Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ChrisM

Not able to validate route: EDDS -- GCLA

Recommended Posts

Hello

First I want to compliment on this really great product. It was really worth to wait for this masterpiece of flight planning software.

But I have a problem which I can not solve on my own. So I decided to write here.

Starting Position:

- Installed PFPX

- Updated NavData via Navigraph to NG1309

- Started PFPX

- Add Flight: EDDS to GCLA

- Random Payload

- Quick Route

- Everytime I validate the route I'm getting the error messages on the attached image

Is there anything I'm doing wrong?

Can I easily resolve such routes so they can be validated?

And is it better to use the Aerosoft Navdata instead of the Navigraph data? Does this influence the routing?

Many thanks in advance and

best regards,

Chris

post-78584-0-79605100-1377709227_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 58 of the manual provides further info. Not a solution, just further info.

Rob

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this route. You can save this route and next time pfpx will use the valide route.

(FPL--IN
-B737/M-SDE1FGHILORUVWXY/S
-EDDS2020
-N0451F230 ROTWE Y126 TUBLO N850 NATOR/N0458F410 UN869 TBO UN995 PPN UN976 NEA UL14 ADINO DCT BEXAL UN866 KONBA
-GCLA0410 GCTS
-PBN/B1 DOF/130828 EET/EDUU0011 LSAS0015 LFFF0030 LECM0121 LPPC0209 GMMM0247 GCCC0333 RVR/550 RMK/NOISE CHAP 4 E/0515)

"NO ERRORS"

Best Regards,

Moritz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moritz,

thank you very much for your quick help. I really appreciate this.

Did you find this route with PFPX or with an route finder on the

internet? And if you found the route per PFPX, how did you do this.

Best regards,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it is. You save this route and then you have a valide route. What is your problem with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I originally thought that PFPX would be able to produce valid routes.

But I'm not really familiar with these things, so I do not know if this is even realistic.

Maybe I should, in the future, search for routings in the internet, copy them into PFPX

and do the rest of the planning in PFPX.

By the way: I'm still interested in the answer to the question if Aerosoft or Navigraph data

is the better choice. Does this also influence the routing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I found another strange thing, which I do not know how this could be.

Starting Position:

- Installed PFPX

- Updated NavData via Navigraph to NG1309

- Started PFPX

- Add Flight: EDDS to EDDL

- Random Payload

- Advanced Route... (EDDS VIA1:LOHRE VIA2:TEKTU EDDL)

- Right after the route has been created hit "validate"

- You will get several errors

- Now click Compute Fligth

- Click "validate" again (after flight has been computed)

- Now the flightplan is valid?

Any idea what is causing this behaviour?

- Everytime I validate the route I'm getting the error messages on the attached image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After you hit the button "Compute Flight" it will calculate your FLs. Now in europe, the aurwaysystem is rather complex (daily changes in constraints etc...) and some airways are permitted for special FLs.

So before computing maybe you were too low/high at some points. But it is really easy to do a manual rerouting :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if there is a way to view the vertical profile beside in the OFP ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Nuno Pinto,

do you actually know how the airway system works in Europe?

It's not like you generate the route and everything is validated by CFMU. If you expect PFPX to directly find a valid route, PFPX would need to read all the RADs, CDRs, UK Standard Route Document etc which would raise the price beyond any recent limit. You can access this data for free, but it is only accessible as a PDF file or in a protected website which requires a registration.

Rgds Arne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFPX was expected to be the most advanced flight planner in flight simulation.

Consequently, I expected it be correct the main issues of the other routes generators such as:

- taking into account CDR restrictions (and climb and descent accordingly);

- following published odd or even flight levels (not only semi-circular rule);

- avoiding closed sectors, activated military areas, etc.

I really do not understand how the software can create an invalid flight plan, and then include it into an OFP. In the real life, an aircraft which have an invalid flight plan will stay on the ground. As a result, I never fly a route which doesnt pass validation.

A few years ago, Route Finder (known to be a very bad generator for hardcore simmers), had a function to avoid segments (not free of charge any more). And PFPX doesnt have this function? (see , the fact that there is no answer suggests that the function doesnt exist). It sounds like PFPX routings generation system is worse than Route Finder in terms of validation! What a shame!

Could we have a statement of FlightSimSoft on this issue? Indeed, if there are no plans to implement these functions, I will ask for a refund. I bought PFPX for flight plan generation only, I had great expectations and now I am very frustrated.

Thanks.

PS: to answer ArneH, I would say that I dont expect PFPX reading CDRs, RADs, but I expect at least adapted functions to change the route. Moreover, DCT limits or aerodrome DCT limits are published in a XLS file which can be easily read and used programmatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFPX was expected to be the most advanced flight planner in flight simulation.

Consequently, I expected it be correct the main issues of the other routes generators such as:

- taking into account CDR restrictions (and climb and descent accordingly);

- following published odd or even flight levels (not only semi-circular rule);

- avoiding closed sectors, activated military areas, etc.

The AIRAC Data do not contain these data. CDR and published odd/even levels need to be extracted from the respective ENR AIPs which is are publically available from every state (and if, then most of the time as PDF). Most European AIPs are only avaible after a free registration with EAD.

By NOTAM published closed sectors, etc would be nice to be considered in flightplaning, but again: The AIRAC Data we have do not contain any sectors etc, so you need to rely on another source which needs to be accessible in an easy way.

I really do not understand how the software can create an invalid flight plan, and then include it into an OFP. In the real life, an aircraft which have an invalid flight plan will stay on the ground. As a result, I never fly a route which doesnt pass validation.

A few years ago, Route Finder (known to be a very bad generator for hardcore simmers), had a function to avoid segments (not free of charge any more). And PFPX doesnt have this function? (see , the fact that there is no answer suggests that the function doesnt exist). It sounds like PFPX routings generation system is worse than Route Finder in terms of validation! What a shame!

Could we have a statement of FlightSimSoft on this issue? Indeed, if there are no plans to implement these functions, I will ask for a refund. I bought PFPX for flight plan generation only, I had great expectations and now I am very frustrated.

Thanks.

PS: to answer ArneH, I would say that I dont expect PFPX reading CDRs, RADs, but I expect at least adapted functions to change the route. Moreover, DCT limits or aerodrome DCT limits are published in a XLS file which can be easily read and used programmatically.

Someone (I think Christian) posted in another thread that PFPX suggests alternatives if you get errors from the validation process, but don't ask me how you can access it. It was somewhere below a map after the validation process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Route Finder, had a function to avoid segments (not free of charge any more). And PFPX doesnt have this function?

I too was quite surprised that this feature is currently missing from PFPX. Also the manual didn't make it clear how to avoid segments when using the advanced find route feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, Route Finder (known to be a very bad generator for hardcore simmers), had a function to avoid segments (not free of charge any more). And PFPX doesnt have this function? (see , the fact that there is no answer suggests that the function doesnt exist). It sounds like PFPX routings generation system is worse than Route Finder in terms of validation! What a shame!

Hello,

please look into the advanced route finder. There you will find an option called "Avoid Airways......"

example1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what is the correct format for adding multiple restriction? Comma separated list?

What is the correct format for avoiding sub routes? Is it: [entry] [airway] [exit]? Or the on in the validation error: [airway] [entry] [exit]?

The feature what we are looking for is that you could automatically populate the restrictions text field based on validation results (something similar to RouteFinder).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you can give me an answer to my amateurish question: why is it so terribly important to you to have a CFMU-validated routing?? After all we are talking about FSX/XPLANE and a one-man show! And of course planning must be done in 5 minutes. So again my question: why is it so terribly important?

Oski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you can give me an answer to my amateurish question: why is it so terribly important to you to have a CFMU-validated routing?? After all we are talking about FSX/XPLANE and a one-man show! And of course planning must be done in 5 minutes. So again my question: why is it so terribly important?

Oski

I'm glad you asked that... I was wondering too.... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to the first post: The SUL SID is has a time restriciton and destination restriction. It can not be used for every destination airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you can give me an answer to my amateurish question: why is it so terribly important to you to have a CFMU-validated routing?? After all we are talking about FSX/XPLANE and a one-man show! And of course planning must be done in 5 minutes. So again my question: why is it so terribly important?

Oski

There are those who like to simulate everything by the book, and there are those who fly with online ATC. Your flightplans need to be valid for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flightplans do NOT need to be valid with CFMU to fly online with ATC. But sometimes you wish it must be that way. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flightplans do NOT need to be valid with CFMU to fly online with ATC. But sometimes you wish it must be that way. ;)

That's correct, but it is gentle to have one if possible ;-)

Chris:

When getting into problems with validation try the advanced route finder (Route Editor -> Hit "Find" and select "Advanced"). Check "Avoid Airways, Waypoints[...]" and type in the airways wich were coming back as invalid during the CFMU validation process. With some tries you will probably find a routuing which matches, even without knowing eaxctly what you are doing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are those who like to simulate everything by the book, and there are those who fly with online ATC. Your flightplans need to be valid for that.

Nope! Not true! This is neither a requirement for IVAO nor for VATSIM! And btw: Flying by the books is a bit more than having a CFMU-validated routing :D ...

Oski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there is a reason why they clearly states:

"The PFPX program is for use with flight simulation software only.
It shall not be used in any connection with real-world flying."

And thats the first statement after "Introduction -> General"

For years ago I was on the same path called "Ultimate realism", until I realised that regardless how much I invested in addons, aviation books, charts and realworld description on procedures, I would never be able to achieve that.

Often we put unneeded frustration on ourself chasing that ultimate realism, only to find that the fun factor disappears cause FSX, Aircraft addon, Weather addon, Airport AFCAD or the fused flight planner does not cooperate with our needs.

Real life dispatcher software is alot more expensive, and that with a good reason.

Instead of bashing the developers cause there are a few snags (we are still at Version 1.00), we should be happy to finally have a flightplanner that with some relative easy to learn steps can produce flightplans that are close to both realworld performance as well as aircraft performance in FSX.

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...