10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’ve been using the utility supplied in PFPX to fine tune my fuel figures. It’s reasonably close now to the calculated amounts for each waypoint.

Jolly good show!

33 minutes ago, downscc said:

and because SimBrief is a freeware so by definition it is intended for gaming.

By this definition, weather data from NOAA is intended for amateur use, it would seem. PFPX, by the way, uses several freeware data sources - it's simply caching, and co-locating that data on its own servers for ease of use and to reduce external calls to those sources.

To be honest, there are plenty of things out there that are freeware and better than some of the payware options.

I used to work with server load balancers a while back, and the boxes were run on Linux. Interestingly enough, that freeware Linux OS was so amateurish and incompetent that it allowed the boxes to be highly configurable to meet client needs, and so in demand that a single box would run a customer about $70K (not including any software add-on licensing - all Linux-based, as well).

PFPX can stand on its own merits. There's no need to cast aspersions on something else simply because it's freeware.

 

 

And to be clear - before anyone attempts to "unearth" bias for me - I use both. Heck, I even have a multi-part video series on how to use PFPX and (shock and horror - free) data sources online to address planning contingencies.

\I've been a big fan of your work on the sim for years Kyle.

Ray's work with the engines is actually quite good in my opinion. What I found is that quite often the use of engines, throttle and so on, plays a bigger role in fuel use than sitting for hours in cruise which averages over the result.

4 minutes ago, SteveW said:

I've been a big fan of your work on the sim for years Kyle.

Thanks. Hoping to get back into that more again, soonish.

I wanted to get back onto the aircraft cfg weights section I mentioned earlier, since I've had some questions relating to it.

As mentioned by Kyle we could be carrying Gold bars, or rather a 'high density payload' that we may have to consider the exact location on the aircraft for storage as it can't be spread. This affects the CofG and may take the craft outside the envelope or be too much for the AP.

The weight values in the cfg payload sections are not arbitrary or maximum. These are the starting values for the plane in the sim which would relate to values in an fxml saved file. So they can be used to assert some value to the software (FMC whatever) that comes with the plane or planners. For example the FSX definition shows a value of 170lb per person with bag so a machine reader can determine the number of items on that section, 340 being two passengers.

So the weights in the sections may appear arbitrary, but the sections define the starting spread of load across the aircraft. This can be used rather than relying on a saved flight (which can be altered very easily) to maybe set up a reliable system to ascertain the capabilities of the software under test.

Edited January 30, 20197 yr by SteveW

1 hour ago, scandinavian13 said:

By this definition, weather data from NOAA is intended for amateur use

We pay for NOAA data as taxpayers.  However, maybe I went too far on this.  I am biased against freeware and strongly believe we should support developers of products that have utility in flight simulation.  It is interesting that  a developer is promoting freeware at the detriment of another developer.

40 minutes ago, downscc said:

We pay for NOAA data as taxpayers.  However, maybe I went too far on this.  I am biased against freeware and strongly believe we should support developers of products that have utility in flight simulation.

I confess that seems an odd position to me!

Personally -- I am more inclined to look at the quality and features of the product, rather than the price (whether that is free or lots of money!). I own PFPX; for a long time it was by far the best flight planning software out there, but these days I find the flexibility, accuracy of OFP output and integration options of Simbrief far better than PFPX. For example, with Simbrief we've been able to develop all sorts of exciting custom integrations like statistical taxi and contingency fuel planning for instance, all in a web-based system which is not possible with PFPX.

That said, PFPX is definitely a better route planner and I often use the two together if I need to come up with a route from scratch. But if all I'm doing is pasting in a real world route then to be honest that's missing all the good bits of PFPX and leaving you with the much weaker areas (like the paperwork output).

Simbrief technically is not freeware, incidentally; it is donationware, and I would urge anyone who enjoys using it to chuck a few units of currency Derek's way!