Airplane weight with fuel and passengers. Automatic CG?

[daemotron]

Let me tell you what part the pilot has in determining and setting weight and CG.

[...]

Once the loading is completed (and no, the Captain doesn´t tell every passenger where he needs to sit), he gets a printout of the electronic load-sheet. A bunch of numbers, along with the actual Zero Fuel weight, and the CG. He punches those into the FMS and thats it.

 

Well, this is why I consider Vantskruv's suggestion not bad at all - outsourcing the CG and ZFW calculation to an external tool (as automated as possible, maybe even with some random patterns) would be closer to reality than any in-sim plugin, since it's not part of the pilot's job, but a needed information. I wouldn't object to a community contributed tool for this purpose either...

[niebieski]

Of course this is "entertainment" and what entertains one is certainly diversified amongst simmers.

I completely agree with you (and your wife )!

While being aware that my own expectations are propably niche-in-a-niche among simmers, i can't stop asking myself question: why simmers care so much about wingflex on the exterior model, but never really notice serious bugs/disprepancies in the FMC?

Do majority of us treat X-Plane as a game, not a sim?

 

The best 15 minutes i had in X-Plane this week:

Flying online i was approaching my destination airport in LES Saab. While being handed-off from ACC to APP i realized there's something wrong with my NAV1 radio. It did not catch signal from a nearby VOR. Let's try another station. Nope, didn't work. Let's see if i can receive same VOR on the NAV2 radio. Yup, works fine. The airspace is busy, i am told i'm number 4, given various speed restrictions and headings (as well as own navigation to arbitrary fixes that we're not part of my flightplan). Doing all the necessary descent/approach work on the Saab, as well as maintaining awareness of your position is very time consuming on it's own. So, how am i establish on the ILS without my primary nav radio working? Visual approach was out of the question due low overcast layer...

And there goes the study sim fun - five minutes later i was handed-off to tower while descending on the glideslope with autopilot on. Because the developer choose to focus on the systems in the first place, i was able to transfer autopilot nav source to the co-pilot's side. The autopilot followed the ILS from secondary nav receiver correctly announcing "LOC2" on EADI. And then i could still remain the left seat and monitor the approach/land just by selecting "2ND CRS" on the DCP. The ATC remained unaware of my problems. How cool is that? 

 

I wouldn't try this on any (so praised) payware Boeing or Airbus released so far for X-Plane. I mean, how can people not see the difference?

Does looking at the (proverbial) wingflex proves more satisfactionary?

Edited January 10, 2016 by niebieski

[Eddie]

Eddie,

 

I wonder what is so special about being able to load your plane via MCDU? What's it got to do with realism?

And how is IXEG different in this aspect from other X-Plane developers? Can you name any X-Plane airliner that does indeed have MCDU airplane load feature? I can't seem to recall any at the moment.

It doesn't strictly need to be through the MCDU...FF and JAR use their menu system, iFly includes it as part of their configuration tool, Aerosoft has a loadsheet application, and so on. The point is being able to manually set passenger numbers and cargo weights and be given the necessary information rather than having to calculate it all themselves, instead of the focus being on the piece of equipment being used to do so.

MCDU loading is a just a way of interacting with the sim user to load the airplane. I very much prefer to have a simple interface that Cameron showed us couple of posts ago* and put the data from the loadsheet into the MCDU myself (that's how you do it in real life).

In real life you'd get all the information calculated for you by the loadmaster - not here, where you'd need to do it all on your own in addition to pilot duties. Don't tell me that's "more realistic" - it's not.

I fly for a virtual airline using the VAFS management system, which gives me a passenger load and options for cargo for every flight. In other aircraft, I simply enter the cargo amount and number of passengers in the appropriate menus and the aircraft is loaded correctly and realistically. With this, I'd need to fumble around with external tools to calculate the exact placement of the business-class and economy-class seats in the aircraft, deduce where the cargo compartments are, and so on just to get the basic numbers that we program the FMC with. I hardly think that this is any less of a "loadmaster simulation" as simply punching the cargo you're given into the menu and having it properly loaded - quite the contrary, in fact, as this requires you to be an actual loadmaster and figure these things out on your own.

[Eddie]

Well, this is why I consider Vantskruv's suggestion not bad at all - outsourcing the CG and ZFW calculation to an external tool (as automated as possible, maybe even with some random patterns) would be closer to reality than any in-sim plugin, since it's not part of the pilot's job, but a needed information. I wouldn't object to a community contributed tool for this purpose either...

I'd agree with this, sorta like how Aerosoft does theirs - my issue is with developers just leaving the users to find tools to do this for them rather than giving us the tools to "behave like actual pilots and just put the data in" - my main flight planning application, PFPX (very highly regarded within flightsimming) doesn't do this for me, and I don't want to have to search around for several hours or pay money just to find something capable of calculating this data for me.

[kpregira]

PMDG is PMDG and it is ONLY available on the outdated FSX or the "wanna be X-Plane" P3D.  If people prefer unnecessary details and a "set in stone" flight model , by all means stick with PMDG and FSX/P3D.  But... If you want a dynamic flight model that is influenced by weather/environment and can even be used as an engineering tool, then X-Plane is the one.  IXEG looks very promising as the most authentic rendition of the long awaited 737.  I certainly hope so.  

[daemotron]

I'd agree with this, sorta like how Aerosoft does theirs - my issue is with developers just leaving the users to find tools to do this for them rather than giving us the tools to "behave like actual pilots and just put the data in"

I definitely agree - particularly since some developers even don't publish reference data required to do the calculations or write a third party tool to do so. "Use a real world FCOM" is seen far too often as a simple and quick resort to escape the discussion (I'm not referring to IXEG here, though - we'll have to wait what they provide with the v1 release package or upon request before judging).

 

- my main flight planning application, PFPX (very highly regarded within flightsimming) doesn't do this for me, and I don't want to have to search around for several hours or pay money just to find something capable of calculating this data for me.

Well, the problem here again is that a sim pilot covers at least three real life roles: dispatcher, load master and pilot. PFPX was built to support the dispatch tasks (one can argue how well it does this, particularly when comparing with other solutions like SimBrief), but not the tasks of a load manager or ramp agent.

Maybe it's really time to start a community project to build a more comprehensive solution covering all roles (perhaps combining an EFB with load calculations and route planning capabilities). It's a complex task though, taking into account that specifically fuel and load calculations have to be implemented individually for each single aircraft model.

[Cameron]

No offense guys, but this is being blown way out of proportion.

 

Let it be made clear this product was and still is a labor of love from the get-go. This is important to know, because the lead technical advisor on the product not only is obsessed with X-Plane (sorry, Jan ), but also the 737-300 as a whole (even after thousands of hours in the aircraft and moving to the Airbus in real life now). He's flown the real deal for years, as a Captain, and is the most qualified of any of us to speak on the necessity of something like this.

 

Truth be told, even if it were forced to be a set "passenger total" in your head at all times, this is not a deal killer, and if it were, Jan would never (I repeat: NEVER) let any of the team get away with it. Besides, the randomizer for the Load Sheet portion of the GUI is there for good reason.

 

I'm sure in due course things like this will be added if deemed truly necessary and the demand is there. No one is forcing you to purchase this until it meets your needs (if that ever happens). Until then, you'd be missing out on something rather amazing to experience in sim.

 

There's really no sense in trying to argue this right now. 

 

In my opinion, the fact there is already a load sheet randomizer option in the menu I previously showed kind of makes this argument rather silly, but to each their own. We'll see what the future holds.

[Eddie]

No offense guys, but this is being blown way out of proportion.

 

Let it be made clear this product was and still is a labor of love from the get-go. This is important to know, because the lead technical advisor on the product not only is obsessed with X-Plane (sorry, Jan ), but also the 737-300 as a whole (even after thousands of hours in the aircraft and moving to the Airbus in real life now). He's flown the real deal for years, as a Captain, and is the most qualified of any of us to speak on the necessity of something like this.

 

Truth be told, even if it were forced to be a set "passenger total" in your head at all times, this is not a deal killer, and if it were, Jan would never (I repeat: NEVER) let any of the team get away with it. Besides, the randomizer for the Load Sheet portion of the GUI is there for good reason.

 

I'm sure in due course things like this will be added if deemed truly necessary and the demand is there. No one is forcing you to purchase this until it meets your needs (if that ever happens). Until then, you'd be missing out on something rather amazing to experience in sim.

 

There's really no sense in trying to argue this right now. 

 

In my opinion, the fact there is already a load sheet randomizer option in the menu I previously showed kind of makes this argument rather silly, but to each their own. We'll see what the future holds.

There is sense in trying to argue this - we're having a discussion about the usefulness of the feature. Whether or not the feature will be immediately present is irrelevant.

The randomizer is also not a "solution" in that it doesn't accurately reflect the loadout - let's say that you have almost nobody in business class, or a full business class section and few economy passengers, for instance. Or you want to move cargo to the rear compartment to improve your cruise performance. Without actually having some sort of program or feature that calculates this for you, there's no way to realistically calculate your CG. I don't mind if this is an external program, but just leaving us to find this data on our own isn't a solution.

PMDG is PMDG and it is ONLY available on the outdated FSX or the "wanna be X-Plane" P3D. If people prefer unnecessary details and a "set in stone" flight model , by all means stick with PMDG and FSX/P3D. But... If you want a dynamic flight model that is influenced by weather/environment and can even be used as an engineering tool, then X-Plane is the one. IXEG looks very promising as the most authentic rendition of the long awaited 737. I certainly hope so.

Can you define "unnecessary details"?

Edited January 10, 2016 by Eddie

[Cameron]

The randomizer is also not a "solution" in that it doesn't accurately reflect the loadout - let's say that you have almost nobody in business class, or a full business class section and few economy passengers, for instance. Or you want to move cargo to the rear compartment to improve your cruise performance. Without actually having some sort of program or feature that calculates this for you, there's no way to realistically calculate your CG. I don't mind if this is an external program, but just leaving us to find this data on our own isn't a solution.

 

Eddie, there is zero doubt in my mind you are in a minority of thousands on this. You can try and make a valid situation in your head to hash or argue this out, but truth be told, pilots do not dictate load counts. Prices and ticket buyers do, and the initial desire in creating this product was in no way to develop a 'Super Duper 737-Classic Financial Economy Edition' product where you could dictate what seats a family of four purchased. The randomizer is, in essence, quite realistic to what a pilot would receive after a boarding process. The numbers for CG and weights are what he cares about. Knowing that a person is in Business class is the least of his worries (other than job security  ).

[Eddie]

Eddie, there is zero doubt in my mind you are in a minority of thousands on this. You can try and make a valid situation in your head to hash or argue this out, but truth be told, pilots do not dictate load counts. Prices and ticket buyers do, and the initial desire in creating this product was in no way to develop a 'Super Duper 737-Classic Financial Economy Edition' product where you could dictate what seats a family of four purchased. The randomizer is, in essence, quite realistic to what a pilot would receive after a boarding process. The numbers for CG and weights are what he cares about. Knowing that a person is in Business class is the least of his worries (other than job security  ).

That would be true, except as mentioned above, we're not just the pilot. We're also the loadmaster and dispatcher - and therefore, giving us tools to do that isn't counterproductive or stupid.

[Cameron]

That would be true, except as mentioned above, we're not just the pilot. We're also the loadmaster and dispatcher - and therefore, giving us tools to do that isn't counterproductive or stupid.

 

Except, there is a mythical loadmaster in the "randomize" button.

 

Everything you NEED to properly fly the aircraft is there. Anything more and it's only your entertainment side speaking, Eddie.

 

I have yet to hear a reason why this is a true necessity given the ability to utilize such a button and spit out numbers.

[Eddie]

Except, there is a mythical loadmaster in the "randomize" button.

 

Everything you NEED to properly fly the aircraft is there. Anything more and it's only your entertainment side speaking, Eddie.

 

I have yet to hear a reason why this is a true necessity given the ability to utilize such a button and spit out numbers.

Seeing as I fly for a VA that requires me to enter this data properly, no, not everything I need is there. That's mighty subjective too - someone might not need an external model or deep systems modeling to "properly fly the aircraft", should we use their testimony as justification for not having those things? 

 

Every other top-tier developer already does these things, on both the P3D and X-Plane side, and I'm puzzled why you're so opposed to even an external program for calculating these things. Seeing as the devs have already agreed to look into it after release, I'm further puzzled. 

 

(Also, what's this about "entertainment side"? Most of us are flying the plane for entertainment anyways, not for studying for a 737-300 checkride or something.)

[Cameron]

Seeing as I fly for a VA that requires me to enter this data properly, no, not everything I need is there. That's mighty subjective too - someone might not need an external model or deep systems modeling to "properly fly the aircraft", should we use their testimony as justification for not having those things? 

 

That's just it. It's purely motivated by you. Have you cared to see this topic has over 1,100 views and there's not a whole lot of chiming in?

 

 

 

Every other top-tier developer already does these things, on both the P3D and X-Plane side, and I'm puzzled why you're so opposed to even an external program for calculating these things. Seeing as the devs have already agreed to look into it after release, I'm further puzzled. 

 

The Gold Star winning, commonly held high Saab 340A does not do this. No one has ever really complained either (and thousands of sales, at that!).

 

I'm not one bit opposed to an external program, nor have I said such. I am commenting on the lack of necessity for something like this in the IXEG product. Having been in this market long enough, I know what is and is not "in demand" for the most part. This is simply not one of them.

 

If someone were to ask me if I'd like to fund such development of a program my answer would quickly be 'no'. I'd never recoup my costs on such a thing!

 

 

 

(Also, what's this about "entertainment side"? Most of us are flying the plane for entertainment anyways, not for studying for a 737-300 checkride or something.)

 

You're taking entertainment to a whole new level. One that majority of simmers do not typically worry about. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all otherwise. I understand you have a beloved VA, and you see a need for it. Just as much as you see a need, I see no need. Would it be nice? Yes. Is it a necessity to properly fly this aircraft? Absolutely NOT.

 

Anyways, I'm checking out of this topic. Have fun, Eddie.

[Litjan]

Right, we are absolutely not opposed to any third party making an app or add-on program to do this stuff - in fact I have been in contact with someone who is set out to do just that!

 

I understand the desire to have something like that, and I am very confident that you will see some offerings in that regard very soon after we release.

 

If having this capability is condition sine qua non for you, then I suggest holding off on the purchase until you are satisfied that your minimum in feature completeness is achieved (so I don´t have to deal with the whining about it in customer support ).

 

Cheers, Jan

[Eddie]

Right, we are absolutely not opposed to any third party making an app or add-on program to do this stuff - in fact I have been in contact with someone who is set out to do just that!

 

I understand the desire to have something like that, and I am very confident that you will see some offerings in that regard very soon after we release.

 

 

Understood, thanks for the clarification. 

[Vlodek9]

HI ALL,

New IXEG 737 user.  Looks like its been a while since someone posted here but I figure I would check.  Anyone know if any third party or other MAC calculators came out yet for this bird?  IOS preferred but will take anything at this time.

Been searching the internets for a while but no luck so far.

[Litjan]

2 hours ago, Vlodek9 said:

HI ALL,

New IXEG 737 user.  Looks like its been a while since someone posted here but I figure I would check.  Anyone know if any third party or other MAC calculators came out yet for this bird?  IOS preferred but will take anything at this time.

Been searching the internets for a while but no luck so far.

There will ne one out very shortly, we have been working with the dev on that... should only be a few days.

Jan

[iGoApp]

20 hours ago, Vlodek9 said:

HI ALL,

New IXEG 737 user.  Looks like its been a while since someone posted here but I figure I would check.  Anyone know if any third party or other MAC calculators came out yet for this bird?  IOS preferred but will take anything at this time.

Been searching the internets for a while but no luck so far.

Vlodek9. This is what you were probably looking for.

Cheers.