True, since not everyone fly’s there daily.
the only problem “exploring” is most airports in the remote areas of the globe wouldn’t be able to handle FNF traffic…
I never said that’s what people do, what I meant to say(if you didn’t understand) was that global was made to explore, but the majority of the people want to be in areas with active ATC, thus showing little traffic or sometimes heavy traffic, depending on the featured airports for that day.
Isn’t the solution to that using a multi-hub setup? With secondary hubs?
I understand, but you said this:
We enjoy flying where ATC is not present but we want to encourage people to explore ;)
You can’t have everything. Rare regions and a community choice. The team tries to find the best possible balance between conflicting interests for sure, and with every compromise this won’t be working great for everyone but generally it should (and in my opinion does).
I have seen both topics demanding rarer airports and topics demanding more chances for the community to decide.
Yeah like using the Island hopper idea Probably using Honolulu as the main a d Guam as a secondary
And this will always lean towards the regions with more IFC users. I’d generally like to keep the decision to the IFATC organisers to have more balance and because the IFC can’t possibly make a unanimous decision, but the IFC having a say once and again is nice.
As I said it’s needed to find a balance and I can see why after two community choice FNFs in a short timespan we see now such a topic on the IFC. Still I personally feel the balance is given with many rare regions featured throughout 2019, but we can obviously disagree here as well.
I agree and it is nice to have that variety and community choice. What I meant to say is that the IFC can’t make a unanimous decision deviating from the norm.
Again you read it wrong. I said it is not a requirement, people are not required to fly to active airspaces, but they want to fly there by choice, not force.
Which is why changing the hubs up is a good idea… I can’t tell if we’re agreeing or not sorry, I’m super tired.
ok well for example Greenland (since someone mentioned that country) there are only 4 airports, and the biggest of them has parking for 23 aircraft total, of which only 4 are narrowbody aircraft. 1 runway, in which back taxi’ing is likely and no ground control. Even as a secondary hub, it would have way too much traffic to handle, not to mention the 3 other airports only have parking for 11 each. Those peak hours would be chaos, so why subject the masses to chaos and frustration?
I don’t know either, but it is what it is. Good talk.
I see, I see. What I thought people were mainly getting at is we’d like to see major hubs controlled more frequently on other continents. Instead of a scattering of airports that can’t connect to even bigger hubs, or some global hubs only a few times a year.
Or is there another way to manage this situation since IF reaches unrealistic levels of traffic? Who knows.
Misha created this simple poll for people to choose their favourite country featured for this weeks FNF. The results shown is what people wanted the most for the next event.
On the other side we had a topic open before Christmas about FNF suggestions, you also had a chance to feature your favourite airport such as Sri Lanka, etc. I presume these suggestions will be taken during the month of January.
For your information:
That’s a matter of where the population lies. People’s favourite is 90% of the time their country of residence. And I think what other people here are also saying is that they would like that shared around.
All this gatekeeping is annoying
The goal is of FNF is to fly from/to a HUB. If you want to discover a place, jump in a Flash Flight.
If you like to discover the world as you say so, you’d know that most airports have 5 international gates at best, try fitting dozens of people in these.
Honestly, why don’t you just create events for people wanting to discover the world rather than complaining in a nagging way, that’s why #live:events are here for…
Whenever we do community choice Mischa reminds us to make sure it is a large airport with multiple runways, lots of gates, and all ATC frequencies. More or less, FNF has to be at the very least an international airport. Maybe not a hub, but there isn’t too much room for exploring with the site of FNF. If exploring is your forte, look at the arrivals list at the FNF airport, there is likely some cool flight you haven’t flown, that is in my mind the exploration part…
They simply are not. This is a tired rhetoric. I will explain below for fairness.
The reason for larger hubs recently is due to 19.4 release and the holiday season. We cater for the demand, and as that increases, our choices decrease for suitability. We had an increase of at least 30-40% in traffic for the few FNFs after 19.4.
2019 itself was filled with FNFs across the world from diverse hubs and countries. Please look back at these.
To go into how FNFs are chosen. You cannot have a FNF at:
- Any single runway airports
- Any airports with anything less than 10-15 heavy gates
- An airport with backtracking
- An airport with no approach frequencies
This is because of the following:
- No places for aircraft to spawn
- Poor ATC performance if no APP leading to poor user experience
- Frustration at wait times from the majority of users, especially those who fly more rarely than the majority here
- Multiple fuel emergencies from people who would not be able to land for hours
- A severely decreased real world route network from smaller locations; a big deal for many users
A serious consideration is also IFATC. Staffing tiny airports that don’t handle more than a handful of planes in real life makes it almost impossible to do within Infinite Flight.
I’d also reiterate the FNF is the big event each week, so leaning towards larger hubs is always going to happen. There are 6 other days in the week too, for those who have forgotten.
Finally, as seen by the poll, the wider majority do actually want larger mainstream hub FNF airports. They are always busier than more remote ones. We cater for the silent majority as much as the vocal minority. This means we will have larger hubs more often than not, then on occasion smaller ones, as has been the case all year.