The current time is 3 days, in my opinion that's too short,
opinion noted
in my opinion, researching a topic or suggestion before posting might have led you to similar threads where it was explained, that extending the booking beyond three cycles would put enourmous stress on the servers and would not be feasible for the money we pay.
opinion noted
in my opinion, researching a topic or suggestion before posting might have led you to similar threads where it was explained, that extending the booking beyond three cycles would put enourmous stress on the servers and would not be feasible for the money we pay.
How about compensating for something? Like reducing the amount of maximum airlines to 500, forever close down two or three server once its season is finished, or cap the amount of allowed enterprises.
The current 3-cycle period is putting a strain on some players with different play-styles that involves starting with an A320 or similar, since it has been proven successful in the past.
that would, for obvious reasons, be economically unsound as a much lower number of enterprises would mean fewer paying customers. if you could the customer base by more than half, you would have to more than double prices.
there are servers available for that.
also, if an airline is not successful with its strategy, it might have to adapt to the market - not the market to the strategy.
I cannot see a reason why to change the 3 days circles either...
I understand. But three cycles kinda means that passengers really just have three days to book a flight on a specific date. :huh:
It would be the same for you. The demand model is based on 3 cycles. If you extend to 14 days, that would mean daily demand would go down 4.6 times. At the end, you would get the same number of passengers with substantially higher stress on the server.
Or do you think you would get the same daily amount of bookings as you do now, but instead of 3 days get it for 14 days? LOL.
That would mean the big airlines would get even bigger… So ain’t gonna happen.
And if you get 4.6 times lower daily demand, what’s the point? Plus, people would not be willing to wait 14 days for their flight to take off if they activate flight plans with delay.
Summary: your idea makes no sense whatsoever.
EDIT: P.S. There are private AirlineSim servers, which for a cost of ~20 Euros per month allow you a membership on a server with a maximum of 25 players. Usually having same demand levels as regular servers, these allow you to run any business model as your heart wishes.
It would be the same for you. The demand model is based on 3 cycles. If you extend to 14 days, that would mean daily demand would go down 4.6 times. At the end, you would get the same number of passengers with substantially higher stress on the server.
Or do you think you would get the same daily amount of bookings as you do now, but instead of 3 days get it for 14 days? LOL.
That would mean the big airlines would get even bigger… So ain’t gonna happen.
And if you get 4.6 times lower daily demand, what’s the point? Plus, people would not be willing to wait 14 days for their flight to take off if they activate flight plans with delay.
Summary: your idea makes no sense whatsoever.
EDIT: P.S. There are private AirlineSim servers, which for a cost of ~20 Euros per month allow you a membership on a server with a maximum of 25 players. Usually having same demand levels as regular servers, these allow you to run any business model as your heart wishes.
My point is that each flight will have a greater chance to catch more passengers. Not diving the generated pax for 4 times.
But the suggestion would involve flights been stored on the server for 16 days…that’s from the current 5. Would every player be prepared to pay 3 times the price to cover this?
What George is saying is that at the moment that a fixed amount of daily pax are distributed among 3 days worth of flights, what you are suggesting is the same fixed amount of pax will be distributed across 14. So in the end you would end up with the same pax
actually, reading flipper`s last post, he actually is talking about increasing the total demand - basically 4.5 times the demand.
well, @flippR22, that really wouldn't have the effect you are probabaly hoping for. the same airlines that now steal all the pax from you, would still steal all the pax from you, just sooo many more. slots would be used up even at mid-size airports in the first couple of weeks, and the already higher than real-life demand would be inflated dramatically.
if that was to be implemented, it wouldn't take a month before players would complain about lack of slots. so let's increase slots by 4.5 times at all airports as well. we would then have the situation we have now, just that everyone would have 4.5 times the planes they have now. no, wait, actually, the big and successful airlines would have about ten times the number of planes and the players with less successful strategies would have maybe one or two additional planes, as the successful airlines would grow even faster, claim even more resources and, due to the fact that this is a transfer based system, grow the transfer opportunities expotentially and beyond anything, a new entry to the market could ever catch up with.
btw, I would favor a system, where there actually are more demand calculations, but not over a longer period, but rather two or three demand cycles a day (total demand staying the same). this way, pax would be distributed more evenly and flights would be less likely to be filled up with pax from one airport, thus blocking the connecting flight for all other potential origin airports. however, this still means a multiple times higher computing load on the servers, so I don't see that happening.
btw, I would favor a system, where there actually are more demand calculations, but not over a longer period, but rather two or three demand cycles a day (total demand staying the same). this way, pax would be distributed more evenly and flights would be less likely to be filled up with pax from one airport, thus blocking the connecting flight for all other potential origin airports. however, this still means a multiple times higher computing load on the servers, so I don't see that happening.
That makes sense
Perhaps people should consider the effect extending bookings on theORS system, I am talking about the complete system for passenger allocation that runs every day for each airport. This is a quote taken from 2012 by SK
"The ORS is not only the request of data from the database, it is also combining the possible flights, judging them and sort them - that need a lot of memory on the server and working progress."
When Martin used to do his annual dev meeting vids, now stopped unfortunately, ORS was cited as being the most cpu intensive process. I don't know if that particular vid from xxxx is still available but I remember explaining the problems with it.
Indeed the demand calculation is the most intensive process, in the past with server issues it was always the demand calculation that caused problems and server overloads. With 14 days calculations (or even 3 per day instead of one, for 3 days) you would multiple the load on the server exponentially.