I haven’t been in this forum for almost two years, neither have I played A/S in the period. The reason is simple - on A/S, anything and any aircraft that is not Western is most likely misrepresented. It has always been the bane of the game! Apparently, we could not help ourselves, even if we wanted to, when it comes to prejudice. In the past, the game had been made “political” through misrepresented performance charts and the use of several other implements and “balancing factors”. This forum and its archives bares me witness, as I had to fight on several occasions for aircraft models such as Tupolev to get simple and realistic representation. A few days ago, I decided to check on the game and see if common sense has prevailed, seeing that there are a few new aircrafts and developments globally. I went straight to the COMAC C919 aircraft to see how it was represented. Sad to say, nothing has changed. COMAC C919 is grossly misrepresented. Anyone who really wanted to get a true representation of this aircraft’s performance can do so, as its statistics and data is not hard to find. A simple google search brought back the actual official booklet for Aircraft Characteristic (ACAP) used for Airport planning. This is the official book used to train pilots for the aircraft type. In this digital booklet, you will see the official performance chart for both C919 and C919ER. It was very easily found online. I have decided to share it here. At least seeing it here being made public will eliminate the possibility of anyone claiming ignorance of the truth. Truth is sacrosanct! Here is the link:
As you can see from the performance chart on page 117 of the document, COMAC C919ER will carry 15 metric tons to a distance of 5,575km (3011 nautical miles). The lighter weight C919 will do the same (15 tons) to a distance of 4,139km (2235 nautical miles). At maximum payload, the COMAC C919 ER will attain a range of about 3,992km. Looking at this chart and comparing it to the travesty that is used as “representation” on A/S leaves much to be desired. I believe we have a duty to truth. I am quite simply tired of such insular shenanigan. Enough said.
I think someone is a bit of a fool. Below is the fuel graph for the C919ER. What I can see is at max payload (looks to be just under 20t) the range is just under 4,000km (so 3992km fits here) and at 15t it can go between 4000 and 6000km, so your “5575km at 15t” looks about right
Stop being stupid. There isn’t an agenda in this game.
First, Airlinesim and all staff (paid or voluntarily) is not political just to be clear here.
The second thing is that i checked the data and @Sky1995 is right, there is no “on A/S, anything and any aircraft that is not Western is most likely misrepresented”.
And i dont want to start a discussion, but in real life most Western Planes are more efficient and more sophisticated over the time.
Well, I do not know if it is misrepresented or not, but in the aircraft evaluation tool it has lower per seat cost on various stage lengths compared to 737-700 and 319 neo, both with full recliner shorthaul and lie flat 140 configuration (which is what I use). No complaints from my side, man …
If you are going to open your mouth to call others “stupid”, the least you can do is to do your homework and ensure what you are saying is correct. That would be my honest expectation of someone who lays claim to any level of intellect. Let us go to the aircraft in question and plug in the necessary details - something in the 5500km range. What do we get? According to the official document, the aircraft will carry 15 tons at a range of 5575km. According to A/S chart however, using the distance between LHR and EWR which is 5558km, our result is only good for 10.4 tons! Same as the EWR example, the plane can’t make LHR - DXB without huge penalty (a 5500km distance). Like I said, the evidence speaks for itself. To carry 15 tons on A/S, this aircraft’s capabilities will have to be reduced to something like 4600km (according to that jaundiced chart that was adopted). If you are going to get on a forum to insult and argue, try and justify your position with common sense. Don’t just speak off the cuff without the benefit of intellect. HERE is the screenshot for those routes using A/S own self-induced chart. I guess common sense is not common after all!
You are comparing a modern airliner (C919) with the newest technologies (all of which are supplied by the same Western companies) to 25 years old technology (B737-700 & A319) and drawing up false notions. If you want to be honest, the COMAC C919 should be compared to A220 and A320neo. It uses the same engine as A320neo and B737-MAX8. If you want to make comparisons, start there. On A/S, a comparison between A320NEO, B737-8 and C919 shows a 10% increase in fuel consumption for the C919. I would have been willing to overlook that if that performance chart had not been doctored! That performance chart that A/S adopted is a travesty!! On top of that, the C919’s fuselage was also truncated on A/S, so that rather than being one row bigger than A320, it is now falsely represented on A/S as smaller than A320.
You have expressed nothing but an opinion. Your opinion carries no weight where there is empirical evidence to the contrary. I deal in established and verifiable facts.
Maybe you should ask for support on where and which version of the data they are using first.
The cover page stated it’s R3. Maybe they used a different version? Do you understand that performance data can change over time?
…And somehow, it is only the performance chart of non-Western planes that get “mixed up”. It is simple - do the right thing! The plane is new and the current model is the only one that has ever been released. Like I said, we need to stop making excuses - simply do the right thing!
I’m not sure if anyone is making excuses. I’m just saying maybe you should resolve your concern with support first. Not just yelling at here, which really doesn’t resolve anything.
Now i actually would love to see you produce a list of Western and non-western aircraft, do the same analysis you listed above, and prove that
is true. It should be simple becuase it sounds like you already made this analysis
TWAAir, I must confess that I like your attitude. This is how things should be approached , rather than blind and bullish support for a flawed model. A few years ago, it was in this same forum that I had to argue and argue and argue, …against people with entrenched prejudice against anything not western. The argument was so simple to prove - the plane in question (Tupolev Tu-204 family) had been represented on A/S without capabilities to carry cargo, whereas tiny western planes were given such capabilities. Every conceivable negative factor was stacked up against it in A/S! It took many months of constant pressure to get them to lay off and admit the unfair treatment. You are free to search this forum for “Tu-204”. You need to see that thread and read the arguments proffered by seemingly “experienced A/S players” (rolling my eyes). The fact that you do not like or use anything not Western does not mean that one should be unfair and untruthful. Aside from the Tupolev, you can also see atrocious misrepresentation of other Russian planes such as IL-96. I have have been consistent in pointing out this anomalies, but those who should know better always come up with one excuse or the other. It has become a pattern. The essence of a simulator is to simulate reality, thus allowing us to experience what could have been, had the world been a truly free and fair place. Instead, what we see here is a repeat of the same nonsense - insular and surreptitious attempts at smouldering truth and putting others down.
Here is the link to the TU-204 argument. That thread is 13 years ago!! And would you believe that we are still at it?? Nothing has changed!
I just scanned through one of your topics (New game world without game-induced Aircraft 'bias'), and all I see is AS has bad data across the model types. There is no Western or non-western. They produced a patch in a month, which I’m not sure what you are expecting. If you are expecting a developer to drop all their work and just work on your request right away, I think you are playing the wrong game. You need a dedicated game and developer…
I’m confused
You are being economical with the truth. The truth is Western planes hardly ever suffer from bad data on A/S, and you know it. The worst part of this whole thing is the continued deniability. Everyone feigns ignorance and looks the other way. And when they are shown truth and given facts, they argue against it. They do not want to accept it. You cannot even show me a single Western plane which suffers from the same level of “bad data”. In any case, here is another old thread showing how much fight you have to put in to get them to acknowledge and correct an obvious misrepresentation and error. This one is also nearly 10 years ago!
Actually no, I don’t. I still want that western v.s. non-western list to be convinced. I see many issues on aircraft performance: airport location impact (height temperature etc), fuel consumption, ETOPS rules, etc; what you are suggesting is not one of them so far. So I need solid proof to be shown.
If you read the reply on your topic
you know what’s the right way. Please don’t expect anyone to do anything right away for you. I have concerns addressed in support tickets, and it took years for some of them to be improved or addressed. And I’m sure they have their own priority. Please don’t expect you to get anything in the way you want.
You keep talking about “doing things right away”. No where here have I mentioned that things need to be fixed right away. All I have done is point out anomalies, errors and unfair treatments. You should not have any difficulty acknowledging truth when confronted with it. This should be the attitude, rather than engaging in baseless argument of self-righteousness. All I see is excuses and deflections whenever issues of fair representation is broached. You are doing the same thing that has been done for ages. It is much more meaningful to simply acknowledge the error or oversight and then promise to work to see better representation. This is how we know that the game officials are serious and committed to fair representation. Instead what you often get is the opposite.
You do understand that confrontational statements like this:
will not trigger a response with a ‘good’ attitude in the first place? You are free to send a support ticket and wait for the response, but what you are doing here is dragging the whole community under the water with whatever unpleasantness you have with AS. If you throw rocks at people, please also expect rocks to be thrown back.
Before I see the list, I guess I will just ignore what’s going on since this is going nowhere…
I did not expect to get any better response. It is typical. The facts speaks for themselves. I have shown history dating back 13 years! Nothing has changed. Do not expect my ticket - they can keep their game!
Here is another thread showing historical precedence:
Was that confrontational too? What changed after that discussion 8 years ago? I will tell you. The Western planes got minor corrections. The Russian ones got nothing. I think I have shown enough to any fair-minded person to establish a pattern. Enough said.
Who even uses non-western aircraft lol, this is a non-issue