Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content
VHOJT

Altitude bug - can we expect a fix? Any tips on getting around it in the meantime?

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

I also have this bug, it's very frustrating that there has been no news from FSS.

Share this post


Link to post

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

×
×
  • Create New...