I'll put in an alternate if it cannot be bypassed for FAA but then I'll subtract the required fuel after a quick mental number crunch just before fueling. 

No mental crunch required, the alternate fuel can be seen in the fuel analysis

 

ALTN KJFK 2400 1:00

 

Just minus 2400kg's from final ramp fuel and your set.

 

....oh, and you could always just remove the alternate requirement in the fuel policy editor :lol:

there is a bundle with top cat 55 euro, not to bad

 

 

....oh, and you could always just remove the alternate requirement in the fuel policy editor

 

Now that's the answer I was looking for lol, as long as I land with around 7,000 pounds in the 737 I'm happy (which gives enough of a cushion for a go-around or 2)

AoA customers get a 10% discount as well. Just got an e mail.

AoA customers get a 10% discount as well. Just got an e mail.

 Good to know now  the waiting  game

Debating between this and EFB

 

Well, that is a debate with little no no point to it. Aivlasoft EFB and PFPX has practically nothing to do with eachother, they do completely different things.

...and regarding alternates, it just depends on the fuel policy being used (comes with around 8 including FAA, EU-OPS, ICAO, CASA etc.) For the FAA policy, you must have an alternate or it wont let you compute the plan..

Huh? FAA requires an alternate at all times? That's a new one.

Huh? FAA requires an alternate at all times? That's a new one.

 

For Air Transport Ops I think You can dispatch in the US without an alternate. AFAIK Australia doesn't require an alternate if the forecast wx is good enough, although this has gotten some people into major trouble when the forecast wx turned out to be wrong. 

 I personally am most excited about the accurate fuel planning as well as ETOPS flights.

 

Accurate fuel planning is only as good as the aircraft fuel burn is programmed. If the aircraft being used does not burn fuel accurately then the figure from any flightplanner is not worth it.

deleted

 

 

Accurate fuel planning is only as good as the aircraft fuel burn is programmed. If the aircraft being used does not burn fuel accurately then the figure from any flightplanner is not worth it.

 

Agreed, but I also expect we'll be able to specify a fuel factor or burn bias for a specific aircraft.  With some specific testing, this could be used to accommodate add-ons that don't have a realistic burn rate.  I expect even the wonders of PMDG won't be dead on whatever profile PFPX has, although the difference is like at most a couple percent.

Afaik PFPX's "base models" are based on Boeing numbers, even PMDG's 747 for FS9 and FSX will differ in fuelburn so you'll need to use a factor to adjust. But after release these numbers will surely be available soon from knowledgeable guys here .