etopsbr 16 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 After the update I'm having this problem in all my 777 fleet. Any hints? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omera60 79 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What problem, you didn't state any problem in your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emi 5161 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 He posted a screenshot. It seems to be a technical problem though, so you'd get quickest support contacting Flight Sim Soft directly over their ticketsystem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlightSimSoft.com 283 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Which performance file do you use - it seems not to be a default PFPX file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etopsbr 16 Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 Which performance file do you use - it seems not to be a default PFPX file. Hi, I downloaded it in the aerosoft library. http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/3074-pfpx-boeing-777-performance-profiles-pack-part-two/ It worked fine till this update.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcam427 138 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 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 More sharing options...
FlightSimSoft.com 283 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 We recognized that the performance files provided by third-party developers does not entirely fit PFPX file format specifications. The good news is that we´ve now been able to find a workaround to make them work. A hotfix is planned for tomorrow. Brgds, Judith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyPrecisely 124 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 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 More sharing options...
richcam427 138 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 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 More sharing options...
FlyPrecisely 124 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 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 More sharing options...
FlightSimSoft.com 283 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 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 More sharing options...
FlyPrecisely 124 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 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 More sharing options...
FlightSimSoft.com 283 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Yes, with the latest hotfix this has been fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyPrecisely 124 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Yes, with the latest hotfix this has been fixed. Wonderful present for the year 2015. Thank you very much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.