New seat configurator Public Alpha version is available for testing.A rare opportunity for all you! Access to early version of new AWS developments:
- Access the test tool at https://www.airwaysim.com/dev/test_seats.php
- Choose your model, desired seats and other specifications and observe the results!
- Double-deckers, combi and cargo planes are currently excluded (do not work yet).
- There are currently only three seat types to choose from, more will be added later once data is created/verified.
- The system should calculate all seat spaces correctly based on aircraft cabin size and chosen seat.
- The aircraft in size class "small" have been verified and their calculation should be fully functional and of the final version. Any aircraft larger than this are still considered work-in-progress (the adjustment of the cabin size vs. size needed by galleys/toilets/exits takes some time). So please do not directly yet compare real-life configurations of other aircraft than of the smallest size class since they might be inaccurate.
- Note that the input areas/fields (where you select the aircraft type and seats) is very simple and does not properly check the input, and bad selections will lead to errors. The input area is for testing purposes only and is of course not part of the final system.
- The system draws (a very crude) visual seat map of the chosen configuration. No part of these graphics are final from any part.
- If you see a text "unused space" at the bottom of the cabin, it means that there is space for more seats or larger seat pitch.
- The visual seat map is scaled according to the aircraft size. This should work properly at this point already.
- The visual seat map does not draw galleys, toilets, wings, exits or other such features and is not planned to do so either. It does not take into account the possible varying shape of the fuselage (some aircraft narrow towards the tail), and this is not planned either.
- The system also gives a limited set of debug printouts. If you see anything strange please reply to this thread and inform of the full set of selections you made (each seat type, number and other selections in detail!) in order to fully replicate it.
Please click and test around and see if you can spot something that is not logical.
Can we please have seat pitch in centimeters? The game has the option in the settings to decide between imperial/metric so it only makes sense to have seat pitch in centimeters for our non-US-players even though the industry standard may be in inch.
strange configuration. Toying with the C919, I select 0 F, 10 C(premium, 33", checked the middle seat left empty, Y maximum(standard, 30"). But the result shows me only 9 seats
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on October 03, 2019, 03:32:59 PM
strange configuration. Toying with the C919, I select 0 F, 10 C(premium, 33", checked the middle seat left empty, Y maximum(standard, 30"). But the result shows me only 9 seats
Yeah, only get 9C seats here when I try that setup too.
Hi Sami, thanks for letting us try this out. In general I really like the idea. It's going to mean we need to research quite a bit what we do with seat layouts when we select a new fleet which is fine. The one thing that would be useful perhaps, is to have some sort of "benchmark" or "average / manufacturers recommended layout" for each aircraft so that we have some sort of indicator (perhaps over on the right side of the screen) so we can quickly see whether we're designing something that is better / equal to / worse than any normal or average set-up for this aircraft.
The other thing that I'd like to check - current modelling has resulted that few situations seem to make any much difference to whether passengers use my airline or the competitor. Currently it seems only really that on LH aircraft you may see worse pax figures if you used a high density Y layout - almost everywhere else it almost seems hardly worth-while bothering to make our planes more comfortable. I never really found any great advantage anywhere to use any Premium layout in current model, and luxury layout should be re-labelled - "you're kidding yourself" layout ;) since you think it is nice but in reality you just carry much less pax and make less money.
So with this new modelling, it really would be very useful to have some sort of guide as to just how pax load rates would be affected by choosing to offer better or worse seat pitches. I presume we will not be able to tell what seat pitches any of our competitors are using (in RL you could easily send a "spy passenger" to take a flight on your competitors flights and bring that info back). So given I suspect we can't see what our competitor has actually got, then we have to have some sort of "table of expectations" to work from, otherwise this is a fantastic new tool with no way to really know what works and why.
I hope my comments are constructive - love the developments potential in this, and thanks again.
Jack
Splendid!
Me loving it! <3 Great concept :) looking forward to the various seat-types!
Whenever I try premium first class seats, it puts in those but the rest of the plane ends up empty. Also, it puts 2-3-2 in for the Premium F seats in a widebody and 2-3 for the premium J seats in a 737 or a320, which is not realistic.
The number of seats per row depends entirely on how wide the chosen seat is vs. how wide the cabin is. For example if it counts can fit 5 per row, then it adds 5 per row there. In that case you can use the 'Leave middle seat empty' selection if you wish to mimic some real-world configuration.
Edit: Also for the config giving zero seats. Make sure you actually selected a number of seats you wish to have?
Quote from: Sami on October 04, 2019, 11:15:23 AM
The number of seats per row depends entirely on how wide the chosen seat is vs. how wide the cabin is. For example if it counts can fit 5 per row, then it adds 5 per row there. In that case you can use the 'Leave middle seat empty' selection if you wish to mimic some real-world configuration.
So basically seat width isn't changeable manually, unlike seat pitch and one has to rely on whatever default width the system allocates to HD/Std/Premium configs?
The current setup seems to insist on a minimum of 2-2-2 config in F and 2-3-2 config in J on widebodies, if one uses premium seats.
In real world, I'd consider a 2-3-2 in J as a very middling product, not premium.
In other words, no way to recreate Finnair's own 1-2-1 in A350's J cabin, using any permutation. ;)
You do not have the modern widebody first/business class seats to select there, yet. (as noted in the opening post)
The premium seat (picture here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,58864.msg488150.html#msg488150) is very different from the lie-flat/flat-bed seats, and could be compared to DC-10 era first/business seats perhaps.
A321NEO in high density is 235 max in real life due to size of overwings etc. Can squeeze 244 into the model
Quote from: TranceAvia on October 04, 2019, 05:11:43 PM
A321NEO in high density is 235 max in real life due to size of overwings etc. Can squeeze 244 into the model
Any source for this? I have info that 244 is the certified max capacity.
Quote from: Sami on October 04, 2019, 05:14:24 PM
Any source for this? I have info that 244 is the certified max capacity.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS_EASA%20A%20064_%20Airbus_%20A318_A319_A320_A321_Iss_42.pdf
page 100 states the maximum seating capacity with limits C*-(III-III)+-C-C* as 244
but no clue how those exits are located then. its like one front, two overwing, one behind the wing, and one aft? in any case, the text below reads:
"- The modification 160766 enable the maximum seating capacity to be increased from 220 up to
244. This modification defines a virtual envelope of the Layout of Passenger Accommodations (LOPA)
and does not constitute an authorization for the installation of seats in excess of 220. A separate
approval is needed for the installation of the individual customized cabin layout and the necessary
cabin adaptations up to 244 seats. "
Seen the 235 config with spaceflex galley and not sure where you'd fit another 9 seats
Quote from: Sami on October 04, 2019, 05:14:24 PM
Any source for this? I have info that 244 is the certified max capacity.
VietJet receives first 240-seat 'Cabin Flex' A321neo:
It says thats 30 seats have extra leg room,so I'd imagine 244 should be possible...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-vietjet-receives-first-240-seat-cabin-fl-461098/
Mike
Quote from: MikeS on October 06, 2019, 12:33:29 PM
VietJet receives first 240-seat 'Cabin Flex' A321neo:
It says thats 30 seats have extra leg room,so I'd imagine 244 should be possible...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-vietjet-receives-first-240-seat-cabin-fl-461098/
Mike
although i guess if you do not book ,,extra leg room" they will chop off your legs prior to boarding... :-[
.... there are still the "Lie-Flat" over head bins ... :laugh:
finally did a few tests:
1) i didnt do detailled things, just a rough check if it "looks good", didnt go into every range-subtype or something like that
2) lots of earlier designs seem to have really comfy interiors (i guess thats due to the change in the industry)
3) to make more detailed checks we would need to know how thick the seats are (seats nowadays are much different than 20, 30, ... years ago)
4) didnt check any soviet designs (noone uses those anyway :P )
notes on what struck me as odd / or looked good:
F70/100: seem good
F27/F50: all eco, they have 4 abreast seating and 39in pitch... that seems excessive
HS Trident: one cant reach the "maximum seating" in the trident by far! probably because maximum seating on those utilized 7-abreast seating, which HD seats dont do in AWS
DC-9: -10/15/21/31/34: no way one can reach maximum seating. i cant offer an explanation on that one... but tried with 27in pitch; 41-51 ok
MD80/90: looks alright
MRJ: looks alright
Saab 340/2000: looks alright
Caravelle: a lot of excess space... 40 in pitch
Superjet: looks alright
VC10: looks ok
Viscount: 40 in pitch
Martin: looks alright
Connies: early one look good (a bit comfy) - 1049/1649 have excessive space
Elextra: looks alright
JU52: good.
HS748: looks good, but the ATP has excess space
HPH: ok
528/728/928: quite some space
ERJ: ok
EJet: ok
DC8: ok
DC7: lots of space...
DC6: ok
DC4: ok
DC3: lots of space. in AWS there is 4 abreast seating possible... IRL the DC3 gets lot narrower in the back
DC2: four abreast seating in AWS, IRL it was much narrower than the DC3 - according to wiki 66 inches wide.
328: looks ok... maybe a bit cramped
Comet: looks good
DHC3-8: look alright
Mercure: ok
C46: ok
CV240-440: lots of space...
CV880-990: very comfy
C919: ok
CARJ: quite some space
CASA: looks ok
Brit: quite roomy
Breguet 763: i thought doubledeckers are not included yet? :-[
DHC8: ok
CRJ: ok
757: ok
737: 400 cant reach max capacity; 7Max too
727: ok
717: ok
707: 300/400 cant reach maximum capacity. 100/200 and 720 ok
377: ok
146/avro: ok
Jetliner: ok
Aviation Traders Accountant: i am getting problems on this one - cant see data please check!
ATR: ok
A320: ok
A220: ok
Concorde: ok
All others than the small size class planes are still unconfigured (the galley space data is incorrect), hence the too big/small extra space.
I'm inclined towards an above comment that some type of customer feedback measure would be helpful, even if it's as simple as the existing "Poor, Average, Good, Excellent".
I would also suggest making the default value for seat pitch an industry standard number, i.e. if the generally accepted seat pitch is 30 inches, default for the system is 30.
Without a gauge of customer sentiment, it is going to be VERY difficult to tie financial performance to aircraft configuration.
so... a bit more time. checking some widebodies:
A300/310: width alright: HD 9, Std 8 (not sure hte A300 is certified for 9 abreast, but the 330 certainly is)
A330/340: looks alright. 500/600 now has nice space for those biz seats finally.
A350: 9 abreast in Std sounds ok, 10 abreast in HD... they really want to do that on premium airlines now. crazy sheep sitting down there. but looks alright
B767: looks ok. 8/7/6. 400 has not much space to include the seats though.. only get to 329 in reasonable 30" std (which is probably rather realistic though ;) )
B777: looks ok: 10/9/7. floor area seems ok. X is a bit wider interntally, 10/9/8
B787: 9/8/7 - seems ok. the -3 has now the usuable -8s-area
L1011: 9/9/7 - looks ok.
DC10: 10/9/7 - width alright. length: -30ER seems to lose a lot of seats though (thought its the same size as the -30)!
Looks awesome, I look forward to this being part of the game.