BW901

Not aware of what? Given what you are aware of now might a revision to the title be appropriate, the questions posed after the OP could suggest that more is/was being read into the title than perhaps intended?

Perhaps the title of this thread follows current journalistic fashion in being a little OTT or sensationalist? From the developer's subsequent post this is hardly "end of life", but merely a cessation by Aerosoft of their sales and support to PFPX? I certainly echo the sentiments of others in hoping PFPX continues to be available for a long time to come, there's nothing else out there to touch its capabilities.

Hi Francesco, I hope the guide is a help. There are a few format issues with the file, but on initial sight the biggest question is that you only include climb data up to 29000ft. If you have that then it should be quick and easy to get the rest of the file sorted out, though this won't be suitable for short sectors as you only have Mach cruise data from FL250 and above. Cheers Jon

Well we've proved this forum isn't dead, so there's a positive. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and a few people seem to be quite vocal in expressing theirs. I've expressed mine above, and to me this subject is akin to that favourite question of flightsim forums - "when's the release date?". Again I'm taking the positive view that PFPX works very well. What I paid for works and the developer hasn't failed to get the servers back up when they've had an outage. I got what I paid for. The developers don't owe me anything else. That's my reality.

Have you read the topic title Ray? No misquote, that excerpt from your post is a good answer to the question posed by that title. From here on I'll just be feeding the trolls.

If PFPX was "dead" then why would the servers be online? It continues to be one of the best bits of software I've spent my hard earned dollars on.

The main obvious difference of the 747-400D is that they were not fitted with winglets. On most Boeings which had winglet option as retrofit the fuel burn saving is around 3-4%, so the burn on the 400D will be higher. On the very short domestic sectors those aircraft flew the additional burn wasn't huge and was offset by weight saving without the winglets and maintenance benefits. I believe that the D also had lower fuel capacity and different weights, but someone more knowledgeable than me may know better. Of course this all assumes that PMDG have a specific flight model reflecting the differences of the D. If not then it'll fly like a standard -400 in the sim anyway.

My apologies if it's an inconvenience that the site is down. Unfortunately at the moment I'm having to spend time lifting floors and working on a house rather than looking at a screen. I think my PC's are getting withdrawal symptoms. In the meantime for anyone who has airlinerperformance files please keep using and enjoying them, but I would ask that you do not (re-)distribute them. Cheers Jon

If memory serves the 550 is a recofigured 700. Revising (reducing) 700 weights and seat capacity etc should work.

Thanks Gentlemen. It's over so quickly! Phil are you back in the freezing north? B767-200 engine variants for the Flightfactor uploaded now. Although said to be -200ER by FF, the weights in the EFB are representative of a standard aircraft, so I've gone with lower numbers to match the EFB. As with all these you can edit payload options, weights and fuel figures to match your own flight model or airline preferences within PFPX in any case.

Merry Christmas folks. A couple of presents up at airlinerperformance.net ahead of the big day. Profiles for the newly-released A321 are uploaded and the first variant for the Flightfactor 767, the -300ER with RR engines is also up. These have CI data for climb, cruise and descent - interestingly looking at Twitch streamers no one ever seems to use CI on climb or descent. More 767s to follow. Also with the Milviz 350 out this week I've written a file for that (temporarily) linked here KA350i. I've fudged the perf at low weights so would be interested if anyone with that aircraft wants to try it and let me have any feedback. Once I know it's OK I'll put it on the site and remove the link here. Cheers!

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 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