Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BerndB

  1. If that´s the case, it would something to think off, to add somehow the "effective" range in the chartcolum , or something else which let the chart recognize from each other...
  2. just saw that this was already discussed in another topic, sorry. If this comes from LIDO it´s maybe a feature rather than an issue. Could it be that the real pilots want to have both, the former and actual charts in access, to see what was revised?!? In this case, it´s maybe a option to "flag" the revised charts in the NDP chartviewer somehow...
  3. I noticed that with the latest version of CDP Charts for Windows desktop i have doubled charts show. It´s not the case for all but for most of them for most of the airports. I have App-Version 0.1.40 in use. cheers
  4. i have experienced the same at that gate. It happens aswell when you arrive at that Gate with an A320. Once the VDSG give the "stop" signal the aircraft is not as near to the gate as it should and you get in trouble with the Jetway not docking or weird. Even GSX says "no Jetway which can used at this position", but it´s recognizes the Sode JW as present.In outside view you can also see, that the nosewheel isn´t far enough. It even is not at the first stopmarking on the ground. As far i could test yet it´s only an issue at this specific gate. If you use the slewfunction to position the ac corre
  5. Mathijs, i don´t understand how you could even have little doubt, if it´s opens...tz.tz.. But anyway, an actual "revison" would be very appreciated for BER for P3D. As i have seen there will be an updated version for MSFS.
  6. Oliver and Fabio, Top of library is not good if other add-ons are in use. Beat578 said it right. The insertion point of OrbX Airports should be below the lowest "non-Orbx airport". If there is an airport which is not injected by an add-on.xml but via the legacy scenery.cfg, the insertion point should be set below that add on. To Fabio i recommend to take a look at Lorby´s add-on organizer. Especially if you have competing add-on injectors like OrbX, you stay in control what is where ordered in your SIM.
  7. well, it came up for me surprisingly too, because all other V5 installers for blearic islands, Heathrow, Barcelona, Madrid, etc. did their job well. It´s just for head up that there could be something not 100 % right and because the installers stay available in you customer account, it´s worth to make sure everything is as it should be...
  8. exactly that! Indeed it´s a little bit of bad english. It shouls say "copy into..." instead of copy below...
  9. first of all i want to thank all of you for the ongoing support and the updating to V5. I really appreciate this and it´s not mandatory at all developers. I have installed EDDK with the V5 installer and it´s installed in the right place and i was able to configure EDDK to my wish, so everything seemed ok. But when i took EDDK as location it didn´t showed up in P3D. Only the default EDDK. The reason was, that the add-on xml wasn´t created by the V5 installer. After i´ve added EDDK via xml with lorby´s it shown in the SIM. I haven´t had this issue with all the other Aerosoft airports
  10. ahhh very very nice, Mathijs! The long awaited two finger zoom for touchdisplays and the nightmode is cool. Thank you Bernd
  11. Just for information, that only the airport charts not loading. The Route-Charts can be seen. If this may help...
  12. Shouldn´t be a too big challenge for you, if you can cope with this nice slice of meat in your avatar.
  13. 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.
  14. just checked right now while i´am posting this. No charts!
  15. Aerosoft weiss bereits bescheid und arbeitet an dem Fix. Steht im englischen Forum zu NavDataPro.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.🤨
  20. 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.
  21. But why computes a FL270 then instead of FL310 if i set the minimum already above it???😦
  22. Ok, i get lost...😢 What the hell is "city pair level cap" Indeed, its a performance file for the Jeehell FMGS/Project Airbus A320
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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...)
  • Create New...