So happy we finally have the 3rd game play video. I think I watched it 3-4 times by now. I’m excited that we should be able to get our hands on this game by September (hopefully).
One thing I noticed, and thought was quite odd, was that an airline would have a route from Sudan (SUDAN) to a small airport in the UK as one of its first contracts.
If an airport in the UK was brand new, wouldn’t it make more sense to have flights to London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Paris, etc. before expanding to other European countries, and then finally offering flights outside of Europe?
In other words, in what reality would an airline say, “Yes, I see that there is this VERY SMALL brand new airport outside of Birmingham. You know where people want to go? Sudan! That would be a GREAT test for this new airport.”
For a game that prides itself on being a real-world simulation, this makes absolutely no sense. Is this something that the Devs are working on?
I imagine it would be something that could be changed. I agree about your observation. But, I’d rather the devs focus on release as opposed to small details such as this.
I agree. I think that the larger airports should be weighted to make them come up more frequently. Islay to Lund is a completely crazy route, although there are many bizarre routes out there and I wouldn’t want to see the crazy routes completely disappear!
But to be realistic, the priorities for small airports are to connect to established larger airport. If Lund was a real airport, the kinds of flights it would be looking at are Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, London, Paris, Frankfurt… and I think by weighting some of the larger airports (I appreciate this may be a massive job!) to make routes to bigger destinations appear more frequently, it will add realism to the game.
While this is perhaps more of a minor issue than other graphical or systems interfaces, I still think it is more than a minor cosmetic issue.
Connecting smaller airports to established larger airports would be much more in line with the Hub-and-Spoke model that most major airlines around the world follow. This would, I think, allow for more natural and realistic expansion, until your airport becomes an established hub in its own right. At which point you could have major international and long-haul flights, or even become a hub for one of the airlines, devoting multiple gates and ticket agents to them, or eventually a whole concourse/terminal.
Idea is goods if the airport is small but if its large enough it could happen as well as that there is of course some emails sent to airlines if it will be a major build to see if they’re interested on setting flights there with the devs they built a large enough airport where as that could happen lets say right now LA is buildings one of the one of largest American football stadium in NFL history that wouldn’t mean a small league would play there just because its new
I set my airport location at Changi, Singapore which is a large airport and I expect to have a common flight route for a medium plane like Singapore - Kuala Lumpur vv, Singapore - Jakarta, Singapore - Bangkok, etc. But all of the flight route in the game seem not too popular for me, like a flight to some remote island. Is Sudan a popular tourist/business destination? I don’t think so. I wish to have a more realistic flight route in this game.
Yes it is correct that current flight routes are random and that’s why they are not realistic. Although South Sudan bug was fixed around 24.0 and the only way to recreate it is using an old version of ACEO.
