Weather injection into PSX...

[JP59]

I flew from Beijing to Chicago the other day, and the wind direction was off by a bit here and there, as was the wind speed, but PFPX's predictions were in the ballpark. And the variations ended up canceling themselves out, so at the end of the trip the predicted fuel burn was spot on.

In that case, you consider to fly without flight log and weather charts. If you try to make a flight as close to reality as possible (this is what we try), you download weather forecast charts and follow the navigation log to check every time over waypoints and fuel prediction / actual FOB status.

If you have, say, -5 tons (this is what I saw last time) of FOB vs flight planned fuel over a waypoint and say : "OK, it's normal, the difference will be compensated along the flight because PSX winds aloft and PFPX predictions are different", you are very far from the reality.

If you see a huge CB line in front of you and fly through because PSX weather radar doesn't display anything dangerous, because ASN has CBs and PSX planet doesn't, you see something goes wrong. All these incoherences brings you "out of the simulator" are breaks the immersion which is so difficult to create, but so easy to break.

It's part of real-world flying that the actual in-flight winds are different than the forecast winds, so some variation is to be expected (and enjoyed).

Of course, but not within such proportions. I can show you my last RJAA - EGLL log. If I didn't take 10 tons of extra fuel, I'll have to divert over Finland. When the PSX jet stream is 1000Nm far away from the jet on the weather chart you downloaded, this is not realistic. Also when the systems on the weather charts doesn't match with what you see within PSX weather radar and turbulence.

PSX weather engine is very sophisticated, and very good, but it was build for standalone usage. This is very coherent according to Hardy's idea of the simulator he wanted to create. The problem comes when you try to use real world data, forecasts, weather charts in real time, and weather engines for FSX visuals like ASN. The data doesn't match and create unrealistic situations. PSX has a very good weather engine. PFPX makes very good flight plans. ASN is a very good weather engine. The problem is that PFPX and ASN can share their data, PSX, today, cannot.

[cagarini]

So....

the best way to do it is, to use PSX standalone, using maybe FSX or P3D or XPlane for the visuals, with the weather injected by PSX.

This is what I am doing.

I didn't buy PFPX, because I would be using it only with PSX ( no longer use FSX or P3D or XP10 other than for some out-of-windshield experiments, and would rather prefer to use Flight Gear 3 for that purpose... )

If I ever invest in PFPX, because it is indeed great for the flight planning part, then I will use it just for that, skipping the excellent predictions it could make, but are useless given the disparity between it's data and PSX's data.

In the future maybe someone can think of making the PSX meteo man talk to external applications, PFPX included, and then, we will be able to get precise planning :-)

[JP59]

So....

the best way to do it is, to use PSX standalone, using maybe FSX or P3D or XPlane for the visuals, with the weather injected by PSX.

This feature is not working for me. Only flashing clouds and no visibility simulation. Very far from what ASN or other weather add-ons can do.

[cagarini]

This feature is not working for me. Only flashing clouds and no visibility simulation. Very far from what ASN or other weather add-ons can do.

Well, we can't certainly compare the quality of the default weather in FSX / P3D to what ASN can provide, that's for sure.

Regarding visibility, I decided, after experimenting with FSX and X-plane 10, to re-install P3D v1.4. This was my best choice so far ... P3D v1.4 indeed translates PSX's visibilty with no problem.

My only problem is the stuttering, with any of the external visual simulators - XP10 is no better in this respect, and it's naked world is disconcerting :-(, plus that medium / high alt visibility blur...

I would really like to have Fligth Gear 3 as an alternative, specially with the upcoming new features for Flight Gear 3.2

[JRBarrett]

So....

the best way to do it is, to use PSX standalone, using maybe FSX or P3D or XPlane for the visuals, with the weather injected by PSX.

This is what I am doing.

I didn't buy PFPX, because I would be using it only with PSX ( no longer use FSX or P3D or XP10 other than for some out-of-windshield experiments, and would rather prefer to use Flight Gear 3 for that purpose... )

If I ever invest in PFPX, because it is indeed great for the flight planning part, then I will use it just for that, skipping the excellent predictions it could make, but are useless given the disparity between it's data and PSX's data.

In the future maybe someone can think of making the PSX meteo man talk to external applications, PFPX included, and then, we will be able to get precise planning :-)

I just completed a 12.5 hour flight as DAL629 from DTW to NGO. I flew it in real-time, which is to say that my off-blocks time (19:35Z) was the same as the actual DAL629 that flew yesterday. I used the actual flight plan for yesterday's flight (from FlightAware), and generated a plan using PFPX using actual upper winds.

In The PSX Instructor weather menu, I shaped the jetstreams to approximate those in yesterday's northern hemisphere prog chart.

Overall, even though PSX upper winds were not perfectly in sync with the actual winds, they were quite close. The PSX winds on the first part of the trip were just a little stronger than the RW forecast, and just a bit weaker than RW during the last part, but it seemed to even out when taken as a whole. The wind directions were quite close throughout.

I hit every waypoint enroute within 2 minutes of the time predicted in PFPX, and my fuel burn was never more than 3000 pounds different than the flight plan prediction. I landed with 2,150 pounds more than PFPX predicted - pretty good, considering the total burn was over 209,000 pounds!

I was wheels-up in the sim 5 minutes ahead of the actual DAL629, who I tracked the entire way via the FlightRadar24.com ADS-B feed. The two aircraft (sim and real) were never more than 50nm apart in terms of location during the entire 12.5 hour flight. We even did each of our step climbs at almost exactly the same times, and landed within 2 minutes of each other. (The real flight finally passed me in the descent).

I never realized this before, but Delta routes all of their 747-400 flights to Japan (from JFK, DTW, ATL, LAX and MSP) so that they all arrive at about the same time - right around 0800Z. While tracking DAL629 on FlightRadar24, there were no fewer than 9 DAL 747-400's in Japanese airspace at the same time - 6 inbounds, and 3 outbounds. That's probably the bulk of the Delta 744 fleet!

I know that a similar situation holds true for the KLM 744 fleet for inbound flights to EHAM

It was an enjoyable exercise, and a testimonial to the accuracy of the programming in PSX itself, as well as that of PFPX as a flight planner.