Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm building routes for Concorde flights which involve adding custom waypoints such as the acceleration point. The PFPX Manual advises they should be entered as ddddNdddddW where d is 0-9.

 

For example I'm trying to enter a waypoint at 2209N 16000W. I enter 2209N16000W into the Build field but PFPX just changes it to 22N160W.

 

I've been doing this successfully for a number of years but it now appears broken. v2.03 installed in a Windows 10 PC. Help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, not sure if this is a bug or by design. If I enter 2212N16000W then it's accepted. However 2211N16000W isn't and instead changes it to 22N160W. All other waypoints were accepted as normal. This waypoint is the first after the SID ends.

 

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

A month on from posting the above and no comments. I guess I’m alone in using PFPX this way but that doesn’t mean a bug is acceptable.

 

I tried again today to enter a waypoint of 4702N00100W and PFPX will not accept it. Instead it changes it to 47N001W. This is annoying. Has the developer completely given up on his product?

 

If I raise a support ticket am I likely to get an answer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have issues with some entries but this may be limited to the expected coordinates for the planning area where expected criteria apply, you need a dispatcher to clarify.

 

The IDENT has to be unique and is limited to 8 characters in PFPX

 

Naming as required:

 

capture_008_22062020_123015.jpg.848ae264648aeb589ba9cb0f54d3436d.jpg

 

capture_007_22062020_122930.thumb.jpg.daf0ec92889251ab52ebaae5c5f1296e.jpg

 

capture_002_22062020_122741.thumb.jpg.318d3d3e78bbcd4581cdf1bf673da996.jpg

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Stephen. When you say you have issues with some entries are we talking the same problem as me? This is the plan for the AF Concorde routing to JFK. I used paper Concorde charts to create it and although some waypoint names like TESGO no longer exist I was able to substitute the equivalent lat/lon without problem.

 

EVX DCT 5011N00130W 4946N00353W 4925N00620W 4930N00800W 5041N01500W 5050N02000W 5030N03000W 4916N04000W 4703N05000W 4610N05300W 4414N06000W 4246N06500W 42N067W 3951N06949W DCT KENDA DCT LINND DCT OWENZ DCT CAMRN

 

You can see 4703N05000W is okay and so is the following one 4610N05300W. But if you look back to my first post that lat/lon could not be entered and I don't know why. It only seems to happen when the minutes are less than 12 as I pointed out in my second post above.

 

The thoughts of a despatcher would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes in your first post the entered waypoint snaps to 22N160W ( 22N60 picked up from the AIRAC entry ).

 

Again you need an expert here Ray, from the ICAO planning guide:

 

"

Flights outside designated ATS routes

ENTER points normally not more than 30 minutes flying time or 370 km (200 NM) apart, including each point at which a change of speed or level, a change of track, or a change of flight rules is planned,

OR when required by appropriate ATS authority(ies),

DEFINE the track of flights operating predominantly in an east-west direction between 70°N and 70°S by reference to significant points formed by the intersections of half or whole degrees of latitude with meridians spaced at intervals of 10 degrees of longitude. For flights operating in areas outside those latitudes the tracks must be defined by significant points formed by the intersection of parallels of latitude with meridians normally spaced at 20 degrees of longitude. The distance between significant points must, as far as possible, not exceed one hour's flight time. Additional significant points must be established as deemed necessary.

For flights operating predominantly in a north-south direction, define tracks by reference to significant points formed by the intersection of whole degrees of longitude with specified parallels of latitude which are spaced at 5 degrees.

"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Stephen. I like the bit about 30 mins  flying time or 200nm. Concorde could cover that distance in 10 mins at Mach 2.

 

I suppose if there's a nearby intersection PFPX will use that. But where in the manual does it say it will override user inputs. I know I'm a tiny minority using PFPX this way but I use it because there's nothing better. It's the only planner that allows me to create historic Concorde routes and because we're talking 20+ years ago the current nav data is useless hence why I need to create my own waypoints.

 

Let's see what the reply is on my ticket. Thanks for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I raised a ticket eight days ago and received an automated email acknowledging it. Since then absolutely nothing. I get the distinct impression the developer has lost interest. The only available help is from Stephen Cooke but he can’t resolve all problems like this one.

 

What a shambles. This isn’t cheap software and generally works well but if you do get a problem then help from the author appears to have ended.

 

LATER: I see Judith of FlightsimSoft answered a post yesterday evening so they are around. So why hasn’t my post here been answered and why haven’t I had a reply to my ticket? They appear to be very selective about which problems they answer. Only ones that prevent the user from using the program and nothing else.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs, did he respond to you? As you can see no response here and neither to my ticket. If tickets are not being replied to it could be argued the developer has given up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Here is the history of my ticket. I'm sure I'm not alone in having these problems.

  • 22 June 2020. Raised a ticket with FlightSimSoft after no reply to my post on the forum on 18 May 2020. Automated response received.
  • 7 July 2020. Reply from Judith saying ticket was missed. I replied same day.
  • 8 July 2020. Judith replies saying she will forward message to Christian.
  • 11 July 2020. I replied on my ticket saying I hadn't heard from Christian.
  • 15 July 2020. I asked again in fairly abrupt terms for my ticket to be answered.
  • 16 July 2020. Judith replies saying "Christian was very busy this week, but I remembered him to answer your ticket this weekend."

That weekend of 18/19 July is almost a week ago and nothing back from Christian and Judith. I can only assume they have no interest in supporting their product. I joined their group on Facebook thinking they might visit that. Nothing there either and when I posted about my problem people told me to switch to SimBrief. Those posts are still there. It's hard not to believe they have abandoned support.

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
×
×
  • Create New...