Jump to content

srcooke

Members
  • Posts

    3237
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

srcooke last won the day on March 29 2020

srcooke had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About srcooke

Recent Profile Visitors

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

srcooke's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

370

Reputation

  1. Try: <&MsgToCrew_Begin> <&MsgToCrew> <&MsgToCrew_End>
  2. Tested here Michael and having entered the entries and computed the flight values return as follows: <&PIC> =PILOT <&Crew1> =FO <&Crew2> =OTHER <&Crew3> =SO
  3. Did you mean that you updated your online subscription or that you manually entered tracks ? I would suggest following Tom's guidance posted HERE
  4. The general locations are the forum download section or AirlinerPerformance
  5. There is an issue with short trip cruise altitudes but this leads to an excessively low altitude return. The workaround is to change from OPT level to MAX and NO STEP, this should still leave the level cruise segment.
  6. In previous version the cruise length could be adjusted and was indeed set 20% by default. I ran your original route with same weights and had distance of 36nm from TOC to TOD at FL250 on a flightplan length of 185nm. I certainly cannot achieve FL310 in the reverse direction at the same weight, using MAX FL and NO STEP returns FL260 with the same 20% level segment. However you are using a different PFPX performance file to myself.
  7. The routes are flown by 734 and 735's realworld at FL250, it is a short-trip. A minimum level cruise segment is required ( 20% if I recall ) and trying to force it higher is resulting in your error.
  8. Hi, The supplementary field most likely doesn't exist in PFPX as it is not transmitted in the FPL, from the ICAO flightplan document: Whilst the entry would indeed be included in a submitted plan it is not part of the ATC section as depicted.
  9. Backup your C:\Users\Public\Documents\PFPX Data folder FIRST !
  10. The current filtering 'may' lead to an incorrect level capping which as you suggest can lead to the max fuel error when forcing a higher level via the Cruise Altitude/FL dialogue. Where this occurs it can simply be overwritten in the MAX Alt/FL ROUTE section when planning ( capping can be seen in pale grey ). Whilst it won't remove all level capping issues the RAD Restrictions and Directs updates contain many that are corrected. As Captain Nav suggests, editing or deleting errant level capping entries can also be achieved by the user.
  11. Which version of PFPX ? OPKC with v2.03 returns:
  12. Are you using the RAD Restrictions and Directs update available from the download section of the forum. I'm not seeing any level capping on that route with the updates.
  13. You have an example route where this occurs? There is a known short trip cruise altitude issue that keeps levels low, workaround by using MAX cruise level and No Step on the planning screen. I haven't seen this lead to the 'maximum fuel exceeded' message though.
  14. Have you tried enclosing the entries with relevant section commands as in the PFPX template ? eg: <&AlternateFuelSection_Begin><&AlternateFuelCaption> <&FuelAlternate> <&#[1]:13><&AlternateFuel:6> ........ <&AlternateTime:5><&AlternateFuelSection_End>
  15. Having configured here to match your settings FL300 without a fuel error is returned in v2.04 If your PC recently updated the .NET files then try reinstalling the 2015-2019 vcredist ( x86 & x64 ) available from Microsoft The default performance file does not contain CI data hence only M0.78 or LRC is available, either check the forum download section or AirlinerPerformance
×
×
  • Create New...