Planeset [version 1.5.3 released 2006-10-24]

[Villem]

I also love the planes that the file i currenly got haves..They look awesome..I like one plane specifically for express Passenger services or goods..it just looks like it..even it doesn't carry much. Did i mention the set goes damn well with USSet?

[zero1000]

i propose to axe the 'Hindenburg'. why? because no zepellin is drawn yet and it seems to be hard to draw it. and the difference between the two Zeppelins is not so big.

yes, put 75% complete in the topic title. any good publicity is welcome

[krtaylor]

I was kind of leaning toward dumping the Osprey, simply because nobody wants to either draw or code it. But you're right, getting rid of the Hindenburg would make sense.

[Szappy]

Awww
PLEASE don't dump the Osprey!
It's one of the best ideas ever, even if it's difficult code.
There might be some help at that, will see...

[krtaylor]

OK, my decision is, that whatever plane is LAST to get drawn (not coded, just drawn), will be dumped. Being drawn last will indicate that it is the least popular.

So, if you want the Osprey, draw it. That would mean it would be a Zeppelin that gets dumped, since there are two of them that are similar, and drawing one would fill the last slot.

I'd say the Osprey could use the fuselage of the Avro.

[Steve]

I say you dump a plane.. we already have loads of those.
Is there a big cargo plane in the set? If so, would it be coded to mean passengers can't be taken? I used TTDAlter to make a larger hold.. but it doesn't work as well.
What will the Osprey hold? I didn't think they made commercial runs, but i don't know much about them.

[krtaylor]

I say you dump a plane.. we already have loads of those.
Is there a big cargo plane in the set? If so, would it be coded to mean passengers can't be taken? I used TTDAlter to make a larger hold.. but it doesn't work as well.

There are several pure cargo planes. These are:
- Super Guppy
- Sikorsky Skycrane (helicopter)
- AN-124
- A300-600ST

I have thought about dumping the Super Guppy, because although its cubic capacity is enormous, its max weight isn't. That might be one that goes. Or we could ditch the Skycrane, those are very rare and used for specialized jobs only - but I liked the idea of showing different containers or hang-bladders underneath it. Graphically it was cool.

What will the Osprey hold? I didn't think they made commercial runs, but i don't know much about them.

Ospreys are purely military, BUT my understanding is that the Japanese are expecting to produce a commercial version once the Osprey technology is fully debugged. From the point of view of gameplay, we had to have a helicopter-like vehicle with reasonable capacity. IRL, helicopters are used less and less - in the 1950s and 1960s there were commercial airline services using large helicopters, but there haven't been any for decades, and so the average helicopter has gotten smaller. But that won't work for the game. So I kind of stretched out the helicopter years a little unrealistically. The Sikorksy S-58 and S-61 appear at more or less the right time, but the Chinook (which I release in 1981) actually dates to the 1960s too. I put it in 1981 because the version I use is a more modern upgraded version, and there wasn't any point in having the older one in the 1960s because its performance is fairly similar to the S-61. Then after the Chinook, there's no big helicopter that I'm aware of in commercial use. So I had to make a fudge, and I chose the Osprey because a.) it's cool, b.) it does exist, and c.) there is a real possibility it'll appear in commercial service. The Osprey can hold I believe 25 fully-equipped soldiers, but the commercial version would be stretched and larger because it doesn't require the emergency power capabilities that a military one would.

[459]

CHOP CHOP CHOP!!! (This works whether it stood for incoming helicopters or chopping some planes in favor of others)

I've redrawn the Eurocopter based on the original TTD Sikorsky sprite and the CyberBoy edit, just like the A340. It'll be included in next edition of Planeset WIP. And I can tell, plane pics with wrong palette will not be accepted into this set unless that gfx's author specifically wants me to teach a painless way to convert format x into 8-bit PNG/PCX using the right palette.

I also drew a Sikorsky S-61 sprite, just a lenght tweak for the original TTD chopper sprite with shorter tail and longer cabin. You may comment them both and if there's something to fix, i'll probably get them fixed. Anyway, if things go as well as in my basic chopper sprite modification test, tomorrow you should expect some FLYING LITTLE CHOPPERS!

krtaylor, you might have got the impression of the fact there's been proposals for chopping multiple planes and there's been asking for some other planes that could be easily done. What is your opinion about replacing the planes that'll probably stay undone if it's known that replacement could be done easily? Should we just keep the slots reserved for the planes that currently have slots, do some sort of replacement list for such types in which hard-to-implement planes are replaced with easy-to-implemet planes or some other kind of solution?

For instance I'm in favor of including DC-8 Super and F-27. I also have Junkers JU52, Sud-Aviation SE210 Caravelle and Convair Metropolitan in my mind. However, ALL those aircraft bias the set towars Finnair heavily which sounds unfair. Some other people might be asking for other plane types as well. This certainly isn't the easiest question in the world with no definite right answer.

[krtaylor]

Of the planes in the list, I believe the following could potentially be deleted with the least harm to the overall gameplay.

- Hindenburg. It seems a shame to axe the most famous Zeppelin, but the Graf Zeppelin has almost as good performance and appears ten years earlier.

- Sikorsky Skycrane. There never were many, and they were never used in regular service for anything; they were mostly military, or very specialized commercial applications such as oil drilling operations or heavy construction in inconvenient places. I'd like to keep it though because it offers such wide scope for truly unique graphics (like, liquids are carried in a rubber bladder on a rope underneath it), but it probably isn't absolutely required. There's not much call for a helicopter to carry oil, although I suppose you could do it from an oil rig to the refinery.

- Super Guppy. Looks like a great cargo plane, and certainly has a large interior volume, but it couldn't carry anything very heavy. So it might not be very useful.

- An-124. It can carry more than a 747, but enough more to be useful and worth a slot? But it's already drawn and looks cool.

- Airbus A300-600ST. I dunno if it can do anything a cargo-version A380 can't.

From the gameplay point of view, I don't see a reason to include the DC-8 because it's basically the same as a 707, the Caravelle is the same as Comet, and the JU53 as DC-3. The Convair Metropolitan performs probably similar to a Constellation. What does an F-27 add?

I think at this point, because of the limited slots, we need to be more concerned with performance characteristics than including even all the famous aircraft. Goodness knows the DC-8 was common enough to be on any list of important aircraft, but from the gameplay point of view, what's the difference between a DC-8 and a 707?

[CyberBoy]

I fixed up the Cruiser's livery, it didn't look quite right.

I'm also planning on doing the liveries on all the planes that need them.

Edit: A321 in Aer Lingus livery added to post.

[krtaylor]

Doesn't the A321 need more of a green stripe? Otherwise, very nice.

[Raichase]

Doesn't the A321 need more of a green stripe? Otherwise, very nice.

I agree, looks very classy. I would be interested to see it with a green stipe too though

[459]

My opinions of planes:

An-124: We should keep it in the set. It's big and appears so much earlier than A380.
Guppy&Beluga: Since the limited cargo carrying ability, chances are that they'll be useless. Chop.
Hindenburg: I don't comment, if someone drew ANY kind of airship first.
Skycrane: Chances are that cargo carrying helicopters falls uneconomical in the game. Chop.
Shorts 330: If someone draws it, OK. If doesn't, chop.

DC-8: The Super 61/63 variant, since 1967. It's considerably bigger than B707 or any other plane at that time and stays in service for long.
Fokker F-27: There's no sufficiently-performing (speed) modern prop plane before Shorts or Dash 8 so this would be adept one for that purprose. Do you really want to fly regional prop services with DC-3's until mid-80's while you can get 25-30 years advantage with F-27? I see space for F-27 here.
JU52: In North America you had DC-2 and DC-3. In Europe we had JU52. We had it earlier (around the same time as Trimotor) and at least it's superior over Trimotor.
Caravelle: It'll be bigger (90-95pax) vs. Comet, thus narrowing the gap between Comet and B707.

I think that there's also need for some kind of bigger postwar 4-prop plane (the Connie hasn't that high pax capacity) like Vickers Viscount, DC-6 or DC-7.

[459]

Today's build features rearranged planelist and two new helicopters, Eurocopter AS-332 Super Puma and Sikorsky S-61. The addition of these two helicopters brings the current total of coded aircraft to 31 out of 41 maximum. The spreadsheet now has a proposal for plane/type life scheme. The zero1000 rearranged planelist, the original TTD style, IMO looks good since it doesn't look nearly as messy as does the time-based planelist.

...and of course when I started to code it I noticed that S-61 wheelpods in forward-facing diagonals weren't moved in stretch. Fixed.

Mind if we changed the B747-400 into B747 EUD (Extended upper deck) and change the starting year to 1983? The extended upper deck was introduced with B747-300 that year.

The life scheme can be found in the spreadsheet. I've thought that some plane types, the bestsellers in their size class, that in real world have stood in production in new forms would be "eternal" with extremely long type life, so that they'd stay usable even after 2050. Does it sound OK for you?

Like this: Estabilish a new air route with B737 in 1969 (when -100's were produced), replace the plane around 1990 (when -300's were produced) and again around 2010 (when -600's were produced) and so on. Of course, you can't make the running cost modifier to lower with time as to represent better fuel efficiency of modern variants but let's say that it's compensated by increased fuel prices

Point out the stupidities/anomalities in that scheme that need to be fixed. When they've been dealt with, I'll get those values coded.

This damn work takes sometimes a lot of desktop space when two spreadsheets, notepad, calc and few directories open simultaneously. LCD with 1280x1024 sometimes just isn't enough. Does someone want to give me EUR1200 w/o strings attached so I could buy a 20" 1600x1200 Eizo L885K?

[RPharazon]

New comp came in last tuesday, and I've got Photoshop CS on it, but no floppy drive because it costed 30$ more. (Yes, I know, I'm a cheap b******.) and my Wireless B receptor costs 80$ or so and right now I can't afford it.
Expect me to deliver much greater work in about a week.

[krtaylor]

Mind if we changed the B747-400 into B747 EUD (Extended upper deck) and change the starting year to 1983? The extended upper deck was introduced with B747-300 that year.

I don't have a problem with that.

The life scheme can be found in the spreadsheet. I've thought that some plane types, the bestsellers in their size class, that in real world have stood in production in new forms would be "eternal" with extremely long type life, so that they'd stay usable even after 2050. Does it sound OK for you?

Yes, I'd expected you'd do that. The 737 should be available continuously from 1967 to at least 2010, maybe 2020.

I removed the Super Guppy, Beluga and Skycrane; I added the DC-8 (reluctantly...) That leaves one (1) slot. I think the arguments for another prop plane are sound. So, which'll it be? The DC-6? The F-27? It needs to be something that would replace the DC-3 and be replaced in its turn by the Shorts 330.

[Saskia]

I removed the Super Guppy, Beluga and Skycrane; ...

You should better replace some of that planes that all look the same

[459]

Consider Guppy, Beluga and Skycrane chopped.

By DC-8, I actually wasn't asking for normal DC-8 but for the stretched Super 61/63/71/73 models, startyear 1967, pax capacity 220. It's the biggest passenger aircraft available before B747 era. The capacity class between B707's 170 and DC-10/L-1011 300 would be filled with this.

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=194
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/636766/M/

DC-6 is much bigger than F-27. Startyear 1947, pax capacity with my pax calculation scheme would be 90. We are missing both big prop plane and the early feeder service plane. I'd say we'll take DC-6 now and if any other planes are to be replaced, I'll propose F-27 then.

[459]

krtaylor, with the eternal planes I actually meant to prize the respective types with "unlimited" life in game scale. So that if someone for some reason wants to keep playing to year 2100+ there'd be at least some types in use. I don't want to predict future but this act is in order to retain playability of the game so that there's even some planes to buy in 2100 if player wanted to.

[krtaylor]

I removed the Super Guppy, Beluga and Skycrane; ...

You should better replace some of that planes that all look the same

Well, yes, I know what you mean... The trouble is most all planes DO look the same. I tried, but the public demanded changes.