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. Okay, that's weird. It's not doing that for me although I copied your updated FIR.dat into the folder. I remain at kts all the time.
  2. I was asking because I hovered over the FIR name and saw that New York was also set as kts. But I just calculated a flight plan and that looks fine. All Mach Numbers from Entry to Exit. Only for the Pacific region, it doesn't seem to give Mach numbers, but then again I don't know if that's correct or not. Example flight: RJTT-KLAS (flown yesterday) ROVE1A INUBO Y808 NOLAX Y814 AVBET OTR9 EMRON DCT 40N160E 41N165E 41N170E 41N180E 41N170W 41N160W 41N150W 42N140W 41N130W DCT TRYSH DCT AMAKR DCT PYE DCT MOD DCT FRA DCT BTY SUNST4
  3. Sorry for digging out this old topic, however, I think it fits. Out of curiosity, I clicked on Crew info, just to see that there is no template for this. But now, in the "Results" tab, I have the Crew Info tab which is of no use for me. Is there any way to get rid of it? I couldn't find anything how to close the "Crew info" tab. EDIT: Nevermind. It seems, if you delete the Crew info file in the folder, PFPX will not be able to find it and then removes the tab.
  4. Thanks for the file! Just out of curiosity: KZWY (New York Oceanic) is also set to kts, same with KZAK (Oakland Oceanic). I'm not sure if they also have to be in Mach or not. Does anyone know this?
  5. I know I can set it to a fixed Mach myself. I'm just wondering why PFPX doesn't do this by itself or why it does switch back to a TAS exactly at 30W all the time? Maybe there is a reason behind it and PFPX is correct or it is just a bug.
  6. Hello, as far as my understanding is, you have to maintain a constant Mach number when overflying the North Atlantic (like .85). I noticed however, that for some reason on random routings across the North Atlantic, PFPX only gives a fixed mach number for the first half and from 30W it resumes with what I believe Cost index speed (at least in the flight plan it gives a TAS at 30W instead of a Mach No.). It doesn't matter if it's eastbound or westbound but it always occurs at 30W. And as far as I remember, it only affects random routings. On NAT Tracks it seems to be a fixed mach for
  7. 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
  8. I have the same problem for routes like EDDF-RJBB. Not enough memory after it has calculated for a while. Please fix that.
  9. Hello @inlovewithBoeing, is there a chance you'd work on a 787 profile?
  10. 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).
  11. 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 w
  12. 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 Fuel
  13. You would change just because of some people walking around the aircraft? Wow, that is a bit ridiculous.
  • Create New...