Jump to content

VHOJT

Members
  • Posts

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by VHOJT

  1. It's the type of projection chosen, and it works fine.

     

    All I've seen is you come in here recently, make rude posts to people who try to help you and bad-mouth the program and its developers, whilst downvoting everything in sight (unless that's a coincidence).

     

    Your attitude stinks.  If you want help, I suggest you modify it.

     

    By the way, real-world flight-planning software is not necessarily pretty and perfect like Google Maps or something, even in 2021!

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 3
  2. Thank-you Judith and Christian for a wonderful program.

     

    A lot of the enjoyment in this hobby comes from planning realistically for the airline I choose to fly - PFPX with its huge range of options makes this possible.  I would honestly enjoy this hobby far less without a program such as PFPX which you created.

     

    I am glad to read you will still have the program available, along with the server subsription, so hopefully PFPX will not "die" as did Danur's FOC.

     

    I was going to make a post for others to put ideas of what PFPX enthusiasts should do into the future, but having read your post my mind is somewhat more at rest.

     

    Thanks again, your program has and will continue to give me much enjoyment.

     

    Kind regards,

    Rudy

     

    PS - indeed many thanks to Stephen Cooke who has been an absolutely essential member of the community.  Cheers, Stephen :)

    • Like 2
    • Downvote 1
  3. On 10/4/2021 at 8:40 PM, Cloudster said:

    PFPX seems irrelevant these days as simbrief is the better choice now that it has navigraph integration and since it works on a browser, you can plan your flights from practically any device and anywhere.

     

    It is still the best tool if you want highly customisable/realistic flight planning tools.  Simbrief is fine, but does not have the power or flexibility of PFPX.

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1
  4. All default profiles:

     

    77F: 0.8% fuel bias, drag 0.6%, approach burn 800kg

     

    77W: -0.7% fuel bias, drag 0.5%, approach burn 800kg

     

    738: -2.6% fuel bias, drag 0.3%, approach burn 300kg

     

    744RR: -2.9%, drag 0.3%, approach burn 1000kg

     

    Again, all of these were derived before PMDG fixed (they've now fixed all their aircraft) the fact their aircraft fuel burn didn't change per ISA deviation.  So I edited the PFPX profiles removing any change for ISA deviation.

     

    Further testing on the aicraft have shown that PMDGs do now burn ~ +/- 3% per +/- 10 degrees ISA deviation, as they should.

     

    So in theory, these bias figures should still be sound.

     

     

  5. On 4/1/2021 at 7:05 PM, srcooke said:

     

    There is NO difference in how PFPX uses the AS weather in v2.04.

     

    The ONLY difference is the message that you are now seeing was previously suppressed when using third party weather sources.

     

    PFPX is using the AS 'current_weather_snapshot.txt' file that does not contain wind data forecasted over time. Your wind forecast is generated using the fixed data provided in the snapshot as it always has done.

     

    Other than removing a message, that is correct, there is nothing to fix regarding using AS for planning.

     

    I think I am going to go bald if I read this thread again.  Please read Stephen's post.

     

    There is no issue with PFPX.

     

    I just realised before I say that in bold - can you still release your flight plans?

  6. I will have a look tomorrow for the 77F figures I use.

     

    Note that these were before PMDG updated the 777, which now correctly burns differently depending on ISA deviation.

     

    The figures I have for it are for the default 77F profile where I took all ISA deviation burn changes out of the profile.  So in theory, it should be a reasonable number.

     

     

  7. On 1/14/2021 at 1:44 AM, srcooke said:

     

    It will still work as it did before, just with 2.04 you are reminded that the upper wind forecast over time is not available. The only source for this within PFPX is the online weather option.

     

    Personally I use PFPX online weather for planning and ActiveSky in-flight.

     

    Have you guys all read what Stephen said above ^^^^.

     

    It's not an issue, it's telling you that there is no wind forecast when using Activesky weather, which is true.  So how is this an issue?

  8. On 2/25/2021 at 2:50 AM, Willibird_753 said:

    Hiya mate,

     

    that will depend on the origin airport! In Germany filing SIDs is required, as well as STARs if applicable. But that's not the case in every country, not even within the realm of EASA members. 

     

    Your best bet will be to check the www.edi-gla.co.uk database individually. Make sure you click the "view source" button in order to view the full ATC flightplan that was actually filed.

    Awesome, cheers mate.  I use that site all the time but never noticed that "view source" button.  That helps a lot - thanks very much!  You learn something new every day...

  9. Hi all,

     

    I have doing a bit of cargo flying of late and was wondering if anyone would know if LH/GEC file SIDs/STARs or account for them in the OFP?

     

    Most airlines I'm used to in Oz don't but am less sure about European practice!

     

    Any ideas would be much appreciated.

     

    I am also slowly building a statistical contingency database for airports I fly into - I was trying to think of some way we can all contribute to something similar, but it would depend a lot on whether or not the user's PFPX profile/bias are accurate.

     

    Cheers,

    Rudy

     

     

     

  10. Yeah I think you have used the options up.  With so so many different types between all the airlines, it is difficult to get everything exactly the same - I definitely found that with the QF ones - lots of unusual fields.

     

    Thanks for the kind words.

     

    Good luck with your OFP and don't forget to upload it when you're done haha :)  It looks a bit DLHish??

     

    Rudy

     

  11. Hi mate,

    1) No, I don't think there is any field to get EROPS time.

    2) Again, don't think so.

     

    3) Not that I can tell.  You'd have to leave the field blank, calcualte with/without antice and add in manually after you've released the OFP in a text editor.

     

    4) Don't think possible.

     

    5) Not sure.

     

    6) No.

     

    A lot of these things you've mentioned I give a quick tweak in Word or some other text editor after releasing.

     

    Cheers,
    Rudy

  12. 1 hour ago, DemonTraitor said:

    Just wondering how often people add an APM reading? Once per flight, or several times during the cruise?

     

    Thanks

     

    I do quite a few when I'm sorting out an aircraft's bias.  Several per flight if a long-haul: you'd be surprised by how much bias can cary depending on gross weight (even when controlling for ISA deviation).  Don't know if it's a profile issue or some of the aeroplane's flight models.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...