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

 

What didn't I comprehend?

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

 

 

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...

 

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

I think you stopped listening a few posts back, maybe you should walk away, as this soon to be released Dispatcher" software is certainly not your cup of tea.

Greg, in other places you would have been labeled a troll with post #1 in this thread. You discount a piece of software that isn't even released yet and you are attempting to push another piece of software down everyone's throat. Most veterans here are quite aware of what that other program can do or not do.

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.

 

It comes down to how real you want things.  Honestly, the difference between the CS and PMDG 777 really comes down to details.  Ultimately both look like a 777 and generally speaking fly.  However, for many, the details of the systems matter.  While some care only about the aircraft, others want similar details in other add-ons.  There are people who fault FSDT's beautiful sceneries because a single taxiway is out of date and there are those of us who want the details in flight planning.  For others, it's unnecessary and I agree in those cases that I would not recommend spending the money on PFPX when you can get some watered down equivalents for free, much less what is available as payware.

 

 

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...

 

It's funny that you make this argument when you speak of FSBuild's redispatch capability without knowing what resdispatch means.

Greg, in other places you would have been labeled a troll with post #1 in this thread. You discount a piece of software that isn't even released yet and you are attempting to push another piece of software down everyone's throat. Most veterans here are quite aware of what that other program can do or not do.

Exactly, I've been using fs build, fsc9, etc for a very long time and I'm looking forward to what pfpx has to offer.

Exactly, I've been using fs build, fsc9, etc for a very long time and I'm looking forward to what pfpx has to offer.

 

Same, keeping my eyes open on this.

 

On the other hand, IMHO, "troll" is one of the most overused labels on the net.

 

 

"troll" is one of the most overused labels on the net.

 

OK, semi-troll.

So we can't use our proper weather program but you need a subscription, the first year is free, then you pay well they know how to squeeze.

I really hope that Opus and all Weather software can be used in the future.

 

PFPX comes with an initial, world-wide navigation data set containing
airports, navaids, waypoints and airways. Navigational Databases are
updated every 28 days to incorporate changes in navigational facilities.
These updates are called Navdata Cycles.
Cycles are designated by their year of release and sequential number
(e.g.: Cycle 1309 would mean the 9th cycle in 2013).
Regular Nav-Database updates are available from third-party providers
like Aerosoft (www.aerosoft.de) and Navigraph (www.navigraph.com).
Weather, Winds, NOTAMs and Tracks
Some data is accessible from the PFPX data server and therefore requires
an active internet connection. This data consist of:
• Airport Weather (METAR) and Forecasts (TAF)
• Accurate Upper Wind Forecast Model
• Notices to Airman (NOTAMs)
• North Atlantic Tracks (NATs), Pacific Organised Tracks (PACOTs)
and Australian Organised Tracks (AUSOTs)
As this produces a quite high amount of server load a subscription is
required. When initially activating your PFPX license, a 365 day server
subscription is automatically activated.
By obtaining a Coupon Code, a server subscription can be extended.

Since when is PFPX requireing a subscription (other than navdata)? Is this the truth coming from the developers or somewhere else? I'm not interested in subscriptions. If this is true it ###### me off because they are telling us this now one week before the release.

It's straight from the PFPX manual.

 

Can someone tell me which of this data is not available for free?

 

The disappointments never seem to end with PFPX...

Yes, the surprise subscription is very disappointing.  No one on the official forums seems to be willing to comment on how much the subscription will cost.  For a few dollars a year, it may be reasonable.  The funny thing is Pierre, the main moderator, on the PFPX forums seems to be truly unaware of this subscription fee as well.

 

The understanding on the PFPX forums has been that this subscription fee may not be required if you're using AS or equivalent weather programs, as PFPX will pull the data from them.  At this point, I'd just like to hear them say how much this subscription will cost.

it can be the best flightplanning software in the world, with wonder etp data for a possible "virtual divert"

 

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.

 

and a "dispatcher" in the UK  is completely different to a dispatcher in the USA by the way. a dispatcher in the UK wont do the flightplanning, the airline office staff will.

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

 

Actual quote:

The Weather tab allows you to choose preferred weather source and

settings. You can choose between the following options:

• Online will automatically download current winds, METARs and TAFs from weather server (Requires PFPX Server Subscription)
• File load weather from previously saved weather file
• ActiveSky Use ActiveSky weather (requires ‘current_wx_snapshot.txt’ and ‘wx_station_list.txt’ files)
• REX Use Real Environment Extreme (REX) weather (requires ‘metar_report.xml’ file)
• Component allows filling in wind component and ISA Deviation in °C. + Tailwind, - Headwind
• Fixed wind allows filling in constant wind direction/speed and ISA Deviation in °C.
• Wind profile allows filling in wind direction/speed and ISA Deviation in °C for different altitudes.
• None clear all weather settings.

The subscription is only necessary if you require up to date NOTAMs and oceanic tracks. I expect a lot of people don't really need this. It's a "nice to have" in stead of a "need to have".

Even then, I don't expect the subscription to cost more than a few bucks a year, so if you really need the latest greatest NOTAMs and tracks if will not cost you the world...

\\

 

 

The subscription is only necessary if you require up to date NOTAMs and oceanic tracks.

 

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.

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.

Not exactly. The fee for PFPX is related to the costs of the server capacity and load required to serve all subscribed users.

As for AIRAC cycles, you pay because someone needs to convert the real world data into database formats required by our addons. Sure I wish addon developers would stick to the AIRAC standard format but unfortunately for some reason (probably related to rights stuff) they don't.