Updated Payload Models [old thread]

[James]

I'd like to request that FsPassengers provide an updated payload pack for users of their program because IMO a
lot of the ones people are uploading
into the download sections are very inaccurate. I've tried the updated models in the 'Download FSP' section and
they don't represent the real
specifications in any way. The seating arrangement is totally wrong along with the maximum passengers
depending on the different seating configs and
the cargo weight is also completely wrong. I'm aware that new seating configs have been uploaded into the
download section but thats the only thing
right about them. In every model that that user has uploaded, I always get a bad CG and when I enter the right
seating config into the models provided
in the 'Download FSP' section, I also get a bad CG message.
This is a bit stupid as when I go to buy this aircraft, I won't have any proper data in it. Could someone PLEASE
create new payload models of such
aircraft as that of the A300 right up to the A340 and similarly with Boeing planes, with realistic proper data instead
of providing us with completely
inaccurate models which would obviously lead to problems with flying the aircraft.

[Airtime]

Might be a good time to start a discussion about the entire payload model thing and FSP.

With all due respect to Dan, in my opinion, the whole payload model, or the way FSP deals with them, is one of the few weak points in FSP. Is there no
other way? Is there some reason that FSP can't read each aircraft's .cfg file and automatically add it to the program? Perhaps Dan would be so kind as
to explain the process.

Please, no flames here, let's keep it civil.

Happy Holidays

AT

[James]

I agree, I would also like to hear from Dan on this issue. And if indeed there is no other way around it, then there should at least be a payload
model update to correct all the info on a lot of the current ones which isn't correct, and I'd appreciate a reply other than D.I.Y.

Cheers,

James

[jboweruk]

I'm sure in over a year of coding FSP Dan would've explored many options as to how to do payloads, as in real life though different
airlines use different loadouts, and we are doubtless going to be the same, for example my DC3 is single class, all VIP, as are pretty well
all my light aircraft, only when I start flying larger Turboprops will that change and even then I don't know if I will have an economy class as
such. EasyJet 737's for example don't have a first or Businessclass, they are all economy class aircraft, while a Lufthansa or KLM plane
would more likely be a three class configuration.

I guess what I'm trying to say is Dan has left it open for people to do their own payload models, you don't have to use the built in ones and
can easily edit your own. It takes a bit of figuring out but that's half the fun.

[James]

jboweruk airlines have different seating configs yes but at the end of the day there is always a MAX payload and a MAX cargo and this isn't set
correctly in the payload models provided. And I'm pretty annoyed at the fact that this topic is being ignored while others are being replied to. This
is an issue that should be considered by the developers to be changed because I don't want to have to rely on a payload model that isn't accurate and
the only help I get on that issue is a reply of "D.I.Y.", its rediculous that the payload models supplied aren't even anywhere near accurate.

[eazy]

You probably know the amount of freeware flight models out there. For every type and variation of aircraft exist dozens of different models
with different aircraft.cfg's. Some of them have the wrong number of load stations (or no stations at all), some have wrong empty weight, mtow
etc. So how is Dan supposed to take all these hundreds or thousands of possibilities into account? If you have a poor aircraft.cfg with bad
weights, how is FSP supposed to read the correct values?
Most of the default PMs work fine for me but it really depends on the flight model and its config file.

For this reason I think the open concept of FSP's load model is very smart. Even with a bad config file you can adjust station weights and
positions through the payload model. However, if the MTOW is wrong you will have to alter the aircraft.cfg but that's not all too difficult. And even
a Dummy could fine tune an existing payload model with the payload editor. What's more: this way everyone is free to manage his company the
way he or she likes. If you want to fly an A380 full of VIPs that's probably not highly realistic but it's possible.

If you don't like a downloaded pm, try another one or (sorry to say that) make your own.
Personally I think that Dan has found the best solution there is, and I wouldn't want this to be changed.

[Leftcoaster]

There are so very many freeware and payware out there that nobody will ever be 100% happy with anything that Dan or FsP modders do
to provide payload models. I would submit that if you want an accurate payload model for a particular plane (or planes) in your hanger,
then create it; the payload editor is capable of reproducing an workable model for any aircraft that I've tried yet. That includes oddities like
the Boeing 221A Monomail where half the passengers, and the pilot sit aft of the centre of gravity (CG) but as a single engine taildragger,
there has to be enough weight forward to raise the tail at the correct speed on takeoff. Or the B-314 Clipper that is naturally tail heavy
when empty and can carry only 1000 lbs of pax and cargo if it it fill its fuel tanks to 100%. Research your particular aircraft, try different
configurations and experiment. Learn how FS9 reads .cfg files and what the numbers in the aircraft file actually mean. Big flying boats
with multiple passenger and cargo decks presented a significant FsP payload model problem for me but research, experimentation and
a lot of trial and error eventually produced models that unstick and fly correctly with historically accurate payloads and fuel loads. You
may find that the author of a particular model omitted data that FsP needs so it's up to you to edit the aircraft file accordingly (1). Find and
join one of the freeware designers forums kicking around on the internet, they are gold mines' of information on all aspects of FS9.
A payload model doesn't have to be absolutely accurate, it only needs be as accurate as you want it to be. FsP provides the ability to
tweak as much as the user wants and if you want a perfect model, then all you have to do is build it. Pretty simple actually(2).
Cheers

Notes:
1. Blinding glimpse of the obvious but when editing any FS9 files, backup the original and save your work early and often.

2. No flaming is intended here but the old adage 'if you want something done right then do it yourself' applies to FsP as it does to so
much
of RL. Dan and the FsP team provided the tools, it's up to the individual to utilize them.

[James]

Lads get your facts straight would yeahs! FsPassengers doesn't go by the aircraft.cfg's weights, it uses those provided in the payload model which are
the ones which aren't correct. FsPassengers doesn't have to take into account every single aircraft.cfg file as it only has to take into account the
bloody payload model. My point here is that the payload models are inaccurate and I would think that we could at least be provided with correctly
valued payload models. And eazy I think you should get some cop on as not any auld dummy can make one of these payload models. Not everyone does
nothing but sit in front of their computer screen 24/7 and make the time to make these things. I neither have the time nor the patience to make a
payload model but I would think that with introducing a system as the one Dan has and me paying over €30 that I would be supplied with an accurate
payload to model to fly with!

[Covoxer]

Actually you are talking about 2 different problems here guys.
1. The accuracy of the payload layout. Like you cant make 400 seater of the B757 for example.
2. The CG problem. Sometimes it just falls out to the red in the normal loading conditions.

Problem 1 in my opinion should be fixed in FSPax default payload set. Alternatively I'm just working on such a realistic payloads set on
my own, which you just might have noticed in downloads.

Problem 2 can not be solved in default payload model or in any other set. This problem is specific to the particular aircraft model. For
example you may have the model of the same plane from diferent developers. And they will surely have different empty CG. If you tune
your payload model for one case it may fall out the limits in another. No one can create models or the algorythm that will work
successfully with all existing aircraft models! Sorry, but that's a sad truth.

So, I think it's a good idea to stop arguing about a bad CG. It's really much easier to learn how to tune existing payload model for any
particular plain model on your own. I do not say to create a new one! Just tune existing. 5 min. max!!!

So...

[eazy]

James wrote:
...not any auld dummy can make one of these payload models. Not everyone does
nothing but sit in front of their computer screen 24/7 and make the time to make these things

Covoxer wrote:
I do not say to create a new one! Just tune existing. 5 min. max!!! So...

That's what I meant to say. Change an existing model. It's just editing numbers. Nothing more. Maybe too complicated for some.

[jboweruk]

It wouldn't take hours to do a payload model, they can once you know what you're doing be done in around 15 minutes, some guys out
there probably got 'em down to 5. Don't pull Dan to pieces he works darned hard supporting this, it's not developers on this project, it's
developer, singular. I've seen him put out very good specific payload models when they have been asked for, the Caravan from Feelthere
being a very notable one, and C208's in FS are notoriously bad for doing Situp and Beg impressions if you use any external payload
editor, been there seen it and got the scars to prove it. I know he is working on new ways to improve what we have, but it's a great
product as it is, just give him a chance to work on and tweak it a bit more.

As I've said before a Billion dollar Jet is not perfect, so why does everybody expect a 50 dollar sim to be perfect?



Post Edited ( 12-15-05 23:41 )

[DanSteph]

Sorry for not replying before, I have only 24 hours per day and there is simply to much mails or post here
for me to answer them all. (or see them all for what it matter)

First I would say that the fact that all the default payload model contain right number of seat and class
for a given model, I did not invented those number they are taken from various thrusted source. Usually
they work nice with a majority of aircrafts that are well deigned.

About weight as MTOW fuel weight, empty weight they are taken from the aircraft.cfg if they are wrong FsP
can't do anything. In Fs2004 one can even design a A380 wich would have a MTOW at 15LBS. Fs2004 nor FsP
don't know nothing about the model the author intend to do appart the numbers the author provide himself.

About CG and other stuff FsP use the best system to deal with 15 different way of designing an aircraft
anyway its true it fail in certain case, for example some aircraft where designed to fly only with the payload
set in the aircraft.cfg such aircraft are often unable to fly empty or with a different payload (as if boeing would
design aircraft that would be unflyable without a given payload) this is a very unrealistic and a bad design
from author an aircraft should be designed empty the flight model tuned and then loaded and correction
made on the flight model. As in reality. Again FsP can only relly on the work that was done by the author.

About third party FSP payload model I agree anyway that not all might be well done, that's the problem of all
add-ons for Fs2004 aircraft have the same problem. Some are well done job some are amator work.

Covoxer wich make the excellent seat map payload model (see here:
http://www.fspassengers.com/?action=down...oad=submit )
contacted me about this topic and asked if it would be possible to do an "additionnal" pack with verified payload model and perhaps later
include it with the distribution of FsP. I'm fully okay with this idea... Now to do that we might perhaps make a "tester team"
wich would be in charge to test and verify the payload model ? The forum could be used for the exchange of the team ?
I'm even ready to open another "private forum"

Any idea ?

Dan

PS:

James wrote:
but I would think that with introducing a system as the one Dan has and me paying over €30 that I would be supplied with an accurate
payload to model to fly with!

That would be possible if all the aircrafts for Fs2004 were designed in a strict and accurate manner, FsP can't do better than what
the author have done.. just to defend myself: for 30 euro you get already much more than what other add-on provide as feature
Doing an accurate payload model for each existing aircraft of Fs2004 is an impossible task that would require that all aircrafts are
fully tested and have a specific payload model. Given there is almost 20'000 aircrafts existing for Fs2004 you can guess that FsP
would certainly not be anything close from 30 euro after such work. FsP provide the best system that work with a majority of aircraft and
provide all the tool to make it work with the other. FsP is still the only add-on that allow the loading of aircraft without editing the aircraft.cfg
and without quitting Fs2004.

Hope it explain ?



Post Edited ( 12-16-05 12:51 )

[Covoxer]

So...
I'm making my seat maps and uploading them.
You may see current progress on http://fspsm.nm.ru.
What's next?

Testers are welcome!
If you find any mistakes in my models, just let me know.
Any other ideas?

[James]

Covoxer the most obvious problems I can notice with your payload models is that the cargo weights are incorrect and I first noticed this when I
downloaded the A330-200 and A330-300 and found that both had the same cargo weight which is obviously wrong as the A330-300 is a much bigger and
heavier plane than that of the A330-200. The other thing I found wrong which is what I mentioned above is that the CG calculated in the Payload Editor
with nothing changed gives me a Bad CG with your models. These I think are what need to be fixed with your models.

And Dan I do like the idea of what you have proposed above and I think it will help a lot to have a small team of testers who can check that payload
models are not so much spot on but close to being spot on with the weights. I understand that every aircraft is different but am I wrong in saying
that a certain type of aircraft, eg. A320, is common to all when using FsPassengers as it doesn't use the data of the aircraft.cfg? This is the point
I'm trying to make in that a payload model doesn't really have to be made for each individual type of A320 for it to be accurate but so long as you
have the correct cargo wieght and passenger weight data in the A320 payload model then shouldn't it be accurate as this is what FsPassengers reads off
of?

[Covoxer]

Covoxer the most obvious problems I can notice with your payload models is that the cargo weights are incorrect and I first noticed
this when I downloaded the A330-200 and A330-300 and found that both had the same cargo weight which is obviously wrong as the
A330-300 is a much bigger and
heavier plane than that of the A330-200.

Cargo limits in my modela are not precize. That is true. There are some reasons for this.
First is the passengers orientation. You may easily notice that taking more that 50% of passengers you'll be not able to get that much
cargo anyway without overloading your plane. So the precize cargo limits are not so important while you mostly fly pax.
Next is the problem figuring out the maximum cargo loads and their positioning within the aircraft.
Positioning is a bit dead subject since containers may be moved inside cargo bays so that there can't be a fixed point of the cargo CG.
The maximum cargo weight is hard to find out because it is not stated clearly for most planes anywhere, maybe only in the tech doc's, but
I doubt so. The max load weight noted everywhere is the load with which the plane cat take off. In most cases this number is less than
you may actually put into cargo bay. The limit for cargo that we put in the payload model must represent the load that cargo bay can hold
without the damage. And this is the number that you can't easily find.
As to the A330-200 and A330-300. They have different size and MTOW but that doesn't mean that the cargo bays of the 300 are stronger
than those in 200. Sure A330-200 has less max load but that's the load that it can fly with. Do you understand the difference?
Infact you are limited with max load by the aircraft model in FS. So it's not dependent on the payload model anyway. Payload model only
sets the sructural limit wich is higher in most cases.
Although there are some planes in real world that have vere strict cargo bay limits, this question needs some more research to figure out.
But I'm agree that it would be better if those things would be more precize. The only stopping factor here is the time. I can spend around 2
to 4 hours for single aircraft to make it's typical layouts. And the most of this time is used for research work to figure out the exact seating
layouts. If I'll do the ame with cargo load, It will probably add a hour or two. As a result there would be probably twice less models made
by me already.
And don't forget, I'm not payed for this work.
So as a result I decided that such a tradeoff is quite a fair one. Don't you think so?

The other thing I found wrong which is what I mentioned above is that the CG calculated in the Payload Editor
with nothing changed gives me a Bad CG with your models.

Yes! This question has to be clearly explained.
Payload editor calculates the CG position relative to the 0 coordinate. If its too big or too small than it may advice you that something may
go wrong. This does not garantees that the payload is wrong. It's only a guess. Ask Dan if you don't believe me.
So, shouldn't I just move all points back or fore to fit it within the Payload Editors limits? No.
All relative coordinates of my passengers payloads are precize up to 0.5 feet. So they are realistic. And with different cabin layouts CG can
move fore or back. For example if you have big 1st class cabin in front and big economy in back, it will mean your CG is much more back
than it is in all economy configuration.
This way it is in real world. I only try to move things around so that the most rear loaded configuration has it's CG at negative coo's and
the most front loaded has it in positive. So that all layouts for this plane have their CG as close as possible to 0.
Do you understand now?
You may adjust CG on your own, but you have to change it by the same value in all payload models for the plane to stay close to reality.

These I think are what need to be fixed with your models.

These are not mistakes so nothing to fix
Though I may improve cargo load limits. Somewhen...
Or if more peolple, or Dan insist