Recommended Posts

Since installing this fix, I can't seem to find the value for my reserve fuel anymore. Do I need to look elsewhere for it? I mean is it in another part of the flight plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, nealmac said:

Since installing this fix, I can't seem to find the value for my reserve fuel anymore. Do I need to look elsewhere for it? I mean is it in another part of the flight plan?

In the fuel options when creating the plan there is an option to select which policy you wish to use for reserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/07/2017 at 3:32 PM, Richard McDonald Woods said:

The Route Export page requires an entry for P3Dv4, please.

I presume it isn't difficult for developer to add this entry (even you can use "browse" for any P3D entry).

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 11:25 PM, Tom A320 said:

 

Pleased provide a screenshot of the planing page, fromLogin which all details are visible you have selected prior to hitting them payload button. 

I will next time this happens. I am usually not editing any other field, random payload is the first thing I press and then finish the planning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me but 1.28.9c is now the worst version I've seen! Now it's impossible to plan LFPG-KJFK, using 777 (any model!) - always having errors due to excessive weights (fuel).

Ton of bugs on calculations! (having same results for any PAX number and/or cargo weight, even for 0 PAX 0 cargo). Fuel plan by using 1.12.8 (PMDG 777-300ER) gives not enough fuel for trip.

 

When FFS will do a serious stuff, honestly? I mean: a reliable flight (& fuel) planner, designed for FLIGHT SIMULATION.

 

As I've said above, no P3Dv4 paths, despite this version was released... two months ago!

 

Also, main PDF documentation (English, because German is "Chinese-like" for 99% of users) now is totally outdated! (never updated since... 2013).

 

Wanting real PMDG aircrafts support (also in TOPCAT such missing 777-300ER) - I (we?) don't care about REAL aircrafts or funny aircrafts (don't used in FS) such Fokkers/ATRs! assuming PFPX is designed for flight simmers, only for flight simmers (not for real operations), and large majority of flightsimmers (of us) are mainly using PMDG as Boeing fleets (737NGX, 747-400, 777)... as asked by many users since FOUR years (2013)!

 

Yes, I'm angry because this product take an opposite way than quality. Don't forget it's not a freeware, but a commercial (not cheap) software... and need server subscriptions for plan validations (IFPS) and tracks (NAT in particular)!  We're expecting for quality and reliability, but for the second time, assuming FFS isn't a professional developer. Voila it's my opinion (and moods).

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DomiKamu said:

Excuse me but 1.28.9c is now the worst version I've seen! Now it's impossible to plan LFPG-KJFK, using 777 (any model!) - always having errors due to excessive weights (fuel).

Ton of bugs on calculations! (having same results for any PAX number and/or cargo weight, even for 0 PAX 0 cargo). Fuel plan by using 1.12.8 (PMDG 777-300ER) gives not enough fuel for trip.

 

When FFS will do a serious stuff, honestly? I mean: a reliable flight (& fuel) planner, designed for FLIGHT SIMULATION.

 

As I've said above, no P3Dv4 paths, despite this version was released... two months ago!

 

Also, main PDF documentation (English, because German is "Chinese-like" for 99% of users) now is totally outdated! (never updated since... 2013).

 

Wanting real PMDG aircrafts support (also in TOPCAT such missing 777-300ER) - I (we?) don't care about REAL aircrafts or funny aircrafts (don't used in FS) such Fokkers/ATRs! assuming PFPX is designed for flight simmers, only for flight simmers (not for real operations), and large majority of flightsimmers (of us) are mainly using PMDG as Boeing fleets (737NGX, 747-400, 777)... as asked by many users since FOUR years (2013)!

 

Yes, I'm angry because this product take an opposite way than quality. Don't forget it's not a freeware, but a commercial (not cheap) software... and need server subscriptions for plan validations (IFPS) and tracks (NAT in particular)!  We're expecting for quality and reliability, but for the second time, assuming FFS isn't a professional developer. Voila it's my opinion (and moods).

 

I have just planned LFPG-KJFK with a 77L v1.28.9c, a minor adjustment and the route is validated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2017 at 10:28 AM, BrianT said:

In the fuel options when creating the plan there is an option to select which policy you wish to use for reserves.

That was indeed the problem. The fuel policy set itself back to default after adding the hotfix, and I hadn't noticed it. Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pictures may help for better explanation...

 

- Reinstalled (1.28 - logo in installer indicates 1.27 :-) + Hotfix 1.28.9c (PFPX.exe copied over). Running as administrator

- Reinstalled AIRAC Cycle 1708 Rev 1 (lastest I have on my Navigraph account).

 

- Adding new aircraft, Reg/Tail: F-GUOC, type: Boeing 777 Freighter. I don't alter other values from other tabs, except following ETDO.

- EDTO tab: duplicating default EDTO 120, then renamed to EDTO 207, changing "Max Div Time" to 207 min, leaving other default values & ETDO cases (having 325 000 kg for diversion weight and 794 nm for Max diversion distance). Sometimes Max diversion (computed) value, is funny (huge) such Earth-Moon distance!!!!

- Okay, now saving this aircraft registration.

 

01.thumb.png.9607542166784d04429c1bb6e3074b88.png

 

Now LFPG-KJFK trip like following... (just "Flight Number", "Callsign", "From", "To" and STD set to 17:15 UTC) then "Save"

 

02.thumb.png.1f90721d3e3aeb92f22b5c9e6a3b1ee9.png

 

I precise I don't have server subscription, BTW, I'm using old NAT track file (22Aug 2013.ots) for North Atlantic westbound route.

 

Now filling Cargo weight, fuel policy (ICAO), main route, alternate airport (Newark Liberty Intl). Then EDTO tab to select EDTO 203, Shannon and Gander

 

 

03.thumb.jpg.5ce730cd6291862d311b1d0685d3757d.jpg04.thumb.png.4691a22956bc6d07725a3627ed88e53e.png

 

Now "Compute flight" and the problem is coming!

 

05.thumb.png.91896f10309b80f723043ce865fb1f72.png

 

06.thumb.png.1ef6e7c186087485d0a2dd54e6753efd.png

 

Hope I'm clear, this product is very buggy!

 

Guys: I'm using French Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64, Lastest Visual C++ 2015 Redists (x86 & x64 are installed, I need both).

This version 1.28.9c sucks! (QED)

 

By using previous v1.28.8, I don't have this problem (but having "insufficient fuel" for related PMDG aircraft).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nealmac said: That was indeed the problem. The fuel policy set itself back to default after adding the hotfix, and I hadn't noticed it. Thanks for that.

 

- Reinstalled (1.28 - logo in installer indicates 1.27 :-) + Hotfix 1.28.9c.

- Reinstalled AIRAC Cycle 1708 Rev 1 (lastest I have on my Navigraph account).

 

- Adding new aircraft, Reg/Tail: F-GUOC, type: Boeing 777 Freighter. I don't alter other values from other tabs, except ETDO.

- EDTO tab: duplicating default EDTO 120, then renamed to EDTO 207, changing "Max Div Time" to 207 min, leaving other default values & ETDO cases (having 325 000 kg for diversion weight and 794 nm for Max diversion distance).

- Saving this aircraft.

 

p><p>
	<a href=02.thumb.png.1f90721d3e3aeb92f22b5c9e6a3b1ee9.png

 

I precise I don't have server subscription (since 2014), BTW I'm using old NAT track file (22Aug 2013.ots)

 

 

03.thumb.jpg.5ce730cd6291862d311b1d0685d3757d.jpg04.thumb.png.4691a22956bc6d07725a3627ed88e53e.png

 

Now "Compute flight" and the problem is coming!

 

05.thumb.png.91896f10309b80f723043ce865fb1f72.png

 

 

 

Why are you quoting me? Your issue is not the same as mine.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nealmac said:

Why are you quoting me? Your issue is not the same as mine.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry Neal, it's a mistake! (I'm not familiar with this forum).

Please can you remove your previous reply (you've quoted me too, with all screen captures). I'll remove this then, to avoid forum spam.

Thanks in advance. EDIT: my previous post was edited (I've removed the "quote").

Regards,

Dominique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nealmac said: Why are you quoting me? Your issue is not the same as mine.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry Neal, it's a mistake! (I'm not familiar with this forum).

Please can you remove your previous reply (you've quoted me too, with all screen captures). I'll remove this then, to avoid forum spam.

Thanks in advance. EDIT: my previous post was edited (I've removed the "quote").

Regards,

Dominique.

Now it won't let me delete it haha. Sorry about that. Maybe one of the staff can delete it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, srcooke said:

 

I have just planned LFPG-KJFK with a 77L v1.28.9c, a minor adjustment and the route is validated.

 

A minor adjustment?

Validated by? (subscription is required to use PFPX?).

 

Please take a look about my post (with screen captures)...

Regards, Dominique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Culprit seems "ETP Airports 2" field(s) - I suppose...

 

07.png.c5a52801b9948c4bf88b98e1707473a7.png

 

Seems better here instead (discovered by chance, after investigations):

 

08.thumb.png.3cea4d202bf21fa91cc1382c269dda51.png

 

Now I can compute the flight (no error)

 

FFS: updated PDF is urgent!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DomiKamu said:

A minor adjustment?

 

To adhere to RAD departing to the North on current tracks.

 

22 minutes ago, DomiKamu said:

Validated by? (subscription is required to use PFPX?

 

EuroControl, you can do that manually if you wish, personally the subscription is worth it, I cannot see the point of degrading the program.

 

I have setup a 77F using the supplied aircraft type:

77f.thumb.jpg.2bd0fc09154c443761734b0e15cbbb8a.jpg

 

Constructed your route, same ZFW and fuel plan, same EDTO pair ( would be easier if you pasted the route rather than just the snapshot ):

 

cgo-jfk.thumb.jpg.c96d2845fefdcc904fd91e1bf5cfff9c.jpg

 

Computed without issue:

 

lfpg-kjfk-summ.thumb.jpg.95d99f3142ec55304012a469c15d9397.jpg

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DomiKamu said:

FFS: updated PDF is urgent!

 

Page 62 of the current manual shows ETOPS entry

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I have a question also concerning the new update 1.28.9c. 

Almost in every relatively long distance flight plan the following warning message is received after computing the plan:

"Upper wind forecast validity period... does not cover the entire flight time"

Can anybody explain how this can be corrected? There was no such warnings in 1.28 for same flights. I had set the weather setting, the current weather to be taken online.

And one more thing. Please do not send me to read the manual! I had gone through all 88 pages supporting the product and could not find even a single sentence concerning the warning / error messages. I could say that having no error / warning message section is quite a negative side of such brilliant manual otherwise.

Here is what I mean exactly.

Plan1.thumb.png.c728c0504e274ae3224cadd69f123d49.png

Thank you!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Goshob said:

Hi,

I have a question also concerning the new update 1.28.9c. 

Almost in every relatively long distance flight plan the following warning message is received after computing the plan:

"Upper wind forecast validity period... does not cover the entire flight time"

Can anybody explain how this can be corrected? There was no such warnings in 1.28 for same flights. I had set the weather setting, the current weather to be taken online.

And one more thing. Please do not send me to read the manual! I had gone through all 88 pages supporting the product and could not find even a single sentence concerning the warning / error messages. I could say that having no error / warning message section is quite a negative side of such brilliant manual otherwise.

Here is what I mean exactly.

Plan1.thumb.png.c728c0504e274ae3224cadd69f123d49.png

Thank you!

 

 

Your flightplan is dated yesterday 25th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goshob said:

I could say that having no error / warning message section is quite a negative side of such brilliant manual otherwise.

 

No error message???

 

Capture.PNG.3f7cdccdd764e1476da8f4b9344a1201.PNG

 

I wonder how much clearer an error message could be in this case?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, srcooke said:

 

Page 62 of the current manual shows ETOPS entry

They're a lot of differences between current version(s) and outdated manual, I'm sorry Monsieur!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, srcooke said:

 

To adhere to RAD departing to the North on current tracks.

 

EuroControl, you can do that manually if you wish, personally the subscription is worth it, I cannot see the point of degrading the program.

 

I have setup a 77F using the supplied aircraft type:

 

Constructed your route, same ZFW and fuel plan, same EDTO pair ( would be easier if you pasted the route rather than just the snapshot ):

 

Computed without issue:

 

 

 

Thanks Stephen!

(quoted without images).

 

But only 28,000 kg (28 tons) of freight? it's a low value, in my opinion. Of course, it's a simulation = freedom ;) - I fly often between Düsseldorf EDDL and Nice Côte d'Azur LFMN (or Marseille Provence LFML) using 777-300ER (around 160 PAX) or half-fulled 777F, because I don't have 737 (PMDG) nor A320 in my fleet for short hauls - other possible choices are... Cessna 172R/182T, Piper PA-28-180 Cherokee/PA-24-250 Comanche - all A2A Simulations addons, but they're not ETOPS/EDTO compliant!:lolsign_s:

 

In fact, as I've indicated above (with screen captures) the culprit was ETP Airports 2, for North Altlantic, I've understood I need ETP Airports 1 pair only (for diversion airports, as you said) in my case EINN/CYQX (or CYYT). EDTO 207 is very comfortable. Using KEWR or/and KBOS as alternate destinations (weather/visibilty conditions). Using Active Sky for P3D v4.

 

Thanks for your help anyway, Stephen!

 

Greetings from Chartres (LFOR), France.

Dominique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tom A320 said:

 

No error message???

 

Capture.PNG.3f7cdccdd764e1476da8f4b9344a1201.PNG

 

I wonder how much clearer an error message could be in this case?

 

Hi Tom,

I strongly feel that you got me wrong, so I will try to be more precise.

1. I am getting these 2 warning messages when the flight is calculated. In respect to the above my first question was how to correct them?

2. My second statement was related to evaluation of the software documentation. It is a fact that there is not a single word in the manual concerning the error / warning messages and especially the ways how they could be rectified. I, as a Customer think that it is a pity such a brilliant software to have incomplete manual. Provided documentation treats many other subjects very much in details, but not the final results. I am sure that there is a list of warning messages as a part of the software and it could be a great idea, if these warnings were explained how and due to what they were shown. Sorry, I am not a software creator, but my experience thought me what is good or not quite from user's point of view. 

Ok, let me ask again. What has to be done to clear the warning concerning wind forecast?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goshob said:

What has to be done to clear the warning concerning wind forecast?

 

Your flightplan was dated the 25th 22:45 yet you planned on the 26th @ 19:31 with live weather forecast validity 26th 12:00 - 28th 12:00. Change your the planning date time to 'now' or within the forecast period as noted in the error message.

 

The 'below Grid MORA' ( Minimum Off Route Altitude) relates to the planned diversion route from LTBA-LTFG, consider raising this altitude on the destination alternates and re-compute.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27.7.2017 at 12:39, DomiKamu sagte:

But only 28,000 kg (28 tons) of freight? it's a low value, in my opinion. Of course, it's a simulation = freedom ;) - I fly often between Düsseldorf EDDL and Nice Côte d'Azur LFMN (or Marseille Provence LFML) using 777-300ER (around 160 PAX) or half-fulled 777F, because I don't have 737 (PMDG) nor A320 in my fleet for short hauls - other possible choices are... Cessna 172R/182T, Piper PA-28-180 Cherokee/PA-24-250 Comanche - all A2A Simulations addons, but they're not ETOPS/EDTO compliant!:lolsign_s:

 

In fact, as I've indicated above (with screen captures) the culprit was ETP Airports 2, for North Altlantic, I've understood I need ETP Airports 1 pair only (for diversion airports, as you said) in my case EINN/CYQX (or CYYT). EDTO 207 is very comfortable. Using KEWR or/and KBOS as alternate destinations (weather/visibilty conditions). Using Active Sky for P3D v4.

 

Thanks for your help anyway, Stephen!

 

Greetings from Chartres (LFOR), France.

Dominique.

 

So let me get this straight: you get a wrong calculation because YOU are clearly not capable of using PFPX properly, but instead of asking for help in a decent attitude, you start trash talking about 1.28.9c being the worst version of PFPX ever and that there are is a ton of bugs in it? Are you serious about that? This was CLEARLY your fault because you messed it up yourself.

 

Second:

 

Zitieren

Wanting real PMDG aircrafts support (also in TOPCAT such missing 777-300ER) - I (we?) don't care about REAL aircrafts or funny aircrafts (don't used in FS) such Fokkers/ATRs! assuming PFPX is designed for flight simmers, only for flight simmers (not for real operations), and large majority of flightsimmers (of us) are mainly using PMDG as Boeing fleets (737NGX, 747-400, 777)... as asked by many users since FOUR years (2013)!

 

So, Fokkers and ATRs are funny aircrafts? Would you tell that real life pilots, too? You do know how old TOPCAT is and that it was released in a time where many of us were still using FS9 where these aircrafts were pretty popular add ons? Besides, all the Boeing aircraft you mentioned are covered by TOPCAT and PFPX (except for the B77W in TOPCAT). Even the PMDG aircrafts are covered with specific profiles. So no reason to grumble about it. 

 

Keep in mind that there are only 2 people developing PFPX and TOPCAT and they do it in their spare time because they still have a real life job to do. People behaving ungrateful and rude like you are the reason why developers like PMDG and ORBX treat their customers like garbage, and I'm not even surprised about that.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now