Not able to validate route: EDDS -- GCLA

[Jarkko 39]

For me it's a learned habit. You can't get weight and fuel and weight figures out of vRoute until your route passes validation.

The other reason is the high expectation levels set by some of the beta crew. They refered pre PFPX tools as toys. Anything that your current tool does, PFPX does it better. This didn't turn out to be true with flight plan validation.

Having said that, even with multiple PFPX crashes, I'm able to get as good (and in some cases far better) results with PFPX, than my previous tools (and in less time, I may add).

Anywhoo, I hope the developer is listening/reading and hopefully can see how he feels about the validation.

[Patrick1246 352]

you can't compare vroute with PFPX, vroute has no Route Build function, you can only use routes they are stored in the database...

[ChrisM 3]

Oh oh oh,

I'm sorry that I triggered such an avalanche. This was really not the intention of this thread.

Speaking for me: I have learned to reroute the critical airways by using the really great and

manual routing function of PFPX. With the help of displaying upper and lower airways & navigation

points, it is a matter of minutes to alter the flight route in such a way that it can be validated without

any problems. It is even fun to do so! No need to get routing from the internet.

So, thanks a lot for all the help and explanations.

I really love this product & flying with an such a decent OFP + adequate fuel figures is so much fun!

Enjoy it.

Chris

[Jarkko 39]

you can't compare vroute with PFPX, vroute has no Route Build function, you can only use routes they are stored in the database...

For what it's worth, I wasn't comparing.

Have you ever wondered how the routes get into the database? It's the users (like me) who created them. The route will not be saved in the database until it passes validation.

Hence the learned habit of only using routes that pass validation.

[qqwertzde 158]

In another thread it was mentioned that validation is only useful for European flights. Maybe the validation button could be greyed out for flights where validation makes no sense?

[Paul Hand 11]

For me it's a learned habit. You can't get weight and fuel and weight figures out of vRoute until your route passes validation.

The other reason is the high expectation levels set by some of the beta crew. They refered pre PFPX tools as toys. Anything that your current tool does, PFPX does it better. This didn't turn out to be true with flight plan validation.

Having said that, even with multiple PFPX crashes, I'm able to get as good (and in some cases far better) results with PFPX, than my previous tools (and in less time, I may add).

Anywhoo, I hope the developer is listening/reading and hopefully can see how he feels about the validation.

But the "validation" here is a different thing. In vRoute, all it's doing is checking that the route you have input is consistent with vRoute's internal nav database. The route created by PFPX is clearly consistent with its own database otherwise it would not have created it in the first place. CFMU validation is checking that the route is valid, at that precise point, against the real world traffic constraints imposed by Eurocontrol. This is something that PFPX cannot be expected to know in real time and nor do all actual "professional" flight planners. A quick look at Eurocontrol's website will tell you that: "We analyse the compatibility of requests before the flight plan can be accepted. In about 9% of cases, inconsistencies need to be resolved via manual interventions."

So - there is nothing unrealistic about having to manually intervene to get a CFMU accepted flight plan designed.

Cheers

[Jarkko 39]

We are getting of topic now. Both PFPX and vRoute allow you to validate your route against CFMU. Can we agree on that? It's quite easy to test. Take a PFPX created route that doesn't pass validation, input the same route and flight level to vRoute and validate.

(BTW euroFpl's route generator creates valid routes for free. They might not be good, but they pass the validation).

Now back to the topic:

This is a feature request for the developer. Can we consider adding more tools for the user to fix routes that do not pass validation? Automatically reject segments based on validation results? Allow user to input mandatory route segment and so on?

[Paul Hand 11]

We are getting of topic now. Both PFPX and vRoute allow you to validate your route against CFMU. Can we agree on that? It's quite easy to test. Take a PFPX created route that doesn't pass validation, input the same route and flight level to vRoute and validate.

(BTW euroFpl's route generator creates valid routes for free. They might not be good, but they pass the validation).

Now back to the topic:

This is a feature request for the developer. Can we consider adding more tools for the user to fix routes that do not pass validation? Automatically reject segments based on validation results? Allow user to input mandatory route segment and so on?

Don't think we're off topic... clearly PFPX and vRoute validate differently as I did your simple test using EGLL -EDDF with the following results:

PFPX generates:

DVR UL9 KONAN UL607 SPI UZ112 RASVO T180 UNOKO at FL390

This fails the CFMU validation:

Whereas the same plan in vRoute sails through:

I have no idea why this is - but there are clearly differences. To be honest, I haven't found a single route that has validated on PFPX - but I haven't looked too hard.

Cheers

[Jarkko 39]

hereas the same plan in vRoute sails through:

Except that it doens't Are you sure that you had "Publish for" set to all vroute users? If you have it in position "just me" it will only validate against internal database.

Here is the result:

And the validation errors in the picture:

ERRORS AT FL = 390:
(FPL-LOT001-IS -B738/M-SDRWY/S -EGLL0850 -N0430F390 DVR UL9 KONAN UL607 SPI UZ112 RASVO T180 UNOKO -EDDK0111 -PBN/B4) 
PROF204: RS: TRAFFIC VIA EB:F335..F999 IS ON FORBIDDEN ROUTE REF:[EBYY4001A] EDDF/DG/DK/DL/GS/KZ/LA/LE/LI/LM/LN/LP/LS
PROF204: RS: TRAFFIC VIA EB ED EH EGTT02LUE EGTTEAST LFEE4N:F335..F999 IS ON FORBIDDEN ROUTE REF:[EGYY4000A] LONDON GROUP TO/FROM DUSSELDORF GROUP
PROF204: RS: TRAFFIC VIA REMBA UL607 SPI PELIX:F245..F999 IS ON FORBIDDEN ROUTE REF:[EBYY1004A] UL607 REMBA PELIX
PROF204: RS: TRAFFIC VIA SPI UZ112 EMGOD IS ON FORBIDDEN ROUTE REF:[EDEB1002A] UZ112 SPI EMGOD
PROF204: RS: TRAFFIC VIA TOBOP UNEPI RASVO PIPEP UNOKO IS ON FORBIDDEN ROUTE REF:[ED3017A] T180 TOBOP UNOKO

EDIT: I had another look at your previous screenshot and sure enough, you used settings that will bypass CFMU validation.

[Jarkko 39]

Now to a question I have asked before. If we look at the validation result, in what format should I put this correction into the PFPX advanced find restrictions?

PROF204: RS: TRAFFIC VIA TOBOP UNEPI RASVO PIPEP UNOKO IS ON FORBIDDEN ROUTE REF:[ED3017A] T180 TOBOP UNOKO

1) TOBOP T180 UNOKO

2) T180 TOBOP UNOKO

3) T180(TOBOP > UNOKO)

4) Something else?

The manual only mentions how to exclude complete airways.

[Paul Hand 11]

Except that it doens't Are you sure that you had "Publish for" set to all vroute users? If you have it in position "just me" it will only validate against internal database.

.....

EDIT: I had another look at your previous screenshot and sure enough, you used settings that will bypass CFMU validation.

Yep - you got me Never knew that that setting affected validation results - I will now climb red-faced back into my box....

cheers

[ArneH 15]

Just made a quick fp myself and my route to EDDF looks a bit different: DVR UL9 KONAN UL607 UBIDU L607 RUDUS UL984 FFM DCT

[Jarkko 39]

Now to a question I have asked before. If we look at the validation result, in what format should I put this correction into the PFPX advanced find restrictions?

PROF204: RS: TRAFFIC VIA TOBOP UNEPI RASVO PIPEP UNOKO IS ON FORBIDDEN ROUTE REF:[ED3017A] T180 TOBOP UNOKO

1) TOBOP T180 UNOKO

2) T180 TOBOP UNOKO

3) T180(TOBOP > UNOKO)

4) Something else?

The manual only mentions how to exclude complete airways.

I forgot one important aspect of PFPX. You can already do partial routes and use to codes (such as auto routing) in the edit windows Help prompt.

I have to give them a try. I might have made my feature request too soon

EDIT: Yep, spoke too soon. I was able to force PFPX use the segments I needed (based on validation results) and let auto find fill in the blanks. Excelent!

[jpgmultimodal 61]

Good afternoon,

I think, personally, that it is may be not a good idea that CFMU was made available through PFPX.

Before I get shot by someone after what I have said I think it is absolutely necessary to understand that CFMU is a real world tool and a route valid one day is not valid anymore the following day due to AIRAC change or military zones actives and so on.

It should be understood that CFMU is not a planning tool but only to check if everything is correct to fly a certain day at a certain time in the RW.

With PFPX I know that sometimes we press the CFMU button and everything stops and we have to restart the program and even the computer so there is a way around it, go to CFMU and enter the FPL manually directly on the site.

Now first thing to do is to build a flight plan with the help of something like Jeppesen documentation, very expensive, but if you really want it as real as possible that’s the choice. You also have AIP available in most of the different countries in the world.

This is going to take quite some time if you want to have a RW route because the FPLs generated by PFPX do not necessary give the real route due to lot of parameters as explained above and you have to correct it manually but if you know how the system works it is the way to do it.

Bear in mind that you must have the up to date AIRAC in PFPX.

I understand that there are RW dispatchers who worked on programming PFPX and I am sure they would confirm that sometimes in the RW they are creating a route and something goes wrong and they have to find why and to reroute manually.

It would be very easy just to say I want to go from XXXX to YYYY, press button and the plane would go automatically there.

I do not know the price of a subscription to a RW planning tool but I would say it costs a lot more than PFPX.

The problem is that we, including myself, were expecting too much from PFPX so we have to realize that it is for FS and not the RW and, by the way, it is a very sophisticated program that I am happy to have and I am sure it would be corrected soon for the few bugs that we are getting.

Have a nice day.

JP

[Jarkko 39]

Hello,

Just to tell you where I'm coming from. After my child was born, I found out quickly that I won't be able to fly much anymore. Trying to find couple of hours of uninterrupted time just doesn't happen easily.

What I started doing instead, was route planning. When I have time, I plan routes for flights that Airhauler generates. This gives me nice brain teasers and takes my mind of work, house keeping, If I'm lucky, I get to fly one of these flight every now and then.

PFPX is essentially the tool that combines all my prior programs in one package:

- auto routing

- route validation

- GC route with planned route overlay

- integrated browser for checking validation errors and so on.

As I corrected my self in my last post, most of the auto auto routing tools that I was searching for, are already in PFPX, I just had forgotten how to combine them. So on paper, PFPX looks ideal for me.

Just to make one thing clear, I'm not in any way displeased with PFPX purchase. It's just when I get into a "problem solving mode", I tend to forget to thank the team for the great job they have done.

I can understand if most simmers would never use the validation function. There is nothing wrong with that. It's just that I enjoy route planning and would like to make suggestions that would make a great product even better.

- Jarkko

[fumap 0]

Jarkko, actually i agree with you. You're not the only one that likes reality (as far as it is possible) and actually i like to validate my handmade routes using RAD/CRAM for Europe. For this reason i'm waiting to see what PFPX can actually do about that before going for it (and i hope as soon as possible).

To all the others: yes, this is just a simulation. But i think that if you want to do a thing right, you need to do it completly right. PFPX has come as a revolution into flightsim, so the expectations are obviously very high. There is no reason in calculating a perfect fuel load, a perfect path, a perfect ETOPS planning if i can't even fly a realistic route. CFMU validation is important in Europe and, as i fly in Europe mostly, it's even more necessary. Someone said that we can't achieve the realism, but why doing flightsim so? I just find it little funny...but that's just my thought.