!! Windows 7 no longer supported !!

As Microsoft will stop supporting Windows 7 on Jan 20th we will be unable to test any of our
products on that platform. It may work, or it may not, but no guarantees from our side. 

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-3 Poor

About BerndB

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ahhh very very nice, Mathijs! The long awaited two finger zoom for touchdisplays and the nightmode is cool. Thank you Bernd
  2. Just for information, that only the airport charts not loading. The Route-Charts can be seen. If this may help...
  3. Shouldn´t be a too big challenge for you, if you can cope with this nice slice of meat in your avatar.
  4. oh that´s easy. Take this one for the captain side (which is left handed) https://www.vier-im-pott.com/index.php/de/component/hikashop/product/127-a320-sidestick-cpt-side and put this on the VPC Warbird Base from VIRPIL controls. https://virpil-controls.eu/vpc-warbrd-base.html This is very near at the real one which i had touched and moved already.
  5. just checked right now while i´am posting this. No charts!
  6. Aerosoft weiss bereits bescheid und arbeitet an dem Fix. Steht im englischen Forum zu NavDataPro.
  7. Hi Stephen, because I took your time to support me, I just want to inform you, that meanwhile I´ve decided to subscribed to Aerosoft´s NavDataPro + Charts annual update. And now, since I use always the actual airac cycle within PFPX, the routing AND the altitudes computed by PFPX are correct, or better to say make more sense to me again. So it seems, that the complex parameters PFPX v2 is taken into account while computing the routing works much better if the airac data is more actual. I have to say MEA CULPA, because i´ve blamed PFPX first instead of looking if there is may be an issue on my side. reg. Bernd
  8. What? Outdated😲...it´s just from ...well, 1805..😊 but it works fine for me because all other addons using the same AIRAC. It was done from ToTom and it´s based on the Airbus template that came with PFPX V1.28, but It was slightly reworked to fit with the corresponding TOPCAT file and with the performance of the related aircraft.cfg in P3D for the Jeehell FMGS. I will try your way because it should work with my Airbus anyway. Well i use always AS16 live weather. But for the OFP files i produced today for posting i just used the live weather by PFPX because i didn´t want to start my whole cockpit network.
  9. Oh sorry, Stephen i will not forget that i really appreciate your help especially at this time of day👍😀. I´am sure i will come back with the one or another question, once i understand how PFPX wants to be used. I thought i know it already because in version 1.28 i´ve never ran into those issues.🤨 Thank you much and have a good night. reg. Bernd
  10. It seems that i need to go even deeper in dispatching. But it would be helpfull if the Manual for PFPX would give some help to understand all the settings and restrictions and what ever and how they influent the flightplan computing in PFPX.🤨
  11. Ok, now i think i begin to understand. But what do you think about the Route from EDDF to EDDN. I think you agree that you will not see an airliner at a FL090 and this is an actual leg that is served by Lufthansa 6 days a week. including returnflight.
  12. But why computes a FL270 then instead of FL310 if i set the minimum already above it???😦
  13. Ok, i get lost...😢 What the hell is "city pair level cap" Indeed, its a performance file for the Jeehell FMGS/Project Airbus A320
  14. Here is another example of DLH2042 from Hamburg to Munich where a FL270 was computed even though i´ve set in the route editor a minimum FL of FL350 before computing DLH2042 EDDH-EDDM (15-Jan-2019) #1.txt
  15. hi Stephen, below i´ve tried to reproduce the altitude issue i have. The plng_EDDH_EDDM you can see my basic planning data. I planed a flight DLH2042 to Nuernberg and it puts me on FL250 which is too low. What i know a flight within this distance will be done at FL320 and above to save fuel. Another example is DLH152 from EDDF to EDDN where it give a FL090. Even for an short haul this is way too low for an airliner. An A320 climbs easily up to FL230 or above for those short range flights, even if the TOD is right after you reach the TOC. I post the aircraft performance aswell. I hope you can give me a hint what i´am doing not right maybe. But have in mind that with the former version of PFPX i´ve never ever had those problems to get an appropriate FL with the same database. DLH2042 EDDH-EDDN (15-Jan-2019) #1.txt DLH152 EDDF-EDDN (15-Jan-2019) #1.txt
  • Create New...