VHOJT

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

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

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

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

Happens to me too every now and again. No solution I can offer I am afraid.

Is there any particular bias you have applied to it to work with QW 787, or does they seem to work out the box pretty well with each other? Cheers, Rudy

I don't know if you've seen some threads around, Ray - PMDG aircraft seem not to burn correctly when taking ISA deviation into account. I.e. with low ISA deviation, they burn more, with high ISA deviation, they burn less. I've found this on their 737, 777 and 747. I have made some notes after tests I did testing their fuel burn at different ISA deviations, I can post them if you wish. I have found this problem with both default profiles, and the good ones found on airlinerperformance. Both profiles are good in my opinion. With the 747, I have to adjust my cruise bias each flight depending on ISA deviation to get an accurate result with the PMDG aircraft. Don't seem to have this problem with FSLabs A320 (mind you they built their own profile for it, so it ought to be accurate!) Whether or not you're encountering this, I don't know.

I had this too. Renaming the actual files in the PFPX data folder, and opening them in text edit and changing the registration in there to match, solved the problem for me. Then enter your data in PFPX and save. Should save then. Weird.

Hi Marin, unfortunately cannot reach you at that email address. It says the email address is no longer receiving emails.

Any news on this, Marin?

Bear in mind PFPX developers still need to to update the way PFPX reads ActiveSky winds (as discussed in other threads). You will be fine in most cases, but long oceanic flights may see significant wind differences.

I agree, PFPX online data is very accurate. Well, it matches the Activesky weather in the sim pretty well.

Despite some having success, I am also having intermittent problems getting alternates to calculate/show up. Not sure what the cause is.

I'm also having problems with the default 744 RB211 (and others) profile getting a normal performance-based step climb with no optimisations. Altitude selection is definitlely weird compared to 1.28.8 which I was using before. I more often than not have to force step climbs by looking at an optimum altitude vs. weight table.