Plane maximum range

[DJ Nekkid]

i think we pretty much agree on theese things Chris

to summon it up:

a limit would be cool, but we need larger maps for it to be viable?




and +- 2.5km/tile should be somewhat ok for most maps.

but as i say, one should be able to set a multiplier at scenario generation/creation. Atm am i working on a scenario of southern norway on a 1k*1k map, and even the smalles planes can fly trondheim --> oslo, and that is aprox 750 tiles on that map...

[RainierWatcher]

But limiting the range of a Fokker or Zeppelin (as in the AV GRF)

Hmm? A zeppelin with limited range? They did trans Atlantic routes, how does that get limited range?

Also limiting the Concorde would be nice as this thing is just too OP, that's why I don't like to play with planes in multiplayer.

Limiting it's number to a total gameworld of 14 would be good. I'd say limiting the total produced to 14 in gameworld too, but only two were ever rendered unusable. The one in 2000, and one in 1995, which was scrapped after a hard landing.

Also though, with ranges

http://boeing.com/commercial/737family/ ... dubai.html

http://boeing.com/commercial/747family/ ... ondon.html

[XeryusTC]

But limiting the range of a Fokker or Zeppelin (as in the AV GRF)

Hmm? A zeppelin with limited range? They did trans Atlantic routes, how does that get limited range?

You do need to refuel those things from time to time...

[DaleStan]

"from time to time" means something slightly different for a zeppelin than for a plane or a chopper.

[athanasios]

You do need to refuel those things from time to time...

Will you code this? (An order to a depot is not the same.)

[ThePenguin]

Sounds like we need some refueling planes.

[XeryusTC]

You do need to refuel those things from time to time...

Will you code this? (An order to a depot is not the same.)

Where do planes refuel?

[RainierWatcher]

You do need to refuel those things from time to time...

Will you code this? (An order to a depot is not the same.)

Where do planes refuel?

Well, i assume you mean an airliner, so I'd say a fuel tanker at the terminal.

You probably know that though

And unless someone draws and codes something like an SR-71 (probably because they are bored) I can't see a need for a mid air refueler.

[MagicBuzz]

Well that's not the discussion though, of course an A380 or 747 can be used on short distances due to high passenger demand. Although I personally prefer travelling by ICE instead which is faster and a lot more comfortable and no stupid security controls. Of course the flight from Berlin to Frankfurt for example is faster but due to checking in/out, waiting for my luggage, security checks the train ride is a lot faster. Anyway I am a little off topic here... I think as long as there is no differentiation between short range and long range A380 in GRFs these planes just shouldn't be limited. But limiting the range of a Fokker or Zeppelin (as in the AV GRF) does make sense imho. Also limiting the Concorde would be nice as this thing is just too OP, that's why I don't like to play with planes in multiplayer.

Well...

So the idea I suggested remains viable

2 suggestions :
=> This formula estimates a plane range is proportional to its capacity and it's speed.

max_range = total_capacity * speed * to_be_defined_factor

ex. 20 passengers plane flying at 128 km/h can flight 2560 * [x] tiles

We just have to find what is the factor to be applied, and if it's constant, hyperbolic, parabolic or linear.

=> This formula estimates a plane course duration is constant

max_range = speed * to_be_defined_factor (how much hours a plane can flight)

[Aydan]

i like the second suggestion, because it almost holds true for vintage and modern planes.
At least the spread is far less compared to a range spread.

For example:
Vintage planes could probably fly up to say 5 hours per trip and a modern long range plane can do up to 20 hours. this makes a factor of four.
Normal jet liners do about 8-10 hours (factor 2)
Vintage plane could probably do something like 700 km per trip and a modern long range jet can do about 15000 which makes a factor of about 20.
So making range dependent on maximum in flight time seems pretty reasonable.
Zeppelins would have to be an exception there.

Aydan

[MagicBuzz]

Zeppelins would have to be an exception there.

That's why I liked the first suggestion, as it takes also capacity in account, so the zepplins get advantage of their higher capacity

May be those two formulas should be mixed together to get a smoother result.

[doghousedean]

max_range = total_capacity * speed * to_be_defined_factor

This is wrong, it states that max range increases with larger capacity and speed but if you fill a plane more for a given speed you get less range. therefore

max_range = (speed / total_capacity) * vfactor

vFactor = variable factor

[MagicBuzz]

I disagree.

Take a Cesna Long Caravan. It can transport... 8 passengers at 120 Mph for like... 500 km.
Now take a A380, it can transport 500 passengers at 600 Mph for like... 20 000 km.

I don't say "the same aircraft will fly longer if it's more filled". I say "a plane that can transport more people is generally designed for longer routes". And that's true for most of the vintage and modern planes : longer distance demands are higer, so the planes are biggers. Thus a long range route requiers a lot more fuel, so to keep a lower prices, you must carry more people.

So there is a direct impact on the capacity and the range, and they grow together.

You can see the same thing with boats : local ferries are not very big. Transatlantics boats were just as big as a small city. On a ferry, you generaly can transport 300 people, on a transatlantic boat, it's 3000. Ferry range is 100 km, Transatlantic is 10000.

[doghousedean]

the vFactor will take into account for the planetype, but if a cesna has only 2 people in it, it will use less fuel so then fly further, will it not

[RainierWatcher]

the vFactor will take into account for the planetype, but if a cesna has only 2 people in it, it will use less fuel so then fly further, will it not

Well in a Cessna, 2 people would be a light load, and so can carry more fuel and go further. But the mass is a smaller concern than the actual velocity of an aircraft, as you need more fuel to go twice as fast than you do to carry twice the cargo, since E = 0.5mv^2.

I think the best way might be to use real world examples, since speed and passenger capacity can be a poor guide.

[MagicBuzz]

the vFactor will take into account for the planetype, but if a cesna has only 2 people in it, it will use less fuel so then fly further, will it not

Well in a Cessna, 2 people would be a light load, and so can carry more fuel and go further. But the mass is a smaller concern than the actual velocity of an aircraft, as you need more fuel to go twice as fast than you do to carry twice the cargo, since E = 0.5mv^2.

I think the best way might be to use real world examples, since speed and passenger capacity can be a poor guide.

I don't see what is the problem when using speed and capacity factors together.

Find any revelant exemple where using capacity and speed factors together can't give a revelant result for range calculation.

Stop comparing a cessna range with a airliner range. Even with fully loaded tanks, a cessna can't cross a european country. Get some documentation on the constructor's site if you can't believe me.
Again, stop comparing the same plane running at different speeds. A Cessna Caravan flying at cruise speed will use less fuel that when flying at any other speed, whatever it's faster or slower speed.
Just do some flight simulation to understand it. Avionics and engine are built to run at a specific speed, that is called cruise speed, and not any other speed. Lowering speed will just reduce the avionics and engine performances : you won't save any drop of fuel.

Thus, don't compare an half loaded plane and a fully loaded plane. Opperational range always assumses the plane is fully loaded. Thus, for economy reasons, when a plane isn't fully loaded, it will carry less fuel in order to reduce the consumption. As a result, the range is always the same.

GRFs files don't carry enought information to be able to compute a range using real factors like weight, avionics, type of engine or tanks capacity. And stop dreaming, GRF format won't change. If you want a plane range limit, you have to assume it must run with the current information we can grab from the GRF file, nothing more.

You can choose arbitrary values like "normal plane = X tiles, helicopter = Y tiles and jet planes = Z tiles", or try to find something that can fit a little more with reality. But stop dreaming about a perfect system, as it's impossible.

Without physical information, you can just work with economy information. Just compare ANY long range airliner with ANY short range airliner. I don't know any heavy capacity short range airliner, and I don't know any low capacity long range airliner. The only exception to this was the Concorde, but it's speed was far higer than other long range airliners (and it just make your deduction wrong : as speed doesn't reduce the range, as most long range airliners are faster than short range airliners...). Most of the time, the plane capacity and speed are directly dependent of the plane range. It's not perfect, as a formula of this king could give some results actually different that reality, but it should handle most of the cases fine enought to get something quite realistic.

[RainierWatcher]

True enough. I suppose it does work that way. I was wrong, it seems.

[athanasios]

Bigger capacity doesn't mean longer range. Actually it can be the opposite way. To make it clear: I refer to same type of plane. When used for local range the same plane is refited to carry less fuel and more cargo. So the suggestion to include cargo in estimating range as proposed is completely erroneous.

Range can be achieved only one way: with a new variable in the grf. The same for other vehicles too.

Example from wikipedia:

"When the 777F enters service in 2008, it is expected to be the longest-range freighter in the world. The 747-400ERF can carry more cargo and travel farther than the 777F, but the 747-8F replacing it will have less range than the 747-400ERF in the interest of more payload."

And from the same source:

"The Boeing 777 ... can carry between 301 and 368 passengers in a three-class configuration and has a range from 5,210 to 9,450 nautical miles (9,650 to 17,501 km)."

Code: Select all

Measurement            747-8I                             747-8F
Seating capacity        467 (3-class)                    N/A
Zero fuel weight        610,000 lb (276,691 kg)     702,000 lb (318,422 kg)
Maximum take-off weight     970,000 lb (439,985 kg)
Cruising speed          0.855 Mach                       0.845 Mach
Range fully loaded     8,000 nm (14,815 km)       4,475 nm (8,275 km)
Cargo capacity          5,705 ft³ (161.5 m³)         30,177 ft³ (854.3 m³)

[MagicBuzz]

To make it clear: I refer to same type of plane. When used for local range the same plane is refited to carry less fuel and more cargo.

What did I say ?
Do not compare the same plane with different configurations.

Thus, you can't change the cargo capacity of the plane in OTTD.

But I agree, I someone create a GRF with a B747 with 400 places, and another B747 with 600 places, there is a problem.

Well... Not really in fact : the local services liveries are always slower. There is no use for a local service to go at 900 km/h, as the plane won't have enought time to go at FL20. It will remains arround FL10, where those speeds are forbidden.

Because of this, your hight capacity plane max speed would be reduced to 400 km/h, so its range will be decreased also.


But I agree, I should be better with a variable in the GRF.

Now, just go to ask it in the TTDP project to add this in the GRF format.
They play with small maps only, you don't have any chance to get added a feature that is usefull only for huge maps... But you can still ask.

[doghousedean]

@magicbuzz, im assuming you workin the industry or have spet far too long on FS!

I too think we should keep it simple, like saying x planes can go x tiles y planes goes y tiles and z planes go z tiles, fixed values and no calculations on current capacity.

It seems logical that there is a fixed value to calulate how much fuel to put in a planes tanks, if assume the range to be constant you can adjust the fuel load for the current weight of the plane. Obiviously...

in short, no need to over complicate this.