TheLurk

well you see thats the silly part.... failures and wear and tear are enabled yes however, my FSX-SE install of the plane is a fresh one so it shouldnt be aged, in addition to that no there were no failures armed or active on any of the flights...thats the first thing i checked i might try a new panel state yeah although i've been using the same one ever since really but thats a good idea actually temps are in their ranges, nothing out of the ordinary, neither engine, fuel or ambient temps...everything is perfectly within limits repaints are the pmdg "default" fedex (regular, non panda) and aerologic ones.... fwiw the issue happend with the -300ER aswell, i havent flown that since to check if its gone, but as far as the F's go...the FedEx one was the one with all the problems, the aerologic one seems fine for some reason i'm about ready to put this down to flightsim voodoo....

the 124% bias is manually entered by me to compensate for the initial higher burn that i observed in my original post. i do use the flyprecisley profiles. as stated in my previous posts. i know how to operate the aircraft i know how to uplink winds and do all of that jazz, while i appreciate you trying to help me it doesn't ultimatley benefit me as my planning and performing routine is no different from yours until recently when pfpx stopped giving me steps because of the mentioned bug, which is not an issue anymore really what i find VERY strange and what is my sole point is that the values seem to be back to normal on a westbound flight and a different repaint, compared to an eastbound one because that is literally the only change i made for testing purposes my numbers have been spot on ever since the 777 and pfpx came out and i started using both...my issues are VERY recent and for some reason seem to be conditional

hey leo thanks a lot for your input and how to "fix" PFPX... now a couple of things happend today: flying from OMDB-EDDP, so westbound, with a headwind, and using a different airframe than the fedex one i used previously, here are the numbers: ROUTE: DAVM1F DAVMO Y601 GABKO Q1 BONAM UG81 VAN UL852 UDROS L621 REVDA UP193 KARIL DCT ABULI UL624 MAKAL DCT HDO UM748 RENDO Q230 BEBEX T234 GOBAX GOBA26 Weather is still ASN PFPX weather source is still their own server...now the interesting bit: TRIP 61025 ........ 05:50 CONT 5% 3051 ........ 00:22 ALTN EDBC 2843 ........ 00:13 FINAL RESV 4169 ........ 00:30 MIN T/O 71088 ........ 06:55 EXTRA 7904 ........ 00:56 TAXI 330 ........ 00:10 RELEASE 79322 ........ 08:01 all weights in KG as usual heres the kicker: now it used LESS fuel than it should have, using a 124 bias, removing those 24% would make it pretty spot on again because my USED fuel from the FMC after parking is 51.8 so my question is: what the hell happend? literally the only thing thats different today is the direction of travel and the repaint...to keep in line with testing no step climbs were performed....i'm baffled

Thanks for pointing me at that! Good to know....so extra fuel in the meantime I still find the steady decrease of the fob on the prog page a bit strange...same as the observed fuel burn not matching with what the FF on the displays shows.. Im gonna do a longer period on the next flight with my stopwatch and See...1min is a bit short but still 12000kgs/h is a lot

I'm gonna measure it over a longer period on the next flight which will be OMDB-EDDP and we'll see, with the recommended FMC steps fwiw the N1 during cruise is steadily around the 80-85% mark, using a CI of 85 pretty much always as i said above what i find even more curious is that this problem occured only very recently...up to now it has all been perfectly fine and the numbers matched up within an acceptable tolerance, doing some googling i'm not the only one with a "the plane uses too much or too little fuel" problem i've tried different calculations with different profiles and they're all pretty equal in the results they produce, generally i'm just baffled by this issue as you can imagine and i'm sure there is a solution lets be honest the chances of the issue being with the actual aircraft are quite slim i would imagine

yes Jim i'm aware, not sure why PFPX didnt give me step climbs...doesnt seem to do so when the plane is overly heavy, however even if i DO climb which i did during that mem-cdg flight towards the end the numbers didnt change i just completed said flight to dubai and i had the exact same problem where the plane would use way too much fuel and the predicted fuel on the prog page would steadily decrease...here are all the numbers: ROUTE: LANV1G LANVI UM164 EPL UN491 DEGES UN871 GAPTO UT23 DIMLO DCT INVED UM747 NEKUL UM859 RONBU M859 ODERO UP975 KATUT UM688 SIDAD R784 IMDAT B416 DESDI DESD8D Weather: ASN for the Sim, PFPX own server for planning PAYLOAD: 97954kgs FUEL CORR ENDUR TRIP 61795 ........ 06:03 10 PCT 5564 ........ 00:36 ALTN OOMS 6304 ........ 00:34 INTL HOLD 2725 ........ 00:30 MIN T/O 76388 ........ 07:43 EXTRA 0 ........ 00:00 TAXI 330 ........ 00:10 RELEASE 76718 ........ 07:53 that is with a bias of 124% (!!!) in PFPX and exactly what i loaded... after landing on the FMC progress page 2: LEFT 44.7 RIGHT 44.7 TOTAL USED: 89.4....remaining fuel in the tanks after landing: 4.2 needless to say i had to add fuel during the flight else i would not have made it. wind data for the route was loaded in the fmc, i flew exactly the CI i defined which was 85 and i flew at exactly the levels PFPX gave me which was FL310 for the entire flight. and yes PFPX does account for staying at the same altitude and calculates fuel accordingly on a further note: i did some fuel burn timing during the flight, both engines show 4.0 for FF pretty much the entire flight which is fine hower: looking at the total fuel and clocking it for 1 minute results in roughly 200kgs per minute which streteched over an hour is 12.000kgs...not the 8000 it should do

Its only started to happen recently for some reason...I've been using the 777 pretty much since the day it came out and never had a problem with it thus far, using FSX:SE and soon gonna buy it for P3D v3 the route was: KMEM MEM BWG HNN HAR SAX PUT J42 BOS J575 TUSKY N145B PORTI 4750N 4840N 4930N 5020N SOMAX ATSUR RATKA UN512 LARLA UN521 NERLA UN491 BASIK UZ57 LATGO LATG6E LFPG weights were fairly high, i don't have the exact numbers anymore since i don't keep past flights but the payload was around 92-93 tons and PFPX estimated around 75 tons of fuel, which turned up to be 85 tons actually used after the flight was done, checked via PROG page 2...that is 75 tons RELEASE fuel by PFPX...trip fuel was obviously a bit lower... weather program for the sim is current version of ASN, weather source in PFPX is their online server so the winds matched pretty perfectly enroute cruise alt was FL310 pretty much all the way through as PFPX didnt give me any step climbs PFPX calculated remaining fuel to be somewhere around 11-12 tons and actual fuel left in the tank after arrival was 8.something im sorry but that is as accurate as i can be...presently doing a flight from LFPG to OMDB which shows the same symptoms...i have accurate numbers for that one if you wish although that is still in progress

Hello Michael anything new on this "issue"? I seem to be having a similar problem, ableit rather recently, only the other way around where my 777 uses MORE than it should according to pfpx...like you i primarily fly the F model with rather big loads on a flight from KMEM to LFPG yesterday, planned with PFPX, weights winds etc. were matching perfectly, she used roughly 24% more fuel then she should have...really annoying doing a bias evaluation in pfpx gives me 104% if that, which is not nearly enough to compensate...using the fly precisely profiles found on avsim...

mu-2 review is up and can be found here: might not be 1080p yet as its freshly uploaded

welp now that the lear is out...its on the list...i hope to get it done quickly

pretty much as it says...the 441 review is up now and can be found here: the MU-2 will come in a couple of days....enjoy! (yes i know my sim doesnt look flashy or nice...eyecandy doesnt matter. aircraft and systems do! )

also any chance for possible flight1 GTN integration? i prefer that now over the RXP...

so about that port....how are you supposed to open the same port for different IPs in a network? that is not possible with NAT

does this also work when ASN is running on a networked machine? i tried it today and even relativley cloudy weather with max gain nothing showed up? yes i do realize it reads moisture not just clouds but...just wondering (guess africa isnt the right place to test this!)

i've never been more happy to eat my own words :lol: