Read again. It is correct that fuel burn doesn’t increase C-D.
The exact values and why they are what they are in game is a long story. In short: the 739 data when entered into the game was based on incorrect values/assumptions hence is way too good. IIRC an incorrect C was the biggest problem on the 739s and that’s what you just noted.
I was working on a completely new set of data but grass has been growing over it as it seems.
As you are confirming what I just wrote, why should I read it again? You more or less wrote what I said. Old issues are carried forward leading to some strange results in the performance data. And that is just what I was aiming to. A simple increase in MTOW is a marginal change in the performance data that can easily implemented. And with the post of Specialist pointing towards a missing performance manual is not the real reason why these aircraft are not here. That would be as you confirmed a massiv lack of will to keep the game up to date by AS staff. You could provide tons of data, in my opinion it would not make a change.
Ok, let me try again. Straight answer to your question:
The real thing does “not burn any fuel” for around 2,100km actually (C-D)
Edit: forgot…no, no sailing function. Just how payload/range graphs work.
Why should they increase MTOW to make an aircraft that is already overpowered even more OP?
Notwithstanding the fact that the MTOW in the game is not the problem, but a too small fuel burn up to point C.
The increased MTOW effects A330s, CEOs as well as NEOs. Could you please explain what you mean with overpowered in regards of these aircrafts? As said before, the A330 has everything but a too low fuel burn until C, actually it is the complete opposite.
Well, of course some of the ingame data is inaccurate, one can discuss hours about it. But as Colt already said, this comes from inaccurate data, wrong assumptions being done and other things. Maybe one day they will be adjusted on new servers. It’s impossible to do it on the old ones if performance data decreases. After some time having (very) different data on different servers. Do you want that? At the end of the day it’s still a game. (And therefore also some balance adjustments or simplifications need to be made or variety of airplanes be limited, depending on actual demand of the aircrafts and so on.)
Thats why I can understand the AS team’s wish for the most accurate data possible for new or modified aircrafts to avoid such problems. You may be right saying that increasing MTOW might relatively uncomplicated to implement but how about the other ones you suggested? PC-12NGX? Pilatus states maximum cruise speed of PC-12NGX is 290 KTAS (537km/h). You can already set 544km/h ingame… not to mention the range with 9 passengers and 2 pilots (assuming 91kg each by Pilatus) given 1648 km. You can do over 2200km ingame even with 544km/h… Or the baseprice of 4,4 million US$ (3,6 Mio €), ingame 3.2 million AS$ (, maybe the increased maintenance interval might be interesting but i don’t know ingame numbers to compare) … So AS could just rename the P-12 to PC-12NGX and increase the price. Ist that what you want? I’m sure they can do it. 
Is there a real need for SHARP-Versions on all A320 Neo family members? There are already a lot of different A320.
Any real need for Suchoi SSJ with Saberlets? Performance data available?
Long story short: I just can recommend what Spezialist already said. Send them a mail about aircrafts you want to be implemented and they see demand i guess.
I agree with some points you made, however for me I want the new versions of aircraft. I like the challenge of new routes and new aircraft. Also personally it is SOMETHING new to this game. I mean at least new aircraft can make it fresh again for a little until we maybe get something else…
Sure, improved versions, improved posibilities. 
I also would like to see them ingame especially the A220 or A330Neo’s (i did’nt see increased MTOW on Ceo’s). They are announced but are they being delivered yet? As for both some improvements needed to be made on the aircrafts. I would suggest just to uprate the ingame A220 and Airbus A330-900X then as they replace the current ones in RL, even as a refit in RL is not possible. No one needs countless old variants.
A330 with lower MTOW are not replaced by the ones with higher MTOW. It is an option that can be booked. But as some airlines e.g. in Far East use A330 on short and midrange this upgrade would decrease their performance. It is just like the 737NG with and without winglets. The winglet/sharklet versions need some range to show their benefit and compensate the additional weight. That is why we have both versions available.
Is there a need for SSj with saberlets? Ask any SSJ operator and he will tell you that there is as the range is increasing offering new routes to be implemented.
Regarding the PC12 I guess only very few users will fly long routes above 2000km with it.The technical data on the pilatus homepage for the PC-12NGX state a range of 1568NM (2904km) with 6 passengers. In AS the graph shows me a range of about 2650km. With 4 Passengers Pilatus states a range of 3339km, AS about 2800km. Point D is 500km further. Additionally please keep in mind, that the range is given including a 100NM reserve. Does AS calculate with reserves? And given the fact, that the fuel tanks have not been changed on the PC-12NGX you can calculate that the new version is about 16% more fuel efficient. All that are major changes worth being implemented, wouldn’t you agree?
Regarding the speed: AS has implemented the cruise speed correctly, and gives a standard speed window for every aircraft of 5%. The PC12NG simply does not meet these 5% as the cruise speed is pretty close to the maximum speed. Feel free to implement an individual speedwindow for every aircraft, I can only assume that that would be way too much work, especially as we are then in Mach and the conversion to km/h depends on numerous factors that vary. Beside, the cruising speed of the NGX is 5kts faster than the one of the PC12NG. On the pilatus page you find information about a cruise speed as well as a maximum cruise speed of 537km/h. Please keep in mind, that the maximum cruise speed by Pilatus is given in FL220, the aircraft thus can fly way higher affecting the max speed over ground.
The same mistake was done with A320ceo and 737NG that both cruise at the same Mach number, but Boeing converts it differently resulting in a higher cruise speed for the NGs in AS, another benefit for that aircraft type. Same for the range of 737NG HGWs. If the numbers are wrong they need to be updated. We also close airports on the servers resulting in additional work. An option would be to wait for the 737-9 HGW so that the old NG can be replaced, but if you implement the 737-9 HGW with accurate performance there is no need to switch from NGs to the MAX. If that again results in manipulated data for the MAX to keep the system balanced we carry all former mistakes forward, not in favor of the game from my point of view.
Well i wrote this could be done with A330-300X as this is always the high MTOW-option ingame?
Yeah maybe there is demand for a bit more range for the SSJ but is performance data available to implement? There is nothing in the SSJ100 Brochure or maybe i’m blind. I also read somewhere operating costs are “a bit” higher in RL compared to others in the same class currently they are ingame rather not …
Pilatus states in their range tool for the NGX with 9 Passengers and 1 pilot 1958km (slower long range cruise) or 1767 km (max cruise power), AS has nearly 2300km. It’s still more if you add NBAA IFR 185km reserve to pilatus data with 9 passengers payload, especially on AS-comparable speeds.
But indeed fuel consumption is another story, the ingame PC-12 can consume max 1918 liter? In reality there is a 1522 liter tank in all versions as far as i know, some wrong conversation from non SI units? But you also saw the price increases over the years? So even if NGX has 16% less fuel consumption (compared to NG? conditions/source?) it gets eaten up by higher capital costs? At the end of the day if you implement this and nobody is interested you just wasted time.
But as i said i have no intention to discuss about this here epically, especially not about fuel reserve and flight levels, available speed windows and so on, because it’s not relevant in the game (and also Pilatus mixes them around). Fact is currently one can do 544km/h ingame (reason is not relevant) and get more or equal the range of NGX and comparable fuel consumption. And if AS indents to implement a NGX with more accurate numbers this might not be positive for the old PC-12 ones. Thats all i wanted to say about PC-12 (NGX).
You can’t reduce performance data on existing servers as no one want’s to check or fix all those flight tables. Of course you can make data more accurate on new servers and you would prefer that if i understand correctly? Then someone needs to do this research und implementation. Maybe you want to open a new thread or better some kind of wiki to collect such things? But maybe someone should ask AS team first if they are willing to implement changes or why differences exist. Maybe they’re intentional because it’s still a game, and they’re there for balance or something else we don’t know about.
I did not make comparisons with the PC12 in AS with 2 pilots as it is only single pilot in AS aswell. So your numbers are a bit off. I also do not see where the data of Pilatus in this example match the data for the PC12 in AS. Your math is incorrected as I stated above, starting with 2 pilots instead of 1 like AS does.
If you want to operate an aircraft the size of a PC12 it will not be your cash cow, it is more to connect smaller airports to your network to complete it. At that stage to not burn money it is highly advisable to buy the aircraft, so capital costs are a one in a lifetime investment, afterwards the lower fuel costs compensate for that. As you are always hitting the higher price of the PC12 you maybe know, that high discounts are common in aircraft sales. Otherwise you will have to massively adjust the prices for every aircraft. I just had a quick look on airbus pricelist of 2018.
CS1 is 81 mio US$, in AS it is 39 mio AS$
CS1 is 91,5 mio US$, in AS it is 46 mio AS$
332 is 238,5 mio US$, in AS it is 132 mio AS$
333 is 264,2 mio US$, in AS it is 147,5 mio AS$
…
to me it seems AS gives about 50% discount on all aircraft prices. So what is the issue with the PC12 price tag again?
I want to open a Wiki to collect such data? I spent tons of hours in the past to collect them, delivered them and nothing has changed. So why should I do it?
I did not make comparisons with the PC12 in AS with 2 pilots as it is only single pilot in AS aswell. So your numbers are a bit off. I also do not see where the data of Pilatus in this example match the data for the PC12 in AS. Your math is incorrected as I stated above, starting with 2 pilots instead of 1 like AS does.
You are right just 1 pilot. I must have confused it with another aircraft. I fixed calculations above. Then why it’s only 9 passengers in AS and in RL the manufacturer states 10? Is this new at NGX or something?
So what is the issue with the PC12 price tag again?
I thought I had already explained this: The rise in capital costs might (over) compensate fuelsavings of newer versions. Who should by it then? By not longer offering the old ones or is it still produced and delivered? One in a lifetime investment or not it’s still capital costs. And yes the pricetag of the bigger aircrafts is a bit more off when comparing US$ with AS$. But you rather not get a new PC-12 with 50% discount.
I want to open a Wiki to collect such data? I spent tons of hours in the past to collect them, delivered them and nothing has changed. So why should I do it?
Was only a suggestion, for better collecting them. So it’s not collected again and again and again by someone else trying to help AS-Team. I don’t know what data you delivered and why they did’nt change. Did you ask?
I thought I had already explained this:<
Yes, you have. But did you read my comment about AS and list prices? A brand new PC-12NGX is 4,9 million US$. For other aircraft price in AS$ about 50% of the real list price in US$ (see examples above). So doing the math correctly the PC12NGX in AS should then be about 2,5 million AS$. Way cheaper than it is now. If you do not agree with it, how come than Boeing and Airbus aircraft cost only half in AS? So again my question: What is the issue with the price tag of the PC12? I do not get it.
1 Like
Well i don’t know how prices of aircrafts are balanced or determined by AS-Team und no not every plane is 50% discounted over list-price (eg ATR 72-600 or Cessna 208B Grand Caravan). The price increases from NG to NGX (and over the other Versions in general too) so i expect in Airlinesim. But well maybe they can enable up to 10 Passengers, this would be a significant improvement / selling point.
Combined with the better fuel efficiency and maybe also the 5kts increased cruising speed it would definately improve the model in a way that I would fleet out all my PC-12 and go for the NGX.
Are there any news on the A330-800? I remember somebody said it could be released last december.
1 Like
We have a data patch scheduled for end of May (yesterday’s patch was for technical changes only).
1 Like
I’ve been looking forward to the A330-800 since last year. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen him join up until now. I hope to quickly enter the long-distance route market through A330-800.
Any updates on this patch, by chance?
Yes, it’s scheduled for release with Junkers II (25th June). Will include the A330-800.
4 Likes