Jump to content

Ray Proudfoot

Members
  • Posts

    1012
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Posts posted by Ray Proudfoot

  1. 27 minutes ago, Ruhrpilot07 said:

    Can we talk about hardware?

    I bought Ben Gurion last month. I guessed Aerosoft wouldn’t lower the price even though sales for P3D must be close to flatlining. Performance is good but given I have an i9-13900K, 32Gb RAM and a 4090 I’d expect nothing less.

     

    I’m more than satisfied with P3Dv5. When I look at the state of MSFS I have no desire to buy a sim with so many unresolved issues.

    • Upvote 1
  2. On 11/5/2024 at 9:51 AM, Mathijs Kok said:

     

    I assume you understand why using a real-world aviation resource that specifically asked not to be used for hobby purposes is not a brilliant idea? It would not be the first organization that would block access for us totally as a result of things like this.

     

    Mathijs Kok

    PMDG

     

    Given PFPX was made available for home users I fail to understand your point. The software has performed flawlessly for years. Monday's glitch was just that, a glitch as Stephen suggested. Planning a flight this morning with AS running and all is well.

  3. This morning I downloaded and installed the latest Rad Restrictions file kindly provided by Sharky.

     

    But when planning a flight the process is hanging when Validate Flight is selected. I know Esc will stop the process but it doesn't release the flight.

     

    Has anyone else had this problem and is there a fix other than using the previous cycle?

  4. 39 minutes ago, Jo Erlend said:

    Hi Ray! Just so you know a update with the correct runway numbers is in the works for P3D as well, planned to be sorted out within the next couple of weeks.

     

    Many thanks Joe. That's very much appreciated by me and many others I'm sure.

     

    @Mathijs Kok, one question. I bought this airport from PC Aviator, not Aerosoft but of course it's an Aerosoft product. I've tried to contact them several times but no reply. Any chance that when Joe provides the P3D update you could make it available to me please? I can provide a receipt.

  5. 20 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

     

     I did read it, I just wanted to make sure people understand that Aerosoft DOES show the developer. 

    Agreed but I had to do an internet search to find contact details for him. It would be helpful if those were included. 

  6. Ricardo at LatinVFR supplied updated fixes for Barcelona when 07/25 runways changed. The problem buying from Aerosoft is they don’t tell you who the developer is. Perhaps if they did we could ask him to update the files.

     

    Runway designation changes are very infrequent. Perhaps every 20 years. Once done they won’t need doing again.

  7. 22 minutes ago, Tom said:

    We are not currently developing for P3D, so it's unlikely the P3D version will receive an update (However, this will ultimately be up to the individual developers)

    Tom, there’s a difference between developing and making a minor change. Updating a few taxiway signs and the runway markings is not a big effort.

     

    Aerosoft made plenty of money selling it. You should “encourage” the developer to update it for P3D as many have remained loyal to that sim.

  8. 6 minutes ago, srcooke said:

    Fortunately David continues to update these per airac cycle

    He's a star man! I hope he's a lot younger than me!

    8 minutes ago, srcooke said:

    Also check your advanced route finder function to ensure you are not ignoring airway direction

    Will do.

     

    1 minute ago, srcooke said:

    I planned the route to meet IFPS validation and the UK Standard Route Document for a RYR flight today:

    That looks spot on.  230, 350 and 370. Once I've landed I'll update my files and report back.

  9. I appreciate PFPX is no longer supported but with a lot of expertise out there I'm hoping someone can assist with this strange problem.

     

    I don't normally check the Charts tab when creating my flights but when looking at the vertical profile for this EGCC-GCTS flight it seemed very odd the aircraft would be required to climb, then descend and then climb again than descend multiple times over mainland Europe. I selected OPT for Cruise Altitude and 2000 for Step Climb. If I select MAX and no Step Climb all is well. But on longer flights a step climb may be necessary which is why I chose that option.

     

    This is clearly not how real routes are flown. Could anyone explain why PFPX is doing this and can I make any changes to prevent it happening other than selecting MAX / No Step Climb?

    PFPX_Plan.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use