Jarkko

I think the answer is: no. PFPX can interface with Topcat but only if you have purchased a copy of Topcat. EDIT: From the PFPX site: "Take-Off and Landing performance calculation (requires a full version of TOPCAT, partly working)"

I must say that I'm a total polar opposite I only fly jobs generated by the AirHauler so profit is all that counts for me. I can spend up to couple of hours planning my flights: which aircraft, which route, which flight level and so on. On average, I spend over an hour planning and less than two hours in the air.

Hello, The latest is that it will be released when it is ready. In 2011 it was mentioned that the release would be shortly after Christmas. The same thing happened in 2012. I'm somewhat hopeful that the release will happen in 2013. The PFPX team has been a bit quiet about the features that PFPX will have. Most of the posts and videos have been using B767 for long flights. AoA has used with B737 for shorter flights. Other than that, little has been talked about, what kind of "operations" the PFPX is meant to suite (Airliners with schedules? Cargo haulers? and so on). The current aircraft list is quite similar to the Topcat's supported aircrafts. This might not come as surprise as PFPX is planned to interface with Topcat. On the official forum, there was a mention that the customers would be able to create their own performance/fuel burn tables for their aircrafts (that are not included in the PFPX release version). One thing that I have yet to see a good video/tutorial on is the route planning phase. For me this seems quite strange as this is the part of PFPX that would get the most use. From the scattered info I was able to find, here is the assumption I have made: Route auto generation relies on great circle route. It doesn't calculate in the effect of winds, when generating this route. You will get the shortest route (distance) but it might not be the fastest (flight time). Also, do not have to auto generate the whole route, you can input segments that you want to fly and have the auto generate "fill in the blanks". Disclaimer: I have no connection with FlightSimSoft and all the above are my views from watching videos on PFPX and reading the official forum.

Oh the memories! My first 8-bit computer was the MSX

Hello! I hope I could say the same. After seeing today, that a new Opus beta was available, I decided to give it another run. Well... Currently flying from KJAC to KFTG @FL170. Surface temperature was +9 and now at my cruise altitude, it is +11 (TAT 24). Extremely hot! (about +29 degrees from ISA if I calculated correctly).

Hello again! Today I had time to test again and here's the message that I got: [E] LUA.0: ---> ERROR:: MCP configs not found for current aircraft! Is this "normal" or am I doing something wrong? Thank you for the help EDIT: Clicking the FSX Sync button seemed to help.

For me, OpusFSX does a bit "too much". The last 5 flights I did with Opus (and AirHauler failures enabled,) have ended up with flaps up landings. Why? Because the wind shifts (during weather updates) cause over speed situations => flaps become INOP. (Also wind aloft do not match when flying below FL220) If I didn't mention before. I already have 3 wx engines but this new product seems interesting (at least for me) because of the planned X-Plane support.

Hmmm... This part got me interested: "* X-Plane will be supported in the future."

Hello Pero, Thank you for the help. I clearly did something wrong the last time around. I'll try again in a couple of days. Thanks again!

For me it's quite simple: Product support forum, where you can get a reply/help within couple of days. Preferably without being insulted for making questions For a "general" forum, (aviation related topics, flight planning, procedures and so on), I prefer visiting forums where the other posters are much more knowledgeable than me. These places are not hard to find What comes to atmosphere, I value places where other people understand some like me. To give you an example, in my native language, we don't use words like please and thank you (well we do, but only when something exceptional happens). We also go straight to the point without trying to "break the ice" (unless we are trying to make a hole in the ice to go for a swim). I for one might seem a bit abrasive to some people, but this is not my intention. Usually I have to edit my posts two or three times before posting so I don't offend anyone. Thanks to Avsim for making my "flying" more enjoyable!

Hello! Please forgive me for asking such a simple question, but how can I get LINDA to recognize the new profile? I added the files from the zip file, but LINDA says to me that the aircraft isn't recognized. Do I create new profiles (for each AXE variant) "based" on the the version that was included in the zip file? Thank you so much for your help! - Jarkko

Only thinks I can think of are common sense and respect to the hours of work the developer has but into their product. To be honest, I don't know how the refund works.

Hello, I own all "the big ones": REXe, AS2012, OpusFSX. Currently only AS2012 works with PMDG's aircraft without problems. The other 2 are causing problems with winds an temperature (on my system). I only have used REXe weather for a short while. Based on my testing, the overcast conditions were not close enough to the other products to warrant more testing. YMMV. Opus has the most "realistic" feel. By that I mean that what you see from your pilot's seat, matches extremely well to the METARs. The wind problems on my system are so bad, that I'm unable to use Opus for weather. Again YMMV. Here's my current way of using all of these three: REXe: Textures Opus: Camera AS2012: Weather - Jarkko

Hello, When were the winds from 240? At the beginning of the flight or using AS2012 ATIS radio frequency near the airport?

Hello Peter! If this included: 1) extracting data from FSX to get airplane performance 2) parsing runway lenghts from an updatable Navdata source 3) automated test for the code and you did this all in one hour, I have to tip my hat off to you! For me it would take at least a day or two off writing tests to see if it all works now and in the future. Even then I would be unsure that it will work with any aircraft available for FSX. To get back to the runway problem, I remember reading from the official forum about a similar problem. Aircraft imported with an earlier version of Pro ATC were giving problems. Re-importing helped other users. At least it might be worth a try.

For me it has to be OpusFSX. I can't use all of my addons with Opus (addons that use SimConnect or WideFS). Otherwise FSX will go crazy and cause wind, temperature and pressure problems. The wind shifts are strong enough to cause overspeed situations. AirHauler will make your flaps inop, if overspeed is detected. Opus has cost me over $200,000 in flap repairs (AirHauler money) and I've had to do more flaps up/stuck landings than I care to remember Having said that, when these problems are fixed, I believe that Opus will go from "Regretful" to best I've bought.

Thank you Peter and Dave for the info! (EDIT: Forgot to thank Dave)

Hello! The possibility of voice support got my attention. I currently fly using either Radar Contact or VoxATC. Most of the time I prefer to use VoxATC as it increases my workload heavily during approach phase. I know it's unrealistic to handle both comms and flying in a tubeliner, but that the way I like it Now for a question about Pro ATC: Both of my current ATC programms struggle when flying to LOWI. I end up being vectored into a mountain. This is especially true when approaching from the west (ELMEM arrival). I have an AirHauler base in LOWI so I fly a lot from and to LOWI. How does Pro ACT handle arrivals and to destinations which have high terrain surrounding the airport (is ProATC "aware" of the terrain)? Have has Pro ATC handled you when flying into LOWI (vectored from STAR or full approach)? Thanks for the help!

There is a warning in the AS2012 manual about this (when using Standard mode). I have also seen it happen => I decided to use DWC mode. Just to make clear for everyone, Opus didn't say that the airplane developers _should_ fix anything. They mentioned that if filtering would be possible, we wouldn't have these problems.

Hello, They have released a sevice pack and people have reported mixed results. On some systems the fix has helped. I personally don't mind blurries, so I'm not a good reference. What worries me more are the terrain "problems" outside England when FTX England is applied. Sunken terrain around taxiways and runways, water coming through terrain and so on. When FTX England isn't applied, these problem disapear. On their support forum, they have mentioned that the terrain problems outside their regions might not be fixable do to FSX limitations. You either get the great FTX quality inside their region and problems outside or you loose the "extra love" they but into their regions.

Hello! I had a similar case yesterday. I'm using VoxATC (or Radar Contact) with FSX AI traffic (Traffic 360 visual models). VoxATC/Radar Contact works in a similar way to the one Mitchell mentioned: ATC assigns me the same runway that the AI is using. The decision is made, when I'm 50-80nm away from the airport. The sequence of event goes something like this, when flying lower airways (below FL240): 1) Runway in use is selected based on destination weather when ~70nm from touchdown 2) When ~50nm from the airport, ATC requests me to start a descent 3) I pass Opus recovery altitude ~40nm from the airport (cruise FL190, Recovery automatically set to 17000) 4) Surface wind are recovered? 5) ATC vectors my to the runway selected in step #1 6) Landing is made with a tailwind component It was a late night flight, but this is what I think happened.

Hello! Does this happen only at this airport? What kind of text do you have on the VoxATC window?

Thank you Ryan for your time! This answers my question very well. Because I didn't have enough info on how FSX works (and reading weather related posts), I got the the impression that wind "spikes" could be filtered out. This was based on the observation that the spikes only last for fraction of a second. You see the speed jump and before you even blink, it goes back to "normal". The tail wind component data could look something like this: 40 40 40 40 0 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 If the speed would only been a "visual effect", there could have been a possibility that the data could have been filtered out. Thanks again for the info! - Jarkko

The main thing I'm trying to avoid here is a situation where wx engine developers say that the aircraft have to be updated and the aircraft developers say that it's nothing they wan't to do. This just gets us to a situation where no one does anything to alleviate the problem. I can see two sides of the coin: wx engine developer's: "The product works with 90% of the aircrafts out there. We can't buy and test every one of them. Wouldn't it be easier for the aircraft developer add data filtering to a couple of products that are more sensitive than others." and the aircraft developers: "Our product has worked just fine with other weather engines, why should we make any changes?" Without knowing anything about coding for FSX I would still guess that a simple, outlier based filter might be possible to add to an aircraft. Then again, changeing the way that weather is injected to FSX, might not be a big problem. i really do not know. I'm just trying to find a solution how I can do enjoyable flights with Opus and these wonderful planes. (It is 1 AM so sorry for any typos)

Close but no cigar Let's start of with FSUIPC. I have the registered version and have used it with other weather programs. Works fine with them. The problem is that the FSUIPC protection is designed for weather that is injected to FSX in a more "traditional" way. I'm not quite sure if this is correct, but I vaguely remember reading that even the FSUIPC developer had said that Opus doesn't use "traditional" way of injecting weather => can't be protected at the moment.