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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Skyrock

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Airwork

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What I did was the following: open up PFPX, head into the "Flight" Tab, enter the Dep & Dest. airport (EDDF & RJBB), entered the Registration of my Aircraft (I used the 747-400 first, but then also the 777-200LR), thereafter hit "Random Payload" and then at the top, clicked "Edit" to head into the route window. From there, I went into the Advanced Tab, selected FL330 and 390 as Min & Max altitudes and let it calculate. I ran for a short while and then the error showed up.Funny thing is, I can't reproduce it anymore for some reason. Now it hasn't happened until now, but I'll give it a try tomorrow again.
  2. I have the same problem for routes like EDDF-RJBB. Not enough memory after it has calculated for a while. Please fix that.
  3. Hello @inlovewithBoeing, is there a chance you'd work on a 787 profile?
  4. Indeed, that's why I fly with a constant CI most of the time because my biases were set on this cost index. Exactly. PFPX does it's job right, it's more a limitation of flight simulation. We can trick PFPX to neglect any changes related to ISA deviations, but then the files need to be accessible (-> .txt files).
  5. I'm not sure if this only affects PMDG planes. I assume it may also happen when using the QW 787. But to be honest, I haven't done that much testing with other planes than I've done with PMDG planes. And as you said, on the A320 it's not that big of a problem unless you are flying more than 3hrs - that's why I didn't have a closer look here. But on long-range flights, the discrepancy is quite high. My method was the following: set up the flight sim at a random location (I used KVPS or EDDF), set the clear skies weather theme without any weather tool like ActiveSky and then depart with a random load (most of the time I departed with 2/3 of the MTOW). Let it settle at the optimum FL and wait until the engines are stabilized. Then you can take the bias using the bias window in PFPX. Due to the clear skies theme, you'll always have ISA+0 and no winds, so this way there is no external influence on the performance. Write the numbers down and set the temperature to like ISA+15 (for FL330, ISA+0 equals -50°C, so in this case set it to -35°C). Wait until the engines are stable again and use the bias window again. The drag bias should be constant while the fuel bias changes.. I know it takes some time. I did a few tests with the 747-8 and the bias differs from -11% (ISA+15) to -6,5% (ISA+0) at CI 40. Also I suspect that depending on which cost index you use, the bias will also change, regardless of the ISA deviation. On the 747-8, I estimated the bias for CI 15 to be at -6,1% while at CI 90 it's -1,1%, so another problem here.
  6. Yep. Just tried on the 747-8 and had the same problem. My observation is that the planes in the flight sim don't use more fuel in higher ISA conditions and vice versa (different than in real life). However, PFPX calculates this, so the discrepancy increases with higher ISA deviations. There are two different options to correct for ISA devs: a) have separate tables for ISA-20, ISA-10...and so on OR b) have one table where you set like a "general" correction. This looks like this: [CRUISE.17] Name=[MACH]0.86 MinCruiseAlt=28000 CruiseModeBelowMinAlt=14 FuelAdj=3;-3 SpeedAdjust=10;-10 IceAdj=0;0 OptAltAdjust=0;0 MaxAltAdjust=0;0 There, when there is a ISA dev of +/- 10°C, PFPX will calculate a +/- 3% bias for fuel consumption and +/- 10kts for speed. a) is more accurate if our planes in the sim actually used more fuel. However, they don't so b) is the better option here. On the 777, I managed to get rid of all the ISA deviations tables in order to just have tables like above with the entries like in the following example: [CRUISE.17] Name=[MACH]0.86 MinCruiseAlt=28000 CruiseModeBelowMinAlt=14 FuelAdj=0;-0 SpeedAdjust=10;-10 IceAdj=0;0 OptAltAdjust=0;0 MaxAltAdjust=0;0 You see, I set the fuel adjust to 0 and kept the speed adjust to 10;-10 as this is accurate. This is way more accurate than calculating for ISA deviations. Otherwise you'd always have to adjust the bias depending on the ISA deviations. Unfortunately I can't do this for the 747-8 and the 787 since the files are encoded (.per files)...
  7. That doesn't help at all. If I entered like ISA +5, it will result in a bias only fitting for this deviation. In the summer, I often had ISA +15 so the calculation will be completely off in those cases. Now we're running into ISA+0 or -5 slowly, so I'd always have to adjust the biases. If I could apply different biases for different ISA devs or cost indexes, this might be a solution. In fact, what I've seen at least, the PMDG 777 doesn't use more fuel in higher ISA conditions, it will only fly faster, so the bias will stay almost the same. Thats why I got rid of all the ISA tables in the respective file and set the fueladjust to 0 and my calculations were much more precise from then on. Thats what I want to check for the 787, too.
  8. I'm struggling with the 787 profiles since I've already set the bias to -4.0 and I'm still using way less fuel than calculated. I assume it has something to do with the ISA deviation. In the .txt files, I got rid of any ISA deviations in order to achieve a more precise calculation, but the 787 profiles are all .per files, so I can't edit them.
  9. Hmm thats bad. Is there a way to convert them to .txt files?
  10. Hello everyone, does anyone know how to open .per files? Some of the profiles are in this format and I can't edit them. Best regards, Martin
  11. Looking at your picture from the first post, it appears that you have quite a difference in the speed. You preselected Mach .81 but from your entered speeds, this equals only Mach .801. Are you sure you were flying at Mach .81 the first time? This could have a huge influence on the fuel and drag biases.
  12. I had this problem since earlier versions. For some reason, on westbound flights the FL are not correctly selected, however, for eastbound flights it's fairly accurate. I had some flights from FRA to YYZ and EWR and on the westbound flights, I always had to correct the altitudes whereas on the return flight to FRA it was mostly fine.
  13. So let me get this straight: you get a wrong calculation because YOU are clearly not capable of using PFPX properly, but instead of asking for help in a decent attitude, you start trash talking about 1.28.9c being the worst version of PFPX ever and that there are is a ton of bugs in it? Are you serious about that? This was CLEARLY your fault because you messed it up yourself. Second: So, Fokkers and ATRs are funny aircrafts? Would you tell that real life pilots, too? You do know how old TOPCAT is and that it was released in a time where many of us were still using FS9 where these aircrafts were pretty popular add ons? Besides, all the Boeing aircraft you mentioned are covered by TOPCAT and PFPX (except for the B77W in TOPCAT). Even the PMDG aircrafts are covered with specific profiles. So no reason to grumble about it. Keep in mind that there are only 2 people developing PFPX and TOPCAT and they do it in their spare time because they still have a real life job to do. People behaving ungrateful and rude like you are the reason why developers like PMDG and ORBX treat their customers like garbage, and I'm not even surprised about that.
  14. Even with the latest hotfix (1.28.8) the problem persists. Also the turbulences are not shown on the printed charts anymore. Could bring both features back please?
  15. You would change just because of some people walking around the aircraft? Wow, that is a bit ridiculous.
  • Create New...