Jump to content

Concorde Performance System: Calculations For Any Route


Ramón Cutanda

Recommended Posts

Ray Proudfoot

Have you searched the manual for that message?

You mentioned you had excluded Bullguard from your D drive. But if CPS-X in on C is that also excluded?

Link to comment
Antonino Fontana
6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Have you searched the manual for that message?

You mentioned you had excluded Bullguard from your D drive. But if CPS-X in on C is that also excluded?

I did search ADEU in the manual (Ctrl+F) but the manual never said anything about an error. The CPS folder is also excluded. This is the error I am getting:

cps.JPG.4a1d8f6c94ffcf24d955e37ae5dcad57.JPG

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Uninstall CIVA and reinstall. Copy any AWC and ADC files that you wish to keep such as the ones supplied by FS Labs.

If that doesn't fix it are you using AWC files created with an earlier version of CPS-X? If so that will cause problems. Delete all AWC and ADC files and start afresh.

Try the attached EGCC-LPPT plan and see if that is accepted. It's in XML format so not sure if Steam is okay with that format. Hopefully it is.

Has CPS-X ever worked okay for you? If so, what has changed on your system?

EGCCLPPT01.pln

Link to comment
Antonino Fontana
20 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Uninstall CIVA and reinstall. Copy any AWC and ADC files that you wish to keep such as the ones supplied by FS Labs.

If that doesn't fix it are you using AWC files created with an earlier version of CPS-X? If so that will cause problems. Delete all AWC and ADC files and start afresh.

Try the attached EGCC-LPPT plan and see if that is accepted. It's in XML format so not sure if Steam is okay with that format. Hopefully it is.

Has CPS-X ever worked okay for you? If so, what has changed on your system?

EGCCLPPT01.pln 5.84 kB · 0 downloads

Uninstalling and reinstalling didn't help.

This is the first time I have used CPS-X.

CPS-X had the same problems when I wanted to use the flight plan provided by you.

CPS has never worked okay for me.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

All that CPS-X is looking for is the ADEU folder in the CIVA sub folder where your FSX-Steam executable is located. That path cannot be right.

Please paste the path you are entering in the FSX / SE path in Options. Let's see if it looks okay.

Link to comment
Antonino Fontana
4 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

All that CPS-X is looking for is the ADEU folder in the CIVA sub folder where your FSX-Steam executable is located. That path cannot be right.

Please paste the path you are entering in the FSX / SE path in Options. Let's see if it looks okay.

The path is D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\FSX\fsx.exe.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
Just now, Antonino Fontana said:

The path is D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\FSX\fsx.exe. Was I supposed to enter the path to the ADEU folder?

Remove fsx.exe. The path should be D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\FSX

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
Just now, Antonino Fontana said:

Thanks! It finally worked! :)

You were confusing CPS-X by including the fsx.exe bit. It couldn't find the CIVA folder in that path. Glad you're sorted. Have fun! :)

Link to comment
Antonino Fontana

CPSX needs a file called WX.dat:

ERROR.JPG.1c4eae2b65dc224e96b32c0b1bc920dd.JPG

If you don't speak French or Dutch here's what the error says:

CPSX is searching for a file called WX.dat and it searching for it in C:\Program Files (x86)\Concorde Performance System X\WX\WX.DAT. It also says it can't find the file. I do have a WX folder in the CPSX folder, but I don't have a WX.DAT file. The error almost prevents me from using the program: after importing the flight plan, I can't do anything. it doesn't matter where I click, I will get the error. I can't open any pages, excluding the trip, main menu, and options page. The error only occurs after I import the flightplan. I tried reinstalling CPSX and it made no diffrence.

 

Can someone maybe upload the WX.DAT file if he/she has it?

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

@Antonino Fontana, I assume you're using the NOAA weather option. That has proved to be unreliable since Pierre ceased support. You shouldn't click on the map option either as that will cause CPS-X to hang.

If you plan on flying Concorde on a regular basis I would recommend you buy AS16. It's on sale at a decent price. I have no problems using that with CPS-X and of course you get the benefit of it in FSX:Steam too.

https://hifisimtech.com/as16/#buynow

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Antonino Fontana
15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Antonino Fontana, not heard from you since we got CPS-X working for you. How are you getting on? Have you bought AS16 yet?

I have already bought AS16, I did a flight from Amsterdam to Athens a few days ago, and it works, with no issues.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
45 minutes ago, Antonino Fontana said:

I have already bought AS16, I did a flight from Amsterdam to Athens a few days ago, and it works, with no issues.

Subsonic I trust. :D

Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...
AdrianSmith

OBBIEGLL01.pln

@Ray Proudfoot, any idea why CPSX won't accept this plight plan.

Firstly "PLN and ADEU files mismatch, ADEU will be rebuilt"

then "Impossible to open the file C:\....OBBI to EGLL.txt"

Strangely the inbuilt FSLabs performance calculator doesn't have data for Bahrain!

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

@AdrianSmith, without loading it I'm guessing but try removing the space in the Waypoint Names and increase the altitude from 16,000ft. I'll load it up in an hour or so and see how I get on.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
8 minutes ago, AdrianSmith said:

One or both of those seems to have done the trick :)

It's the spaces that were the problem. :D

Link to comment
Fraser Gale
2 hours ago, AdrianSmith said:

Strangely the inbuilt FSLabs performance calculator doesn't have data for Bahrain!

I'm guessing it's because the calculator was built using data from an up to date performance manual, and Bahrain was removed from the BA manual after the route stopped.  Plus, having just looked at my older performance manual, the Bahrain data uses graph presentation rather than tables which became standard. 

Link to comment
  • 9 months later...
Kai Doelger

I noticed, that sometimes CPS wont let me choos whether the Leg will be Flown Subsonic or Supersonic, even when having an Alternate Airport set. Does anybody have a workaround for that?

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
30 minutes ago, Kai Doelger said:

I noticed, that sometimes CPS wont let me choos whether the Leg will be Flown Subsonic or Supersonic, even when having an Alternate Airport set. Does anybody have a workaround for that?

It depends on the flight plan. Can you provide it? Where are you flying from and to?

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
21 minutes ago, Kai Doelger said:

This is the Flightplan File I used. Created via SimBrief

Frankfurt to Nice with a cruise altitude of FL280. CPS-X assumes your flight is subsonic. It's only 385nm so not really suitable for supersonic flight.

EDIT: Your best bet is to change the cruise altitude to FL340 and fly it subsonically at Mach 0.95. That was the optimum subsonic cruise level which CPS-X checks and should confirm.

Edited by Ray Proudfoot
Additional info
Link to comment
Kai Doelger
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Frankfurt to Nice with a cruise altitude of FL280. CPS-X assumes your flight is subsonic. It's only 385nm so not really suitable for supersonic flight.

It initally selects it as subsonic, but then when having selected the alternate Aiport it slects supersonic and the selection fields are greyed out so I cant make any adjustments (see pictures).

 

With no Alternate Airport Set

1380746619_beforealternate.thumb.png.aa1726595b9c36eabcdee044ccc95e62.png

 

With Alternate Set

1347802312_afteralternate.thumb.png.441f16bdb8f8cb4b3af3f79b13201052.png

 

EDIT: I figured out, it Will not let you select the Flight type when the Flight Ground Distance is less then 500NM, so when increasing it with the Circuit In/Out Function, then select the Alternate Airport and then delete the OUT/IN Distance again.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

It’s entirely up to you how you plan and fly your Concorde flights but that’s not a method I would recommend. Supersonic flights should only occur over sparsely populated areas or ocean.

I notice you have no weather loaded. Do you have AS16?

Link to comment
Kai Doelger
1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It’s entirely up to you how you plan and fly your Concorde flights but that’s not a method I would recommend. Supersonic flights should only occur over sparsely populated areas or ocean.

I notice you have no weather loaded. Do you have AS16?

To Reiterate I DID NOT choose to fly the leg supersonic, the program does it due to a bug. See my edit for the Solution.

I use Manual Weather entries.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
14 minutes ago, Kai Doelger said:

To Reiterate I DID NOT choose to fly the leg supersonic, the program does it due to a bug. See my edit for the Solution.

I use Manual Weather entries.

I’ll load your plan in the next few days and see how it behaves for me.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
On 3/14/2021 at 6:14 PM, Kai Doelger said:

EDIT: I figured out, it Will not let you select the Flight type when the Flight Ground Distance is less then 500NM, so when increasing it with the Circuit In/Out Function, then select the Alternate Airport and then delete the OUT/IN Distance again.

Flights under 500nm aren't capable of supersonic flight as you have to allow for deceleration and descent. I've loaded your plan and it produced this result for 94 pax. Mach 0.95 at FL340 is optimum. I have AS16 loaded which is important as winds and temp are particularly important for Concorde.

CPS-X.jpg

Link to comment
Fraser Gale
6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Flights under 500nm aren't capable of supersonic flight as you have to allow for deceleration and descent. 

I assume you mean it isn't possible to plan them properly?  It would have been possible at light weight to accelerate to supersonic speed then decelerate in around 500nm, it's just difficult to plan the fuel burn. 

On one occasion a Concorde departed LHR and routed out over Clacton VOR, accelerated up the North Sea (without a circle or loop to extend track miles) and descended and landed in EDI.  I haven't calculated the track miles but it probably wasn't much over your figure here.  According to the captain of the flight, they left the reheats in to FL600 and slightly exceeded FL600 when trying to level off.  They had to immediately start the descent into EDI.

They had 90 PAX if I remember rightly with no hold baggage and minimum fuel.  It was a replacement shuttle service - and the passengers got more than they paid for!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Fraser,

As Pierre isn’t around to verify how he programmed CPS-X I’m having to make an assumption. The flight you described must have cost a fortune but back then BA could probably turn a blind eye. And the routes under 500nm that allow supersonic flight are pretty small. Frankfurt to Nice wouldn’t be one of them. :D

Oh to have been one of those pax!

Link to comment
Fraser Gale
25 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Fraser,

As Pierre isn’t around to verify how he programmed CPS-X I’m having to make an assumption. The flight you described must have cost a fortune but back then BA could probably turn a blind eye. And the routes under 500nm that allow supersonic flight are pretty small. Frankfurt to Nice wouldn’t be one of them. :D

Oh to have been one of those pax!

It was just that you made the assertion that they weren't possible... 

It would have cost a fortune, but they would have gained so much publicity from it that it would have been money well spent.  It was last minute anyway as the crew were called out on standby.  

I seem to recall you always believe in using CPS to fly non-standard routes, so why not do superdash routes!

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
33 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

It was just that you made the assertion that they weren't possible... 

It was an educated guess.

34 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

I seem to recall you always believe in using CPS to fly non-standard routes, so why not do superdash routes!

One of my favourite flights is EGCC-LTTP going supersonic abeam Anglesey and starting the decel abeam Porto. Supersonic rules observed. The problem with these short supersonic flights is trying to get fuel rearward quickly enough. I don't know how they managed it on that BA flight.

I have to turn on pumps for 9 9 and 10 to get it going rearward fast enough. Got any tips?

Link to comment
Fraser Gale
7 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It was an educated guess.

Might be best to state that for readers in future.

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I have to turn on pumps for 9 9 and 10 to get it going rearward fast enough. Got any tips?

I seem to remember re-writing the book on the fuel procedures several times in that thread a while back, including low fuel load conditional procedures - I'm sure it will all be there if you have a search.  Rearward transfer was started before the accel if the accel was expected to be quick on light sectors. 

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
25 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

Rearward transfer was started before the accel if the accel was expected to be quick on light sectors. 

That was what I was having to do. Pump rearwards before Mach 0.7 was reached.

Link to comment
Andrew Wilson

I think the flight out of Cardiff to LHR after a divert went supersonic in 6 minutes? They got their acceleration clearance whilst still on the ground

In fact, the captain told me the only reason they took the reheats out after takeoff was to give the EO time to move the fuel.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Fraser Gale
16 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

I think the flight out of Cardiff to LHR after a divert went supersonic in 6 minutes? They got their acceleration clearance whilst still on the ground emoji23.png

In fact, the captain told me the only reason they took the reheats out after takeoff was to give the EO time to move the fuel.

Yep, that was the record for brake release to Mach 1 I believe.  A.T. captain on that one wasn't he?

Great days!

Link to comment
Kai Doelger
On 3/16/2021 at 11:11 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

Flights under 500nm aren't capable of supersonic flight as you have to allow for deceleration and descent.

In that case it is even more weird that CPS automaticaly selects supersonic in that case, isn't is?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
5 minutes ago, Kai Doelger said:

In that case it is even more weird that CPS automaticaly selects supersonic in that case, isn't is?

Only Pierre can answer that question and he’s not around any longer. The shortest supersonic flight I fly is Oslo - Heathrow down the North Sea. CPS-X works fine for that and all other flights.

The only subsonic route I’ve flown was EGLL-EIDW, FL340, Mach 0.95.

You'll never get optimum use out of this program without weather data. It’s crucial. Entering it by hand must be a pain.

Link to comment
Kai Doelger
Just now, Ray Proudfoot said:

You'll never get optimum use out of this program without weather data. It’s crucial. Entering it by hand must be a pain.

Well, can easly be done using the Briefing funtion of AS Next in under 5 minutes and I rather do that than spend another 30 quid just for an "update"

Link to comment
Fraser Gale

@Ray Proudfoot I think @Kai Doelger's point is that it selects supersonic when it should be subsonic as soon as he adds the alternate airfield.

It sounds to me (without knowing how the program was put together) that it is including the alternate time/distance/fuel in the overall calculation rather than as a separate entity, hence it assumes you are flying supersonic.  Not helpful mind you.

27 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You'll never get optimum use out of this program without weather data. It’s crucial. Entering it by hand must be a pain.

I know what you mean but this isn't helping with the main problem - he won't get any use out of it if he can't plan the flight he wants.

@Kai Doelger I think you might have to  accept this as a limitation of CPS as it is really an "as is" package now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

@Kai Doelger,

When I start CPS-X (with Active Sky running) and before a plan is loaded the supersonic option is selected by default but it's disabled. After I enter EDDF and your plan is loaded the Flight Type changes to Subsonic. Supersonic is not available - the option remains disabled.

I then started again without Active Sky running and loaded your flight. This time the Supersonic option was selected. The only difference this time is Active Sky wasn't running.

CPS-X is designed to be used with a weather source. Either the NOAA option or AS. The manual option is not recommended.

If you bought a full license for Active Sky they offer discounts for an upgrade to a later version. I've taken advantage of that myself.

@Fraser Gale, there isn't a limitation with CPS-X. It requires a weather source. Not an unreasonable requirement.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

It’s worthwhile bearing in mind that CPS-X was preceded by CPS and Pierre never charged for it preferring donations. Many of us were more than happy to because this was a very useful program.

He retired a couple of years ago and graciously made it freeware despite paying a lot of money for the software used to create it. Not only was he a very good programmer, he had an excellent knowledge of Concorde. Those people are very rare.

So paying for a weather program to make it work to its best seems small fry considering people are now getting CPS-X free when early adopters paid willingly for it. And some paid three figure sums.

Just a general observation and not directed at any individual.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Fraser Gale
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 

@Fraser Gale, there isn't a limitation with CPS-X. It requires a weather source. Not an unreasonable requirement.

I didn’t say anything was unreasonable but you’ve just quoted a limitation yourself.  No weather should/could give calculations based on on wind ISA temperatures.

45 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 Those people are very rare.

In your opinion - I think there are a few retired flight crew, engineers and even some designers around that would beg to differ with that statement. 
 

I agree that CPS in general is a great tool for people that like to quickly plan a flight with all the data given to them and Pierre did a great job to make it work, but keeping plugging AS to someone who’s having an issue that shouldn’t be related (there are free options in CPS aren’t there?) is distracting. 
 

Actually, further up this thread did we not have someone planning subsonic flights with CPS and discovered that it wasn’t accurate for subsonic fuel planning? 

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
30 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

In your opinion - I think there are a few retired flight crew, engineers and even some designers around that would beg to differ with that statement.

And they can program can they?

30 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

but keeping plugging AS to someone who’s having an issue that shouldn’t be related (there are free options in CPS aren’t there?) is distracting. 

Keep plugging? I’ve mentioned it twice because it’s the only reliable way to feed weather data to CPS-X. The other options are NOAA (unreliable) and Custom - I’ve never used it and don’t know anyone who has.

30 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

Actually, further up this thread did we not have someone planning subsonic flights with CPS and discovered that it wasn’t accurate for subsonic fuel planning? 

Maybe they didn’t use @Konstantinmodified fuel files. Maybe they were using FSX and not P3D which is more accurate.

I don’t know why you feel you have to interject in this discussion since you don’t use CPS-X and seem to want to goad me with most of your posts. We clearly don’t see eye to eye.

Ive helped Kai as much as I’m able to. There is no proper support for this product any longer. I help when I can. That’s all I have to say.

Link to comment
Fraser Gale
9 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

And they can program can they?

Some of them can and did, yes.

9 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I don’t know why you feel you have to interject in this discussion since you don’t use CPS-X and seem to want to goad me with most of your posts. We clearly don’t see eye to eye.

I am not trying to goad anybody, least of all you, I am trying to prevent misinformation spreading and present a second opinion in order to do so. 

Just to clarify, I tried out CPS on several occasions so I do know how it works thanks, I just don't use it for day-to-day sim operations as others do. 

End//

  • Like 1
Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...