Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content

BerndB

members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-4 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. Aerosoft weiss bereits bescheid und arbeitet an dem Fix. Steht im englischen Forum zu NavDataPro.
  2. 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
  3. 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 Outdated😲...it´s just from ...well, 1805..😊 but it works fine for me because all other addons using the same AIRAC.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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.🤨
  6. 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.
  7. But why computes a FL270 then instead of FL310 if i set the minimum already above it???😦
  8. Ok, i get lost...😢 What the hell is "city pair level cap" Indeed, its a performance file for the Jeehell FMGS/Project Airbus A320
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. LOL, Of course you can. But maybe they are not really "incorrect" based on special settings which PFPX took into account which are maybe "only" wrong set. Like "put rubbish in get rubbish out". - You know what I mean. But anyway, if you don't like the "crap word" it can be changed (can I do this? no I think not...)
  12. what would mean that there is no reason for PFPX to compute a FL180 for an airliner, right. I´ll try to reproduce those OFP this evening to post them.
  13. Since I updated to V2 all flightplans created are ending up with strange cruise levels. For instance: a planed flight from EDDH to EDDM with an Airbus A320 comes out with an cruiselevel of FL180, that's just wrong. A Lufthansa flight from Hamburg to Munich is flown usually in FL above from FL320 and above. This is very important for fuel consumption. Airliners always try to fly as high as possible, because the consumption bias of the Fans is getting more efficient as higher you get and the air is getting "thinner". A flightplan from EDDH to EDDK came out with an flightlevel of FL120 and another one from EDDF to EDDM with even 5000 feet. That's wrong for an airliner who will never fly at 5000 feet from Frankfurt to Nuernberg. I´ve tried different ways for the routing (use only high alt airways, optimize for lowest fuel, lowest cost etc., even ignore any restrictions) Those settings don´t make any difference in the FL that is computed by PFPX. The output FL is always incorrect. Only if I put manually my wished FL at a certain waypoint, the output comes with that FL. In the PFPX version before I've never needed to put manually the FL but the output of the computed route in case of the FL was always reasonable and realistic. Maybe I've set something wrong? POST EDITED BY STAFF TO REMOVE INAPPROPRIATE OR FOUL LANGUAGE.
  14. Ich habe am WE auf die V2 geupdatet ohne Probleme. Natürlich habe ich zur Sicherheit meine Daten gesichert. Dann habe ich PFPX in der aktuellen Installer-Version 2.03 einfach über meine vorhande drüber installiert. Hat ohne Probleme geklappt und die vorhanden Daten waren noch da und in der V2 nutzbar. (Aircraft-specs, Flugpläne, etc.) Lediglich den AIRAC-cycle den ich in V1.28 benutzt hatte musste ich neu einlesen. Gruß Bernd
  15. I have a cheap Tablet from Trekstore running with a Pentium processor. But it´s running with WIN10 not iOS or Android. Do the chart stay blurry even when you zoom in and out?
×
×
  • Create New...