The sentiments you have just expressed is the crucible of my argument and the bane of A/S. It is precisely why I use the word “insular”. At least you are honest. This very same attitude and sentiment is what propels the lack of action and “excuses” of so many people here. It is why A/S staff and developers continue to feign ignorance, while many users condone and make excuses for their inadequacies. Put simply, it is pure unadulterated prejudice and “manipulative politics” which would have no place in a proper simulator. It is why A/S now lacks merit and credibility, as far as I am concerned.
Then stop playing the game if it bothers you so much that the range of a Comac C919 is slightly lower than real life.
5 Likes
Many do. SSJ95 are wonderful planes to operate.
2 Likes
I wonder where the data for ingame comes from. Anyone has them?
Superjet states as range
SSJ100/95B (98 pax @ 32" pitch) 1,645 nm 3,048 km
SSJ100/95LR (98 pax @ 32" pitch) 2,470 nm 4,578 km
(Pax with bags @ 220 lb (100 kg), LRC, ISA, zero wind, typical reserve policy.)
The Superjet seems quite good represented (if not a bit overrated) ingame. 
The Comac C919 is a bit far off if i did no misscalculation and should be fixed/explained somehow, even if i question the wording of thread opener. I don’t think this leads to a unbalancement because they still have the disadvantange of maintenance category use like the Superjet has.
1 Like
On the Croydon server the C919 has no cargo capacity. Other narrow body aircraft like the ARJ21 and the A220 are the same. Is there a reason for this ?
Just out of curiosity, and it seems someone is not willing to share the analysis, assuming it has already been done, I plotted the ARJ21 based on its planning document. (http://www.comac.cc/fujian/acap_en.pdf). I think AS just uses a different source because it’s out-performance and under-performance for either version of the payload-range diagrams provided by COMAC (if having two versions of payload range charts is not confusing enough 
)
Based on:
Basically, the AS chart performs better than the ‘premium economy class’ version but worse than the ‘mixed class’ version.
3 Likes
I also believe that not only the range, but the runway performance as well is kinda off too. The best (or worse) example is the Tupolev 204 family. It need an unrealistic amount of runway for takeoff and land, besides the fact that it’s cargo capacity would be close and/or bigger than the A321 or the B752, it’s westen competitors.
I’ve complained about it on the forums quite a while ago but the staff said that it were according to their internal documents. But, according to official media, it was quite off. I didn’t research about it with the newer planes like the Comac, though.
I am on the AS Aircraft Data Team.
I wanted to address a few things in this thread.
Western aircraft typically have better access and more complete data when compared to other regions. PAX weight, reserve fuel calculations, OEWs, can all be different depending on the region, airline, aircraft, and configuration, etc.
Alot of people will want a new plane in AS as soon as it enters service. As the design improves/changes over time this will lead to performance charts changing. So a discrepancy in performance in AS just might be because it was based on older performance data when the aircraft first entered service.
With that said, for the 919, the performance data is very close to what is currently in AS. I have found a few things that could be updated that should bring the performance more in line. A note as been made internally to address this.
If you go back to @martin devlog of 2024-07. We have been looking at aircraft performance data for a while. It’s not my place to say much beyond that at this point.
8 Likes
What @Priller said 
There is no intentional discrimination again certain types or manufactures. It’s just a culmination of the things mentioned by @Priller. Also keep in mind that all our data is researched primarily by volunteers, so let’s cut them some slack, shall we?
I might re-iterate one of @Priller’s points: AirlineSim’s current performance formulas are - how shall I put it? - “not ideal”. Both payload and take-off/landing performance formulas require dirty hacks in the data to get anything close to real-world performance. Without better formulas, we’ll never get better results and there’s also the question of how much sense it makes to invest in fiddling with the old data if new formulas are on the horizon. Because Improved Aircraft Performance formulas are on the agenda. And if this is important to you, cast your votes there
5 Likes
Stop wasting your time, NavaLines. I have tried every reasonable approach for 14 years! All you will get is excuse after excuse. They will downplay it and make it seem unimportant and yet somehow, they want us to believe this is a simulation game. The question is “what are they simulating??”. Priller is talking about non-availability of data - something I consider far from truth. If I can find it, so can anyone interested in TRUTH!! I placed a link to C919 official training manual above, yet some are still calling it slight and close. What is close? An aircraft that should be handling 15 tons at 5575km is doing only 10.4 tons and that is close??? An aircraft that should have cabin that is one row extra over A320 (@32 inches) somehow manages to become smaller than A320. I imagine for them, that is small. However, when it is time to represent the A320 family, they will include every variant possible, even the ones that are essentially the same except for a very tiny variation. When it is about Boeing or Airbus, nothing is small. Not a single iota is missed! Even a small aerodynamic package on A320neo called SHARP is represented. What is the difference between the performance of A320 and A320neo? Perhaps 10% to 16% improvement in fuel burn?? OK, why is it not considered small?. In the C919 aircraft above, A/S robbed it of 54% of its performance under certain conditions!! Does it stop there? No!! They rob it of cabin space too. With the Tupolevs, it is even worse! They were very deliberate in eliminating Tu-214 (this is the longer range and heavier version). In reality however, the TU-214 is the one that is being produced. Instead, they continually put in the Tu-204-120, something that has not been produced in 20 years and gives no added value! The Tupolevs were robbed of every conceivable merit until I screamed and screamed and screamed! They wouldn’t even allow it to carry cargo! I had to fight and fight. Till date, the Ilyushin Il-96 is a useless piece of contraption on A/S. You begin to wonder, where is the fun if we are all railroaded and restricted to a narrow range of choices in Western planes?? I am completely done convincing anyone of anything. I put up this post to challenge and show the true colour of A/S and its policies. I expect nothing but excuses. And if you tell me it is not true, then let us look at all of the historical antecedence and precedence over the past years, many of which I have listed on this thread. They are like politicians. A politician will tell you who he thinks he is, but in reality, his opinion of himself has little to do with reality. The true gauge of a politician is measured by actions and historical antecedent. The same thing applies here! It is what it is.
1 Like
@Priller @martin Is it even possible to make the performance data more transparent? e.g., listing sources and assumptions/corrections?
I think what you have is basically some people are ‘assuming guilty until proven innocent’. And currently, all these data are more or less generated within a black box, which is, unfortunately, making people free of generating any accusation. People can only believe in what they find, so unless you show them something different, they probably will never stop… For example, the C919 plots do look very different from the airport planning document, and as much trust as I have in the volunteer team, it’s hard to explain the differences. If you have the source or document version used to generate the current performance chart or maybe show when you apply certain corrections (if, in some cases, for some airframes you don’t because of differences in data completeness), basically anything explains the differences, it might be more convincing than just saying
Because sadly, basically, you are dealing with people who don’t believe in your words…
Sadly, I don’t. I don’t know who created the current version of the C919. Let alone other Eastern types, because I am fairly certain most of them have been created ages ago and not touched since. Which is unfortunate, of course. But I guess we could put it on the agenda for a review once we have (finally) gotten our new data process in order.
1 Like
To get a feel for the situation and maybe figure out where a perceived bias might come from, I looked into ch-aviation data for a bit.
C919: Since 2017, there have been a total of 12 active aircraft, 6 of those are still active with COMAC themselves. China Eastern, Air China and China Southern have around 110 frames on order, and there are 474 “unassigned” orders, whatever that means. So given that, the model so far just hasn’t been all that relevant but that might change quite a bit in the near future and we should to it justice.
Tu-204/Tu-214: The whole family shows a total of 37 currently active frames, almost all of them in government service. 20 of those are Tu-214. Aeroflot and UVT aero have a combined 44 frames on order. So tricky to judge how relevant this model actually is, given that Aeroflot probably didn’t order them because they particularly fancy the type, but because they have no other choice due to politics and sanctions. That said, it is a commercial model currently available and we should investigate why the Tu-214 is missing.
Il-96: There are total of 14 active frames, all of which are operated by government entities (Cubana seems to have 4 frames parked). So were we to add this type today, it would fail our relevance criteria.
I hope this helps in understanding why other types might seem more important to our data team. We’ll do what we can to do these aircraft families justice, especially because we would love to delve further into the whole subject of “historic game worlds”. But for the moment, this isn’t a priority.
2 Likes
Like I already mentioned in my last post; "All you will get is excuse after excuse. They will downplay it and make it seem unimportant and yet somehow, they want us to believe this is a simulation game. The question is “what are they simulating??”. "
It is sad that everything I have predicted is already happening. If a game is a simulation game, then let it be precisely that! Martin here raises the question of relevance and asks how many were made? Taking a look at the current production aircrafts provided by A/S, if we apply the same logic, how many of them should even be truly available? Antonovs are not in production and they probably have no factory anymore (sadly), CRJ is no longer in production. DHC-8-400 is no longer in production and has lost its production factory. Pilatus PC-24 is not even a commercial passenger aircraft and has no relevance in commercial aviation. Britten-Norman Trislander has not been manufactured since 1982! Airbus A318 is no longer offered. Boeing 747-8 has stopped production after only 155 units. Boeing 767 is no longer offered by Boeing except in cargo form. I mean, I can go on and on. Yet, all these planes mentioned are healthy and well represented as “Current production aircraft” on A/S. I understand the need to keep options alive and keep the game interesting, and so I am not necessarily knocking the decision. Nevertheless, my question to Martin is this; - Why is it that when the plane is NOT Western, suddenly all of the very excuses used to justify the Western planes are no longer applicable? The Non-Western planes suddenly becomes irrelevant. Why? Tu-214 is in production. A318 is not. Yet, it is A318 that gets represented. How many A318s were made? Did that cause you to disregard it as irrelevant? Why do you guys find it so easy and important to discount planes that are NOT Western?
As far as I am concerned, the only questions that should be relevant to creating a fair and balanced air simulation game are three (3):
- Does Aircraft exist and is it a commercial Aircraft?
- Is it in production currently or recently? (Depending on what type of game is sought)
- Can accurate aircraft data and performance data be acquired and simulated?
The question of how many were made is not relevant. It is not relevant because that very question is political. Above, Martin in his very last post, tried to discount 474 orders of C919. Must everything be done the Western way? China alone can fulfil 2000 orders given the size of their market and demand. He also made references to the weak order log of Tupolevs and Ilyushins. But are such prejudiced notions even relevant? The Order of any aircraft is a political decision and once we begin to go down that route, we have already made a political choice. Why not provide the aircraft and let the players make the decision of what they want to use on A/S? Is that not the essence of a simulation game? The duty of the software is to simulate the aircraft characteristics, not the politics of its acceptance! The whole point of a simulation game is to provide aircrafts on an even keel, without agenda and politics, so that in the online world, choices will be devoid of politics that is ever so present in the real world. This is why simulation games are called “Worlds”. They are called “Worlds” because it is an alternative reality. Injecting real world politics into game world robs the game of its relevance and defeats the whole purpose! You play a simulation game so that you can test and do things that you would otherwise not have been able to do in the real world due to political considerations! On the other hand, if the objective of a player is to simulate real life limitations, then all that is needed is to stick to the relevant criteria and models. The only limitation of an aircraft simulation game should be technical aircraft parameters, not human politics and geo-politics! It is the same politics that forced Bombardier to abandon manufacture of commercial aircrafts - the same reason why Bombardier CS series is now known as Airbus A220. Politics destroys purpose. Enough said.
1 Like
First, Like @Priller allready said we will take a look into the 919 and a note has been made to address this. we also looked for for the other aircraft. eg the TU has no official data released anymore.
And with the “in Production” Topic you talked about, Remeber we all are Volunteers and have to work in real life and cant sit daily on Airlinesim data and it takes a long time to make a aircraft ready or change them for AS. And with changes you need to be carefull to not destroy airlines with it.
At least as martin has already said, he is currently planing to develop a new performance tool to make all this easier. so if its importend vote for it.
PS. it would be nice if you would leave out the whole political part so that we can have a good discussion.
3 Likes
Most of the data AS uses (outside of the background formulas) are listed on the aircraft pages. Range isnt exactly spelled out as I’m sure you’re aware but you have the chart. Things like OEW and Total Usable Fuel aren’t displayed to the player, although fuel can be figured out in the performance Eval page.
I try not to make any assumptions unless I have data from a reputable source to back it up.
For sources most are Airbus & Boeing and are here:
Or the other manufactures direct page where available.
Now lets say I dont have complete data but the majority of it. I can look at my airlines aircraft data or reach out to friends that work at other airlines and ask for theirs to help fill in the missing data and get a more realistic representation. Since there are so many variables nothing will ever be 100% exact but would allow me to get very close without having to make educated guesses or calculations. Would I every post this data? Not a chance, since most consider that propriety information.
@martin The TU-214 & 214C is already in the game. It’s not missing.
Exactly. If you can find and post the required information from a reputable source, hopefully the manufacturer directly, we’d be more then happy to take a look. And that goes for any plane.
3 Likes
[quote=“Priller, post:39, topic:26124”]
Exactly. If you can find and post the required information from a reputable source, hopefully the manufacturer directly, we’d be more then happy to take a look. And that goes for any plane.
[/quote}
Do you know how many times in the past 14 years that I have been told that nonsense? I have posted many official sources in the past 13 years and nothing has ever been done. There is always an excuse. If you want to get accurate information about the characteristics of a plane, all you need do is get the official data, or otherwise get its ACAP - (ACAP) means Aircraft Characteristic for Airport Planning. Every commercial plane in the world has one for pilot training. It is the only way to operate an aircraft successfully without mishap. Telling me you can’t find one is like telling me you can’t find a fuel station to put gasoline in a car. The bottom line is that those who want to do something properly will do it and those who do not want it done will find reasons not to do it. I remember putting links for official Ilyushin performance and Tupolev performance in past posts - it was all to no avail. In any case, I have posted yet another one for C919 above. Let us see what they will do with it. I am not holding my breath. Let this be my last comment on this thread. I am done…
1 Like
For me, the worst issue for the Tupolev jets is that the landing roll distances are bigger than the takeoff roll distances, which is something that doesn’t exist for any civil jet in history. I insist on this kind of issue, specially with the tupolev jets, because they’re the only ones in the system with this kind of problem.
On this link, Tupolev Tu-214 commercial aircraft. Pictures, specifications, reviews., with data that is confirmed by many sources, from UAC to Russian Aviation, says that needed takeoff distance at MTOW, for the TU-214, is 2050m, and 2000m for landing. On AS, landing distances varies from 2000-2500m, which seems pretty off.
1 Like
For me I would really love to have a true performance C919 as it would make game more interesting, same as SSJs make it more interesting.
1 Like
I ain’t reading all that. I’m happy for you though. Or sorry that happened.
But on a more serious note: Could you leave out the political blathering that reeks half conspiracy-theorist?
And sure, we can talk about more realistic performance data for the C919 and some Tupolevs. But then also let’s ask for more realistic maintenance costs, shall we? There’s a reason that these aircraft are not popular in real world, and it’s not their looks and not their smell.
2 Likes