Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About RALF9636

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Airwork

Recent Profile Visitors

1018 profile views
  1. Thanks for the interesting insights. Looking forward for the Twin Otter. I also miss the Aerosoft Beaver. It would be a perfect aircraft to explore the new sim. Regarding the Airbus I'd also appreciate the A330 first. Actually I'm a bit surprised about your announcement it will most possibly be the A320, given there already is an A320 in the sim. At least I had the hope that the quality gap between the default A320 and the Aerosoft A320 (in its current state) would be closing over time. You seem confident enough that the Aerosoft A320 will be so much better
  2. Thanks for your reply. I was one of those, sorry for that 😞 Yes, I've read what you wrote about it somewhere and just wanted to sum up this thread. The trip fuel varies massively when entering different block fuel values in the INIT FUEL PREDICTION page. It should only differ by small amounts according to the different fuel weight, shouldn't it? It seems not have an adverse effect on the flight, I just noticed it and thought it might be related. Thanks. Ind
  3. Just to get things sorted: It seems there are at least five different issues mentioned in this topic: 1. The total fuel amount calculated by the Aerosoft Airbus X Fuel Planner is too low for the A330. Workaround: Enter the value calculated by Simbrief / PFPX. 2. The preflight trip fuel calculation on the INIT FUEL PREDICTION page inadequatly depends on the value entered for the Block fuel. I see this on every flight preparation. 3. The GWCG is incorrect when loading via GSX. It is okay when using Instant Load. 4. The EFOB va
  4. I also hear this sound on every takeoff and wondered what it is. No tables extended here as well.
  5. Looking forward. Thanks a lot for your contribution. It's a shame American gave up that bare metal look - now that we have PBR! Btw. anybody doing a Condor A330? Would be very much appreciated.
  6. I'd assume that is a different issue then. The EFOB values for all waypoints are wrong right after takeoff.
  7. UTC time predictions are ok for me. Were all your UTC time predictions completely off or only after the discontinuity?
  8. For me this problem has absolutely nothing to do with ActiveSky. This time I did not launch ActiveSky at all to test this. I used the "Cold Fronts" weather theme of P3D. Exactly the same issue shortly after takeoff. As you can see from the screenshot: actual FOB = 15.8 EFOB at next waypoint (which is 9 nm away) = 10.1 ! Data.zip
  9. But the fuel consumption itself seems to be correct. It is just the EFOB values that are miscalculated somehow. So you should be fine to continue the flight with the fuel calculated by simbrief. Did you compare the actual FOB with the predictions calculated by simbrief for each waypoint? For me it always is quite spot on. And the EFOB values somehow recover to the end of the flight.
  10. I just accidentally found this issue. It might be related. The trip fuel calculation apparently depends on the block fuel entered (and not just because of the different fuel weight). I just entered different block fuel values here pre-flight and the trip fuel shows unplausible values, it even becomes negative. Additionally I also have the issue with the invalid GWCG value, reported here (and I cannot always solve it with "instant load"): Maybe related as well.
  11. Not going to make any comparisons here and only wanting to help: I made 100+ flights using ActiveSky with the Airbus of the other (more expensive) developer that also imports the winds from ActiveSky and never ever had an issue with the EFOB predictions there. So I doubt that this can simply be put down to weird weather by ActiveSky. Also if it was caused by fluctuations in the ActiveSky weather the EFOB values should also be fluctuating. But that is not what I see. The EFOB goes constantly down in the first half of the flight and goes constantly back up again in the second ha
  12. Great, thanks a lot! And +1 for American and Hawaiian, please.
  13. Data.zip Just in case you need more logs. The thread title is misleading because the actual fuel consumption is spot on. It is just the EFOB values in the MCDU that are significantly too low temporarily. The EFOB values are okay until just after takeoff. Then suddenly all the shown values are about 6 + 8 tons too low. That starts with the next waypoint and continues from there. So the calculation between waypoints seems to be correct. The problem is that the EFOB for the next waypoint is much too low. The discrepancy gets worse for some time, then somewhere
  14. Same here. The MCDU values that were initially totally off slowly caught up with reality during the flight and the values were correct when I reached the final waypoint.
  • Create New...