.per Files

[Skyrock 3]

Hello everyone,

does anyone know how to open .per files? Some of the profiles are in this format and I can't edit them.

Best regards,
Martin

[Tom A320 4432]

Those files are binary files and can't be modified. They are simply not meant to be modified. 

 

[Skyrock 3]

Hmm thats bad. Is there a way to convert them to .txt files?

[srcooke 276]

Not possible Martin, it is specifically done this way to protect the source data.

 

Why do you want to edit them ?

 

[Skyrock 3]

I'm struggling with the 787 profiles since I've already set the bias to -4.0 and I'm still using way less fuel than calculated. I assume it has something to do with the ISA deviation. In the .txt files, I got rid of any ISA deviations in order to achieve a more precise calculation, but the 787 profiles are all .per files, so I can't edit them.

[VHOJT 35]

I have funny things happen with ISA dev with the default profiles too - I don't know if it's a PMDG or PFPX problem on my end.  Try something like a 0.3-0.4% bias - negative bias per degree positive ISA deviation, and positive bias per degree negative ISA deviation.  Weird but it works very well for me with the default 744 profiles.

[mikewhiskey 243]

On 3.10.2018 at 14:20, Skyrock sagte:

 

 

In order to edit certain parameters in your profile why don't you use PFPX-Aircraft Editor instead of tampering with the original .per file?

[Skyrock 3]

That doesn't help at all. If I entered like ISA +5, it will result in a bias only fitting for this deviation. In the summer, I often had ISA +15 so the calculation will be completely off in those cases. Now we're running into ISA+0 or -5 slowly, so I'd always have to adjust the biases. If I could apply different biases for different ISA devs or cost indexes, this might be a solution.

 

In fact, what I've seen at least, the PMDG 777 doesn't use more fuel in higher ISA conditions, it will only fly faster, so the bias will stay almost the same. Thats why I got rid of all the ISA tables in the respective file and set the fueladjust to 0 and my calculations were much more precise from then on. Thats what I want to check for the 787, too.

[inlovewithBoeing 54]

On 10/3/2018 at 3:20 PM, Skyrock said:

I'm struggling with the 787 profiles since I've already set the bias to -4.0 and I'm still using way less fuel than calculated. I assume it has something to do with the ISA deviation. In the .txt files, I got rid of any ISA deviations in order to achieve a more precise calculation, but the 787 profiles are all .per files, so I can't edit them.

 

I confirm the problem: these B787 profiles calculate 4 to 6% more fuel than required.