Most are out of date? Flight planning is flight planning. As long as you keep your NavData up to date than it is all going to spit out the same thing. Even further to that point, a lot of the more serious simmers that are going to spend that kind of money on PFPX use real world routes anyway. Additionally, TOPCAT and third-party weather products will still require to be run separate from PFPX. If you want to pay 50 EUR for the convenience of not having to open a website when doing flight planning than that is certainly your business, but it still doesn't change the fact that PFPX isn't offering anything that hasn't already existed for a good amount of time now.

 

I personally have used FSBuild, TOPCAT and ActiveSky 2012 for years to do all my planning. It gives me all the weather I want, auto-generated or pre-built flightplans, dispatch sheets, time, distance and fuel remaining over each waypoint, exportable to any add-on, etc.

As stated above; take a look at the various YouTube videos and the sample briefing package available on the flightsimsoft website. You'll see why we're so anxious for this release. It's not about the separate functions but about the combination of them into a one-stop planning & dispatch solution.

I think where a possible confusion lies, is that this is not just a program to compile your flightplan. This is a dispatcher.  If youve seen Air Canada Polar Ops DVD, at the beginning is a very detailed explanation of what is involved in compiling a flightplan. Dispatchers dont go to flightaware.com or some website to copy some other  real world flight plan thats already filed. This is why if you do go there you will see multiple routes during the same period for the same departure and destination. Dispatch programs create a flightplan according to the SOP of each company and according to weather and fuel savings etc. 

 

So as I understand it, PFPX creates your flightplan realtime, real weather, and based on your aircrafts weight and fuel requirements. Real world dispatchers have taken part in this programs development, just as real world pilots test out aircraft being developed. 

 

If I have got this wrong, I apologize, but to get more info, then just go their website to understand it. 

Most are out of date?  Flight planning is flight planning.  As long as you keep your NavData up to date than it is all going to spit out the same thing.  Even further to that point, a lot of the more serious simmers that are going to spend that kind of money on PFPX use real world routes anyway.  Additionally, TOPCAT and third-party weather products will still require to be run separate from PFPX.  If you want to pay 50 EUR for the convenience of not having to open a website when doing flight planning than that is certainly your business, but it still doesn't change the fact that PFPX isn't offering anything that hasn't already existed for a good amount of time now.

 

I personally have used FSBuild, TOPCAT and ActiveSky 2012 for years to do all my planning.  It gives me all the weather I want, auto-generated or pre-built flightplans, dispatch sheets, time, distance and fuel remaining over each waypoint, exportable to any add-on, etc.

 

 

You seem to be massively underestimating PFPX.  According to you other programs on the market offer the same thing as PFPX.  So how about you plan a wind optimized route (including flight levels for wind optimization vs fuel burn) over the Atlantic with ETOPS entry, exit and ETP's + min fuel for a 1 engine diversion and landing in icing conditions and a re-dispatch en-route with your current collection of software.

 

Ill wait for your paperwork.

Most are out of date? Flight planning is flight planning. As long as you keep your NavData up to date than it is all going to spit out the same thing. Even further to that point, a lot of the more serious simmers that are going to spend that kind of money on PFPX use real world routes anyway. Additionally, TOPCAT and third-party weather products will still require to be run separate from PFPX. If you want to pay 50 EUR for the convenience of not having to open a website when doing flight planning than that is certainly your business, but it still doesn't change the fact that PFPX isn't offering anything that hasn't already existed for a good amount of time now.

 

I personally have used FSBuild, TOPCAT and ActiveSky 2012 for years to do all my planning. It gives me all the weather I want, auto-generated or pre-built flightplans, dispatch sheets, time, distance and fuel remaining over each waypoint, exportable to any add-on, etc.

The programs you are currently using (all of which I have used) simply don't compare. I suspect that people who have actually flown or been involved on the dispatch side of real world carrier ops will appreciate the difference in the level of completeness and quality. There really is nothing on the market like PFPX at the moment (although I thought Simbrief stood a chance). And combining a number of programs that each only give you a portion of what you would get in a real world release is far from optimal.

You seem to be massively underestimating PFPX.  According to you other programs on the market offer the same thing as PFPX. 

 

So how about you plan a wind optimized route (including flight levels for wind optimization vs fuel burn)

 

FSBuild has done that since it was released in 2006.

 

over the Atlantic with ETOPS entry, exit and ETP's + min fuel for a 1 engine diversion

 

Well that will vary according to the airplane and the aicrafts certified ETOPS, but FSBuild also includes currently updated NATs and PACOTS.

 

and landing in icing conditions

 

Not sure what difference that makes....  Also, it wouldn't be wise to have your primary diversion ETOPS airport also forecasting or showing ice conditions at your ETA; so I wouldn't plan for that airport anyway.

 

and a re-dispatch en-route with your current collection of software.

 

Just update your flight plan in FSBuild with the diversion airport and it recalculates the route from any airport you'd like.

The programs you are currently using (all of which I have used) simply don't compare. I suspect that people who have actually flown or been involved on the dispatch side of real world carrier ops will appreciate the difference in the level of completeness and quality. There really is nothing on the market like PFPX at the moment (although I thought Simbrief stood a chance). And combining a number of programs that each only give you a portion of what you would get in a real world release is far from optimal.

 

I do fly in the real world but I don't fly across the ocean.  That must be the part I'm missing.  FSBuild also spits out a crap-ton of dispatch sheets.  More than I care to ever read, honestly.

 

 

FSBuild has done that since it was released in 2006.

 

FSBuild calculates the route then applies the highest flight level for the aircraft then only after all that uses the wind to determine fuel burn. 

 

 

 

Well that will vary according to the airplane and the aicrafts certified ETOPS, but FSBuild also includes currently updated NATs and PACOTS.

 

Well PFPX finds all those points for the aircraft it supports.  Also NATS and PACOTS have nothing to do with ETOPS.

 

 

 

Not sure what difference that makes.... Also, it wouldn't be wise to have your primary diversion ETOPS airport also forecasting or showing ice conditions at your ETA; so I wouldn't plan for that airport anyway.

 

Better not plan on flying across the Atlantic during the winter or good luck finding alternates that wont require having the anti-ice on.

FSBuild has done that since it was released in 2006.

 

Are you sure?  I have never used FSBuild personally, but no one I have ever talked to has stated this to be true.  To be clear, we're not talking about calculating fuel/time differences based on winds aloft.  We are talking about the program effectively creating flight plan A and flight plan B and picking the one with more favorable winds (greater tailwind or smaller headwind).  It's actually much more complicated than just picking the better of two routes, but this can make a huge difference in transoceanic flights.  Across the Atlantic, being just a little further north or south can take you into or out of the Jetstream.  Depending which direction you're going, this can make a huge difference either with a favorable tailwind (eastbound) or negative with a strong headwind (westbound).  It can make 30+ minute flight time differences and the associated fuel.

 

Well that will vary according to the airplane and the aicrafts certified ETOPS, but FSBuild also includes currently updated NATs and PACOTS.

 

Well, the planning doesn't really vary by aircraft.  The certification varies by aircraft, but once an aircraft is ETOPS 120, 180, etc, it's all the same.  NAT and PACOT are simply standardized routing.  There is a substantial amount of additional planning required.  You need to know your entry/exit points where are you are now >60 minutes over water.  These determine when ETOPS procedures start including position reporting, APU on/off for some aircraft, and diversion rules.  Your equal time points (ETP) are simple in concept, but when you can be 3 hours from your closest alternate, you really need to know when you switch your enroute alternates.  There are also much different fuel requirements for ETOPs operations which require higher reserves and the ability to make your 3+ hour flight to the alternate at 10K feet, depressurized and on 1 engine.

 

Not sure what difference that makes...

 

Different fuel planning under ETOPs operations, also different reserve and alternate planning in some aviation governing bodies.

 

Just update your flight plan in FSBuild with the diversion airport and it recalculates the route from any airport you'd like.

 

That's not what redispatch is.  Redispatch is a way of lowering ETOPs reserves which can become quite a substantial amount of weight at 10% of your total fuel load (can be 30,000+ lbs depending on the aircraft).  The flight is filed as a domestic flight to an airport near the ETOPs entry point.  Any reserve fuel for this portion of the flight is readily covered by the additional fuel onboard for the rest of the planned route.  The flight is then filed from in the air over that domestic destination airport ("redispatched") to proceed over the ocean and to it's final destination.  This ultimately means only from Gander or Shanwick is the 10% ETOPs reserve needed and no reserve is needed for the initial segment (well, technically it's needed, but is covered by fuel intended to be used in flight on the rest of the route).  It doesn't make much difference if you're leaving from Gander or Shanwick, but if you're crossing the pond from ORD with ~1,000 NM to your entry point, this can be a lot of fuel burned by this point in your flight that isn't subject to the 10% ETOPs rule.

Edit:  Oh well... it seems people are just trying to find minute details in which to support their decision-making in favor of PFPX.  I'm not going to turn this into me defending numerous flight planning programs when it is clear everyones' mind is already made up; such as planning ETOPS ETPs within 1 second or a bunch of 'what if, then this, then that' scenarios.

 

If you want to pay 50 EUR for convenience of having to not open a few websites or get full utilization of current programs than that is your decision.

I'm honestly surprised that so many people are up-in-arms about PFPX. For those of us that have been in the flight sim community for any amount of time (which is practically everyone here) have more than likely already purchased one or multiple payware products to do everything that PFPX has to offer. PFPX isn't doing anything that other payware providers (and some freeware) hasn't already done. They're just reinventing the wheel.... and charging 50 EUR for it.

 

Trust me, PFPX does a lot more than any product we currently have for flight simulator on terms of planning. Nothing goes as deep as this product, trust me I know first hand.

Edit:  Oh well... it seems people are just trying to find minute details in which to support their decision-making in favor of PFPX.  I'm not going to turn this into me defending numerous flight planning programs when it is clear everyones' mind is already made up.

 

If you want to pay 50 EUR for convenience of having to not open a few websites or get full utilization of current programs than that is your decision.

 

 

If that was the case i would agree with you.  But you are ignoring the info just presented to you above   there are things PFPX does that  you cant get anywhere else.  Using other programs (like FSBuild) wouldn't get you the info you needed to make a legal ETOPS flight.  If you don't care about that and just want fuel for your flight plus a little reserve keep using FSBuild.  However in many situations the fuel FSBuild spits out will most likely be less then the proper legal fuel you would be required to carry in the real world.  And you will have no idea when you are entering ETOPS airspace.

 

But if that's how you want to fly I'm not here to force you to buy PFPX.  However as i see it, we spend $70-80 on a super realistic airplane, $30 for every airport. But our paperwork and flight planning has been far below realistic levels.  Im happy to spend $60 on software ill use every flight AND that brings me to a realistic simulation of the real world.

Edit:  Oh well... it seems people are just trying to find minute details in which to support their decision-making in favor of PFPX.  I'm not going to turn this into me defending numerous flight planning programs when it is clear everyones' mind is already made up; such as planning ETOPS ETPs within 1 second or a bunch of 'what if, then this, then that' scenarios.

 

If you want to pay 50 EUR for convenience of having to not open a few websites or get full utilization of current programs than that is your decision.

There is "As Real as it Gets," and "As Real as I Care to Get." Those of us looking forward to PFPX are in the first camp.

 

--Except I do occassionally have a scotch (or three) while flying. Shhhhh.

Really, a pis**** contest to justify to one user the merits of PFPX over FSBuild?

 

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

Really, a pis**** contest to justify to one user the merits of PFPX over FSBuild?

 

Yep.  Here we go again with another thread where it becomes about what one person thinks everyone should or shouldn't be doing.  Just because you don't want to be ultra-realistic, doesn't mean someone else doesn't want to.  And, just because "As real as I care to get" isn't "as real as it gets" for you, doesn't mean that's right either.  Everyone has their own personal definition of what's real and/or other constraints(money, time, etc) that define the level of what's real or "real enough" for them.

 

I can't wait for this because I want to learn to get closer to what happens in the real world.  I, for a long time, didn't care that much and just wanted to go from A to B somewhat realistically.  But, the more I'm learning about all of this and the more high definition aircraft we have out there, the more it's driving me to simulate the real world as close as possible.  But, this is not for everyone.  I know, I was there for most of my FS life.  All I cared about was flying around to different parts of the world and that was it.

The issue IMHO (for me at least) is trying to gauge if a FC9 owner like me would benefit form this.

Nowhere in this thread did I say FSBuild could do everything.

 

There is "As Real as it Gets," and "As Real as I Care to Get." Those of us looking forward to PFPX are in the first camp.

 

That would be true if most people actually knew what was "real" and what wasn't; as opposed to saying "Well I read it on the internet and the software gave me this number so it must be true."  Oh well, I digress...

Yep.  Here we go again with another thread where it becomes about what one person thinks everyone should or shouldn't be doing.

 

If that is the conclusion you came to than you didn't comprehend what the last few posts were about.