We got a new video from World of Aircraft: Glider Simulator and are asking for some alpha/beta testers! Check this post.

 

Jump to content

Skyrock

members
  • Content Count

    91
  • 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 the whole NAT from the entry to the exit and at the exit it goes back to TAS (or rather the corresponding speed for a certain CI). Does anyone know if this is correct behavior? I don't remember older versions of PFPX doing this. Example routing for today: EDDF-KORD OBOK1D OBOKA Z28 DIBIR DCT RAVLO Y70 OTBED L60 PENIL M144 BAGSO DCT RESNO DCT 56N020W 57N030W 58N040W 58N050W DCT AVUTI N716A TEALS DCT VANSI N760A SSM WYNDE1 In my example it says RESNO/M084F360 and for 57N030W/N0486F360. Thanks!
  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 I'll give it a try tomorrow again.
  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 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.
  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 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)...
  13. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...