same question with the other thread: what is the big deal? this is a game.
I am not saying being realistic is not good. But then... there are too many aspects that can not be simulated realistically (including pax demand). We should try adapting to the in-game conditions to make the most out of the experience.
And if you guys insist on being a realist, the best way to help is to collect solid data with reputable/scientific/indisputable sources (by that I mean all forum and wiki should not be used as reference because people could type in wrong info as they like). That would be constructive criticism to this game. I think the admins would greatly appreciate the effort either.
No need to get all defensive dude. It shouldn't take so much work to adjust the range or correct the designation for any given aircraft. I manage a database with over 10,000+ airline routes, aircraft performance specs, etc. If it's designed well all they should have to do is update the database. Whoever maintains the database should be open to correction and not get all pissy about it.
This is a data driven game so I assume the creators would like their data to be at least reasonable. Like I already pointed out the ER, LR designations are all wrong, 737-300 with 4000nm range is absurd and an A330-300 with 440 seats is probably a typo. Don't get me wrong. What they've done so far with AM is very good and IMHO much better than AE.
AM could crosscheck data with public sources like flightware.com, the JP Air Fleets book, ATDB, seatguru.com(see how many seats airlines really put on airplanes), etc.
If the AM creators want solid data I can help them out.
