Ray Proudfoot

I've never installed Steam so I'll keep things simple and buy direct from Aerosoft. That way the developer should get a higher amount per sale than if Microsoft were to get involved. Good point about support if you buy via Microsoft. Will there be any? If it's left to the developer he could be unindated with emails.

Thanks Mathijs, that very reassuring. When you didn’t mention the option to buy direct from Aerosoft I had visions that Microsoft would be the only place to buy from. I can’t see myself buying from the Microsoft store. There’s bound to be an additional charge which can be avoided by buying direct from you. If it takes a little longer to install that’s not a problem.

Dave, But will MFS customers be able to buy scenery directly from Aerosoft or will they have to go via Microsoft which will increase the price by a factor as yet unknown?

Will that be the case for all addons for MFS? If so, then everything will become more expensive. No option to buy direct from Aerosoft?

I've found a document on this link that should help me. Thanks to the author for his work.

I have downloaded a template file for the Lear25D by Captain Obvious. I'm using it for planning flights with the Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25D SE which has a range of 2000nm. But planning various flights PFPX tell me the fuel required exceeds capacity on a route of 1174nm. That's just over half the range. I edited the aircraft in PFPX and supplied fuel flow, TAS, Altitude etc. hoping it would help. But with a fuel bias of 15.3% it's still woefully short of what should be possible. The problem probably lies in the txt file supplied by Capt Obvious. But how do you change the

Here is the history of my ticket. I'm sure I'm not alone in having these problems. 22 June 2020. Raised a ticket with FlightSimSoft after no reply to my post on the forum on 18 May 2020. Automated response received. 7 July 2020. Reply from Judith saying ticket was missed. I replied same day. 8 July 2020. Judith replies saying she will forward message to Christian. 11 July 2020. I replied on my ticket saying I hadn't heard from Christian. 15 July 2020. I asked again in fairly abrupt terms for my ticket to be answered. 16 July 2020. Judith replies saying "Ch

Mathijs, did he respond to you? As you can see no response here and neither to my ticket. If tickets are not being replied to it could be argued the developer has given up.

Thanks Mathijs. The problem is easily reproducible.

I raised a ticket eight days ago and received an automated email acknowledging it. Since then absolutely nothing. I get the distinct impression the developer has lost interest. The only available help is from Stephen Cooke but he can’t resolve all problems like this one. What a shambles. This isn’t cheap software and generally works well but if you do get a problem then help from the author appears to have ended. LATER: I see Judith of FlightsimSoft answered a post yesterday evening so they are around. So why hasn’t my post here been answered and why haven’t I had a rep

Thanks Stephen. I like the bit about 30 mins flying time or 200nm. Concorde could cover that distance in 10 mins at Mach 2. I suppose if there's a nearby intersection PFPX will use that. But where in the manual does it say it will override user inputs. I know I'm a tiny minority using PFPX this way but I use it because there's nothing better. It's the only planner that allows me to create historic Concorde routes and because we're talking 20+ years ago the current nav data is useless hence why I need to create my own waypoints. Let's see what the reply is on my ticket.

Thanks for your reply Stephen. When you say you have issues with some entries are we talking the same problem as me? This is the plan for the AF Concorde routing to JFK. I used paper Concorde charts to create it and although some waypoint names like TESGO no longer exist I was able to substitute the equivalent lat/lon without problem. EVX DCT 5011N00130W 4946N00353W 4925N00620W 4930N00800W 5041N01500W 5050N02000W 5030N03000W 4916N04000W 4703N05000W 4610N05300W 4414N06000W 4246N06500W 42N067W 3951N06949W DCT KENDA DCT LINND DCT OWENZ DCT CAMRN You can see 4703N05000W is

Ticket raised today. Monday 22 June 2020.

A month on from posting the above and no comments. I guess I’m alone in using PFPX this way but that doesn’t mean a bug is acceptable. I tried again today to enter a waypoint of 4702N00100W and PFPX will not accept it. Instead it changes it to 47N001W. This is annoying. Has the developer completely given up on his product? If I raise a support ticket am I likely to get an answer?

Okay, not sure if this is a bug or by design. If I enter 2212N16000W then it's accepted. However 2211N16000W isn't and instead changes it to 22N160W. All other waypoints were accepted as normal. This waypoint is the first after the SID ends. Thoughts?