Hi,It's had me baffled for some time why the 737NG's seem to have weird payload configuration. I only really fly the -700 and -800 variants. The -800 has 4 payload points (in the Edit Payload Dialog) and the -700 only has 1. My VA gives me a loadout for about 6 different sections. It further perplexes me that the PMDG load editor has provision for a forward and aft (2) load station, which matches neither of the configurations.Can someone recommend a way to patch the aircraft.cfg to add load stations without screwing up the dynamics?Thanks

Nameless-1) Please read and adhere to the forum posting guidelines pinned to the top of the forum.2) If you use the search function in the forum, you'll likely find this has been answered a number of times previously.That being said- let me give you a recap:-> As is stated in the documentation, our airplane is NOT compatible with many of the VA/freeware/commercial "load managers" on the market.-> The process that MSFS uses internally for CG/CL/CR (Center of Gravity/Center of Lift/Center of Rotation) is flawed- and as such it is not possible to realistically model the effects of CG shift on a complex wing surface.-> We found that attempting to model multiple load points caused MSFS to impose specific changes to the flight model behavior that dramatically pushed the performance of the airplane outside of it's actual performance envelope. This meant that we could either dumb-down the flight performance model or more tightly control the potential impact from the CG flaws. We chose to stick with a better flight model....A number of folks have tried to modify the aircraft.cfg to make it compatible with their VA's software- or some freeware program- or some commerical program....We recommend strongly against it- as the performance and handling of the airplane will be unpredictable- and at times may be unfliable.

Hello,1) I profusely apologize for forgetting to sign my post. I am not used to this particular forum software.2) As with most forum software packages I find the search function here serves no purpose whatsoever as it is impossible to find a specific post in a reasonable amount of time. It is in my experience always easier for all parties involved to just ask the question and get a concise and to the point answer, especially considering posts often do not contain the specific answer you are looking for. I have spent 1.5 hours searching the forum for this answer and yet I get the answer within 15minutes by simply asking. If you don't have time to type the answer again, and you want me to revisit the previous thread, then by all means use the super-efficient search feature and point me to the correct post.3) Support posts should be delivered in a better tone. I don't know if it was intended but your reply reads like this "Not another annonymous moron who can't use the search feature, asking another question...alright, I'll reply, but I won't like it." Firstly... this moron has spent more on a PMDG aircraft than he did for the sim that it was designed for. Secondly, the number rule in business is, THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT. Seeing as you don't seem to appcreciate the meaning of tis rule I will reconsider my decision to invest in any further PMDG products if this is the kind of attitude I get from the company in response to a simple question. Not a particularly flatering image to paint of yourselves.Now...to my initial query.Thanks for your explanation, I suspected the MSFS CG modelling problems would be responsible. For your info, I am not using a 3rd party load manager but rather am issued a load sheet which I then find impossible to apply to the airframe given the load station differences between the -700 and -800 variants.Kind regards-"Annonymous"