Over the last ten years of my using A/S, I have always tried to be true to my aviation passion without allowing geopolitical politics and sentiments to get in the way. I believe aviation should be purely about technology and technical capacity. It would seem A/S has not always shared my views always, as is evidenced in many of the difficult advocacy that I have had to make for many plane types, especially those that are neither Airbus nor Boeing! The A/S team would go to great length to introduce Airbus or Boeing models and variants that have barely any real life difference from the regular models (case in point: Boeing 737MAX-8-200), however tell them to get the data and information on other manufacturers correctly, it becomes an impossible chore! A lot of foot-dragging and wild excuses would become the order of the day! Years ago, it took me nearly two years to convince A/S to allow Tupolev Tu-204 series to be represented as having ability to carry cargo! This is something that should have been a no brainer! I, along with many, have not been very active for the very reason that this is the kind of attitudes and prejudice against other products that we see. Take a look at the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 and 90 series - the performance data being used on A/S is absolute hogwash! Everyone and anyone who knows anything about aviation knows that these splendid aircraft series sold more than a thousand copies and its performance specs is no secret. With the MD-80 series, it is a well known fact that the MD-81 has the lowest MTOW and thus the shortest range. This was followed by MD-82 (with uprated engines) and a slightly higher MTOW. This gave the 82 a slightly longer range. The MD-83 and MD-88 were the models with the longer range (being equal to each other but far superior to MD-82). The difference was that MD-88 (being a later variant) had an EFIS glass cockpit. All of the aforementioned variants had the same fuselage dimensions. The MD-87 stood out as the model with the shortened fuselage, thus giving it an edge in long range performance. In essence, the MD-87 supplanted and exceeded all other models in its range and performance. As a matter of fact, when specified at MTOW of 68,000kg, it is fitted with the same two auxiliary fuel tanks fitted in the MD-83, thus increasing fuel capacity to 6,970 US gal (26,400 L), thereby allowing the MD87 a range of 5400km! Typical range with 130 passengers, is 2,370 nmi (4,390 km) increasing to 2,900 nmi (5,400 km) with two auxiliary fuel tanks. This information is so common place that even wikipedia has it! How in the world A/S managed to mess up and mangle such lucid information is beyond me. If you look at the way the MD-80 series is implemented on A/S, you will see that they basically didn’t care to get things correctly. In A/S MD-83 is represented as having the longest range. MD-88 is shortchanged. And MD-87 is totally and completely robbed of its capabilities and potentials! I personally do not see any real problems or negatives with an error that is genuine, however when such errors are pointed out, it should not be allowed to become persistent and those who know better should not drag their feet in making amendments or refuse to make the necessary corrections. Corrections should be automatic. I believe the essence of this game and community is to simulate, let me repeat that, to simulate aviation and aerospace industry. It should not be a space for fostering geopolitical sentiments and artificial “balancing acts”. the entire essence of simulation is altruism.
My five cents.