Situation:Flight LSZB-EKCX 579NM (FSBuild planning)PMDG 737-700, 128 passenger on board in mixed configuration 23040lbsBaggage 3902lbs (1952lbs fwd cargo, 1950 aft cargo)Cruising Altitude FL310Headwind 20ktsUsing 737NG Fuel Planner I obtained the following calculation:Trip Distance 600NMAlternate 200NMHeadwind 20kts (from ActiveSky Evolution)WCA 32NMTotal NAM 632NMPax+Cargo 26942lbsAlternate Fuel 3300lbsHolding fuel (30min) 2600lbsMin Landing Fuel 2600lbsEnroute Fuel Burn 8111lbsTaxi fuel 550 (about 7min)Total fuel at taxi 17161lbsThe problem is that at the end of the flight (5 minutes taxi 1h 40min of flight and 3 or 4 min taxi to the parking area) when I checked the fuel quantity I found that the aircraft burnt about 2200lbs more fuel than expected.It's not the first time that I notice this discrepancy from the calculated fuel and the real consumption at the end of the flight.I tried to compare the data calculated with the program with those indicated in the PMDG manual and there are not substantial differencies.I also followed the indication about the speed used to calculate the table in the PMDG manual without results.Is there anything I did not understand or I forgot?

Are you following your fuel burn as you fly? Are you taking off above min fuel?Ideally, you should touch down pretty much when you hit your reserve fuel + any extra you loaded.

Headwind 20kts

Andrea,I couldn't find EKCX (with Google). Can you please confirm? And maybe you could detail your flight plan since I find no airport in Denmark 600 nm in a straight line from Bern? I supposed you used real airways.I don't use FS Build so I can't compare but with the good old FS Navigator and my own (still perfectible) settings for climb, cruise and descent fuel consumptions, and using LSZB-EKRK (Copenhagen) in a straight line (no airways) I find : flying distance (no wind) : 548 nm and En Route Fuel Burn of approx 7400 lbs (no wind), which isn't very far from your values (for a distance simitar to the one you indicated (600 nm), I find 7900 lbs wich is close to your value.Also, just for information, what kind of weather setting did you use (real-time weather update or fixed setting)?and did you monitor en-route winds?BrunoPS : I suppose you flew your FMS flight plan and didn't follow the very unrealistic approach that MSFS ATC proposes. MSFS ATC has a tendency to take you all around the country if you follow it. Since you are at low altitude, fuel usage is not good. (I suppose you know all that so sorry if I am boring you...)

Dear fellow pilotsWe all do our research in the 737-cockpit, on ground and in the air. - PMDG-simulations have a considerable amount of complexity and realism built in.....But, can anyone explain me why TOGA is activated by that ridiculous SCREW/RIVET.........?!I'm confident someone has the answer...Thank you for your replyBMW, Switzerland

Dear fellow pilotsWe all do our research in the 737-cockpit, on ground and in the air. - PMDG-simulations have a considerable amount of complexity and realism built in.....But, can anyone explain me why TOGA is activated by that ridiculous SCREW/RIVET.........?!I'm confident someone has the answer...Thank you for your replyBMW, Switzerland

Because when the original NG was developed for FS2002, most folks flew using 2D panels and this was a quick short cut so you didn't have to bring other 2D windows up for takeoff or GA. :(