BW901

Gents, from the above and some private conversations it's great to see some feedback on using the files, I think we can incorporate some changes. On that note if there are any P3D users who fly PMDG and the QW787 and would like to help test some revised files drop me a PM please.

100% agree, perfect summary. "Jack of all trades, Master of none" is what happens to software which tries to do everything. The support of 3rd party aircraft is one area where the developer of flight planning software for the sim world faces a burden not present in the real world (a single standard sim-wide FMC data format would be great lads....) - revenue generating ability is the other, I'm constantly amazed by what some simmers expect; if only they knew what real world airlines actually pay for our flight planning capabilities. I'll keep helping with data as new flightsim aircraft are released, if I felt PFPX didn't have a healthy future I'd do other things with my life.

Apologies folks. As I was running numbers for the DC-10-10 I saw the DC-10-30 hold fuel flows were incorrect (the 10 has only 3 engines, not 4 . Correct file v1.10 now uploaded.

Hehe! New DC-10-30 and updated 747-400ER now uploaded. If anybody with the Aerosoft DC8 can please post the appropriate weights for the aircraft I'll finish off that profile.

Hi Phil, I've done 90% of the work on a DC8-50 profile, and if I can have all the weights for the Aerosoft model I can finish it. And I have completed a new DC10-30 profile, just haven't published it yet. Cheers Jon

Hi Philippe, hope you're keeping well. You reminded me I have some more 400ER data now so I'll expand that profile shortly. Cheers Jon

Hi Pablo, When I did the files on airlinerperformance they were based upon the flight models from the various developers, which are normally specific to one engine type, rather than the visual models which probably do cover all the engine manufacturers. To my mind there is no point in making a file for Roller engines if the flightmodel is based upon Pratts - I'd just wind up with a load of complaints about how my file differed from the sim (maybe there's a poll to be had there - how many simmers actually compare time and fuel used versus plan, and how many simmers actually use an OFP as it is used in the real world?). Which 777 are you flying and I'll take a look again? From my very limited experience RR engines burn about 3% more than their PW equivalents and are heavier, but again if it's a PW-based flight model.....In such a case changing the aircraft details is a suitable way of covering different variants in the sim. To answer some other earlier posts: On the DC-10 I'll upload my old files, but I was also most ways through a new version with many more cruise speed schedules - will see about finishing that sometime. There is a Twin Otter file up on www.airlinerperformance.net Cheers Jon

Hi Airbusitalia. I for one have not down voted you. Your posts say you are unhappy because PFPX is not doing things correctly, and In the absence of any other info I presume you meant correctly as compared to the real world. PFPX IS actually more true to life than most simmers would imagine. Stephen has been very helpful to many forum users. I guess it's his own time he's freely giving to answering queries. I've enjoyed reading his posts over the last few years and I'm sorry that you seem to have taken things the wrong way. PFPX allows manual direct entry and manual modification of a route. If you're not happy with the automated first output, then you can quickly and easily manually edit it. That's what I do when using PFPX and its what we do for real, relevant or not ;-). I'll end by simply saying that PFPX will give results which are spot on with what our real Boeings are achieving, which is pretty astonishing for a home entertainment software. Cheers Jon

Stephen, I understand the frustrations some folks may feel, but your first sentence is very relevant. It's one of those "simmerisms" where flight simmers believe that flight planning systems always produce 100% "accurate and correct" plans at the touch of a button. If only that were the case. Our real-world systems costing tens of thousands of dollars in licensing every year need ops/navigation guys and gals to check, revise and tweak the databases, routes and the input and output. Entering a from and to and then pressing a button simply doesn't happen, unless the system is already loaded with pre-approved routes (which still have to be regularly updated) - sometimes with several routing options which are then compared against performance, weather and operational restrictions to establish the optimum solution on the day. PFPX is a Euro 40ish product and exceptionally good at what it does for the price, like I said above you can pay many multiples of that price and people still complain.

Tom, I understand what you are saying (I was planning flights for real before new fangled computer things were invented), but it’s fun to see where a real world flight has flown and recreate it in a virtual world. I guess we’ll just have to disagree how we use PFPX ;-).

Tom, I made the original post to which Agovico21 was referring. My reason for making that post in November 2016 was I believe the same as his question now - I was trying to find a way to analyse real world routes to use in PFPX so I could best recreate real world flights. If you live or fly in the US simple - Flightaware gives you the ATC route. If you're in Europe and have access to Eurocontrol applications no problem. Otherwise how can you find the filed ATC flightplan route flown in the realworld to use that in PFPX to generate flightplans? The only way I found to "fudge" it, again as Agovico21 quite correctly pointed out, was to download a csv file from FR24, convert it so the position reports can be viewed in Skyvector with an overlay Airways chart and then manually input an appropriate route into PFPX. I guess no one's come up with a more elegant solution. If you catch a flight whilst it's still in the air yes you can see the track with an airway overlay on FR24. If it's a historic flight and your only recourse is playback, no you can't. My question of a year ago is still I believe valid, and so's Agovico's, you certainly weren't wasting anyone's time with your post. Cheers Jon

Maybe just take a look at airlinerperformance.net?

It ships with PFPX. Look for ATR72-212A, which is the official type designator for a 72-500 and also 72-600. -500 and -600 are marketing names.

OK, thanks. Never thought anyone would be that high. I guess it helps when you're sitting above an ocean of oil!

The enroute performance of the 600 is the same as the 500, just increase the weights to match the 600. The 127M engines on the 600 offer a boost function in the event of an engine failure to allow the aircraft to operate at higher weights than the 500. At same weight, temp, altitude combinations performance is the same. I have done a PFPX file for the 600 but as there isn't a high fidelity sim model available it's not been/won't yet be released.