If you're going to refer to the manual, please do it correctly:

Where did you get the manual from?

manual is here:

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/68662-preview-pfpx-professional-flight-planner-x/page-6#entry513954

Not to criticize, but I notice that a lot of posters in this thread are PMDG supporters. And how long has the 777 been "in production?"  I know PMDG's reputation, and I am patiently awaiting the release of this great aircraft. But what about this flight-planning software? I'm sure it's going to be a great addition to the realism structure, but how long has it been "promised?" If we can wait for the Triple-7 seemingly forever, what's waiting for PFPX? Can we fly without it? I can - there is a plethora of flight-planning apps out there, and I will continue to use them until PFPX is released. JUst like I'm flying the 737NGX while I'm waiting for the 777.

 

Patience, my friends.

I've only briefly skimmed through the manual.  I use AS2012, so personally the winds and METARs aren't much of a concern.  However, if I am going to cross the pond, or the lake (Pacific), I will need a source of the tracks.  Did anyone else notice in selecting where to get the tracks from there was an option to load from disk?  I wonder if for people like myself who don't do oceanic flights all that often if we could download these and process them in to a .txt or similar file?  As far as I'm aware, NATs are published online for free (can anyone tell me where, that I don't know) and perhaps with a simple program could be processed in to whatever .txt file is needed.  For those who do this more frequently, I suppose that would defeat purpose of a one stop program.

 

Of course, for a reasonable subscription fee (up to 10, maybe 15 euro), I could consider the server cost reasonable.  I sure hope it won't cost more than 25% of the initial program cost!  I'm sure the many Opus users would consider that if Opus doesn't get it's initial support from PFPX.  If Opus ever starts working again for me, I'll even consider switching back, but as it stands it doesn't give me accurate real world weather at the destination (the whole point) and I haven't gotten much help from support.

Completely unwarranted: that info is already paid for a thousand over by the airlines...but not the developer's fault. Equally offensive is being charged for AIRAC updates for the same reasons.

As far as AIRAC data, that does NOT just magically appear each month. Both Navigraph and Aerosoft, the two main providers of Nav data to the FS community, have to pay the commercial sources for that data - they don't get it for free. Then, as others have pointed out, they have to convert the base data files into the dozens of different formats used by the various FS add-ons, provide servers and hosting for the files so that they can be downloaded by end users etc. All of this costs money.

 

Yet, you find it "offensive" that the FS Nav data providers charge what is frankly a very modest monthly fee. Let me ask you - why should they NOT charge such fees. They are expending time and money to create these data files and make them available.

 

How would you feel if your employer told you that he found it "offensive" that you actually expect to get a paycheck for the work you do each week?I don't think you would find that a justifiable attitude, would you?

 

I am speaking here specifically of AIRAC Nav data. As far as I can see regarding the PFPX server subscription for weather data - no purchaser of PFPX is going to have to pay for a subscription for one full year after initial purchase, and even then, it would be an option, as it appears that PFPX can import wx data from other popular add-on weather programs.

As far as AIRAC data, that does NOT just magically appear each month. Both Navigraph and Aerosoft, the two main providers of Nav data to the FS community, have to pay the commercial sources for that data - they don't get it for free. Then, as others have pointed out, they have to convert the base data files into the dozens of different formats used by the various FS add-ons, provide servers and hosting for the files so that they can be downloaded by end users etc. All of this costs money.

 

Yet, you find it "offensive" that the FS Nav data providers charge what is frankly a very modest monthly fee. Let me ask you - why should they NOT charge such fees. They are expending time and money to create these data files and make them available.

 

How would you feel if your employer told you that he found it "offensive" that you actually expect to get a paycheck for the work you do each week?I don't think you would find that a justifiable attitude, would you?

 

I am speaking here specifically of AIRAC Nav data. As far as I can see regarding the PFPX server subscription for weather data - no purchaser of PFPX is going to have to pay for a subscription for one full year after initial purchase, and even then, it would be an option, as it appears that PFPX can import wx data from other popular add-on weather programs.

I'm actually amazed at how little the FS navdata suppliers charge when you consider how much the bloody databases cost in real life!

I'm actually amazed at how little the FS navdata suppliers charge when you consider how much the bloody databases cost in real life!

Indeed! Our company, (part 135 charter) has 17 aircraft, and even with a "volume" discount, worldwide nav data subscriptions from Jeppesen run $5,500 per year, PER AIRCRAFT. This data is

The subscription is fine for me, y'all should see the price of nav data, and the cost of keeping a server running for people to constantly download weather, tracks, notams etc from isn't free. We don't know what the subscription will be, could be €4-5, no big deal. It's not necessary if you use a weather add-on program, and even if you dont' it's still not necessary, just nice to have.

 

Regards,
Ró.

Completely unwarranted: that info is already paid for a thousand over by the airlines...but not the developer's fault. Equally offensive is being charged for AIRAC updates for the same reasons.

Of course it should cost money, incredible statement, I can't even take it seriously. Every service that offer any kind of value should be paid for by the party that accept to utilize the service, thus gaining from the value offered. Anything else would be offensive...

 

When that's said, over to something that actually is interesting:

 

As I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the major weather engines like Opus, AS and FSGRW all have their own servers, they acquire weather data from many different sources, compile and "render" the data as they see fit, and push them on to our simulator.

 

If this is correct, the weather we get from either of these engines will never exactly match eachother, or for that matter the original sources, as there will always be "algorithms" / interpretation between the pure NOAA or METAR, or whatever, and the depiction we get in our sim.

 

So, if for example I use FSGRW and PFPX, I will most likely experience some differences in weather when I fly, than what weather PFPX predicts.

 

If I am correct in my reasoning so far, wouldn't it be best to have PFPX using a weather file from my weather program?

I will be buying PFPX on "D-Day". As to the "subscription" fee, I am almost certaian that I'll be paying for that, despite having AS2012 and OPUS FX on my rig. It's simply a matter of choice with regards to flexibility.

Of course it should cost money, incredible statement, I can't even take it seriously. Every service that offer any kind of value should be paid for by the party that accept to utilize the service, thus gaining from the value offered. Anything else would be offensive...

 

When that's said, over to something that actually is interesting:

 

As I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the major weather engines like Opus, AS and FSGRW all have their own servers, they acquire weather data from many different sources, compile and "render" the data as they see fit, and push them on to our simulator.

 

If this is correct, the weather we get from either of these engines will never exactly match eachother, or for that matter the original sources, as there will always be "algorithms" / interpretation between the pure NOAA or METAR, or whatever, and the depiction we get in our sim.

 

So, if for example I use FSGRW and PFPX, I will most likely experience some differences in weather when I fly, than what weather PFPX predicts.

 

If I am correct in my reasoning so far, wouldn't it be best to have PFPX using a weather file from my weather program?

Opus downloads METAR data directly from NOAA. It also downloads forecasted upper winds and temperatures worldwide in GRIB (gridded binary) format directly from NOAA. These GRIB files are generated several times per day, and are part of the output of a large numerical forecast computer model known as "GFS".

 

In the case of OPUS, the raw NOAA GRIB winds and temperature files are decoded within the OPUS weather engine itself, on the end-user's own computer, then injected into FSX. In other words, OPUS does not depend on any external server operated by the program's developer - it gets its data straight from the original source (NOAA) .

 

Opus should continue working even if the developer dropped off of the face of the earth tomorrow - until or unless such time that NOAA decides to restrict public access to its weather servers. I don't think NOAA itself has any desire to do that - but with the intense pressure in the U.S. congress to cut spending to the bone - NOAA's extensive, freely-accessible (but tax-supported) data resources might someday be cut back - or made available only by subscription

 

Both Active Sky, and FSGRW operate their own data servers. I am sure that these servers ingest weather data from the aforementioned NOAA sources, and perhaps from many other sources as well. Specifically in the case of FSGRW, I have reason to think that they may be extracting quite a bit more data from the GFS computer forecast model than JUST winds and temps aloft. The GFS contains an enormous amount of data relating to moisture and clouds aloft, turbulence, etc that may well give FSGRW an edge in their program - especially in areas with little or no METAR coverage.

 

Both ASE and FSGRW do most of the "heavy lifting" in terms of data processing on their own servers, then output on-demand weather files to their client programs running at the user end. Only problem with that model is that it depends on the continued presence of the developers to keep the servers running. If the developers were someday to go out of business, it would make their programs instantly useless. HiFi has continually supported Active Sky weather servers for many years, and I have no reason to think they are going anywhere - and the developers of FSGRW have been in business for quite some time as well - specializing (up to now) in terrain mesh products.

 

I have never used REX, so do not know how their weather data is delivered.

Of course it should cost money, incredible statement, I can't even take it seriously. Every service that offer any kind of value should be paid for by the party that accept to utilize the service, thus gaining from the value offered. Anything else would be offensive...

 

When that's said, over to something that actually is interesting:

 

As I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the major weather engines like Opus, AS and FSGRW all have their own servers, they acquire weather data from many different sources, compile and "render" the data as they see fit, and push them on to our simulator.

 

If this is correct, the weather we get from either of these engines will never exactly match eachother, or for that matter the original sources, as there will always be "algorithms" / interpretation between the pure NOAA or METAR, or whatever, and the depiction we get in our sim.

 

So, if for example I use FSGRW and PFPX, I will most likely experience some differences in weather when I fly, than what weather PFPX predicts.

 

If I am correct in my reasoning so far, wouldn't it be best to have PFPX using a weather file from my weather program?

 

You are correct that no two weather programs will match each other (or at very unlikely to) down to the last detail.  I believe the issue though is less the algorithms for compiling the sources of weather and more the methods they use coax FSX into representing that weather.  FSX itself seems prone to very abrupt wind changes, cloud changes, etc.  I can't answer exactly why this is, but each program has a method for attempting to smooth the wind changes (wind in particular) as well as others.  It is this post-processing that creates the differences.  OpusFSX is the most pure of these, with the intent being to simply download the real weather for each station near you.  Then in theory any abrupt changes are as seen in real life as well.  Alas, this isn't fool proof and even they need to include options for some wind smooth.

 

 

Of course it should cost money, incredible statement, I can't even take it seriously.

 

Curious...but best left alone.  We will never agree.  Cheers.

Will opus work with PFPX or are they still in negotiation?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

But you're still going to have people on vatsim trying to fly the westbounds tracks at 0300z , the eastbounds at 1100z on the nat tracks from 2 weeks ago with a flightplan that was run and  based on winds from 2 weeks ago.

Well if a controller was online, they should simply issue a re-clearance for the appropriate route.

 

If there is no controller online, who really gives a toss what the other pilot is doing...Just let them do their thing. Does someone filing a wrong route when your not the controller really play on your concious that much? If im the controller and there is a pilot with a stupid route, yeah I get a bit worked up cause I have to get the right one for him, but if theres someone on the otherside of the world with a wrong route I really couldn't care less.