sirvalkyerie

Sounds good. I like the approach. I realize it's in its infancy still so lots of features to be added and/or tweaked as time allows. I really appreciate the idea of allowing players to shape the world and so not planting lots of restrictions, but also trying to model real world circumstances in a fashion that encourages realistic outcomes. I think most browser sims either don't implement at all or implement hub-and-spoke very poorly. I think connections and hubs have real promise for allowing users to shape things around them. Bellingham had served as a hub for Frontier, Pittsburgh was a major hub for US Airways, Arnold Palmer (LBE) is a tiny focus city for Spirit! While passengers prefer directs many passengers are plenty happy to go to a local airport and take a connection instead of driving n hours to take a nonstop from their nearest major airport. Cincinnati (CVG) used to take tons of through traffic from Delta as passengers would connect from all over, no one's final destination was actually CVG. That sort of thing is very difficult to model but gives users elbow room when worlds get crowded. No reason specifically why Jackson Hole or Louisville couldn't serve as hubs. This would allow for a wider variety of viable plane choices for airlines as well. I'm rambling but my point is that I'm excited to see how it develops as I often feel the ability for the player to truly impact the game world in Airline Sim or AirWaySim is largely pretty limited.

I've literally only just started this game but I have played AirWaySim and AirlineSim for years. I really like the slightly more dynamic modelling proposed by your upcoming change. It'll allow the possibility of smaller airports to grow and be viable alternatives to bigger, more crowded airports. The way I read the possibility (I looked at your term paper!) is that Long Island MacArthur could be as big as JFK if you pump enough flights through it. I suppose my one question would be how do these work in preventing someone from simply 'ending around' a crowded and popular airport to cleave and manufacture demand where it otherwise wouldn't reasonably be? Could I take a significant portion of air traffic away from Newark by flying out of Atlantic City? Or a better example could be Boston. Could I capture a ton of Boston's traffic by flying out of Providence or Martha's Vineyard? I get the sense that you could simply yoink passengers by opening bases in less crowded airports until seemingly every airport within ~200nm of a major urban area (Chicago, New York, LA, Miami etc) is a base for somebody trying to syphon off overlapping passenger bases. It'd end up really devaluing highly valuable real life airports like LAX or JFK