I think FSP is wrong.

More examples of FS Passenger stupidity.

It claims the Cessna 208B Grand Caravan isn't pressurized.

The loading for the BAe/Avro RJ85 is such that with full tanks, you can not add any passengers or cargo without exceeding MTOW. It also shows the plane's weight as being 5,000 lbs more than the real world certification papers show it to be.

Did anyone at FSP get past the third grade? I should have checked it out more thoroughly before paying for it.

I was wondering about FSP. Can you start your own airline and sort of run the company by dictating where other pilots fly and what routes you can do?

I'll link this thread from the FsP forum so that maybe the staff there can help you out some more than I can, as far as I know, this is all the info I can give.

It claims the Cessna 208B Grand Caravan isn't pressurized.

This you can change yourself, it's actually very easy to do. Open up the payload model editor, and find the C208B ini file. Simply uncheck the box that says "This aircraft isn't pressurized" problem solved.

The loading for the BAe/Avro RJ85 is such that with full tanks, you can not add any passengers or cargo without exceeding MTOW. It also shows the plane's weight as being 5,000 lbs more than the real world certification papers show it to be.

That's why I made a new one. The guy that created FsP probably didn't really have 5 years to research and develop proper payload models for every single plane in the world. I can give it to you if you want. Its not perfect, but it does let you add plenty of passengers.

Did anyone at FSP get past the third grade?

Being that the entire program was developed, coded and implemented by one person, I'd say it's safe to assume that he's probably passed 3rd grade.

Okay, the Caravan is now pressurized. I was flying from Banf to KBFI when I discovered my passengers were dropping like flies. Finding an airstrip in the Canadian wilderness isn't easy.

You are probably right that there are too many aircraft to research...and not everyone is nuts like me and either goes to the aircraft maufacturer's web site or looks up the certification papers. I wonder how anyone decided that a plane with a certified ceiling of 25,000 ft wasn't pressurized? What does the pilot breathe? 🙄

I have to work on the Avro. Even the cfg file for the model is wrong.

Yes, I had problems with the Avro myself. I think i fixed it but i'm none too sure actually 😂

Hi,

I am a FsP forum moderator and team member, concerning your Avro have a look at this http://www.fspassengers.com/?action=download&cat=All&sort=Date&page=&search=avro&searchtype=Title and if you have any other issues, I would suggest registering on the fspassengers website and posting your problem(s) there rather than here. Official support if only given via fspassengers.com

As for your question about taking off in a thunderstorm, FsP does not tell you what to do or not to do concerning choosing your flight, it can only determine how well you did under the circumstances provided by you

Hope it helps

I was ready to do that. Then I discovered that my F1 Pilatus PC12 flying with a generic small plane ini encountered the fact that it assumes the plane isn't pressurized.

I am going thru all the ini's and make sure they meet my reality check.

I am registered and will address this of the FSP forum. Give me time to cool down first.

Boy am I glad I am not set up to register flights automatically.

By the way, that link points to the same payload file I originally referred to. If a plane is at MTOW with only a full tank of gas and no passengers or cargo, what is the point? The weights also do not conform to the plane's certification papers. I assume whoever did the ini thought the person who did the cfg for the model knew how to do math.

I am beginning to think that if I want to fly in a realistic fashion, I will have to learn to do the payloads myself.

CrashGordon wrote:

By the way, that link points to the same payload file I originally referred to. If a plane is at MTOW with only a full tank of gas and no passengers or cargo, what is the point? The weights also do not conform to the plane's certification papers. I assume whoever did the ini thought the person who did the cfg for the model knew how to do math.

I am beginning to think that if I want to fly in a realistic fashion, I will have to learn to do the payloads myself.

I don't have that model but many GA aicraft are above MTOW with full fuel and full passengers. Also you can't expect the person who made FS Passengers to track down the certification papers of every airplane in the world and check that against the .cfg of evey airplane made for MSFS. It just isn't humanly possible. Maybe if you go the FSP website and mention this irregularity in the .cfg of that airplane they will come up with a fix.

In the meantime you can change this line in your "more_option.cfg" file from "DisablePayloadDialogWeightModif =0" to "DisablePayloadDialogWeightModif =1" you can get around the problem until a fix is found.

Just to reiterate, the RJ85 is at MTOW with 99% fuel and no passengers and no cargo. With 75% passengers and fuel reduced accordingly, the range of the plane is absurdly low. I've already adjusted the cfg and ini to get near normal range. I have to verify just how accurately, I've done it.

Damn, you can always find a bug in everything that you use. FSP isn't perfect neither, but please don't be so offensive. The bugs are easy to track and to repair for the experienced person and the developer is always there to help if someone cannot fix something by himself.
Of course there are some bugs but it doesn't stop me from saying that this is one of the best addons to MFS that I've ever seen

I tend to hold payware authors to a higher standard than freeware.

I've gone thru all the payload files for planes I fly to make sure there are no forther "not pressurized" surprises. I am aware that many of the payload files on the site are contributed by third parties. The rating system is useless. How can a payload file which is not accurate get 3 out of 5 stars? I guess that is for the pretty picture. 😞

I tend to hold payware authors to a higher standard than freeware

Very highly understandable. That's one of the reasons FsP was my first payware. I knew it was something I wanted, and I was prepared to work a little to make it work for me how I wanted it to. The thing you have to remember is that you're dealing with a double death trap with the RJ85. It's a freeware third party aircraft, with a freeware third party payload. That naturally would kinda ring a small red bell saying "Hey, this may require some fiddlage to work right" 😂

Fiddlage, what an interesting word. 😉

I'm gonna quit while I am ahead, or I might take on model creators who don't know how much the plane they modeled actually weighs. 🙄