PM sent. Let’s see if I’m missing something.
Emir wrote:
Let’s see if I’m missing something.
Emir let us know what comes out of your chat. The routing appear to come out the same and the granularity on fuel burn vs. temperature seems of little use at low FL’s in a single-engine piston. Not sure it makes sense to stick with it..
Wondering what this “next-generation planning engine” they refer to is..
As I wrote before I think that getting an accurate model for the SEP or MEP aircraft performance is way down the list of European IFR priorities – because one normally works on engine management.
The much more important stuff is to be able to force the route to go via somewhere, to edit it, etc.
Peter wrote:
The much more important stuff is to be able to force the route to go via somewhere, to edit it, etc.
I disagree, sort of. I don’t think that the need to force a routing is that essential, it’s more a desirable. As previously mentioned, you can manually edit the route and this will still go through the Eurocontrol validation process.
Performance modelling – I’ve only used FF on the DA62 and the ‘stock’ performance model is extremely accurate (approx 0.5% on fuel burn and 1% on speeds).
I would agree that FF would do well to tweak some of the functionality to the European market but I am sure that they will do this; why else would they have dropped their extremely successful North American product into Europe?
Dave_Phillips wrote:
I would agree that FF would do well to tweak some of the functionality to the European market but I am sure that they will do this; why else would they have dropped their extremely successful North American product into Europe?
I think they will implement things if enough people ask for them. The reasons the models matter (and they are fairly new Peter so that is presumably why some errors could be there) is that they drive aspects of the filing process.
is that they drive aspects of the filing process
Of course, but Eurocontrol has been there for many years, so how did the original routing tools manage to work? They had primitive models but they worked great. Once Autoplan and FPP acquired fly-by waypoints, they were fully usable. Well, they were PC-only (PC or Mac OS for FPP) which today would be decidedly unfashionable as well as awkward in many situations. As I posted earlier, Eurocontrol has a huge leeway on the EET versus their internal (confidential) model.
All I am getting at is that there are bigger fish to fry to make really good autorouting, and that’s before you get onto the VFR usability which is the bulk of the GA market, as well as being relevant for Z and Y operations because most of the time on those you are OCAS and have to remain OCAS so you need a good VFR chart presentation.
Does anyone else find autorouting intermittent? For example yesterday all routes I tried failed. Today I can route EGKA-LKPR but not back, and EGKA-LDLO fails in both directions.
Also the altitude setting is curious. I have 18000 set here
but it did one at FL200.
This is the web version I am testing.
I have reported this to the team@ address.
Actually I wonder if this is a protocol / communication issue between the server and the browser.
Peter wrote:
Does anyone else find autorouting intermittent?
Hi Peter,
It does look like there is an issue on our side. We are in the process of testing a fix now. Stay tuned.
Josh
Josh_Tahmasebi_ForeFlight wrote:
Peter wrote:
Does anyone else find autorouting intermittent?
Hi Peter,It does look like there is an issue on our side. We are in the process of testing a fix now. Stay tuned.
Josh
Sorry about the delay. The issue has been resolved. Let us know if you continue to have any issues with receiving routes.
Josh
Concerning automatic decluttering, I like the SD implementation with different settings while planning (min max MSL) and while flying (below above current level).
