Station Load Maximum in FS9

[Guest LikwidIce]

Is there a station load maximum in the aircraft.cfg file in FS9? Thanks in advance for your reply.

[wsieffert 0]

The default B737-400 has this statement, "max_number_of_stations = 50". I didn't see anything in the FSEdit_sdk about the maximum.It is probably overkill to use that many stations in any case, since you are going to have to keep track of CG and weight of all the individual stations. MS blocked the various stations for the B737-400.W. Sieffert

[Guest LikwidIce]

Thanks again for your reply. I was asking because I am having issues with the 737-200 using a repaint of Erick Cantu's new Boeing 737-200. Model by Erick Cantu, FDE by Mike Baumann. Repainted by Henry William.I have tried both the default MS 737-400 panel as well as a couple of 3rd party panels. After being in flight for approx 10 minutes or so I will CTD to the desk top.The date stamp of the 737_200.mdl is Feb21/2004 and 7372.air Nov06/2003.I noticed that in the aircraft.cfg there are 136 stations listed, and I had come across a thread indicating that FS9 limits this to 50, as you have also suggested. When changing the max to 50 and/or deleting the differences from the aircraft.cfg other probs occur:>As far as the various cfg files goes there was nothing unusual other than than the number of stations.I also dummied down the video card settings within FS9 with the same resultI am running WinXP latest Service Pack, and the latest Catalyst drivers which have been quite allright to date, with the execpetion of this particular aircraft.1.7Mghz Cpu512 Meg Rambus 800ATI Radeon 9700 ProOnce again Thanks in advance for your reply.

[Guest Charlie Hall]

It seems the idea with a large number of stations is to better simulate the weight distribution for the intended passenger layout and it is certainly better than the single lump that existed in previous FS versions. As a quick test you could try commenting out most of the entries as they exist at present and see if things improve. My feeling is that if the various seats could be reassigned in larger groups to cut down the number of stations it would solve some problems with little difference in intended performance if done right. Every station entry affects the C of G and I assume that the inertia created in real life would have a similar effect in FS9 too. My best advice would be to have a good look at the seating arrangements most likely found on airliners.net and try to calculate the C of G for each station group you want to assign to the cfg. For reasons of inertia I would concentrate the largest lumps in the centre of the plane and perhaps use smaller lumps towards each end. Before you start you might look at the diagram that shows the C of G point in the fuel and payload menu so that you can be fairly sure you have got it at least close to being right after changing it. That's assuming it is right to begin with, and I have no reason to think otherwise especially if the plane feels right while it works, but then again it's no harm done to check if you can, if only for the reason of convincing yourself that your new figures are just as valid.

[wsieffert 0]

I found a reference for the maximum number of stations in the FS2004_AircraftContainer_SDK. It states that the max_number_of_stations=50 is just a default number set by MS. It goes on to say that this is not the flight simulator maximum,"Max Number of Stations specifies the maximum number of stations Flight Simulator will calculate when the aircraft is loaded. This allows an unlimited number of stations to be specified. Note that an excessively large number here results in a longer load time for the aircraft when selected, although there is no effect on real-time performance.".The reason real-time performance isn't effected is the flight simulator adds all the weights and positions to calculate the total weight and CG. If the calculations are within the parameters of the aircraft, it should fly properly.I agree with Charlie, that removing stations without recalculating weight and CG could have adverse effects on flying quality.W. Sieffert

[Guest LikwidIce]

Thanks again guys for the info. Took another look at fuel, payload and CG variables within FS9 GUI and noticed that I was red numbering in exceeding max allowable weight. Adjusted the fuel accordingly and voila no more CTD's. Left the station load weights alone as well. The CG in the 737-700 by Kittyhawk was way forward even with fuel zeroed out. CG in the Eric Cantu model was pretty much center of the wing. All said both models are working as ecpected. It is unfortunate that FS9 will CTD if the weight rules are broken. I would rather the plane not become airborne and have the sim reset the flight. Becomes annoying going through the Send/ Don't Send routine and then auto-restarting the sim. Anyhow thanks again guys:>

[Guest Charlie Hall]

I hadn't realised that exceeding the max weight with too much fuel could cause a CTD, especially that many planes come set up like this. I'll be more careful to check some of those figures in other planes I come across.