VHOJT 57 Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 No OFP Rudy ? Attached planned MIN COST no other changes, altitude as expected. JST970 YMML-YPPH (27-May-2019) #2.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHOJT 57 Posted May 27, 2019 Author Share Posted May 27, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 Optimisation options do work and are dependent upon the data existing (RouteCharges), traversing different FIR's to achieve the route which would be cost effective. Just as proposed fuel tankering will only exist if prices are setup for the airports. For your route FUEL/COST are the same but trying to use Minimum Time is not possible.QFA28 SCEL-YSSY (27-May-2019) #1.pdf I see the similar 4000' climbs as yourself when entering directs, whether this is because they are not defined directs in the database with associated cruise table entry I cannot be sure. The attached is using the PFPX route find function, the directs been already defined in the directs file. The climb/descent LALAP/VANDA is again likely from the cruise table with different definitions for 'ZA' the 'SA@ from VANDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLRK 2 Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 I also have this bug, it's very frustrating that there has been no news from FSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.