Jump to content

Disapointed.. or maybe i'm doing it wrong


Recommended Posts

First of all, i must say i was one on the first buyers for sure, at the hour of release i payed the program and waited all day to finally get a different adress to be able to download it.

I uploaded to version 1.05 and installed airac1309 from navdata.

After many tests, with different aircrafts, and TOPCAT last version installed ( wich i also bought ) i must say, unfortunatly i'm disapointed compared to what i could have from free programs like rfinder or realworlflightplan website coupled with my FMC to get correct climb steps in the ATC FP.

I found PFPX doesnt take most of the restrictions of RTE FL and SID/STAR, i took for example a LFPG EGLL / EGLL LFPG route. On the first leg, it gives me an unrealistic STAR ( Weldon ) if i take a high FL route ( with a cruising FL of FL320 ) all with PMDG NGX. If i let PFPX decide of the FL ( auto mode ) i got arrivals via OCK, real flight plan, has a restriction of FL240 because of ATC sectors, and arrival is BIG3B via ALESO.

Return flight, gives me the shortest route with a MAY departure, restricted to LOW FL and Props.. real world flightplan is flow at FL230 max with a MID departure from LHR.

Another exemple, i prepared a LFPG EFHK route.. always across netherland or belgium ( let's say maastricht airspace ) all i got is DCT and i found PFPX solution to a route it couldn't find, either meduim or long haul is to put a DCT on the flightplan.. with the worst free program i can find on the net could do, and what even RFINDER free doesnt.. but if i take a saved route in the program, the LFPG EFHK is correct and has no DCT.

Here is rfinder route

NURMO UN874 VEKIN UN873 HELEN UZ702 MEDEL Z702 ALAMI P606 PEXEN

Here is PFPX saved route with old airac

NURMO UN874 VEKIN UN873 JUIST UP729 DOSUR P729 TALSA Z702 ALAMI P606 PEXEN

and the route created with last airac when i enter find/advanced, selec auto cruise/fl restriction wind optimized route

NURMO UN874 CMB DCT HELEN UZ702 MEDEL Z702 ALAMI P606 PEXEN

Let's talk about TOPCAT integration, it seems it is just a tool and that PFPX and TOPCAT doesnt communicate, you can only use TOPCAT after the OFP has been computed, and the info i got inside TOPCAT are not fully rewriten inside the OFP ( let's say i want a F5, best TO config possible ) once calculated, half the informations are retranscripted inside my OFP ( and not event my D-TO Temperature ).

If i plan a flight with an MD11, with a small CI and very derated take-off to save fuel, PFPX will calculate extremly optimistic step climbs ( fully loaded, very flexed, i was never able to climb over FL300 at first on a long haul MD11 flight, PFPX gives me FL350 at first ).

However, looking at the presentation videos on youtube, it seems the program are quite different graphically.

I had to explain all that to see if i was the only one disapointed, or maybe expecting too much from this program, or will all this be fixed on further updates ?

Thank you Very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm finding similar issues, last week I planned KPAE-EGFF (I'll give you three guesses what I was doing!) and the route that PFPX provided was substantially off the GCR adding about 500nm and over an hour flight time. I subsquently used a plan I found on Vataware that used a NCAC route which closely resembled the GCR saving me the milage/time.

Yesterday I planned a simple EGLL-KJFK (I would normally do this manually myself). The tracks where roughly in the middle and PFPX propsed I take a SAM dep from EGLL. Being a rather unconventional way out of LHR I used the NATS SRD to plan a route out via CPT.

Now, like you, I suspect it could be my lack of education but it does all seem rather strange to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example I've seen in real life flights entering the UK via Scotland one day and over southern Ireland on others.

That's the reason why the tracks change, we take benefit of the wind (eastwards) or avoid the wind (westwards)! As the dominent pressure systems move so do the tracks. We sometimes call it Northabouts and Southabouts :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Route generation isn't the primary purpose of PFPX, and I didn't buy it for that purpose. PFPX's primary purpose is generating an accurate fuel plan and OFP, which it does quite well.

I will say, however, that the TOPCAT integration has a lot to be desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow sorry :

"Introduction

PFPX - Professional Flight Planner X - is a new and innovative flight planning tool developed by real-world pilots and dispatchers. It's a valuable and realistic addition to your flight simulation experiences, enabling you to create professional quality flight plans similar to those used by real-world airlines."

It IS the main function.. flightplanning, wich consists of planning a flight .. so generate route and performances according to this route, wich is actually part of my job also in real life.

This program has been presented and sold to me for this purpose, that's what i'm trying to do with it and testing most of the situation to see if it might be just some airspaces, or is it general.

i created quite a few flight plans, and have been most of the time deceived by this DCT and some en-route restriction that PFPX doesn't take in account wich rfinder does.

That's was the purpose of this topic, and i don't seem to be the only one in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jonwait: You are pointing out many items in your post, many of them inaccurate or just wrong.

Let me give you some explanations:

  • An autoroute from LFPG to EGLL in PFPX gives this: OPA3BE OPALE UT421 BIG TOMO1G
    Doing the same route in Asalink gives SID OPALE UT421 BIG STAR which is exactly the same route.
    Furthermore, I can't find the Weldon arrival you mentioned in your post
  • The aurotoute between LFPG an EFHK is indeed faulty, as there is a direct route in the database bewteen CMB and HELEN.
    Removing this direct from the database gives NUR3BE NURMO UN874 VEKIN UN873 HELEN UZ702 MEDEL Z702 ALAMI P606 PEXEN PEXE3J which is just the same route as asalink finds
  • TOPCAT integration has significantly improved in the last builds. You will have all V-Speeds, configuration etc. on the flight plan with the next release
  • Your post about derated take-off, low cost index and optimistic step climbs is just wrong.
    Please not the following facts:
    - A derated take-off has no effect on cruising altitude
    - A derated take-off will increase your trip fuel
    - A low Cost Index will increase optimum altitude

    Optimum altitudes are taken directly from (real-world) performance data. If you feel your step climbs are too late/too early, you can easily adjust them in the aircraft editor (Altitude adjust)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of any real flight planner (including Jetplanner, the one I am using in RL) is perfect, and so is PFPX. That's why airliners are hiring real flight dispatchers to verify the route generated by professional flight planning software (one of many reasons) :glare_s: .

Particularly in Europe, you can't setup a database with all specific regulations for each country. And if you look at the RAD on the CFMU website, you'll see that you'll have a thousand of route restrictions, flight level restrictions, depending on your departure airport and arrival airport. Of course, some of those restrictions are changing every 28 days, you can't add all of them in a database for the system.

St├ęphane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind too much optimizing a route by hand, it is part of the fun for me. That being said, the auto-route function of PFPX works indeed poorly for many of my flights in the Canadian airspace. It regularly proposes routes which are three times as long as the direct distance between the airports. I think my worst example was CYDF to CYQM.

What I find more strange is that even when I enter a route by hand using airways and then push the Build button, PFPX insists to put waypoints into my plan which are way off. I wonder if that is a Navigraph error. If so, why does the PFPX map show a nice airway and yet puts a waypoint in that is 100 nm off? One example: I tried to go from CYUL (actually YUL) to CYQM using airway Q806 to MEKSO then DCT PATTA. PFPX always insisted on putting a waypoint MT (way north of Q806) into the plan until I removed Q806 and flew DCT.

However, in general I am very happy with PFPX. I was hoping to produce better flight plans with it and I am doing that 100%.

Cheers,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Christian,

first of all, thank you very much for your answer.

About the LFPG-EGLL route, BIG shouldn't appear on the route except for the STAR name, as the STAR starts at ALESO the route then should finish at ALESO to enter the BIG3B star TOMO1G is inacurate.

i can't wait for correct TOPCAT integration, and i am pretty sure you are all working hard on updates and improvements i don't deny it at all.

As you said, a derated take-off will, change, not always, increase my fuel burn as i will climb for longer than if i did a full thrust take-off, except if that full thrust makes me use more fuel than the reduced thrust to climb, it's all a question of balance, and of course engine use saving. But as you said, that should appear in the fuel planning process, wich is the job of this software isn'it ?

a low CI do not increase the cruise altitude, if i use a 99 CI i should climb faster ( in speed ) and higer depending of my gross weight, still a question of balance.

Since last update, i felt step climbs more accurate and have nothing to say about it now as it is pretty correct and matching with aircraft performance.

Another thing i need to look at, the weight per person and luggage seems different inside the aircraft ( PMDG per exemple ) and inside PFPX, but i think it seems we can change that in PFPX. Because yesterday i made an OFP for a friend with the PMDG T7, he had to remove 15tons from cargo to match the number of pax and weights according to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind too much optimizing a route by hand, it is part of the fun for me. That being said, the auto-route function of PFPX works indeed poorly for many of my flights in the Canadian airspace. It regularly proposes routes which are three times as long as the direct distance between the airports. I think my worst example was CYDF to CYQM.

What I find more strange is that even when I enter a route by hand using airways and then push the Build button, PFPX insists to put waypoints into my plan which are way off. I wonder if that is a Navigraph error. If so, why does the PFPX map show a nice airway and yet puts a waypoint in that is 100 nm off? One example: I tried to go from CYUL (actually YUL) to CYQM using airway Q806 to MEKSO then DCT PATTA. PFPX always insisted on putting a waypoint MT (way north of Q806) into the plan until I removed Q806 and flew DCT.

However, in general I am very happy with PFPX. I was hoping to produce better flight plans with it and I am doing that 100%.

Cheers,

Peter

Lol the MT beacon is becoming a major thorn in my side trying to plan flights out of YUL. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't quite see why it should be part of the flight planning process. For example, let's say you planned for a derated takeoff and as you're taxing to the runway it start to rain, so you can't do a derated takeoff anymore. What are you going to do now? Go back to the gate and request a new flight plan? As conditions change, so do your takeoff procedures.

Andre


As you said, a derated take-off will, change, not always, increase my fuel burn as i will climb for longer than if i did a full thrust take-off, except if that full thrust makes me use more fuel than the reduced thrust to climb, it's all a question of balance, and of course engine use saving. But as you said, that should appear in the fuel planning process, wich is the job of this software isn'it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, who wants to have a laugh? This is the route PFPX created automatically for an Atlantic flight from CYYT to EINN for ETOPS 180:

ZNF R14 QY G4 JT BR4 YHR BR1 BX RR2 AY RR5 YMH AR28 YAY NATV 56N020W DCT MIMKU N562 MAC N552 TRN P600 BLACA P620 DUB V14 DIGAN DIGA2D

Not sure what you are talking about. PFPX just found the following route for CYYT-EINN:

CYYT4 YYT DCT 48N050W 50N040W 51N030W 50N020W 50N010W 51N009W DCT CRK N160 KURUM KURU2D

This is pretty much great circle...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you are talking about. PFPX just found the following route for CYYT-EINN:

CYYT4 YYT DCT 48N050W 50N040W 51N030W 50N020W 50N010W 51N009W DCT CRK N160 KURUM KURU2D

This is pretty much great circle...

I'm not sure what we're doing wrong here, if I try this route I get the same result as qqwertzde. I should add that this is the first "odd" route I've seen PFPX generate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you are talking about. PFPX just found the following route for CYYT-EINN:

CYYT4 YYT DCT 48N050W 50N040W 51N030W 50N020W 50N010W 51N009W DCT CRK N160 KURUM KURU2D

This is pretty much great circle...

Hi Christian,

thanks for your reply (and for your product). The route PFPX produced for you looks great, but why would it produce a different route on my (and TimJP's) system? I am using PFPX more or less as it comes out of the box, i.e., with all data coming from the PFPX server. The only change I made was to install the AIRAC cycle 1309 from Navigraph. Could that be the reason?

Just to stress this again: I am very happy with PFPX and don't mind at all working manually on routes, but it just happens quite often that I get funny auto-routes when the Canadian airspace is involved.

Best regards,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There might be a problem with your Userdata.nav, containing allowed direct routes.

Can you unzip the attached file and place it into:

c:\public\Documents\PFPX Data\Navdata

Hi Christian,

Just tried this file with CYYT-CYYZ and I still get the following:

ZNF.R14.QY.G4.JT.BR4.YHR.RR2.YNA..ML..YOW.T616.LETAK.VIBLI2

This is with the Navigraph data which does not appear to include vector SIDS. I see that the route you get includes the CYYT4 which is a vector departure, so perhaps this is part of the issue? Anyways, as with Peter, I am getting many weird routes in Canada! I am able to build most of my routes fine manually, but It would be nice to see the autoroute functions give more reasonable results.

Regards,

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There might be a problem with your Userdata.nav, containing allowed direct routes.

Can you unzip the attached file and place it into:

c:\public\Documents\PFPX Data\Navdata

Hi Christian,

thanks a lot for the file. I just updated to 1.06 (still the long route) and then installed your file, which still resulted in (essentially) the same route.

Even before I switched to PFPX I noticed that Navigraph data in Canada are not really complete. Maybe someone from your beta team would be able to check the route with Navigraph cycles? It's just strange that we get very different routes with the same program.

Thanks and best regards,

Peter

P.S.: a small feature request for some future version: it would be great if one could configure the "c:\Users\public\Documents\PFPX Data\Navdata" directory. My C: drive is pretty full and I am always grateful if a program allows moving data to another drive. Not urgent, but it would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to see the work done by FSS team to update the program, keep it up, and thank you!

I just saw a few things, if you plan a route across the Atlantic, and you want your route to fly NATs and not random tracks, you have to quote "NO DIRECT" in your advanced flight planning window, this NO DCT is magical, i finally get regular routes now.

Still working on a few things like step climbs. I'd like to understand this "flight level restriction" function in the advanced route programming. Is it like "i don't want to go lower than this altitude" or "this is a standard altitude i want to fly" i quite don't get it as only after computing i'm allowed to see what will my perfs be.

Jonathan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jarkko,

so one correct flight plan with Aerosoft (yours) and one wrong plan with Navigraph (mine). We need

more data to see what's going wrong here. Everyone who reads this, can you please auto-create a route

CYYT to EINN and let us know

(i) if the length of the route is not much (<10%) longer than DCT, and

(ii) which AIRAC provider you use?

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...