Hi all! first post on the PIC forum.I have been doing a few flights with PIC and PmFlightPlanner. I always however end up with burning far less fuel than the plan says, and was wondering if there is any way, via the CFG files that I can tweak the fuel burn rate?Thanks!

In the beginning of PIC there were extensive discussions (and even controlled testflight scenario's by Eric Ernst himself) about the fuel consumption. Conclusion: it's as close as you can get.However, by changing the fuel_flow_scalar= in the aircraft.cfg file you can play with the fuel consumption.Kind regards,Stephan Haas

Thanks very much! I found out 1.3 does the job, and I can get almost exact consumptions with this figure.Cheers.

Now that you have changed the fuel consumption, you may want to consider what else it will affect in terms of the way the aircraft performs in the air and on the ground. This issue has been discussed several times in this forum, the PIC767 designers have given the rationale behind the fuel burn rates and the basic suggestion was to leave it alone as so many other factors are affected by the fuel flow.I suggest you put it back where it was, but it's your money. If you want something other than the original product, that is your choice.Rob.

ACA, all I have done is aligned the fuel burn with what I think is very close to what I get in the real world, and also with pm flight planner, data taken from the Eurocontrol database.I don't see why you should be so upset?Also, how on earth does adjusting the fuel burn affect the performance of the aircraft?!I'm happy with the modification I made, I get +/- 0.3 T with all the estimates now, unlike +/- 5.0T over like before! I have just done a long flight in PIC, an ATE of 9:51 and the fuel burn was 0.2 T under...pretty good mod wouldn't you think?A "Happy with his mod", robP.s - don't know about you, but I don't have to pay for virtual fuel :>:>:> Re: comment "It's your money" ????

I only get upset when people mess with the perfection that is PIC767. It is like a religious thing for me ;-) Maybe we could tweak the King James Bible to suit the Arch Bishop of Canterbury's desire to have ******* narrowly escape dearh...not a great analogy I suppose :-) If you don't understand why/how adjusting the fuel burn affects the aircraft perfromance, then I suggest you do some more searching on this forum as that exact topic has been discussed by people who know what they are doing - (including the PIC team designers) and the consensus was that the fuel burn was as close as it can be in the air and on the ground.I don't want to debate flight times and fuel burn figures with you, but I can tell you that the PIC is very close to reality, a little on the lean side, but very close. I have done many long and short hops over the last 2 years comparing to real flight plans...she is very close."Your money" - refers to the purchase of a product which you wish to tamper with and make it into something other than original. It's like buying a Bentley and putting a Jaguar carburetor in it so the fuel burn is more to your liking ;-)Personally, I don't care if you tamper with your flight performance via fuel burn, it's your PC and your simulation experience...just be aware that adjusting the fuel burn will affect the performance of the aircraft making for less than the designers (including a 767 pilot) had intended.End of Rant.Rob

Shouldn't we tamper with the rant_scalar as well? :-lolKind regards,Stephan Haas

Adjusting the rant_scalar is too unpredictable in terms of spin-off/spillover affects....I could snap at any time and they will have to take me away...Adjust all the scalars you want at your own risk, but understand that it will result in a less than original product...and down the airway when you find she won't climb, or climbs too much, or burns too much on the ground or won't start properly, or burns less than 1400 lbs/hour/engine at idle, or the burn in the climb is too much/little...and so on, and so on....then you will only have yourself to blame. The 'tweakers' of the world will always fiddle with things and spend most of their time re-formatting their HD or re-installing everything...sometimes they get results, but mostly they waste their own time...as long as they are having fun I suppose is all that matters ;-)Rob.

Rob,That's why I suggested to leave it alone. But ......... if someone really wants to redo Eric's work, well, who am I not to point him in the right (which is the wrong) direction? Kind regards,Stephan Haas

Hahaha, I laugh at what you guys say. All about tampering, bentleys with jaguars.Then why did you all use POSKY 767 with PIC? Why did you all go for a PIC landing VFR view, why complain about the zoom setting? Trust, 767PIC is a lot different now than what it used to be, hardly anyone is using the origrinal AIR/CFG files it was developed with.I think I just excreted on your bonfire to put it nicely.P.S - don't rant about fuel burn in a 767, in the real world to me, hint hint. You'll catch up sooner or later my friend.

>hardly anyone is using the origrinal AIR/CFG >files it was developed with. I plead guilty - I do !I just don't trust people who are not 767 rated to make any modifications to it. On the other hand I do use better thrust reverse sounds, better (landing view), marker sounds and better outside visuals (Posky) simply because these features were among those that were considered by the original 767PIC team to add realism/value to the product.Michael J.

--You are laughing at me??...ok, whatever makes you smile."Then why did you all use POSKY 767 with PIC? Why did you all go for a PIC landing VFR view, why complain about the zoom setting? Trust, 767PIC is a lot different now than what it used to be, hardly anyone is using the origrinal AIR/CFG files it was developed with."--umm, afraid you could not be more wrong...the POSKY aircraft merge, VFR landing view, and zoom settings do NOTHING to affect the simulated perforance of the aircraft. Most, if not all competant PIC users are indeed using the original AIR file, the aircraft config file modifications by Lee H do NOT affect the AIR file / performance...so the original performance as intended by the designers is 100% in tact...unless you do something dumb, for example tampering with the fuel flow."P.S - don't rant about fuel burn in a 767, in the real world to me, hint hint. You'll catch up sooner or later my friend."-- You seem very arrogant, and obviously you are mis-informed about what will and will-not affect the performance of the PIC aircraft in the virtual world. Tweak away, I could care less. My original intent was to save you headaches down the road after tampering with the fuel flow and who knows what else. This has already been done by several others who, in my experience, ended up looking to restore the original settings...but don't worry, 'you'll catch up sooner or later'.--Obviously you are a PIC767 expert, and a 767 real world expert, so I will refrain from replying to your posts as there is nothing I can tell you that you don't already know.

Rob (856)Let this one go. Your attempt to toss some caution to changing the fuel scalar has obviously been misunderstood as a hostile attack. As you know, I have been testing and modifying my little personal fuel calculator on dozens of flights for two weeks now. I am no where close to being convinced it is (+ or -) accurate to anything yet. If Rusty can make that call in less than 24 hours with specific ZFWs and engines, let him tweak away because he is faster, smarter, and a lot more experienced than the both of us.

Well said Mike - you are the calm voice of reason I need to let it go.Gone ;-)Rob.

I wasn't relating to performance, when I was talking about PIC merge, VFR landing view etc, etc. I was relating to the fact that you mentioned:"but understand that it will result in a less than original product""I only get upset when people mess with the perfection that is PIC767"BTW, Just did a flight with my scalar-adjusted PIC flight, with a real flight plan from yesterday. Here are some figures for you:Real world figures:Cost index: 64Cruise Alt: FL370Duration: 2:13ISA Deviation: ISA + 4*C at FL370 (or if you prefer, JSA + 3*C)ZFW: 129.6TTOW: 145.1TLAW: 135.5TBURN: 9.6TEngines: GERecreated flight in 767PIC with adjusted fuel burn scalar:Cost index: 64Cruise Alt: FL370Duration: 2:09FSMETEO weather was used, downloaded history for the actual flight.ZFW: 129.6TTOW: 145.1TLAW: 135.3TBURN: 9.8T (+0.2T over real burn).Engines: GEThe extra 200kgs fuel burn, I assume came from messing about at the destination, which didn't happen in the real event. I set the ZFW using the 767PIC Weight Change (Avail from BAV speedbirdonline site).ACA, I respect your "religion", but I am happy, you should be happy for me. I have in my mind a more realisitc fuel burn.Tonight, I will set the sim to do a flight to MMUN, Cancun. Which also took place about 1 month ago, I still have the plans somewhere. I think FSMETEO can data that far back, not sure.I will post the results tomorow.Meanwhile, simmer down.