What is up with these station loads on the 560XL?

reference_datum_position = 0.0, 0, 0

station_load.0 =  190,  5, 0, 0
station_load.1 =  190,  5, 0, 0
station_load.2 =    0,  4, 0, 0
station_load.3 =    0,  3, 0, 0
station_load.4 =    0,  1, 0, 0
station_load.5 =    0,  1, 0, 0
station_load.6 =    0, -1, 0, 0
station_load.7 =    0, -1, 0, 0
station_load.8 =    0, -2, 0, 0

OK, and so then I looked at the C90 GTX and it has this (the comments are what I'm referring to, which the XLS doesn't have):

station_load.0 = 175,  2, 0,  1        //Weight (lbs), longitudinal, lateral, vertical positions from datum (feet)
.
.
station_load.9 = 110, -5, 0, -1        //Weight (lbs), longitudinal, lateral, vertical positions from datum (feet)

 

If these distances are in fact feet that would mean the 560XL's "station_load.0" which is the pilot's seat and "station_load.8" (the aft baggage compartment) are separated by only 7 feet longitudinally (5 feet ahead of the datum and -2 feet behind the datum = 7 ft). According to some specs I found on the web the XLS' overall length is 52.5 ft so I'm having a hard time with the 7 foot distance. If these XYZ station_load coordinates are actually in meters that would make the pilot's seat about 25 feet forward of the rear baggage compartment and that I could probably swallow. So what is it, are they in feet or meters? For that matter the GTX looks completely messed up too, same thing, 7 feet between the pilot's seat and the aft baggage compartment.

I was trying to make the 560's station loads a little more accurate, for one thing the last two seats in the back are completely missing so if you want to load the plane to it's max capacity of pilot & copilot + 8 passengers you have to add the last two passengers sitting on someone else's lap to get the weight where you want it and the moment arm is screwy because the last two occupants should be further back. Also laterally all the weights are exactly on the aircraft's centerline  at "0" which makes for a nice laterally balanced flight model but it isn't accurate.

I zeroed the eyepoint temporarily in the aircraft.cfg and then moved the VC viewpoint around to each seat (visually) one at a time and saved the flight for each position. Then I got the InitialXyz for each station from the .fxml which I'm told is in meters and tried to adapt that to the station_loads. They were fairly close to what Carenado had for the seats that existed, but then when I see the comments in the GTX [WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE] section  that these distances are supposedly in feet the discrepancy became apparent. It's not a big deal to convert meters to feet of course, I just don't know which is correct.

Any FDE experts reading that have done this before? Station loads in feet or meters?

2 hours ago, Jim Robinson said:

What is up with these station loads on the 560XL?

DON'T change the station loads. FSX/P3D are exaggerating all off-CG weights a lot. These numbers have been chosen to replicate the real loading of the aircraft.

The same goes for the C90 (and most other Carenado/Alabeo aircraft)

Edited April 30, 20206 yr by FDEdev

Thanks for your helpful input, I've since deduced that the station loads are in feet (from the SDK, which I should have checked before posting this topic) and I've made the conversions. I don't see where it's adversely affected the flight model. I can now load the 560XL to max gross without piing passengers on top of passengers and that was my goal. I'll keep an eye out for those exaggerations you speak of and adjust accordingly where appropriate, If necessary I'll revert to what I originally purchased because contrary to popular belief I wasn't dumb enough to do this without a backup.

2 hours ago, Jim Robinson said:

I don't see where it's adversely affected the flight model.

Again, it DOES adversely affect the flight model! 

E.g. when you are moving the passengers to the 'correc' left/right off-center distance, the 560 will start rolling if the passengers are not distributed equally. This doesn't happen IRL.

If you change the forward/aft position you are ruining the realistic CG / trim relationship and you might run out of elevator trim, etc. etc.

Any change you make, makes the 560 less realistic and under some conditions maybe even unflyable. 

 

 

Jim, did you solve the issue of last two seats missing? If positive, could you post your cfg lines here?

I did, this one loads 5 pax by default at 175 lbs each plus 55 lbs baggage (as per SimBrief).

//Weight (lbs), longitudinal(Z), lateral(X), vertical(Y) positions from datum (feet)
max_number_of_stations = 14
station_load.0 =  175,  16.21, -1.15, 0       //"pilot"
station_load.1 =  175,  16.21,  1.15, 0       //"copilot"
station_load.2 =  175,  12.43,  1.41, 0       //"pax row 1R"
station_load.3 =    0,  10.79,  1.41, 0       //"pax row 2R"
station_load.4 =  175,  8.89,  -1.51, 0       //"pax row 3L".
station_load.5 =    0,  8.89,   1.51, 0       //"pax row 3R"
station_load.6 =    0,  5.22,  -1.51, 0       //"pax row 4L"
station_load.7 =  175,  5.22,   1.51, 0       //"pax row 4R"
station_load.8 =    0,  1.48,  -1.51, 0       //"pax row 5L"
station_load.9 =    0,  1.48,   1.51, 0       //"pax row 5R"
station_load.10 = 275, -8.69,   0.00, 0    //"bag 804lbs"
 
station_name.0  = "pilot"  
station_name.1  = "copilot"
station_name.2  = "pax row 1R"
station_name.3  = "pax row 2R"
station_name.4  = "pax row 3L"
station_name.5  = "pax row 3R"
station_name.6  = "pax row 4L"
station_name.7  = "pax row 4R"
station_name.8  = "pax row 5L"
station_name.9  = "pax row 5R"
station_name.10 = "bag 804lbs"