Ist es wohl mal wieder meine Aufgabe, nach zwei Jahren ein wenig Staub von diesem Thread zu blasen.
Noch vor meinem erneuten langzeitigen Verschwinden ist aus den bekannten Norebbo-Vorlagen diese Livery entstanden:
Und das war heute, anderthalb Jahre später, mein erster Versuch, was Ähnliches mit den Ingame-Vorlagen zustande zu bekommen. Erfreulicherweise ist die Datenbank mittlerweile sehr vollständig geworden, vielen vielen Dank an die Verantwortlichen dafür!
Things are getting out of hand now. Why not just ban flights from more-than-eight- to less-than-four bar airports and disallow every aircraft below an A320 on mega airports? Or just remove all props and every airport for which a narrowbody would be too much. What we need is more "standard-size aircraft between standard-size airport" boredom...
Make small airports in small countries more attractive. Get rid of the guarantee that ten-bar airport routes dig up a gold mine. There is enough space for everyone on each game world, it's just not in LHR, JFK or PEK. Prosecute the obvious cases, of course. But don't get ridiculous.
Hello there! I'm khoianh, 21 years old (22 when the election is over) and I'm a student for architecture in Munich, Germany who just completed a year abroad in Singapore. So unlike many here I do not have a direct aviation background apart from the fact that my travel in South East Asia involves a lot of air travel...
I've been around in the AS community since April 2007, when everything was still slow, laggy and beta-ish, experienced the start of the first three German game worlds (Kaitak, Idlewild, Devau) and had my first really successful airline on the latter. I returned in 2011 when the German and the International community were merged together andin both periods I was already elected into the User Advisory Board, hunting for cheaters and discussing new rules. Times were different then when there were only three (or six respectively) game worlds and most were active on all of them, so there was personal involvement with the cases we dealt with.
Of course, times change and the community, spread out on more and more servers, will need to focus more on improvements of the general gameplay and balancing of AS, which as we all know is far from perfect. While the balance should favour realistic airline concepts (agreeing with Ben in the previous post), it should still be able to create niche carriers and unique concepts. This is what makes AS interesting and gives opportunities to challenge yourself. Feedback on new features to be implemented would also be an important aspect, but always has to be weighted against the limited programming capacities of the team and the need for balancing and bugfixing (which should always be a priority).
Furthermore, we should focus on the multiplayer aspect of the game again, to ensure fairness for all players and at the same time allow for tough competition. I already stated several times before that I somehow miss the olden days when the community was much closer related to each other, when airlines and alliances fought spectacular PR battles in the forums, back when the alliance feature didn't even exist, but never tried to spoil the game with unfair measures like price dumping or slot blocking. I know that those times are unlikely to come back. But at least we can try to make this a more enjoyable environment for everyone again.
I'm a liberally minded person, so I would love to avoid hard-coded rules whereever possible, but at places where there is no alternative, I wouldn't oppose to that. We got those heavy restrictions on the stock market already when manipulations got out of hand (I can still remember some weird and spectacular cases in the past UAB times) and if we have to introduce that to flight planning for small turboprop aircraft as well, so be it.
Looking forward for the other applications! [Drumpf]Make AirlineSim great again![/Drumpf]
Zwei Möglichkeiten: Falls es sich um Flieger handelt, die im Immediate Delivery Program ausgeliefert wurden, lösen sie sich in Luft auf und kommen nicht mehr in den Markt. Ansonsten dauert es ja immer, bis andere Flugzeuge wieder im Gebrauchtmarkt auftauchen. Aber ich denke mal, darauf hast du lange genug gewartet.
Wenn Accounts deaktiviert/gelöscht werden auf einem Server, kommt es durchaus vor, dass deren Holdings geräuschlos verschwinden.
Let's just hope it turns out to be a wonder machine in real life as well to become a commercial success. Not always did the most technologically advanced product win a fight in the end, and as long as Boeing gives away his 737-700 for 22 million USD, it's going to be hard...
In AS it is indeed the perfect compromise for those who think the CRJ and E-Jets have a too short range and the 320 a too large capacity and cost.
So you expect one single programmer to accurately replicate the complete global civil aviation industry and now complain that he does not come close enough to your expectations. That's like believing that God has actually created the world in seven days and all on his own.
The Airbus A350 is is probably one of the most beautiful man-made machines ever created. The proportion of fuselage length and width, engine size, wing and vertical stabilizer size is just perfect. The beautiful, almost organic flow of the shapes involved, including the engine mounts and the wing joint with the fuselage show the advances in aviation engineering over the last decades. Even the rather unusual nose including the Robin-like eye mask works for me. I don't like the designs where the nose tip is too high up on the fuselage and top and bottom end come together at a too flat angle, like on the Airbus A300/310 and A330/340.
I can say the same about the 787. Proportion-wise the -9 is almost even better than the 350 (although the -8 is a bit too short), but the nose, while undeniably cool looking, reminds me too much of a space ship. Bizarrely, the Bombardier CSeries will represent an almost exact 1:2 copy of the 787 in terms of proportions, which is definitely a good sign.
If you really need the 400 m runway capabilities of the Twin Otter, there's no alternative to those indeed. But for all other cases, the LET's operate with two thirds of the seat costs, twice the range and half the price. For the Avro's, I can't say how it looks like on Tempelhof, but on Gatow there's exactly one (!) RJ70 in existence and there is one airline which posesses two thirds of all RJ85 and RJ100. So those unicorns aren't a particularly good option. The Dash 7 is a good call, but pretty old (same for the Shorts 360).
Antonov AN-38s are slightly larger and can be ordered new, but lose to the LET in every aspect. If the slot situation is not too urgent in MPH, just continue using them. Or ask one of the bigger operators of the DH1/2/3 of they got a few spare.
Ich liebe mein Fahrrad und fahre gerne täglich 20 Kilometer damit. Nur geht es mir nicht in den Sinn, dass Leute täglich 50-60 Kilometer damit zurücklegen können. Es ist machbar, aber ich finde es falsch, man sollte die maximale Strecke, die man mit seinem Fahrrad fahren darf, begrenzen. Nix 60 Kilometer, 30 reichen doch total. Wer weiter fährt, soll doch gefälligst ein Auto nehmen. Damit hier nicht irgendwelche Typen mit ihrem Rad von München nach Augsburg fahren.
Alliances were designed with no ingame benefits for a reason. Unlike most features it is optional and there shouldn't be a penalty for those who can't find one or want to be left alone.
What people are suggesting is that you just get some benefits with a mouse click. It's not that easy. Alliances are hard work in real life and they should be here, too. What some people forget is this is the only feature that actively supports some teamwork and community feel, and this is important for the game. All your wishes for alliances can be achieved with the simple tool of communication...
- Why should alliance members automatically get better ratings? I would not care if Lufthansa sends me to a Star Alliance member or not, I only care if the product is reasonably priced, has a good service and the transfer time is short. Oh, this is exactly how the ORS works ingame... Select your interlining agreements carefully and get better ratings by optimising your flight schedules and connection times.
- Mutual terminals: Everyone buils his own five-star terminal with jetways, sets the price to the lowest and states "for alliance members only". Big airlines can build terminals at small member's hubs if they run out of space in their Scrooge McDuck money bin. Does it make any difference whether the terminal is by "Alliance A" or by "Airline F, an alliance A member"?
I don't know what you are doing, but if you don't see the advantages of alliances in the community sense then you are in a pretty bad alliance or you shouldn't be in one. Coordinating flights between members, meeting their departure and arrival waves, seeing that both airlines profit from transferring passengers, giving advice to less experienced players with smaller airlines can be big fun. And finally getting on some longhaul machinery to create a globally spanning network and knowing that there will be a reliable partner on the other end, with whom you have worked together for a long time, is a bigger reward than anything else.
As Ceo-Group-M mentioned, this would counteract the balance of the game which in essence lies in the fact that everyone has the same chance of bookings every day, regardless if it's a new airline or an established one. Big airlines get another way to just buy themselves better ratings and it would make it even harder for small airlines to compete.
Da Interlining und ein eigenes Feeder-Netzwerk im Spiel gleichwertig behandelt werden, kann man sich auch einfach in Abhängigkeit von anderen begeben und sich auf das Geld verdienen konzentrieren. Wie schon gesagt herrscht auf Langstrecken anfangs große Nachfrage und wenig Konkurrenz, und wenn man es richtig anstellt nimmt man so 70% Gewinnmarge und 50% Wachstum pro Woche mit.
Was dazu noch gesagt werden muss: Die Airline wird hochwahrscheinlich von einem chinesischen Spieler betrieben, und Asiaten sind sowieso immer auf einem ganz anderen Level...
Übrigens hat man jetzt auch für neue Vierstrahler (bisher nur die 747-8) ETOPS-Regeln eingeführt, da diese mittlerweile über die reine Zuverlässigkeit der Triebwerke hinausgehen.
Mal darüber hinaus gefragt - wenn keine explizite ETOPS-Zertifizierung vorliegt, bleibt es weiterhin bei der 60-Minuten-Regel? Ich habe schon Embraer E-Jets, CRJ und sogar die kleinen ERJ, die alle keine ETOPS haben, in AS auf Transatlantikflügen gesehen, die so im realen Leben nämlich niemals den Teich überqueren dürften...