!! Windows 7 no longer supported !!

As Microsoft will stop supporting Windows 7 on Jan 20th we will be unable to test any of our
products on that platform. It may work, or it may not, but no guarantees from our side. 

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Excellent


  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

2910 profile views
  1. In past experience, Judith does tend to reply to that.
  2. I sincerely hope not - nothing matches this program anywhere else. It is fantastic and I don't know what I'd do without. I wonder if it puts potential customers off when they read this forum though and see not many responses from developers?
  3. Yes, v 2.03 has some strange altitude bugs that result in bizarre flight levels sometimes. I hope this will be addressed one day.
  4. Looks like, for the NGXu, this has been resolved in the latest update: - 0008251: [General - Engines] ISA Deviation effect on fuel flow model (emvaos) - resolved.
  5. Hello all, I have conducted some statistical analysis on all PMDG aircraft - none of them increase fuel burn 3% per 10 degree ISA increase, and none of them have decreased fuel burn for the reverse. PMDG have been notified and are looking into the problem. In the meantime, I hope this might help a couple of people who might be frustrated by not being able to find a good "bias" number. If you can edit the aircraft file, remove any reference to the increase/decreased burn in varying ISA conditions. Or adjust by average on a per flight basis. Here are some figures for bias to start with that I have obtained by flying the aircraft at different weights in different ISA conditions, and measuring fuel burn (if you're interested in the method, I'll detail that later). All reference the default profiles, which are good profiles: Boeing 737-800 Tested at CI20 NGX: ISA bias -2.47% Drag: +0.74% NGXu: ISA bias: -2.03% Drag: +0.19% Boeing 747-400 RR Tested at CI50 ISA bias: -2.93% Drag: +0.3% Boeing 777-200LR Tested at CI100 ISA bias: +2.73% Drag: 0% Boeing 777-300ER Tested at CI100 ISA bias: +1.28% Drag: +0.13% Now, if you can edit the aircraft files - I would suggest removing any reference to added/decreased fuel burn for ISA deviation. You can post if you need help with this in this post. Or - you can look at the average ISA deviation for the flight, and change the bias accordingly, i.e. if the average ISA deviation is +6, you would get 6/10 = 0.6. Multiply by 3: 0.6*3=1.8. Because the ISA deviation was positive, you will burn more fuel. Add the 1.8 to the ISA 0 bias figure. This method is a little cruder, but it has served me well for a long time with some aircraft. Hope this helps anyone who feels they can't get the right bias for the PMDG aircraft. Any questions let me know. Cheers, Rudy
  6. Hello chaps, any ideas on this matter? Never get any variation, with any aircraft for that matter between min fuel and "no optimisation". Can anyone else confirm this? Especially with the default 747 RR?
  7. We should probably do as Mathijs suggested above you. I have been a bit lazy, but next time it happens, I will. You chaps should do the same - we might notice something.
  8. Hi all (and Stephen ), I am just wondering - with the default RB211 747-400 file, I NEVER see any difference between NO optimisation and MIN Fuel. I do see MIN TIME changes things. Any idea of why this might be the case? Is there something else I need to set? Cheers, Rudy
  9. Hi Stephen, I have made another OFP today, as I fixed my earlier one by forcing altitudes. Here is an example of what I am talking about (see PDF 1). Using the FSL A320 profile. SCEL-YSSY is another one (see PDF 2) - I just knocked that up very quickly then to demonsrate. I do note that some of the airways coming out of Santiago say cruise altitude table "BB" - don't know if that makes much difference. However, some strange stuff happens in the middle and toward the end of the flight. I get one change in the middle might be because the magentic track goes a couple of degrees east of 180 degrees, but that doesn't explain all of it. Nor the direct step climb to from FL360 to FL400 later in the flight. No optimisations set. Using the Boeing 747-400 RB211-524GH2 profile that came with PFPX. As a side note - I NEVER see any difference between No Optimisation, Min Fuel and Min Cost. Do you, or does anyone else see differences? Am wondering if something is corrupted somewhere of if there is a bug. Cheers, Rudy 2.pdf 1.pdf
  10. Hi all, Sometimes when planning (or a lot of the time actually), PFPX's altitudes are bizarre. Even if I want 2000' step climbs, no optimisation, I am sent up and down like crazy - even on Oceanic sectors like Santiago to Sydney, on non-standard levels. Yesterday, planning a MEL-PER flight in an A320, I am sent initially to FL340, then FL380 about 4/5ths of the way through the flight. Again - this is with NO optimisation. What happened to FL360? Flying a short flight with no step climbs, it actually picks the wrong altitude - i.e. if I try other FLs, I find one that uses less fuel. This is with different aircraft types etc., and flights on airways without heavy restrictions like in Europe. Does anyone have ajy advice on getting around this behaviour until there's a fix? Thanks for any help Rudy
  11. Hi all, I hope I am not spamming you, but unfortunately the forum does not move a file to the top once it's been updated, so you might never know they were updated if you use these formats. As per the title, I have updated my Qantas and Jetstar formats (Qantas now includes the Constellation format). I have also added a Virgin Australia format. Cheers, Rudy
  • Create New...