Aircraft Configurations

You are missing something, or have a cool idea for us ? Tell us here !

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

Post Reply
MiguelMoreno
Ticket Agent
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 12:55 am

Aircraft Configurations

Post by MiguelMoreno » Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:31 pm

after an explanation of CAPFlyer of why the 757 has the standard configuration in FSA, I'm wondering if it would be a good idea, once purchased an airplane, the airline could spend some money on improvements to the aircraft type "Winglets" or "engines" or Seats (economic class, first class, etc) as many planes depending on whether your configuration is Domestic or long voyages could be more appropriate to a configuration or other

alasizon
FSAirlines DB and Wiki Admin
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:08 am
Location: PHX

Re: Aircraft Configurations

Post by alasizon » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:04 pm

This is high on the To-Do list.

It has been covered previously many times. A search will return these threads.
Matt-FSAirlines DB Admin
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Aircraft Configurations

Post by CAPFlyer » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:38 pm

Actually, this isn't on the list. Having some options for seating arrangements is on the list and tiered ticketing from it, but not different engines and winglets and such. We have no desire to get so complicated that this kind of thing is required. It also opens up for a lot more problems because where do we stop? There are some aircraft that have or had 10+ engine options available. What was the difference in performance? Almost none. Yeah, there are aircraft that did have large differences between different engine types, but more commonly, the engine choice only meant a difference in range, not in operating weights, which is something we don't care about. We set the range as the longest range with full fuel and no payload for the most fuel efficient engine option where available.

I'm sorry guys, but it just doesn't make sense on the design of this network to get into such nano-management levels of detail. It's not worth the hassle for us nor is it worth the amount of additional data it will take to support that kind of customizations.
Image

tomEGCC
Ticket Agent
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Aircraft Configurations

Post by tomEGCC » Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:15 pm

I agree with Miguel about the seats. I really do not like the aircraft seating configurations on most aircraft. I think that users of all aircraft (except for cargo obviously) should be able to seat a value for their max seat config, as long as it is not higher than the overall maximum seats for that aircraft type. For example, a Boeing 737-800 has a maximum of 189 seats, but some airlines may want around 175 or something like that. Therefore, a simple box can be added so that users can type in how many seats they want on each aircraft. I have noticed there is a box for the max seats on the flightplans, so this could be added/modified to the aircraft settings.

The configs that I do not like are the Airbus Small Family, Boeing NG Family and Embraer ERJ's. I really do hope that this can be improved.
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Aircraft Configurations

Post by CAPFlyer » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:59 am

1) Allowing for SOME configurability of capacities is, and has been, on the list. The problem is not letting it "run wild" when we do it. But then again, that's not what this thread was asking for.

2) We state very clearly what the capacities are and why they're set where they are both on the "Add New Aircraft Type" page, the "Important Announcements" forum, the "Tips & Tricks" forum, and in the Wiki in several articles. This has been our rules for some time and if you're not happy with them, then I'm sorry, but that's the way they're going to stay. On the aircraft types you list Tom, all use a 2-class arrangement that is listed on their websites or in documentations as the most common 2-class configuration. Anything bigger than a 757 uses the typical 3-class capacity. Our numbers are directly from their books, and many times are actually higher than what the major airlines' configurations are as many airlines have added more legroom in first class, extra first class rows, or (as with airlines like American, United/Continental, and a few others) add a section of the Economy class that has extra legroom. These all result in 2-class and 3-class configurations that have 2-3 rows less overall than the "average"/"typical" for the class and thus you're carrying more than they do.
Image

tomEGCC
Ticket Agent
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Aircraft Configurations

Post by tomEGCC » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:34 pm

Yes, I am aware of airlines that do use business like configs, or have extra legroom configs on certain aircraft. However, it would still be greatly appreciated if something could be done to allow each virtual on here to select how many seats they would like on each aircraft, so long as it does not exceed the maximum number of seats for that aircraft.

For example, an Airbus A320 has a maximum of 180 seats on it's aircraft. However, FSAirlines currently has a config of 150. Airlines should be able to enter a value that is 180 or lower for this type of aircraft.
The same applies for all other aircraft types. A Boeing 757-200 has a maximum of around 240 seats, but most airlines have 235 in economy class, unless it's a 2 class config of course.

It should be fairly simple to add a feature like this to each aircraft. There is already a limit on passengers which can be configured in the FlightPlans, but surely something similar to this can be done per aircraft too?

Cheers,
Tom
Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Aircraft Configurations

Post by CAPFlyer » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:42 am

Tom,

Not to sound too impetuous here, but -

1) what kind of programming background do you have? If you don't have any extensive experience, please don't comment on how difficult it is or isn't to add a feature. I explained quite clearly what the problem is and why it's not easy to just add such a feature.

2) Rehashing your same argument does not gain you anything more than aggravation from the developers and staff because they've already responded to your points and to restate your points without consideration of the response only shows you didn't read what was put in front of you.
Image

Post Reply