Jump to content

PFPX Profiles


Philippe Gleize

Recommended Posts

Camille MOUCHEL
1 hour ago, Avantime said:

airlinerperformance.net also has new A320 performance files, which one is better?

I don't know how to install them

 

the only way to know is to make 2 same flight on PFPX with the 2 aircraft profile, and then make the flight and see which one is closer in terms of EFOB, Time flight, Optimum cruise alt, ...

Link to post
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Philippe Gleize

    20

  • Camille MOUCHEL

    10

  • Zeljko Budovic

    7

  • C_r_i_s_t_i_a_nR_u_d_n_i_k

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi, I sent them to Christian Grill tonight so that they are embedded in future PFPX versions. Plea

Yeah unfortunately TOPCAT is not as open as PFPX so not much things to share here. Regarding these PFPX profiles, keep in mind they give "best

Updated profiles uploaded in the top thread. Please get and replace your previous aicraft.

Posted Images

Philippe Gleize

It has to be calculated and injected into profiles. PFPX only interpolates, dist, TAS and fuel usage inside available tables.

Link to post

It's worth noting that a few issues are present in the current 1.27 build of PFPX. Notably with the bias and time zones. It's possible this is affecting the results. I have certainly had some strange flight levels and a couple of flights with less than comfortable amounts of fuel in the tanks on arrival. 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/115225-127-perf-bias/

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/113734-all-non-dst-time-zones-incorrect/&page=2

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Keight said:

In most cases the profiles give wrong optimum flight level at least not the one prog page shows. Am I the only one who notice that?

Hey mate - have you checked that you have cost optimisation turned off?

Mine kept giving high levels until I checked this - for some reason I had cost selected, even though I have no data entered on costs.  Try "no optimisation" or "min fuel".

Cheers,

Rudy

Link to post
Zeljko Budovic

Just an observation, i noticed in PFPX profiles the pax capacity is 178, it shouldn't that be 168 like we have it in MCDU? 

And a question, Philippe - can you help us to get right profile for TOPCAT please? I modified capacity, but there are some other parameters that will affect balance and %MAC. Attached is a sample from other Airbus model with similar specs

Airbus A320-214 Airsimmer.txt

Link to post
Philippe Gleize

I didn't notice the pax capacity issue beofre, mainly because I load a given weight and not a number of pax. Will have a look.

Am a bit busy at the moment, so will have a look later on profiles.

Concerning the TOPCAT software, I am afraid the information you have in the attached txt are insufficient to provide take off performance calculation. It seems to be mainly focused on balance and trim setting, whereas we need to find a way to input our thrust, drag, braking data.

 

 

 

Link to post
Zeljko Budovic

That's right, this is only the configuration file, which is editable. There is a other file(A320-214.acft)which cannot be open / edited with notepad or inside the program. All i know - it's based on A320-214 CFM

 

Thanks for looking into this 

Link to post
Philippe Gleize

I think all interesting stuff are in acft but it's crypted. I guess it's up to TOPCAT author then to adapt his files on our bus.

Link to post
Philippe Gleize

PFPX integrates over distance fuel usage, without consideration of the presence of a SID. SID or STAR are just additonnal WPT.

There shouldn't be any difference.

Link to post
On 9/11/2016 at 3:08 PM, Speedybird said:

It's worth noting that a few issues are present in the current 1.27 build of PFPX. Notably with the bias and time zones. It's possible this is affecting the results. I have certainly had some strange flight levels and a couple of flights with less than comfortable amounts of fuel in the tanks on arrival. 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/115225-127-perf-bias/

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/113734-all-non-dst-time-zones-incorrect/&page=2

 

A new update out yesterday, get the newer version.

Link to post
Klemen Kaltnekar

Hello,

thank you for the profiles.

What I have noticed is that for short flights, TAS is unrealistic (I was comparing with real FPS) - this is for flights below FL290. Any future plans to get profiles for lower FLs as well?

Thank you!

Link to post
Massimiliano Gottardo

the A320-214 profile TopCat is reliable? I would buy topcat Take-Off and Landing Performance Calculation Tool, but I can not figure out if the weights and performance data can be used for the A320-214 of FSL

Link to post
L'a^ûri S'i*v(uoj)=a

I use TOPCAT to compute takeoff speeds. However I don't use the weight & balance features it has since I don't need it. Just importing the TOW to the calculator and selecting runway does the job :).

Link to post
Zeljko Budovic

Well, i've made a topcat profile, it works well except %MAC and i'm not sure which passenger weight is used for FSL(it's arround 80kg), still trying to figure out balancing options in TOPCAT config files, but is ok to be used for Flex Temps, V Speeds etc.

Just drop attached profile to "C:\Program Files (x86)\TOPCAT\Configurations" folder, then create new profile for FSL bus - add new aircraft, and select "FSLabs" for configuration. Still working on %MAC and Pax Weights

 

 

 

 

Airbus A320-214 FSLabs.txt

Edited by lodestar
Profile Updated - %MAC / Trim pretty much there
  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, lodestar said:

Well, i've made a topcat profile, it works well except %MAC and i'm not sure which passenger weight is used for FSL(it's arround 80kg), still trying to figure out balancing options in TOPCAT config files, but is ok to be used for Flex Temps, V Speeds etc.

Just drop attached profile to "C:\Program Files (x86)\TOPCAT\Configurations" folder, then create new profile for FSL bus - add new aircraft, and select "FSLabs" for configuration. Still working on %MAC and Pax Weights

 

Airbus A320-214 FSLabs.txt

That is nice thanks. Will try this out.

Link to post
Zeljko Budovic
16 minutes ago, chris198 said:

This profile works as well if I click on TO from within pfpx ?

i see no reason why should not work, but i didn't tested that yet. I'll do my next complete flight tonight and will report back. Maybe i need to adjust my Topcat profile to PFPX profile for accurate weights. But there is a wrong number of PAX in PFPX profile vs FSL MCDU, i hoppe it will work anyway. 

Link to post

Drop down under Print Flight Plan (OFP) has the "save OFP' option (windows 7), but none of the specified folders  to save it to -"Uplink" -300 and 301 exist even when the A320x has been started and is electrically powered up as specified.

I have manually created the uplink folder as some have done but to no avail. Windows 10 update is not an option as suggested, its free update has has already trashed a previous work station of mine.  I have the latest PFPX, Windows  .net management and framework files and have exhausted all the forum suggestions, but it it would appear even having the appropriate folders may not be the end of this PFPX/Fslabs saga? 

Can anyone help that has solved this problem?  

 

 

 

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Dear bellcrank,

the uplink folders should exist already - if they don't, manually creating them will not affect things as the service responsible for their creation / deletion / monitoring is somehow not working for you.

We have an update in the works for this which should overhaul AOCService and allow it to work properly under most conditions.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Hi Guys

 

I.ve a little question and hope i.m right here.

i.ll will uplink a flightplan created with pfpx but i can.t find the folders. When i go to

c:\programme x86\microsoft games\microsoft flight simulator x\fslabs\aocservice

there is no uplink\300 or 301. Only x64 and x86 are in the Folder.

Or is that placed on a nother path?

Thanks for help

Link to post
Christopher Allan
15 hours ago, Dunny2005 said:

Hi Guys

 

I.ve a little question and hope i.m right here.

i.ll will uplink a flightplan created with pfpx but i can.t find the folders. When i go to

c:\programme x86\microsoft games\microsoft flight simulator x\fslabs\aocservice

there is no uplink\300 or 301. Only x64 and x86 are in the Folder.

Or is that placed on a nother path?

Thanks for help

The aircraft needs to be loaded in the sim with electrical power on for the folders to appear.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
Philippe Gleize
18 hours ago, Yolo Swaggins said:

I always arrive with less fuel than what PFPX calculates :(

Because PFPX computes fuel for a perfectly efficient crew and with planned winds. Real data always differs. If you want to burn less, try single engine taxi, packs off take off, packs mode selector on low.

Link to post
Peter Pukhnoy
16 minutes ago, Philippe Gleize said:

Because PFPX computes fuel for a perfectly efficient crew and with planned winds. Real data always differs. If you want to burn less, try single engine taxi, packs off take off, packs mode selector on low.

I plan with winds from AS16 and fly with winds from AS16 so the difference should be negligible. A couple of times I flew the A320 I even had to refuel in-flight because the FMGC predicted negative fuel at destination.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

is it possible that there is a mistake in regards to ZFW? With the CFM56, 2 crew, no passengers/cargo I get a ZFW of 42.5.

Setting up an airplane with the latest file (choosing Airbus A320-214 as type and CFM56-5b5 /SAC P as engines) the "Empty Weight" is 44.100 kg.

So there is 1,600 kg difference. Or is there is there a difference between ZWF in MCDU and "Empty Weight" in PFPX?

best regards,

g

Link to post
M_ic_ha_e_l H_a_tu_t_i_an

Something I've neglected to point out for a while...The initial cruise altitude calculated - the aircraft always struggles to reach it. By the time I am climbing through the final 1000 ft, I'm getting maybe 100-400 fpm if I'm lucky. And no there isn't a weight discrepancy between the planned and the actual weight in the sim.

Link to post
Erick F-B-W
On 18/09/2016 at 3:38 AM, bluepanorama said:

ok, but the weights, fuel, topcat performance are trusted, reliable?

Not sure... Need to be modified to obtain correct results in accordance with PFPX calculations.

On 18/09/2016 at 3:58 PM, lodestar said:

Well, i've made a topcat profile, it works well except %MAC and i'm not sure which passenger weight is used for FSL(it's arround 80kg), still trying to figure out balancing options in TOPCAT config files, but is ok to be used for Flex Temps, V Speeds etc.

Just drop attached profile to "C:\Program Files (x86)\TOPCAT\Configurations" folder, then create new profile for FSL bus - add new aircraft, and select "FSLabs" for configuration. Still working on %MAC and Pax Weights

Airbus A320-214 FSLabs.txt

I'm afraid i'm just stating the obvious... but if it can help.

I made another post with, among others, a similar problem (TOPCAT's file auto-loading to MCDU doesn't work)  : how to make an efficient calculation with TOPCAT ? For me it doesn't seem to work as well as it should. I made a specific profile as Lodestar did. But there's always a discrepancy : for the same flight, with same fuel's amount and PAX, the payload, ZFW, TOW and LDW results between PFPX and TOPCAT are different. Need to "play" adjustments with the PAX weights between both of them to obtain similar results but it's a biased operation... So how much is it reliable (with or without our 3-20) ?  So i stopped using TOPCAT as a stand-alone and modified the weight values in PFPX and TOPCAT so as to obtain similar results in calculations. I use the calculator inside PFPX (in the "performance" tab, "T/O" & "LDG")  which seems to work if you have validated the a/c profile first (FSLabs model specs are not the same as the TOPCAT's). Then "dealing" with the MCDU so as to match ZFW and GW by adjusting the cargo weight so as to keep calculated V1 and THS ok... I agree, this is really a kind of tinkering...:huh:

-> Incorrect calculations with default values :

Capturebus11.JPG

Capturebus12.JPG

-> with these values, calculations are correct between both PFPX & TOPCAT (scheduled only) :

Capturebus23.JPG

Capturebus24.JPG

Cheers. ;)

Link to post
Zeljko Budovic

@Lapinou FSL A320 uses value of 80kg for passenger weight(TOPCAT default value). You can check this - start FSX and load A320, set PAX to 0, then start TOPCAT and go to TO page and press get weight. Load 1 passenger in A320 and get weight again, the difference is 80kg.

Another problem is that FSL A320 has PAX capacity of 160, and in PFPX profile is 178.

So, i changed that to 160 PAX in both PFPX and TOPCAT, and i changed PAX and Cargo distribution in my last TOPCAT profile to match FSL. Also, i set PAX weight to 80kg in both(TOPCAT and PFPX), and baggage to same value. 

The only thing that is not working is %MAC, i didn't have time to try adjusting TOPCAT profile to match FSL values, it's complicated. Other then that, it works well for me.

P.S. I don't use TOPCAT to load any addon planes, i load FSL via MCDU and then set PAX and Cargo in PFPX and TOPCAT to mach that value

Link to post
  • Bob Lyddy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...