you are monopoly in a market.
You do gain time. A 0.5 routes only uses half the hours that a 1 frequency route uses. If you operate all 0.5 frequency routes on a plane then you get twice the routes in. If all the routes that plane flys are monopoly routes, then you get twice the profit on that plane compared to what you'd get if you were playing the game realistically.
That also means that if a competitor who only uses legit routes starts up in your base, he can only compete on half of your routes (if he has the same number of planes).
So exploiting this loophole is a huge advantage, which is why I want to see it closed (and why those who are exploiting it don't want to see it closed).
-
it uses half the blocktime because it flies HALF the distance. thats not gaining time. what you are trying to say is that you can diversify your destinations twofold with a given plane. that has nothing to do with gaining time or capacity. its about diversitfying your route network, which pays off well if you evade competition. its legitimate, it should be fixed but only hardcoded and properly.
dont accuse players of exploiting, there are clear rules about limits of this, and all players can play by these rules. 0.5 rules are also realistic, since they represent less than daily connections, which are about as common as sliced bread.
-
Exploitation? Yes and No because...
...Is it allowed? Yes.
Was 10x 0.5 allowed last round? Yes, for 4 game years.
Is it allowed now? No.
Is that an improvement? Yes.
Do I hope Air Elbonia consumes enough alcohol so he can enhance the LF script to close this loophole in the next round? Yes.
-
Is it a loophole? Yes.
Can we close the loophole without creating other problems? No.
For the record...
Do I want the loophole closed? Yes.
Do I believe closing the loophole is the sole solution? Yes.
Do I believe there is anything wrong with the concept of 0.5? No.
-
You need to read my post closer. I'm suggesting a long-term, hard-coded fix to the problem that removes the logical problem but still allows as many legitimate 0.5 routes as airlines want.
I'm asking for a limit of 2x endpoints per plane, which is completely different than 2x 0.5 routes per plane or 2x 0.5 routes per destination.
I just suggest the 2x 0.5 routes per plane limit as a short-term fix until the longer-term fix can be implemented.
I know that fixing this problem would hurt some airlines (including yours), but that's the price you pay for playing the game illgoically. When you exploit loohoples you can't complain when those loopholes are closed.
oh yeah. i forgot to say why that's a bitter failing point, the simple 2x.5/plane checks.
A, B are focus cities.
A-C (.5)
A-B (1.0)
B-D (.5)
logical breakdown.
-
Yea, that's a tough one, and it's not covered by my endpoints proposal.
Still, I think a limit of 2x endpoints per plane would remove the vast majority of illegitimate 0.5 routes without eliminating legitimate 0.5 routes. I haven't written code for a while, but I imagine a simple endpoint check (plane arrives at city on a x.5 route, but does not depart on a x.5 route) wouldn't be too hard to create. Once a plane has 2 endpoints, don't allow the person to create routes that would create a new endpoint (unless it's replacing one of the old endpoints).
So in response to dktc's comment, I think the loophole can be closed, with the only problem being the inconvenience to players who are currently exploiting it.
-
Yea, that's a tough one, and it's not covered by my endpoints proposal.
Still, I think a limit of 2x endpoints per plane would remove the vast majority of illegitimate 0.5 routes without eliminating legitimate 0.5 routes. I haven't written code for a while, but I imagine a simple endpoint check (plane arrives at city on a x.5 route, but does not depart on a x.5 route) wouldn't be too hard to create. Once a plane has 2 endpoints, don't allow the person to create routes that would create a new endpoint (unless it's replacing one of the old endpoints).
So in response to dktc's comment, I think the loophole can be closed, with the only problem being the inconvenience to players who are currently exploiting it.
my hangup on that, is the debate about that hard rule would crop up, and likely wind up about as fierce as this debate is. moving from one problem to a similar problem isn't necissarily positive advancement.
-
Yea, that's a tough one, and it's not covered by my endpoints proposal.
Still, I think a limit of 2x endpoints per plane would remove the vast majority of illegitimate 0.5 routes without eliminating legitimate 0.5 routes. I haven't written code for a while, but I imagine a simple endpoint check (plane arrives at city on a x.5 route, but does not depart on a x.5 route) wouldn't be too hard to create. Once a plane has 2 endpoints, don't allow the person to create routes that would create a new endpoint (unless it's replacing one of the old endpoints).
So in response to dktc's comment, I think the loophole can be closed, with the only problem being the inconvenience to players who are currently exploiting it.
my hangup on that, is the debate about that hard rule would crop up, and likely wind up about as fierce as this debate is. moving from one problem to a similar problem isn't necissarily positive advancement.
I guess I don't see where the debate on the hard 2-endpoint rule would be. It would still allow legitimate 0.5 routes.
As far as the people exploiting the current loophole, that's too bad for them. They've been making extra money off of the loophole, so they should be glad it was there while it was. If you want to be nice you can give them a few weeks' warning before you put the endpoint cap into effect.
-
Yea, that's a tough one, and it's not covered by my endpoints proposal.
Still, I think a limit of 2x endpoints per plane would remove the vast majority of illegitimate 0.5 routes without eliminating legitimate 0.5 routes. I haven't written code for a while, but I imagine a simple endpoint check (plane arrives at city on a x.5 route, but does not depart on a x.5 route) wouldn't be too hard to create. Once a plane has 2 endpoints, don't allow the person to create routes that would create a new endpoint (unless it's replacing one of the old endpoints).
So in response to dktc's comment, I think the loophole can be closed, with the only problem being the inconvenience to players who are currently exploiting it.
my hangup on that, is the debate about that hard rule would crop up, and likely wind up about as fierce as this debate is. moving from one problem to a similar problem isn't necissarily positive advancement.
I guess I don't see where the debate on the hard 2-endpoint rule would be. It would still allow legitimate 0.5 routes.
As far as the people exploiting the current loophole, that's too bad for them. They've been making extra money off of the loophole, so they should be glad it was there while it was. If you want to be nice you can give them a few weeks' warning before you put the endpoint cap into effect.
it would only allow some legitimate one-way flights, and would disallow many others.
i know that if i scrap one-ways, there will be consistent, and numerous suggestions of implementing one-way flights. if i change it in some way, i tend to expect a reaction these days. i'd expect complaints that the system won't allow A-B-C-D (if A/C or B/D are focus cities) one-way chains. if i made it a 2 one-way rule.
I am, however, poking as many intelligent minds as i can for ideas of how to calculate and enforce this... conundrum. it is unfortunately, somewhat of a poorly designed backend to do so.
-
But I'm not proposing the 2x 0.5 routes per plane rule as a long-term fix!!!!!!
My original posting on the subject:
For a longer-term fix that allows legit 0.5 routes but bans cheating ones, you can't look at the number of 0.5's per plane. Instead you have to look at a plane's endpoints. In other words, where does a plane spend the night? No matter how many routes of whatever frequency a plane has, it can only have two endpoints. That's the real logical issue.
An endpoint is an airport a plane arrives at with a 0.5 route and doesn't depart from with a 0.5 route. If the airplane operates only 1 frequency routes then the endpoints could be anywhere in the network. Focus cities don't factor into it at all - it's just where the plane ends up.
So as an immediate short-term fix, put a limit on 2x 0.5 routes per plane. Once you figure out how to code a 2x endpoint limit per plane rule into the game, replace the short-term fix with the longer term fix.
With the 2x endpoint per plane limit (NOT 2x 0.5 routes per plane limit) the A-B-C-D type routes would be legal. That rule would eliminate almost all of the illegitimate 0.5 routes and allow all the legitimate ones.
-
But I'm not proposing the 2x 0.5 routes per plane rule as a long-term fix!!!!!!
My original posting on the subject:
For a longer-term fix that allows legit 0.5 routes but bans cheating ones, you can't look at the number of 0.5's per plane. Instead you have to look at a plane's endpoints. In other words, where does a plane spend the night? No matter how many routes of whatever frequency a plane has, it can only have two endpoints. That's the real logical issue.
An endpoint is an airport a plane arrives at with a 0.5 route and doesn't depart from with a 0.5 route. If the airplane operates only 1 frequency routes then the endpoints could be anywhere in the network. Focus cities don't factor into it at all - it's just where the plane ends up.
So as an immediate short-term fix, put a limit on 2x 0.5 routes per plane. Once you figure out how to code a 2x endpoint limit per plane rule into the game, replace the short-term fix with the longer term fix.
With the 2x endpoint per plane limit (NOT 2x 0.5 routes per plane limit) the A-B-C-D type routes would be legal. That rule would eliminate almost all of the illegitimate 0.5 routes and allow all the legitimate ones.
see. the great problem with the endpoint rule is. there's no solid endpoint.
technically you can create routes at any point in the chain, so any determined endpoints would be in a constant flux depending on the routes generated. the game doesn't track specifically the order of the routes being created (thereby cannot base validity off of that) in a meaningful way. you can create X-Y; Y-Z; then create a few routes from X, then a few routes from Z... design flaw, i know. but. honestly, being faced with a huge process and changes to get multiworlds up and running, i'd like to figure out how to make it work without a drastic redesign... there's enough of those in process at the moment. -_-
-
it uses half the blocktime because it flies HALF the distance. thats not gaining time. what you are trying to say is that you can diversify your destinations twofold with a given plane. that has nothing to do with gaining time or capacity. its about diversitfying your route network, which pays off well if you evade competition. its legitimate, it should be fixed but only hardcoded and properly.
dont accuse players of exploiting, there are clear rules about limits of this, and all players can play by these rules. 0.5 rules are also realistic, since they represent less than daily connections, which are about as common as sliced bread.
well actually it is gaining time. 1 is flying 4 hours, but .5 is flying 2 hours. per day. that's gaining 2 hours because you're pretending the flight ends and the plane is magically sent back to the origin airport for a new route.
now this isn't a solution, but i was saying before that you could tempararily charge an "overnight fee" for half routes. or you could charge fuel and staff costs, along with deducting one hour for every .5 route as a "fee" for a phantom return. rather than keeping it the way it is now.
or we can just keep things the way they are, have that one bit of innacuracy, and just all play the game with this loophole on "even" ground. i still think what i was saying earlier would be good but maybe i was saying it wrong or something. and i can't draw a picture because im not that creative as LOT 737.
-
see. the great problem with the endpoint rule is. there's no solid endpoint.
technically you can create routes at any point in the chain, so any determined endpoints would be in a constant flux depending on the routes generated. the game doesn't track specifically the order of the routes being created (thereby cannot base validity off of that) in a meaningful way. you can create X-Y; Y-Z; then create a few routes from X, then a few routes from Z... design flaw, i know. but. honestly, being faced with a huge process and changes to get multiworlds up and running, i'd like to figure out how to make it work without a drastic redesign... there's enough of those in process at the moment. -_-
If the endpoint can't be determined, then that's fine. The way I think of it, a plane that has a 1-frequency route from AP1 to AP2 as its only route has 0 endpoints. Yes, technically it does overnight at one of those airports, but the game doesn't care which. It's only when a plane ends up at an airport by an x.5 route that endpoints come into the picture.
Basically, a plane will have 0 endpoints until an x.5 route is created. At that point the airports on either end of that become endpoints. From then on, a plane can only fly x.5 routes from those endpoints.
Let's create a theoretical route structure for a plane to see how the process should work.
The plane's airline has AP1 and AP5 as bases.
Restricted airports: Plane cannot fly a x.5 route to/from this airport, unless it is to/from an endpoint. Once a plane has endpoints, all the non-endpoints become restricted airports.
Starting out: Plane has 0 endpoints.
Route 1: AP1 (1) AP2
- Plane still has no endpoints
- Resticted airports: None
Route 2: AP1 (0.5) AP3
- AP1 and AP3 become endpoints
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP1, AP3)
- Restrcted aiports: AP2
Route 3: AP1 (0.5) AP4
- AP4 becomes an endpoint, replacing AP1
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP3, AP4)
- Restrcted airports: AP1, AP2
Route 4: AP5 (0.5) AP4
- AP5 becomes an endpoint, replacing AP4
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP3, AP5)
- Restricted airports: AP1, AP2, AP4
Route 5: AP5 (1) AP6
- Endpoints unchanged
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP3, AP5)
- Restricted airports: AP1, AP2, AP4, AP6
Route 6: AP5 (1) AP2
- Endpoints unchanged
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP3, AP5)
- Restricted airports: AP1, AP2, AP4, AP6
Route 7: AP5 (0.5) AP3
- AP3 and AP5 no longer endponts
- Plane has 0 endpoints
- No restricted airports
Route 8: AP1 (0.5) AP7
- AP1 and AP7 become endpoints
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP1, AP7)
- Restricted airports: AP2, AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6
Route 9: AP5 (0.5) AP8
- Route disallowed because plane has 2 endpoints, and AP5 is not one of them.
So to sum up the plane's routes:
AP1 (1) AP2
AP1 (0.5) AP3
AP1 (0.5) AP4
AP5 (0.5) AP4
AP5 (1) AP6
AP5 (1) AP2
AP5 (0.5) AP3
AP1 (0.5) AP7
Possible route the plane takes (not the only possible one): AP1 -> AP2 -> AP1 -> AP4 -> AP5 -> AP6 -> AP5 -> AP2 -> AP5 -> AP3 -> AP1 -> AP7 (reverse the next day)
Now I'm not sure if that'll be any help, but I always found logical excersizes useful when coding.
-
see the thing is. a .5 + a 1 equals an endpoint of both tails of a .5; though round trips are perfectly valid 100% of the time from any round trip flight. also. round trip flights are valid from both endpoints of .5s
if cit1-cit2 is .5; cit2-cit3 can be 1, but the end point is cit2. creating round trip flights from cit3 is fine, but not .5's (logic breakdown). creating .5's from cit1 is fine, creating rt's from cit1 is fine. now. if after this they decide to create a round trip from cit3. the anachronisms are where it hits hard. to determine endpoints we need some place to start from, but being able to go out of order means there's no solid place where it "starts" because it can be extended or modified at both ends. once there's no good starting point, how do you point the code to figure this out. sure, a rational human mind can figure it out... but code needs specific instructions/scenarios to break down any potential problems.
-
Not sure I quite get the scenario you're describing. As you said, they can create roundtrips from cit3.
In terms of coding, you'd have to work out some sort of test to run on each airport in a plane's network to see whether it's an endpoint or not. The basic logic would be: If (endpoint test) = yes, then: Create roundtrips or x.5 routes, else: only create roundtrips with that plane from that city. If a plane doesn't have any 0.5 routes in the system, then you don't even have to run the test.
Not quite sure how'd you'd deal with the AP1 (0.5) AP2 (0.5) AP3 (0.5) AP1 issue (no endpoints in that system), but I'll put some more thought into it. Either way, I think endpoints is the best idea to run with because it eliminates the illogical routes without eliminating the logical ones.
-
i'm having a hard time taking everything in too. it'd be easier to see just the diagrams and examples alone right in front of me to pick the best one. i'm afraid this is going over my head. lol. me r stupid..
-
Not sure I quite get the scenario you're describing. As you said, they can create roundtrips from cit3.
In terms of coding, you'd have to work out some sort of test to run on each airport in a plane's network to see whether it's an endpoint or not. The basic logic would be: If (endpoint test) = yes, then: Create roundtrips or x.5 routes, else: only create roundtrips with that plane from that city. If a plane doesn't have any 0.5 routes in the system, then you don't even have to run the test.
Not quite sure how'd you'd deal with the AP1 (0.5) AP2 (0.5) AP3 (0.5) AP1 issue (no endpoints in that system), but I'll put some more thought into it. Either way, I think endpoints is the best idea to run with because it eliminates the illogical routes without eliminating the logical ones.
see. endpoints are the answer...the problem is teaching the system to see efficiently, easily, and readily endpoints of numerous aircraft at once in disorganized data. and, at all times remember the endpoints so that when editing routes you cannot screw them up somehow. (if .5, must always end in .5 where applicable, must allways be rt where applicable, must be able to tell when it's free to do as it pleases when applicable).
-
is this permmited?
31472 XXXXX Airways Bellanca Aircruiser 1 1010.00
33625 XXXXX Airways Douglas DC-3 4.5 273.00
Flight
FRA x Venice Treviso
-
is this permmited?
31472 XXXXX Airways Bellanca Aircruiser 1 1010.00
33625 XXXXX Airways Douglas DC-3 4.5 273.00
Flight
FRA x Venice Treviso
Yes. So long as the airline doesn't have more than 10 flights to the same destination.
-
tks
-
What it should be is 2 x.5 route limit on any given plane. Not only 0.5, any x.5 route result in a one way flight, and the most a plane can have is two without teleporting.
Actually, an easier fix would be to allow 0.5 flights and lift the ban. Reduce 0.5 flight's cash advantage over 1.0 by 50-75% of current level, and call it a day. It'd be realistic as well.
In rl, on many routes people will NOT fly your airline at all if there's no daily roundtrip service, on routes such as BOS-NYC, NYC-WAS, NYC-CHI, CHI-MSP, etc. They simply want to go home after work is done.
-
What it should be is 2 x.5 route limit on any given plane. Not only 0.5, any x.5 route result in a one way flight, and the most a plane can have is two without teleporting.
Actually, an easier fix would be to allow 0.5 flights and lift the ban. Reduce 0.5 flight's cash advantage over 1.0 by 50-75% of current level, and call it a day. It'd be realistic as well.
In rl, on many routes people will NOT fly your airline at all if there's no daily roundtrip service, on routes such as BOS-NYC, NYC-WAS, NYC-CHI, CHI-MSP, etc. They simply want to go home after work is done.
Actually, I realised it is possible. But the problem is that the plane plane would have to come from another point for it to be possible, and maybe it would have to a loop of .5s. I've got what I mean in my head, but it's a bit hard to materialize, I posted it in the suggestions thread I made earlier in the month.
-
Right, except in the context of this game, we set route specific to each aircraft, and with that restriction in place it's not physically possible.
If we publish fare by city-pair route and schedule planes to fly loops, much like rl airlines, then yes.
-
Right, except in the context of this game, we set route specific to each aircraft, and with that restriction in place it's not physically possible.
If we publish fare by city-pair route and schedule planes to fly loops, much like rl airlines, then yes.
I guess we understand each other, I have made a thread some time ago in suggestions, with the original idea of 2 .5s per plane, till I noticed why it is considered a shortsighted solution, I posted a more detailed version of what I said in Suggestions as well as how to make it work reasonably within the game.
-
Just a question... but can a flight put three 1.5 frequency flights into the same destination?
It should be fixed that you'd make the same amount of money if you have two 0.5 flights going to the same destination as you would with a single 1 frequency flight.
I know this is a game, but there's no way companies would do stuff like this IRL.
-
, but there's no way companies would do stuff like this IRL.
really? is that why airlines like singapore are technically operating multiple 0.5 frequencies into LHR each day?
-
It should be fixed that you'd make the same amount of money if you have two 0.5 flights going to the same destination as you would with a single 1 frequency flight.
I know this is a game, but there's no way companies would do stuff like this IRL.
Agreed that the problem should be fixed. The way the game works it's more profitable to do multiple 1x frequency flights as well. It's a bug that should be fixed - all the airline's flights into a destination should be grouped together and calculated as one.
-
, but there's no way companies would do stuff like this IRL.
really? is that why airlines like singapore are technically operating multiple 0.5 frequencies into LHR each day?
b/c they pick up passengers at LHR and fly to the next destination? I doubt they're sending the aircraft full and then back empty just to fill it up again. It's not good business sense to fly YOW to YYZ with passengers, then fly back from YYZ to YOW empty to pick up passengers and fly back to YYZ, just to return empty again.
-
b/c they pick up passengers at LHR and fly to the next destination? I doubt they're sending the aircraft full and then back empty just to fill it up again. It's not good business sense to fly YOW to YYZ with passengers, then fly back from YYZ to YOW empty to pick up passengers and fly back to YYZ, just to return empty again.
the 0.5 frequency is there to represent a flight to a point at day 1 and the return at day2. it just so happens to be that the system doesnt connect the dots inbetween properly ;)
in this round, any flight over about 4000nm must be 0.5 due to low speed!
-
, but there's no way companies would do stuff like this IRL.
really? is that why airlines like singapore are technically operating multiple 0.5 frequencies into LHR each day?
b/c they pick up passengers at LHR and fly to the next destination? I doubt they're sending the aircraft full and then back empty just to fill it up again. It's not good business sense to fly YOW to YYZ with passengers, then fly back from YYZ to YOW empty to pick up passengers and fly back to YYZ, just to return empty again.
Unlike in AM, airlines schedule their rotues by week, not by day. Time changes also mess things up.
Take a Qantas 747 flying SYD-LAX-SYD as an example. The plane leaves SYD in the afternoon (Australia time) and gets to LAX in the morning (California time). Due to time changes, curfews, connections, etc the plane can't depart on its return leg until the evening (California time).
So in a 24-hour period, it flys SYD-LAX (about 13-14 hours), then sits on the ground in LAX for the remaining time. In AM, that would mean a 0.5 frequency on that plane, and every other plane operating the SYD-LAX route. But Qantas actually operates SYD-LAX 3 times each day both ways using several 747's. If you try to translate that into AM, you'd end up with 6 planes from the same airline running 0.5 frequencies SYD-LAX.
But in a real-life timetable it shows up as 3 full frequencies, and I'm sure customer demand treats it as such. So the best way to deal with the issue in AM would be to group the 6x 0.5 frequencies together and make them have the same fare/profit as one 3x frequency flight.
-
, but there's no way companies would do stuff like this IRL.
really? is that why airlines like singapore are technically operating multiple 0.5 frequencies into LHR each day?
b/c they pick up passengers at LHR and fly to the next destination? I doubt they're sending the aircraft full and then back empty just to fill it up again. It's not good business sense to fly YOW to YYZ with passengers, then fly back from YYZ to YOW empty to pick up passengers and fly back to YYZ, just to return empty again.
Unlike in AM, airlines schedule their rotues by week, not by day. Time changes also mess things up.
Take a Qantas 747 flying SYD-LAX-SYD as an example. The plane leaves SYD in the afternoon (Australia time) and gets to LAX in the morning (California time). Due to time changes, curfews, connections, etc the plane can't depart on its return leg until the evening (California time).
So in a 24-hour period, it flys SYD-LAX (about 13-14 hours), then sits on the ground in LAX for the remaining time. In AM, that would mean a 0.5 frequency on that plane, and every other plane operating the SYD-LAX route. But Qantas actually operates SYD-LAX 3 times each day both ways using several 747's. If you try to translate that into AM, you'd end up with 6 planes from the same airline running 0.5 frequencies SYD-LAX.
But in a real-life timetable it shows up as 3 full frequencies, and I'm sure customer demand treats it as such. So the best way to deal with the issue in AM would be to group the 6x 0.5 frequencies together and make them have the same fare/profit as one 3x frequency flight.
That would be ideal, except that in AM that aircraft is magically reappearing at the departure airport again. The game would have to "decomission" that plane on a 0.5 flight for a day to make it more realistic. So that plane flying to say LGA to LAX would only fly every second day on a 0.5 flight.
-
No, because the return route would also be a 0.5 route.
So a plane flys a 0.5 route SYD-LAX one day, then a 0.5 route LAX-SYD the next day. However, due to AM's restrictions on where you can start routes from, the return LAX-SYD flight gets counted as a SYD-LAX flight.
The most realistic way to do it would be to give each plane a weekly schedule, complete with time of day, time zones, and restrictions on when you can fly. But that would be way too complex for a webgame.