• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About iforrage

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  • Birthday 10/01/1975

Recent Profile Visitors

1099 profile views
  1. 4K screen resolution should be 3840 x 2160. If that's not an option, then I would use the highest available. The 1080ti should for sure be able to display it, though. Make sure you are using HDMI or displayport 1.4 cables to the tv. (they do make DP1.4 to HDMI cables)
  2. ....from AMD to GEForce. Just got the 1080ti. Any tips/tricks/things I should know about? Other than the clock speeds are much faster than Radeon.... Thanks!
  3. You have to check the "Select All" box to the left of the update button. Not a big deal, but I did like how it used to automatically check after an AIRAC update.
  4. I've been recently toying with the cover page logo, as the plain black airplane was a little boring. I've been changing it to the logo of the airline I'm flying. While it's not difficult to do, it got me thinking - couldn't it just be programmed to look for the logo based on the ICAO code used in the flight plan? I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how difficult it would be, but it sure would be neat. As an example, I have saved my logos as OFP_xxx.bmp, where xxx is the code of the airline. A simple name change of the file gets it on the cover page when I print the package. It would be cool if the program would look for that code and automatically display the correct logo, falling back on the default if it doesn't find that code. I think it looks more professional. I know it's something small, but just a thought. I would also be willing to share my logos, and create more. -Jesse
  5. PFPX hotfix 1.28.7

    Hello, For me, this update caused the program to ignore my manual payload input, and calculated the ZFW as the EW. Only when I used # of pax, and baggage and cargo entries, did it calculate the correct ZFW. I did not have an issue prior to this hotfix. I have reverted back to original v1.28 with no hotfixes and all is well. Thought someone should know this.
  6. A321 Fuel flow

    So, a bit of a new development. I flew a flight in the A320 with CFM engines the other day, and I only changed one thing. I did NOT use the fuel crossfeed, and my fuel calculations and consumption were spot on. Now, this was a check ride for a VA, so there was no weather, but I wanted to mention it so it could be looked at. I will try to do another flight soon under normal conditions, so I can keep a log, and see if this is still the case.
  7. Flight Briefing Package

    Same here. Usually print to Primo PDF, but it also shows up when I print to my printers.
  8. A321 Fuel flow

    Well, I can now confirm that this is only an issue with the CFM engines. I reproduced the above flight with the IAE model A321, and the results were pretty much spot on. If there is a difference in fuel consumption between the IAE and CFM, I think the AS fuel planner should be programmed to handle both separately. Although, using PFPX with the proper profiles should have gotten me pretty close, so I still assume the real problem to be with the CFM model itself. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the biggest discrepancy is on the climb out, whereas the CFM model ate through about 3500kg, the IAE only used about 1500kg. I still kept losing through the cruise with the CFM, but not as aggressively. I actually used less than planned for cruise with the IAE. Don't know what the issue could be, but I sure hope someone figures it out! Thanks for listening. Anyways, I added extra fuel to PFPX to make sure I didn't go dry in flight, so I landed with a pretty good amount, but the OFP still shows the numbers to be just about right on. Also the AS Fuel planner seems to be spot on with the calculations for the IAE model, as well, although, again, I added to make sure I didn't run out. AA1772 AAL1772 KMCO-KCLT (20 May 2016) #1_COMPLETE.pdf
  9. A321 Fuel flow

    That's great news, Frank! Thanks for all your help thus far. Any chance, in the meantime, I can be directed to a copy of the installer for 1.30? Like I said, this wasn't an issue pre v1.31, and I have PIREPs to prove it! TIA.
  10. A321 Fuel flow

    I guess you're right. Although I've had this issue with all of them, changing this to the correct values didn't work. Haha on the disappearing. I just find it unenjoyable to keep flying this thing with this issue. Just tried another one now and same results. Should have landed with ~3800 kg, instead I had 600kg remaining. Seems to me the issue is the climb, that's where I'm losing most of it. Of course, I didn't have this issue with V1.30 and of course, I deleted that installer when I downloaded 1.31.... ugh. MCO_CLT011.pdf
  11. A321 Fuel flow

    Thanks for linking your topic to mine, maybe we can get some answers together. The only thing I can add for now, is that I noticed in the [turbineenginedata] section of the cfg, the values for rated_N2_rpm are way high, almost double the real world values for each engine type. I've been going through and changing them, but I don't know if this has any effect on fuel flow. I'll report back after I do another flight with the adjusted settings.
  12. A321 Fuel flow

    And, yes, it happens with the A319 now, too. Any way to go back to the version before the last update? (if I didn't save those installation files?)
  13. A321 Fuel flow

    Well, I discovered this problem with the A320, as well. I've only used the CFM models to this point, but I will give the IAE model a shot today and see what happens. I also have not tried flying the A318/A319's yet. I'm pretty sure i didn't have these issues before the last update, though.
  14. A321 Fuel flow

    Well, that's what we're trying to figure out here, so thanks for adding nothing to the subject matter of this post. -Jesse
  15. A321 Fuel flow

    Hello again. Sorry it's been so long, but I haven't had much time for flying since last post. 170 people lost their lives today, as the Airbus Industrie A321 they were flying in crashed in a field just east of Dover (Delaware) Air Force Base. Preliminary reports indicate the aircraft fell from 15000 feet after running out of fuel. It appears the Captain declared an emergency, and was trying to land the now paperweight at Dover, when the crash occured. American Airlines Flight 2053 was en route to Philadelphia from Tampa. So, here it is. I did the flight log thing that was suggested. I also have screenshots of some other interesting behavior. For the purpose of this "test" flight, I converted PFPX and AS Fuel Planner to use the Bus' default of KG instead of LBS, for consistency. As you can see, the PFPX log is still below what I get from ASFP, but not much, and I added to the fuel figures to make it match what ASFP was giving me for the flight. I know nothing's going to match perfect, but at least the fuel planner that came with the aircraft should be correct, and that is the issue. I still suspect fuel flow as the major contributing factor, though. I did take note of the fuel flow at one point, and it is notated on the OFP. At that point I had a tailwind of around 110, although it was more at a 45 from the left, but still a tail wind. It seems kind of high to me, 2700 Kg/HR, but even if that is correct, this was only 2 hrs flight time, and I should have only burned 5400, then. I did notice, it's a hog on climb, though. From takeoff to TOC, it ate through 3500 Kg. I also included at the end of the OFP, the fuel summary, with notation of what I got (and used) from the AS Planner. The PFPX aircraft profile was the A321 NEO available in the AS downloads section. Although, I'm thinking the sharklets are just visual eye candy, and that the flight model does not realize the actual flight dynamics. (Or does it?) Oh, I also noticed the left engine FF is about 60Kg more than the right engine. Is that right? As for the screens of the planner. Note the "Item Result" Column for Final Reserve when switched between Kgs and Lbs. For some reason it's adding to what you enter when in Lbs mode. Thanks again for your time! LoadSheetA321.txt TPA_PHL.pdf