Game going too fast?

[Jps]

Im serious, there's so many airports that have none or a few gates left. See Europe.

[ALFC]

its a problem that i would trace back to the size oif the planes. in the last round, the normal shorthaulers were almost the size of the now biggest plane. so you have ALOT more frequency, especially since current capacity is practically HALF the seats due to slow speed. so if we were in the 2000 round, we would all fly 20-50 seaters, no wonder gates get taken from frequency!

[LOT 737-300]

It's going at a good rate for me. I guess that since I started in a small town this time (Actaully, same small town as last time). I guess that people couldn't live with the fact that planes go really slow at the beginning of the 50s (remember, many airliners were surplus transports from WWII or leftovers from the 30s ), things really begin to change here, but not at the very beginning), but since this was a time of massive changes to aviation, I think those who are complaining about their size and so on should work on getting more technically advanced planes into their fleets and hten leasing out or selling those older planes. Some of you guys are gonna flame me for this, but personally, I seriously think if people treated the frequencies a bit more realisticlly, then things would've moved a tad slower. What I've noticed is that a .5 from my base to a larger city can still make quite a bit of cash with a DC-3. But even then, a 1 would still make more on the route itself, but not on the plane overall.

Perhaps the other big factor is the fact airport numbers are still post 2005 ones. If we used 1950s numbers, thing would definetly go slower, but then again, many players would complain that the game gets too crowded too quickly (since more people took the train than flew in those days, was still seen mostly as a mode of transit for the rich, so about 80% of the airports in the game would probebly never see a commercial aircraft in rl during this time period.) Lets just hope that the maint costs were fixed and the planes become more expensive to maintain as time goes on. That seems like the only reasonable thing.

In my opinion, we still have the following to look forward to:
-720 (great for those longer distance flights or even shorter hauls with more pax)
-Tu-104 (looking at this, it seems like it'll be perfect for domestic flying, especially if it's the Tu-104B (100 pax version).
-The other Comets
and towards the end:
DC-8 and the rest of the 707 family, As well as the modern T-props.

[CornField]

its a problem that i would trace back to the size oif the planes. in the last round, the normal shorthaulers were almost the size of the now biggest plane. so you have ALOT more frequency, especially since current capacity is practically HALF the seats due to slow speed. so if we were in the 2000 round, we would all fly 20-50 seaters, no wonder gates get taken from frequency!

Ding Ding Ding..... We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CornField]

Perhaps the other big factor is the fact airport numbers are still post 2005 ones. If we used 1950s numbers, thing would definetly go slower, but then again, many players would complain that the game gets too crowded too quickly (since more people took the train than flew in those days, was still seen mostly as a mode of transit for the rich, so about 80% of the airports in the game would probebly never see a commercial aircraft in rl during this time period.) Lets just hope that the maint costs were fixed and the planes become more expensive to maintain as time goes on. That seems like the only reasonable thing.

Actually if we used numbers from the fifties, we would still have people complaing about the progression of the game.

We had it last round when we had 2000 era numbers....

Lets try to remember is VOLUNTEERS that are doing alot of the work.  Some people have real lives that they have to attend to.

Try to imagine how crowded the remaining airports would be with 50's numbers.(many in game airports either didn't exist or barely existed in the early 50's)  lets look at the example of Chicago off-hand(and the one I'm the most familiar with)

ORD did not open until 1955, Chicago Midway handled about 10 million pax the year before ORD opened.  Midway actully handled more pax that ORD until 1962.  But look at the numbers in the game.  Roughly, 76 mil for ORD and 17 mil for Midway.

[LOT 737-300]

Perhaps the other big factor is the fact airport numbers are still post 2005 ones. If we used 1950s numbers, thing would definetly go slower, but then again, many players would complain that the game gets too crowded too quickly (since more people took the train than flew in those days, was still seen mostly as a mode of transit for the rich, so about 80% of the airports in the game would probebly never see a commercial aircraft in rl during this time period.) Lets just hope that the maint costs were fixed and the planes become more expensive to maintain as time goes on. That seems like the only reasonable thing.

Actually if we used numbers from the fifties, we would still have people complaing about the progression of the game.

We had it last round when we had 2000 era numbers....

Lets try to remember is VOLUNTEERS that are doing alot of the work.  Some people have real lives that they have to attend to.

Try to imagine how crowded the remaining airports would be with 50's numbers.(many in game airports either didn't exist or barely existed in the early 50's)  lets look at the example of Chicago off-hand(and the one I'm the most familiar with)

ORD did not open until 1955, Chicago Midway handled about 10 million pax the year before ORD opened.  Midway actully handled more pax that ORD until 1962.  But look at the numbers in the game.  Roughly, 76 mil for ORD and 17 mil for Midway.

I know what you mean, in the 50s, MCO was a AFB (originally Pinecastle AFB, and then renamed McCoy AFB, named after a bomber pilot who lost his life in the line of Duty.) It wasn't before Walt told us the mouse was coming down here that the city saw a need for an airport to support larger planes. So back then Orlando had to use Herdon airport (now Orlando Executive), and at the time, it wasn't the large vacation spot it is now, I think that Daytona Beach had larger numbers at the time!

I'm certainly not saying the team is not doing a good job. I think they did a excellent job and still are, this is one of the more fun sims that I have played. I think that we all should try our best to enjoy the game as it is going so far. I don't see a large differece between the growth I had last round and the one I had this round. It seems to go at a very similar rate for me.

[Jps]

Perhaps the other big factor is the fact airport numbers are still post 2005 ones. If we used 1950s numbers, thing would definetly go slower, but then again, many players would complain that the game gets too crowded too quickly (since more people took the train than flew in those days, was still seen mostly as a mode of transit for the rich, so about 80% of the airports in the game would probebly never see a commercial aircraft in rl during this time period.) Lets just hope that the maint costs were fixed and the planes become more expensive to maintain as time goes on. That seems like the only reasonable thing.

Actually if we used numbers from the fifties, we would still have people complaing about the progression of the game.

We had it last round when we had 2000 era numbers....

Lets try to remember is VOLUNTEERS that are doing alot of the work.  Some people have real lives that they have to attend to.

Try to imagine how crowded the remaining airports would be with 50's numbers.(many in game airports either didn't exist or barely existed in the early 50's)  lets look at the example of Chicago off-hand(and the one I'm the most familiar with)

ORD did not open until 1955, Chicago Midway handled about 10 million pax the year before ORD opened.  Midway actully handled more pax that ORD until 1962.  But look at the numbers in the game.  Roughly, 76 mil for ORD and 17 mil for Midway.

I'd be fine with it if the inactive airlines get their gates returned?

[jameswyhk]

I hate 1950s round. The planes are too small. In 1960s, at lease Comet 4s, DC-8s and 707s are available.

[LOT 737-300]

I hate 1950s round. The planes are too small. In 1960s, at lease Comet 4s, DC-8s and 707s are available.

You'll get the 707 by 1954 (well, 720 actually), Tu-104 by 1956(Hopefully they've used the B's numbers, maybe a mod can confirm this?), and DC-8 (by 1959), as well as the Comet 4. You just actually have to wait I guess until they come out, just like a video game of a herpa scale model (and sometimes, that can take years). Comet 4 will pop up in 1957 as well if I recall.

[Jps]

Actually the aircrafts are alright.. if there's this much players in 2007.... think of how crowded this game could be

[ALFC]

just to put things into perspective, given the current growth AND expected growth of profit amongst the top ranks, we are looking at values in the top 3 around 40bn by yearchange, so we will see more than a doubling of company value in the next 6 months versus the value created in the 18 initial months.

[nwadeltaboy]

I hate 1950s round. The planes are too small. In 1960s, at lease Comet 4s, DC-8s and 707s are available.

I agree.  It makes me think why there has to be such a time difference between a DC-8 and a DC-9.  :cry:   Jets will be real someday, don't you worry about that.

[LOT 737-300]

I hate 1950s round. The planes are too small. In 1960s, at lease Comet 4s, DC-8s and 707s are available.

Jets will be real someday, don't you worry about that.

Jets are already real, you have the C-102 (as horrid as it's fuel burn is) and Comet 1 on the line. Soon we'll have Comet 2s and Boeing 720s, buy 56', we'll have the Tu-104 (hopefully, the stats will be from the B version, which could carry up to 100, though the range was nothing to get hyped about.)

[nwadeltaboy]

I hate 1950s round. The planes are too small. In 1960s, at lease Comet 4s, DC-8s and 707s are available.

Jets will be real someday, don't you worry about that.

Jets are already real, you have the C-102 (as horrid as it's fuel burn is) and Comet 1 on the line. Soon we'll have Comet 2s and Boeing 720s, buy 56', we'll have the Tu-104 (hopefully, the stats will be from the B version, which could carry up to 100, though the range was nothing to get hyped about.)

already got 2 comet-2s.  no wonder they go so fast...