You could save scrolling space by removing duplicate profiles for the ATR.
What we have now:
ATR42-500
ATR42-600
ATR72-500
ATR72-600
What I think we should have:
ATR42-500
ATR72-212A
Indeed, the “600” versions of both aircraft is only a commercial term given to the aircraft with the new avionics suite. However this new avionics suite does not change anything to aircraft performance. They are the same structure, same engines, same weights, same electrical and hydraulic system, same air conditioning, same everything !
Suggests the (possibly “typical” configuration of) the 42-600 has a higher empty weight and different engines compared to the 42-500. Obviously the TCDS would be more accurate, but also more difficult to parse properly; if anything, the different avionics would still impact the empty weight (to some extent) and the avionics section of the ATC FPL, so combining base profiles might not be necessarily be a great idea.
I confirm your link is inaccurate. PW127XT engine only had it’s first delivery last month, is NOT standard, and is by no means a specificity of the -600.
TCDS is a more accurate source for accurate info.
I’ll clarify the empty weight for the 42- however, for the -72, both “-500” and “-600” are in fact ATR72-212A aircraft that are copy paste of eachother, minus the avionics suite.
The avionics suite installed would have an impact on empty weight (possibly minimal, although not necessarily so). And would also affect the “ICAO equipment” field on simBrief.
To complicate matters even further, even though, as you pointed out, the variants are somewhat nearly identical and generally simply “marketing names”, there’s nevertheless a dedicated type designator registered w/ICAO of each variant: