Jump to content

Problem 777 v1.17


Recommended Posts

I can confirm this. It seems the latest update absolutely broke everything. None of the 777 profiles by FlyPrecisely work anymore. It's giving me errors when trying to plan EHAM-TNCM with the B77L that the fuel required exceeds capacity. I think the B77L has a *slightly* longer range than that. :/

If there was a way I could go back to 1.15, I would. That was the last version that didn't have so many issues it seems. Very disappointed with the latest updates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can confirm this. It seems the latest update absolutely broke everything. None of the 777 profiles by FlyPrecisely work anymore. It's giving me errors when trying to plan EHAM-TNCM with the B77L that the fuel required exceeds capacity. I think the B77L has a *slightly* longer range than that. :/

If there was a way I could go back to 1.15, I would. That was the last version that didn't have so many issues it seems. Very disappointed with the latest updates.

1. After adding any of the aircraft with my profile (or changing any part of airframe specific data) you have to reboot PFPX. Only after this action the calculations will be applied without any bugs.

I've tested my profiles on different versions before uploading, but not on 1.17 though.

2. The problem appears to be in PFPX itself.

3. My topic and my e-mail are open for any bugreports and problems with my profiles. I've done large work with the data and entirely responsible for it.

Kind regards

Mykyta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. After adding any of the aircraft with my profile (or changing any part of airframe specific data) you have to reboot PFPX. Only after this action the calculations will be applied without any bugs.

I've tested my profiles on different versions before uploading, but not on 1.17 though.

2. The problem appears to be in PFPX itself.

3. My topic and my e-mail are open for any bugreports and problems with my profiles. I've done large work with the data and entirely responsible for it.

Kind regards

Mykyta

Of course I rebooted PFPX after adding your profiles, but it seems the issue still persists. I'll try once again to confirm, however.

I wasn't suggesting the profiles you made were to blame because I'm 110% sure they worked perfectly before the 1.17 update.

By the way, 100% off topic, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done with the profiles you have made. You've done a great job on all of them, and they've come in handy when PFPX works right. Two thumbs up man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I rebooted PFPX after adding your profiles, but it seems the issue still persists. I'll try once again to confirm, however.

By the way, 100% off topic, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done with the profiles you have made. You've done a great job on all of them, and they've come in handy when PFPX works right. Two thumbs up man.

Thank you. I'm glad that my work wasn't done in vain. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical background: The 'third-party-addons' were indeed working in earlier version, but had a significant error. If ISA deviation tables were available in the performance file, PFPX always used the lowest ISA values given in these tables, irrespective of actual ISA deviation. This behaviour was corrected in v1.17. However, some of the mentioned performance files contained a specific ISA deviation for a given speed schedule, but did not for another one. This confuses PFPX 1.17. We've now been able to fix this issue, which is already available in the Hotfix (1.17.5)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian, does it mean that ISA deviation is correct now (with speeds and fuel burn)?

Technical background from my side. I use two scenerios for ISA deviation in all-engine mode as applicable to PFPX from default profiles examples.

1. ISA and fuel burn corrections are given as increments. I use it when the maximum and optimum altitudes don't change with ISA deviation (generally these are powerful aircrafts like B767-300ER, 777-300ER as given in Boeing FPPM).
2. Separate ISA deviation with increments applied because the opt and max altitude change with ISA+15 and ISA+20 (Boeing fleet). I take -20, -10, ISA, +10, +15 and +20 deviations on Boeing fleet.

I don't mix both of these scenarios altogether in one profile. Only one of them is used.

Engine out data is always based on various ISA deviations (the hotter is air, the lower is altitude).

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...