Sorry if this has been discussed earlier (can't imagine that anybody hasn't found problem so obvious) but my search did not find anything so here I go:
first, some numbers:
| Aircraft | Wiki max pax | AWS max pax | Length |
| 767-200 | 290 | 255 | 48.5m |
| 767-300 | 350 | 290 | 54.9m |
| 767-400 | 375 | 409 | 61.4m |
so, lets sum it up: 762 and 763 are much smaller in game than in wiki, 764 is somewhat bigger.
Length difference between 762 and 763 is 6.4m and between 763 and 764 is 6.5m, so it's practically the same.
Still, first 6.4 meters add 35 seats in game, but second 6.5 meters add 109!! Where is the logic in that?
I think that those wiki numbers are 8 abreast and AWS numbers for 762 and 763 are 7 abreast, but for 764 they are 8 abreast... so if you allow 8 abreast in 764, then it would be logical to allow it for smaller members of family too?
There was some discussion of the differences here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26036.0.html
It seems that the whole seating system would have to be over-hauled to match those figures :-\ Maybe it could re-addressed as it has been a couple of years since amendments were made.
I found that thread too but it's only very little connected to the problem I mentioned above.
I took max passenger numbers only because it's much easier to compare those than some 3-class layouts...
And generally if AC X has larger max pax number than AC Y then also 3-class layout of AC X will be larger.
Problem is that 767 series seating capacity IMO does not match the real life numbers and I'm pretty sure that fixing this does not require whole seating system rewrite but simply fixing the numbers.
Some more numbers (all-eco layout in AWS with standard seats):
762: 216
763: 256
764: 360
As I found out AWS counts standard economy seats for 762/763 also by 8 abreast (not 7 as I guessed earlier), same goes for 764.
So first 6.4 extra meters give you 40 additional seats (5 rows) and second 6.5 extra meters give you 104 seats (13 rows)... 762 and 763 are clearly too small in AWS.
The seating capacity is calculated off the real world maximum capacity as far as I know.
Would be good to see this area overhauled, but there was some difficulty with data regarding cabin dimensions of all planes.
Quote from: alexgv1 on May 14, 2012, 11:10:44 PM
The seating capacity is calculated off the real world maximum capacity as far as I know.
Would be good to see this area overhauled, but there was some difficulty with data regarding cabin dimensions of all planes.
It is based on internal cabin length.
So overall length of the aircraft is unimportant... what matters is the interior.
Jona it was planned to be so but it never got done because of the unavailable data don't you think?
I will be on a 767 next week! That's a new card for the collection! Yes, I know. I am not supposed to take them.
Quote from: swiftus27 on May 15, 2012, 02:12:30 AM
I will be on a 767 next week! That's a new card for the collection! Yes, I know. I am not supposed to take them.
Can you take the inflight magazine and card for me too? I'll pay you some bucks for postage and send you a present from Holland :)
Quote from: swiftus27 on May 15, 2012, 02:12:30 AM
I will be on a 767 next week! That's a new card for the collection! Yes, I know. I am not supposed to take them.
Bring a tape measure, ask the CC really nice and work those puppy eyes and we might have the beginning of database. ^^
I do agree that the seating models needs some touch ups, and also some crew issues e.g. A332 which has 9 CC! Would also be nice is amount of lavatories required and so on were modelled but that might be a bit overkill. Still great job Sami!
Quote from: Gleipner on May 15, 2012, 09:58:15 PM
Bring a tape measure, ask the CC really nice and work those puppy eyes and we might have the beginning of database. ^^
:laugh: :laugh:
Good one...
This message has too many smileys. Please reduce the number of smileys.
Quote from: Gleipner on May 15, 2012, 09:58:15 PM
Bring a tape measure, ask the CC really nice and work those puppy eyes and we might have the beginning of database. ^^
Haha we'll have to hit the museums to get the values for the Ju-52s and Trimotor's, etc :D
Would it be possible to get Sami's thoughts about it?
Quote from: Boot on May 16, 2012, 07:41:08 AM
Would it be possible to get Sami's thoughts about it?
Just scroll the archives (or use the search function) and look for "Seating Capacity" and/or "Cabin Length"... should come up with the discussion on this topic... cba to do it right now, as I am kindof busy :P
well, archives tell me that:
Quote from: SamiThe difference is because the seat config is based on the information about max amount of seats instead of cabin length (so far still). And since the max seating in both is the same it looks this way then.
My question is why is information about max amount of seats for 762 and 763 WRONG?
Quote from: Boot on May 16, 2012, 02:33:06 PM
well, archives tell me that:My question is why is information about max amount of seats for 762 and 763 WRONG?
If that's the case it would be good to get it correct. However I imagine the figures are direct from Boeing. Do you have a more reliable source than wiki?
The heart of the issue is that a lot of the figures from manufacturers are no exactly useable by AWS, We need number of HD seats (as a proxy for cabin size). The data, especially for LH aicraft does not usually include a theoretical HD capacity. The typical 3 class configuration of LH aircraft, usually supplied is not consistent....
The more deeper I dig into that issue the more puzzled I am :P
Info about 762 on Boeing website:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html
They state "up to 255" but in more technical document:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec2.pdf Page 9 (3rd page in PDF)
SEATING ONE-CLASS FAA EXIT LIMIT = 255 (3)
and below of the page:
(3) 290 WITH SECOND OVERWING EXIT DOOR.
About 763:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_300prod.html
Typical 1-class 350
but in http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec2.pdf Page 11 (5th page in PDF)
ONE-CLASS FAA EXIT LIMIT 290 (3)
and below:
(3) 299 WITH MID-CABIN TYPE A DOOR.
As AWS uses max seat amount to calculate all other possible configurations I think it would be wise to use largest number provided by manufacturer...
Well at least this indicates that Sami is being consistent in his use of manufacturers suggested specifications. I expect that the decision to use Boeing's 'usual' limits rather than the absolute maximums that require door changes is consistent with other decisions about seating limits in other aircraft lines. There will be exceptions to the usual manufacturer specified limits (and different theoretical limits) on practically every type of aircraft, but how do you model those consistently without accurate and complete data on interior space? There was a time a couple of years ago that Sami was trying to get precise figures on interior space to create the theoretical limits; I'm not sure how far he got, but I think that the effort was abandoned due to the problem of actually obtaining those kinds of numbers in so many different aircraft types (particularly older models). Given that not every manufacturer or historical specs give more than the usual limits to seating, I think Sami is wise to stick to those even when, like the 767, exceptional specs are also provided. That keeps things straightforward and consistent across the sim.
real-world 763 with 328 seats:
http://www.thomson.co.uk/editorial/legal/thomson-fleet.html
real-world 762ER configured as 12C/241Y=total 253:
http://www.airitaly.it/en/company_informations/fleet_detail2.aspx
all-economy would be certainly more than AWS limit 255
Its always been about the exits. Since the day I started.....
Quote from: Boot on May 16, 2012, 07:41:08 AM
Would it be possible to get Sami's thoughts about it?
Sure.
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,39636.0.html
Quote from: schro on May 16, 2012, 07:15:10 PM
Sure.
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,39636.0.html
Wrong.
Quote from: SamiMax capacity is 172 as per Boeing's docs
I linked Boeing docs which show that max capacity for 762 & 763 is more than in AWS.
Quote from: Boot on May 16, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
Wrong.
I linked Boeing docs which show that max capacity for 762 & 763 is more than in AWS.
172 is for the MD-90, however, the same rationale may also apply to this scenario.
doh...
I understood that 172 is for MD90.
My point is that: max capacity for MD90 as of Boeing docs is 172, in AWS it's also 172.
max capacity for 762 & 763 stated in Boeing docs is more than in AWS -> your link about MD90 topic is totally irrelevant!
The 767 capacities are directly from Boeing's documentation, same doc as the MD-90 capacity. Both of them have been referred to here already.
It's the exit limit that matters - which is the maximum certified capacity of the plane. (however some carriers may have made modifications to the specs allowing perhaps a higher max capacity, like Easyjet with A319 and second overwing exit, and that is something that is not and can not be modelled - at least untl there are some actual facts from the manufacturer directly).
well, that is hurting 762 and 763 quite badly...
With additional exit 762 could be configured with 290 HD seats, nobody in their right mind would not probably do it (using HD seating on typical 762 routes should affect your LF significantly, so we can safely assume that standard economy is "worst" seat that any player would use in 762).
Currently 762 in AWS can be configured with 216 standard economy seats. If max capacity would be changed from 255 to 290 this 216 would become 245 or 246 (290/255*216=245.6). With 246 standard economy seats exit requirements even without extra emergency exit would be fulfilled (it's below FAA limit 255).
That is why I think that you should actually use number with additional overwing exit (290). As I understand max capacity in AWS is a proxy for cabin length. But currently for 762 (and 763) it's not proxy for cabin length (cabin can accommodate 290 HD seats) but instead it's a proxy for number of emergency exits. And that is IMO against your own logic, Sami.