Revision of cabin configurations in AE

Currently in AE we have a Max Seats parameter to describe the seating capacity of an aircraft.

This Max Seats parameter equals the maximum certified evacuation seat number of an aircraft. (FAA exit limit)

This FAA exit limit not suitable to describe the cabin size and the possible cabin configurations of an aircraft, becuse this FAA exit limit does not always match the cabin capacity of an aircraft.

Max seats = cabin capacity = exit limits

Please check the following example for the Airbus A340 series aircrafts:

Airbus factory datas: http://www.airbus.co...aft/a340family/

A340-200

Max seats in AE: 420

Cabin lenght: 46,06 m

Cabin width: 5,28 m

A340-300

Max seats in AE: 440

Cabin lenght: 50,35 m

Cabin width: 5,28 m

A340-500 (this aircraft intended for ultra long range flights)

Max seats in AE: 375

Cabin lenght: 53,56 m

Cabin width: 5,28 m

A340-600

Max seats in AE: 475

Cabin lenght: 60,98 m

Cabin width: 5,28 m

An Airbus A340-500 cabin is bigger than a A340-200 by more than 6 meters, in the reality if I configure

- 20F 60C 274Y (354) for both aircraft I will have more space in the A340-500.

Currently in AE I can configure only the following cabin config for A340-500, which has larger cabin than the A340-200:

- 20F 60C 229Y (309)

Using FAA exit limits to determine the actual seating capacity of an aircraft can be misleading in some cases. For bigger planes the max passengers certification process depends on the manufacturers strategy, let's see a simple example. We have two planes Airbus_1, and Boeing_1ER, both plane have the same cabin size, both designed for ultra long range flights.

You are saying that the FAA exit limit is not suitable to describe the cabin size and the possible cabin configurations of an aircraft, because this FAA exit limit does not always match the cabin capacity of an aircraft. But, AE is trying to be semi-realistic here, and therefore uses the FAA exit limit capacities.

This brings up an interesting point, and I think Northern and BritAboard may be able to clear this up a bit.

Can you please clarify your request?

You are saying that the FAA exit limit is not suitable to describe the cabin size and the possible cabin configurations of an aircraft, because this FAA exit limit does not always match the cabin capacity of an aircraft. But, AE is trying to be semi-realistic here, and therefore uses the FAA exit limit capacities.

 

This brings up an interesting point, and I think Northern and BritAboard may be able to clear this up a bit.

 

Can you please clarify your request?

Yes, this FAA exit limit cause some irrealistic cabin configurations in AE. I think the above recommended method can be easily implemented, and adds more reality to the game.

My request is to use one additional parameter for all aircraft:

Also if you will have further developments in the game separation of the FAA exit limit and the actual cabin size will be inevitable. The best practise would be to use the actual cabin area as cabin size parameter, and you could build your cabin layout substracted from this value as every object would have it's given area/size value:

-lavatory (passenger will revolt if the ratio will be under 100:1 )

-galley

-28-30-32...40" seats

Perhaps being able to choose "Seat Pitch" as opposed to number seats when configuring would help (obviously with something telling you how many seats a certain pitch would give)

Some additional examples, where using the FAA exit limit falsify the actual cabin space of an aircraft.

1, B747 classics vs. 747-400:

In AE Boeing 747-100, 747-200 series has "550 seats capacity" vs.

Boeing 747-400 series has "660 seats capacity".

In the reality: passenger capacity increased by only 10 percent by extending the upper deck and relocating the new straight stairway to the rear of the upper deck. There is no 20 percent cabin space difference between these aircrafts.

2, B747-400 vs. 747-8I:

In AE Boeing 747-400 series has "660 seats capacity" vs.

747-8I has "605 seats capacity".

In the reality: The 747-8 Intercontinental is the only jetliner in the 400- to 500-seat market, stretched 5.6 m (18.3 ft) from the 747-400 to provide 467 seats in a three-class configuration and a 14,815-km (8,000-nmi) range.

So the 747-8I actually has bigger cabin space just the company not certified it for bigger passenger number.

747-400 typical 3 class configuration 416 seats

747-8I typical 3 class configuration 467 seats

With 51 additional seats and 26% more revenue cargo volume than the 747-400, the Intercontinental was designed for the heart of the premium market offering more range, more payload and more fuel efficiency than any previous 747. 

While in AE a 747-8I is 10% smaller than the 747-400, just because the FAA exit limits....

3, Narrowbody Boeing 737-800 vs. A319-100:

Boeing 737-800 has a 189 seat FAA exit limit, but this is not limited by the actual cabin space, the exit door capability limits this value.

If you check the following seatmap from Ryanair, you can see that they have 30" seat pitch and still have one galley in the passenger area. So this plane has bigger cabin space than the FAA exit limit.

http://www.seatguru....ing_737-800.php

A319-100's 160 seat exit limit matches the possible max. seats (at just 28-29" pitch) and the actual cabin space:

http://www.seatguru....Airbus_A319.php

Because of this, if you are using two or three class configurations the relative productivity will be much better for an A319 vs. B738, or 747-400 vs. 747-8I / 747 classics.

4, The whole A350 series is affected too

This series intended for long range use, so the FAA certificate is declared for fewer passengers, and does not match with the actual cabin size and the Airbus recommended two class seat capacity.

A330-300 as reference:

cabin width: 5,28 meters

cabin lenght: 50,35 meters

Airbus recommended seat capacity (two class): 300

FAA exit limit: 440

A350-900 with approx. 10% larger cabin space than the A330-300

cabin width: 5,61 meters

cabin lenght: 51,8 meters

Airbus recommended seat capacity (two class): 315

FAA exit limit: 420

A350-1000 with approx. 20% bigger cabin space than the A330-300

cabin width: 5,61 meters

cabin lenght: 58,8 meters

Airbus recommended seat capacity (two class): 369

FAA exit limit: 450

An example how the quoted additional cabin space parameter would handle these aircrafts:

Mod Note: Thread Cleaned

ex

On topic, dzsoki I believe the current issue in regards to the way seating configurations work is also the lack of distinction between different types of F, C and Y seats used by airlines, for instance the "16F" in the Alaskan example you have shown is in reality equivalent to a business class seat rather than an actual long-haul first class, but as AE currently does not make this distinction (nor in fact takes into account differing pitches of seats at all) it results in situations where the RL config can't be replicated.

Mod Note: Thread Cleaned

ex

On topic, dzsoki I believe the current issue in regards to the way seating configurations work is also the lack of distinction between different types of F, C and Y seats used by airlines, for instance the "16F" in the Alaskan example you have shown is in reality equivalent to a business class seat rather than an actual long-haul first class, but as AE currently does not make this distinction (nor in fact takes into account differing pitches of seats at all) it results in situations where the RL config can't be replicated.

I agree with that, in the real world much more different classes exist between the standard three, (business economy, premium economy, closed suites etc.) and it's quite hard to replicate all of them.

I agree with that, in the real world much more different classes exist between the standard three, (business economy, premium economy, closed suites etc.) and it's quite hard to replicate all of them.

Perhaps being able to choose "Seat Pitch" as opposed to number seats when configuring would help (obviously with something telling you how many seats a certain pitch would give)

Agreed. Seat pitch would be much more useful, and give people a better idea of how pax are crammed into their planes (or not). To keep it simple, there could be a standard width configuration used for each class and for each plane, and players would adjust the pitch and be given a number of seats per class as a result.

Agreed. Seat pitch would be much more useful, and give people a better idea of how pax are crammed into their planes (or not). To keep it simple, there could be a standard width configuration used for each class and for each plane, and players would adjust the pitch and be given a number of seats per class as a result.

Actually come to think of it I think this is on the list for AE4....

Here is a method of describing the actual cabin floor area on different long range aircrafts:

http://theaviationspecialist.com/master_lh_mission_dataset.gif

-Cabin floor area in square feet/meters

-Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters

Two examples:

-A340-600:

Cabin floor area: 3380 square feet

Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 315

-B777-300ER:

Cabin floor area: 3555 square feet

Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 330,4

Here is a method of describing the actual cabin floor area on different long range aircrafts:

http://theaviationspecialist.com/master_lh_mission_dataset.gif

 

-Cabin floor area in square feet/meters

-Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters

 

Two examples:

-A340-600:

Cabin floor area: 3380 square feet

Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 315

 

-B777-300ER:

Cabin floor area: 3555 square feet

Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 330,4

But then again there are different size seats

 

 

But then again there are different size seats

We have the actual cabin floor area in the quoted parameter: Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters.

If we take this as a reference for example with 34" seat pitch, we can compare the different seat configurations to this.

-B777-300ER: Cabin floor area: 3555 square feet Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 330,4

If I configure 550Y it will be 67% (550/330,4) denser than our 34" reference. --> legroom parameter

If I configure 16F 40C 200Y it will be 29% (256/330,4) more spacious than our 34" reference.

-A340-600: Cabin floor area: 3380 square feet Seating @ 1 PAX / square meters: 315

If I configure 375Y it will be 19% denser than our 34" reference.

If I configure 16F 40C 200Y it will be 23% more spacious than our 34" reference.

The actual dimensions of the aircraft taken into account in this calculation, this is why the full Y config get better results for the A340 and the same three class seating is better for the 777-300ER.

Of course if we use different types of seat pitch not just 3-6 different classes with preconfigured values, it will make this much more sophisticated, as you have to know the dimensions of the seats etc. eetc.

Actually come to think of it I think this is on the list for AE4....

Reminds me of an early concept I posted a while ago

Reminds me of an early concept I posted a while ago

 

DON'T TOY WITH ME Looks real nice though and it pretty much solves most things raised in this topic

I like these demo pictures too.

I think the physical aircraft cabin sizes will be an interesting addition to the new version. As the fuel flow, speed, turn time, required runway lenght and other parameters currently have to be considered, the actual cabin size and the chosen seat configuration will be at least as important in the game, and also balances some aircraft types which I mentioned before.

I like these demo pictures too.

I think the physical aircraft cabin sizes will be an interesting addition to the new version. As the fuel flow, speed, turn time, required runway lenght and other parameters currently have to be considered, the actual cabin size and the chosen seat configuration will be at least as important in the game, and also balances some aircraft types which I mentioned before.

Yep, the cabin width and lengths will be important for calculating seat pitch and such. Then we can use actual numbers to compare cabin layouts rather than a vague "legroom rating" of questionable accuracy (and not even differentiated per cabin).

With the use of seat pitch, would this not screw up reputation if you decide to use a reverse herringbone product for business class as seat pitch is something like 45" which sounds like utter crap on long haul when it actually isn't. I'm still in favour of just doing the maths and just enter the number of seats i want. With physical cabin sizes, this would be influenced by certain galley/lav configurations. 

With the use of seat pitch, would this not screw up reputation if you decide to use a reverse herringbone product for business class as seat pitch is something like 45" which sounds like utter crap on long haul when it actually isn't. I'm still in favour of just doing the maths and just enter the number of seats i want. With physical cabin sizes, this would be influenced by certain galley/lav configurations. 

I would just prefer the realism i.e. seat pitch and layout etc. but there is something to be said when just choosing the number of seats you need so that you end up with the right proportions or ratios because a bad ratio config really messes it up on AE