Sandbox playtest: new findings and edge cases

New findings from Sandbox 1 (world 12). The earlier playtest discussion at /forum/t/16 is currently unavailable, so this is its single replacement. I am continuing with previously uncovered interactions; this does not ask for another review of the earlier remarks.

Lessor: opening and saving a dual offer removes its sale component

Company Atlas Lease Lab (11), DC3 N101LL / aircraft 5580, 24 Dec 1970 game time.

1. Leasing → Stock → select the aircraft → Offer for lease.
2. Set a valid fixed rent ($200/month here), enable “Offer them for sale as well”, and set sale price to 150%. Save.
3. The stock row confirms both the monthly lease and the sale at about $29,000.
4. Open “Change the offer” again. Rent and the other lease terms are retained, but “Offer them for sale as well” is off, and its price field is absent.
5. Submit “Change the offer” without changing anything. The saved row now has the lease terms only; the sale component disappears.

Confirmed: the edit form does not preload the existing sale component, and an unchanged save removes it. No double-sale, duplicate proceeds or accepted-lease exploit was tested. The final test listing is lease-only at $200/month.

Research: zero airlines versus booked scheduled inventory on the exact study date

Atlas Lifecycle Test (9) commissioned ORD–LAX research on 23 Dec 1970 for $1,236. The completed report expressly studies 30 Dec 1970 and says 0 airlines / “No airline sells journeys in this market on the day studied.”

For that same 30 Dec local departure date, Atlas Globe Airways (5) → Flights → filter AG472 shows ORD–LAX, 06:00–08:35, Scheduled, 8/8 F and 180/180 Y booked. Its active route 99 has Wednesday services and is 21× weekly each way.

This is an observed disagreement between the research text and the same date’s scheduled booked inventory. The future flight has no aircraft assigned yet; actual operation, the report’s eligibility rules and any missing sale/revenue consequence are unverified. This is a direct-route comparison, not a claim about a connecting itinerary or a comparison to a different study date. Please clarify if the report intentionally excludes this inventory.

Freighter route: “fares” opens an empty passenger-fare view

Sandbox 1, AG (company 5), route 428: ORD–BOS–JFK, fleet 62 “DC6A Cargo Test”, a DC-6A freighter with no passenger seats. Observed 3 Jan 1971; the route starts 8 Feb.

Reproduction:

1. Open the future freighter route.
2. In the banner saying its fares, times and effective date can be changed, click “fares”.
3. It opens “Fares by class”, with no class fields, a “Save plan fares” button, and passenger market/pricing-rule explanations. The normal freighter tabs do not include Fares.

There is no cargo-rate control in this view. The planner separately quoted a cargo rate of $0.32/kg and linked to Cargo → rates. The freighter action should lead to the applicable cargo-rate workflow, or be omitted. I did not save anything in the empty view; no pricing or revenue consequence is claimed.

Timetable pin indicators disagree after an applied retime

Sandbox 1, Atlas Lifecycle Test (company 9), fleet 44 “DC3 ORD”, its sole aircraft N101LT. Observed 6 Jan 1971.

Reproduction:

1. Timetable → Sunday → select ORD–MSN journey 102 (original route 405, 14:00 UTC).
2. Pin N101LT to its line. R1 changes from “any aircraft” to N101LT, and the aircraft table says “pinned”. Both survive navigating away and back.
3. Move the round trip +15m and Apply the permitted plan, using From = Now.
4. Reload and select Sunday again. The saved departure is 14:15 (new route version 430), but R1 now says “any aircraft” while N101LT’s aircraft row still says “pinned”. Selecting the journey offers “Pin to this line” but no “Clear pin”.

Confirmed: the rotation and aircraft table give inconsistent pin state after the saved timetable change, including after reload. Please either carry the pin to the replacement line or clear/report it consistently. I have not established whether this changes actual aircraft dispatch or permits overlapping assignments.