Recommended Posts

Hi there,

 

I'm pretty new to PFPX, I used mostly simbrief before. 

So I get pretty strange routes when I try to auto-find one. Routes with extreme turns/corners etc.

 

Here's an example:

I tried to plan a route from EDDL to EDDS. I checked dozens of flights on flightradar24, and they all look the same (except from slight variations depending on runways used):

 

fr24.thumb.jpg.d40b0137428d19cb1b415bc88a9ceb90.jpg

 

But when I use PFPX, I never get this kind of reasonable routing. WHY??? 

Depending on what I choose, it always looks something like this:

 

eddledds1.thumb.jpg.175616ebcc4b4366c309366ee6d98824.jpg

 

or this:

 

eddledds2.thumb.jpg.14ee0050daa3858dfc6a51c7a9bd518f.jpg

 

Am I doing something wrong? Why isn't PFPX creating a correct route for me? 

Simbrief creates much better ones in an instant and even offers alternative routes. And they even check out if I validate them... 

 

So why is PFPX creating wierd routes like this? 90deg+ turns and all....?! That looks nothing like the real routes and sometimes seem unflyable.

The only way to archieve a more reasonable route is via "advance route finder" and choosing to ignore all restrictions. But I guess real airlines don't to that.....

 

Same issues with i.e. EDDL-EDDM. The route I get has UNFLYABLE turns in it:

 

EDDL_EDDM.thumb.jpg.2c2d696b0059f0bdbb79c6ef582f0f2c.jpg

 

Can someone help or guide me? ... What's my mistake here? Do I have to download some additional route-package etc.? 

TBH, I'm kinda disappointed after just spending 50 bucks.... 

I have the latest AIRAC and the RAD files from sharky installed.

 

Thanks,

Stu

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stu,

 

it seems PFPX is misinterpreting RAD rule ED2595

KUMIK

Not available for traffic DEP EDDL/LN , Except With-RFL-above FL145

 

If you cut and paste FL145 from Exception to Restriction, as shown below, EDDL departures can route via KUMIK again.

 

image.png.ca23a6651d809b44164794c7c41c9d1f.png

 

This fix and one for EDDS arrivals to use correct STAR will be included with next release of RAD and Directs for 1902.

Maybe I can find the other conflicting rule, too, that prevents PFPX from creating a valid route for EDDL to EDDS.

 

Regards

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input David!

 

To be honest, I'm quite irritated that PFPX needs this much tweaking. 😕 Shouldn't it be THEIR job to correct those things? 

 

Well, anyway, I just contacted an A320 pilot-friend of mine and he was so kind to send me an actual OFP of his flight from EDDL to EDDM from last week.

So in this case they used - EDDL/23L F330 DODE9T DODEN Y853 BOMBI T104 ANORA ANOR3A EDDM/26R -

 

PFPX calculates the route as bananas as shown in my initial post. 

BUT: when I choose the advanced route finder and check IGNORE ROUTE RESTRICTIONS, PFPX gives me EXACTLY the route my buddy flew!!

 

So, do airlines ignore route restrictions? Are the restrictions in PFPX wrong or "over sensitive"? Are there exceptions for certain airlines/flights? 

 

I don't know. ....

But I thought the PROFESIONAL flight planner X will give me professional, reasonable and simple routes with a few klicks. The amount of correcting/tweaking/around-walking necessary surprises me. Even more so, when I can find free tools that get the job done better. But I refuse to copy/paste the route from simbrief (as some suggested here) into PFPX after I spent 50 bucks on this software....

 

 

BR

Stu

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 28 Minuten, disco79stu sagte:

Thanks for the input David!

 

To be honest, I'm quite irritated that PFPX needs this much tweaking. 😕 Shouldn't it be THEIR job to correct those things? 

 

Well, anyway, I just contacted an A320 pilot-friend of mine and he was so kind to send me an actual OFP of his flight from EDDL to EDDM from last week.

So in this case they used - EDDL/23L F330 DODE9T DODEN Y853 BOMBI T104 ANORA ANOR3A EDDM/26R -

 

PFPX calculates the route as bananas as shown in my initial post. 

BUT: when I choose the advanced route finder and check IGNORE ROUTE RESTRICTIONS, PFPX gives me EXACTLY the route my buddy flew!!

 

So, do airlines ignore route restrictions? Are the restrictions in PFPX wrong or "over sensitive"? Are there exceptions for certain airlines/flights? 

 

I don't know. ....

But I thought the PROFESIONAL flight planner X will give me professional, reasonable and simple routes with a few klicks. The amount of correcting/tweaking/around-walking necessary surprises me. Even more so, when I can find free tools that get the job done better. But I refuse to copy/paste the route from simbrief (as some suggested here) into PFPX after I spent 50 bucks on this software....

 

 

BR

Stu

 

 

As far as I know there are no public exceptions for certain airlines, at least in Europe.

Only during certain trial periods some airlines are allowed to file non standard routes in coordination with local Air Navigation Service Providers. This is for testing shorter routes and/or to seperate traffic flows.

 

As fas as I noticed, either PFPX version 2 is over sensitive or the performance files (climb/descend rate) of the used aircrafts are to weak.

According to RAD document DODEN needs to be crossed above FL245. If I set the RFL flag for DODEN, I get your mentioned route DODEN Y853 BOMBI T104 ANORA with "Find Route" instantly.

I guess I'll include this workaround for 1902, too.

 

Regards

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

 

not getting into the issue of eurocontrol but:

 

i think the performance files are really depending on what is fed to them ... the more is given the better the result is.

 

i tried with two different sources to compare the perf of a 777-300er pfpfx results (the profile is the one coming from the pfpx base nothing else fancy) and each time it was within 5 minutes and less than 2000 kgs... on a flight of over 6500nm that is nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, disco79stu said:

To be honest, I'm quite irritated that PFPX needs this much tweaking. 😕 Shouldn't it be THEIR job to correct those things? 

 

But that is what makes PFPX very powerful, the fact that you can relatively easily make adjustments and resolve validation issues.

 

I tried the above EDDL-EDDS route using Simbriefs 'route finder', it failed validation. If you use a simbrief proposed route, that somebody else resolved the planning issues for, then that is what you are offered and of course it will pass IF they did it properly.

 

The linked 'Autorouter' at simbrief provided a route that fails validation.

 

EuroControls IFPS proposed route function failed to suggest a route at all, a system that cost way more than €60

 

Navigating European airspace can be very tricky and I guess that is why dispatchers still exist at this time and you have assumed that dispatcher role with PFPX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 10 Minuten, srcooke sagte:

 

But that is what makes PFPX very powerful, the fact that you can relatively easily make adjustments and resolve validation issues.

 

I tried the above EDDL-EDDS route using Simbriefs 'route finder', it failed validation. If you use a simbrief proposed route, that somebody else resolved the planning issues for, then that is what you are offered and of course it will pass IF they did it properly.

 

The linked 'Autorouter' at simbrief provided a route that fails validation.

 

EuroControls IFPS proposed route function failed to suggest a route at all, a system that cost way more than €60

 

Navigating European airspace can be very tricky and I guess that is why dispatchers still exist at this time and you have assumed that dispatcher role with PFPX.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, your arguments sound legit and got me thinking. There‘s always something to learn, so maybe I will just have to get more into the flight planning and dispatching world. :) 

 

But it seems like there should be some kind of database where pfpx can get pre-planned, validated routes (ie from other users). Or maybe there is? 

 

Anyway, I accept that pfpx is no „3-klick-planner“ and will try to up my game ..... 

 

Regards and thanks for all replies,

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand....

Okay, I just tried to plan a flight form EDDL to LEBL, and valitation gave me 10 errors. I get warnings on forbidden routes, mandatory routes, non existing waypoints and so on.... Why doesn't pfpx take care of this automatically? I would expect that from an "auto"-function. If I do this manually, okay. I'll have to work this out step by step, but on an automatically generated route, in my opinion the system should do this for me and give me a solution.... . Why does it give me "forbidden" routes at all? Why does it choose waypoints that "do not exist" etc...????

 

I can't spend 2+ hours planning a simple P3D-flight, sorry. Why are there no "optional routes" to choose from? Routes that work, routes that validated before, routes that airlines use or other userer created? .... Those flight are done several times a day IRL, there should be at least one known route that checks out.... I don't get all of this!!?!?

 

Guess I'm back to simbrief for now. 

 

Stu

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stu, 

 

The key with PFPX is understanding the 'errors' and why a route does not validate. There is nothing wrong with PFPX, it's just getting that understanding. I've been at it since day 1 and still get stuck sometimes, but V2 of PFPX has made planning  and dispatching so much easier. There are users on here and the BETA guys that know 100% more than me; now if I can get it, then you will if you persevere and ask the correct questions.

 

Here is your route; taken me 4 attempts to get a 'validated route' and all of 120 seconds, so not sure where you are getting 2 hours from.

 

Hang in there, and you will get it

 

image.thumb.png.fab8cc04d9e88deb922510de19dc252d.png  

 

 

Here is the route 

 

MODRU Z283 SUMAS UZ283 PINUS Z283 LNO UZ283 RITAX DCT TOLVU UN857 DIRMO UN855 PPG B384 ALBER 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 5 Stunden , alpha117 sagte:

Here is the route 

 

MODRU Z283 SUMAS UZ283 PINUS Z283 LNO UZ283 RITAX DCT TOLVU UN857 DIRMO UN855 PPG B384 ALBER 

 

Clive,

 

I just spent 1 hour trying to reproduce your route. I wasn't successful. I get errors that I just can't fix, i.e. if I tell pfpx to avoid KENUM, it will tell me that it did not find any route. Or it tells me that airway Z283 is unknown (when I enter "MODRU Z283 AUTO"). Also, I get errors gegarding mandatory about "EDYYUTA", which I don't know how to fix. 

 

Furthermore, if I just enter exactly your route, I still get errors when I try to validate.

 

I have the latest Airac 1901 (Navigraph) installed.

Is there maybe something wrong with my database? 

 

 

BG,Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stu,

 

There is an incorrect lower altitude entry in Clive's plan, PINUS Z283 LNO, this keeps a low departure altitude causing the validation failure.

 

Overall the route works:

 

MODRU Z283 SUMAS UZ283 RITAX DCT TOLVU UN857 DIRMO UN855 PPG B384 ALBER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is arising from the EBEH1007 RAD entry, it is been treat as compulsory which is not correct.

 

Disabling and saving that entry and excluding NVO in the advanced planner returns a validation.

 

EBEH1007.thumb.jpg.1c40946138a34f9f2b97b9b4c03639df.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, what are you guys talking about????

I can't even create EDDK-EDDM without errors. Every time I fix one error, the new route creates more/other errors. It's just getting worse. Most of the errors are regarding altitudes, "non existent" stuff and "too long" segments. 

When I watch YT-tutorials, most of the time they suggest to just ignore the errors. Great. Nobody seems to be able to work those out except for a hand full of professionals..... sigh

 

This is all just to complicated for me. They should call it "Dispatch Simulator Pro".

I give up.

 

But thanks a lot you guys!

BR

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stu,

 

you should not give up.

 

it is complicated to dispatch. you have  very powerful tool that is not exempt of little issues but still a very powerful and unique tool for that price.

 

if you are using any hard core simulation like fslabs, ixeg or pmdg you are not jumping into the seat and play with fms,  fmc straight: you took the time and effort to learn. please do yourself a favor and learn about PFPX.

 

when i was a dispatcher i had to follow a one year course, taking federal exams, being certified within the airline and airliners  and also being co-responsible for the flight (despite not being in the air) so this is not an easy plug and play story ... PFPX is giving you that.

 

enjoy the day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, disco79stu said:

Gee, what are you guys talking about????

I can't even create EDDK-EDDM without errors. Every time I fix one error, the new route creates more/other errors. It's just getting worse. Most of the errors are regarding altitudes, "non existent" stuff and "too long" segments. 

When I watch YT-tutorials, most of the time they suggest to just ignore the errors. Great. Nobody seems to be able to work those out except for a hand full of professionals..... sigh

 

This is all just to complicated for me. They should call it "Dispatch Simulator Pro".

I give up.

 

But thanks a lot you guys!

BR

Stu

 

I have to say one aspect I do not enjoy of flight planning is finding a route in European airspace.  At all!

 

May I suggest this site:

https://edi-gla.co.uk

 

It has real-world routes with detailed ATC flight plans from real flights attached for just about any European route you can think of (and many many world-wide ones).  They are updated regularly, and for example, I found an EDDK-EDDM route from a Germanwings A319 in November 2018: GIVMI Y101 ERNAS T161 GOLMO DCT AKANU L603 RATIM DCT PSA DCT ASKIK T840 GULKO

 

Most of the recent plans validate fine and are valid, if not - they give you something to go on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the input. 

Is there any source with tutorials or courses to learn this program propperly? Is there a database that explains the validation errors? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The official EuroControl site is located here: Route Availability Document RAD

 

Access the current AIRAC cycle.

 

The RAD Consolidated Version  is a PDF document but the formatting can be compromised, the spreadsheets are more beneficial but split into sections.

 

When searching for an error code drop the suffix letter eg EDEH1007A search for EDEH1007. The suffix relates to the sub-entry.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, first of all thanks for the links.

 

Now, please look at this: I found a YT video where the guy uses EuroFPL to search for routes. The site will PROPOSE different routes that seem to check out perfectly when copy/pasted into pfpx.

WHY DOESNT PFPX ALSO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE? Why do I have to rely on free tools to get perfect results in my 50,- Euro professional software? Cant there at least be some kind of "uplink" to such a site to get a good route?

 

 

(same goes for weather. i was irritated to learn that I have to pay a yearly fee to get weather data that can be optained free on dozens of sites)

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, disco79stu said:

WHY DOESNT PFPX ALSO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

Quite simply it is not permitted to do so for flight simulation purposes, and shouting won't change that :)

 

And as I previously stated EuroControls very expensive IFPS system will not always propose a route, as proven with your EDDL-EDDS example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, disco79stu said:

(same goes for weather. i was irritated to learn that I have to pay a yearly fee to get weather data that can be optained free on dozens of sites)

 

You can use the various sim weather engines supported in the weather configuration.

 

It will not be as accurate as the PFPX online service however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I didnt mean to shout and I hate to be naging/complaining like this all the time.

You guys have been very dedicated and friendly and I appreciate it. I really do. I'm just frustrated after thinking about buying pfpx for quite some time. And I regret it.

 

Thanks again and all the best!

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree pfpx v2.3 seems too complicated for the average joe who just wants to fly an average route, it should be simply split into easy and advanced modes to make life easier!. don't get me wrong its a great powerful tool just v1 was a lot more user friendly , rgds phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have to say, after 2 Weeks of testing and struggeling to learn and fix error-reports, I somewhat came to peace with pfpx. At least for now. 

 

Although I find this a little rediculous, my way of using pfpx today is by copying a route from the "Real World Flightplan Database" (https://edi-gla.co.uk) wich passes the validation 99% of the time.
It would be awesome to be able to export this real world database into pfpx completely.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now