PFPX launch: subscription bombshell

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

The imminent (next week now seems likely) and long-awaited launch of PFPX has been somewhat overshadowed by a row about an associated subscription.

 

Although there has been no mention of any subscription until now, the pre-release version of the manual (currently available from http://www.flightsimsoft.com/downloads/Manual_PFPX_en_web.pdf) says on p.10 that a subscription will be required one year after purchasing the product, in order to continue to download the necessary data. Needless to say, the reaction from those who have been following this topic on the Aerosoft forum has been less than positive: the discussion starts about halfway down this page — http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/68662-preview-pfpx-professional-flight-planner-x/page-6

 

We'll have to wait and see how this one pans out, I guess.....  

 

Cheers,

 

Brian

 

[britfrog 180]

I have also been watching this prog's progress as it promises to be the closest to the real thing, if that is what one wants, Didnt realise that Aerosoft was involved as well , However I suppose it is going to be like Navigraph except one will have to get updates from their own data base and the monthly updates must take some time and effort to amass. I well remember when I used to fly the monthly paper updates that would fall through the letter box every month to update jeppesons or aerads, ones heart sank becuase it was always a couple of hours work, luckily I could pass this task onto swmbo.

However Aivlasoft has a lot of shortcomings hence the interest in this prog which when launched will no doubt have the usual bugs to sort out before it starts to work according to the book.

[britfrog 180]

well I was wrong on one account, just had a navigraph email informing me that they will now be supplying monthly updates for PPFX

[Andrew Godden 941]

The imminent (next week now seems likely) and long-awaited launch of PFPX has been somewhat overshadowed by a row about an associated subscription.

 

Although there has been no mention of any subscription until now, the pre-release version of the manual (currently available from http://www.flightsimsoft.com/downloads/Manual_PFPX_en_web.pdf) says on p.10 that a subscription will be required one year after purchasing the product, in order to continue to download the necessary data. Needless to say, the reaction from those who have been following this topic on the Aerosoft forum has been less than positive: the discussion starts about halfway down this page — http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/68662-preview-pfpx-professional-flight-planner-x/page-6

 

We'll have to wait and see how this one pans out, I guess.....  

 

Cheers,

 

Brian

 

The PFPX subscription appears consistent with any fee for service based activity.  There is a physical ongoing cost associated with maintaining the necessary servers with the various updates, as the manual states - someone has to pay for it.  Perpetual licence fees can be even more outrageously expensive and would make the product cost prohibitive in the first instance.  So, this annual subscription approach seems reasonable if you want to fly with current data.  Real world AIP data doesn't stay current for long, with at least two major updates in a year, and the annual subscription for these aren't cheap either.

 

Other products, such as Ultimate Traffic 2, have been charging for updated AI schedules for a long time.

 

So, all they are saying is, if you want to maintain current data, it costs.  Your decision.

 

Nothing in life is free, it all costs someone.  Just ask Joe, while we all sit back deriving great use, advice and knowledge from the Hangar.  Hmmm, I wonder who is paying for that service.

 

Cheers

Andrew

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

Whilst I think we might all understand the "on-going costs" issues, Andrew, if you read through all the responses in the thread you will find that the main objections seem to be on the grounds that if AS2012 and REX and so on can provide their service without additional subscriptions (and they involve web accesses for updates every five minutes) then why should PFPX be any different?

 

Which, I have to say, does appear to be a reasonable point. Maintaining current data doesn't cost in those cases, it seems, since the data is already being made available.  

 

As to the other main complaint being voiced — that they have never mentioned the subscriptions until now — well to be fair the product isn't released yet, so.....  

 

Cheers,

 

Brian

 

 

 

[Andrew Godden 941]

Whilst I think we might all understand the "on-going costs" issues, Andrew, if you read through all the responses in the thread you will find that the main objections seem to be on the grounds that if AS2012 and REX and so on can provide their service without additional subscriptions (and they involve web accesses for updates every five minutes) then why should PFPX be any different?...

 

Simply, my point to the contrary.  If people actually understood the real costs, they wouldn't be whinging, regardless of comparisons to other products, because some do charge and others don't.  In this case with PFPX, there is a cost if you want to maintain current data outside the initial 12 month period.

 

People are always quick to take things for free but extremely slow when it involves paying a fee for service.  Probably explains why the Mutley's Hangar Forum Donation progress bar has been stuck on 16% for about the last three weeks...but in this case, I guess the "Forum Fairy" will come and pay the costs associated with running the Hangar.

[jaydor 345]

It seems to be a trend these days from the add-on market to keep bleeding the simmer.  I notice that some of the companies are charging VAT and they are located in the USA or South America where  there is no VAT, so that's one scam noted. 

 

I have to admit that if you were to keep updating a FP with updates then yes you would be expected to pay for the update.  But what about people like me who would just continue to use the original program without updating, would I still have to pay a yearly charge to run the program that I bought.  I know the EULA is a rip off that we have all tolerated when buying a program.  But I don't have to have a EULA when I buy a pair of shoes..

 

It will get worse as we progress through time..

[britfrog 180]

I am just writing a review of FS commander 9.3, which to be honest is a perfectly good flight planner, depending on your point of view , and what you use your planner for, I like the KISS approach, I find it much better than aivlasoft in some aspects.

But it all comes down to what you use your sim for, I dont want to have to do fuel calculations anymore , i have had enough of that in the real world, all i want a flight planner for is to give me realistic routes with the ability to alter them as i see fit , and the ability to save them for various aircraft, and the simpler that this can be accomplished the happier I am.

There is no doubt that PFPX is going to be better or should i say more compehensive, and closer to what pro pilots use, but how many simmers are there going to be that use it all properly?

I do not want to spend an hour and a half of pre flight planning just to get everything just tickety boo before starting engines, only to suffer some sort of fsx glitch that gives it a seizure, I want to be flying !

 

I imagine PFPX just by dint of its name will not be cheap, add to that a monthly subscription, and I dont think I will be going for it, after all I already have 2 top class planners that do more than I need and half a dozen more in the background if the need arises.

[jaydor 345]

Well I for one will not be interested in it, as Nigel says it's more for the professionals and dedicated FSXer's to use than a hobbyist. 

 

Also as I have FS Commander I may as well use that, it's paid for..

[brett 2,303]

The developer finally chimed in on the thread, about 15 euros a year for the subscription, not bad if you get a lot of use out of it. Looks like a cool program if your into that type of on the spot information for a RW experience, nothing wrong with that. I'm impressed by anyone taking a sim to that level. Seems like a lot of work to me and to much like a real job, I fly in a sim to relax.    

[britfrog 180]

The developer finally chimed in on the thread, about 15 euros a year for the subscription, not bad if you get a lot of use out of it. Looks like a cool program if your into that type of on the spot information for a RW experience, nothing wrong with that. I'm impressed by anyone taking a sim to that level. Seems like a lot of work to me and to much like a real job, I fly in a sim to relax.    

 

even r/w pilots have dispatchers and office staff who handle most of this so in most cases it is just a briefing and check for gross error.

Like you brett I prefer the easy life but its the old story , different strokes for different folkes

[britfrog 180]

well 46 euros doesn't seem extortionate

[allardjd 1,853]

Isn't an FS flight planner that uses RW data bound to cause difficulties? FSX was published in 2006 and the world has been changing ever since. What's the value of a database of up-to-date navaids and procedures, many of which will not work in FSX unless the sim is updated to include the new fixes, navaids and in some cases airport runways, etc?

I'm torn both ways because I like using RW procedures, routing, NATracks (they change daily), etc, but as often as not when trying to replicate the routing from a RW source I will run into an intersection or a VOR or an airway or an ILS that doesn't show its face in FSX. All that can be fixed, laboriously (I wrote a tutorial on adding intersections to FS way back in 2009), but it just seems like a lot of bother. Not sure what the answer is, but another a subscription based flight planner that uses current RW data doesn't jump out at me as the silver bullet.

John

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

Hi, John!   

 

> "...as often as not when trying to replicate the routing from a RW source I will run into an intersection or a VOR or an airway or an ILS that doesn't show its face in FSX."

 

Maybe I've just been lucky, or probably it's because I never fly VFR, but....

 

I keep all my add-ons (PMDG, FSC, Avliasoft, etc — and, I strongly suspect, Majestic Q400 one day     ) all at the same (Navigraph) AIRAC number (I don't update very often, but I do take care to keep them all consistent when I do) and I have never had any such problem. And I plan all my flights extremely carefully, as you know. So presumably I never have to use any of the built-in fsx stuff that is going to cause that problem to occur?

 

The relevance to this discussion being that if I now update my Navigraph AIRAC to the latest version (I have heard that PFPX is included in the 1309 update) then I suspect that my run of good luck will probably continue. But anyway, I'll let you know as and when.....   

 

So in answer to your question "Isn't an FS flight planner that uses RW data bound to cause difficulties?", I suspect that the answer is no — as long as the aircraft you are flying is up to date with everything else that you use, including your flight planning software (whether it be PFPX / FSBuild / Flight Sim Commander / or whatever).  

 

One final (and hopefully, slightly helpful) suggestion: have you seen the magnetic variation update mentioned in this thread: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/336155-magnetic-variation-updates-for-fs9-and-fsx/  ? Maybe that might improve your default fsx data slightly?

 

Cheers,

 

Brian

 

[allardjd 1,853]

Brian,

I followed the link you provided to the AVSIM forum thread and read most of it. I discovered there a link to Herve Sors' site, which has some great tools in it. However, as some there noted, simply correcting the magnetic variations in FSX creates new problems with the alignment of VORs and ILSs. He has tools for correcting those too, but it looks kind of tedious. Several of those posting in that thread made reference to the new problems that arise if all you do is correct the magnetic variations in FSX.

I believe you must be flying PMDG or other heavy-duty aircraft that probably have their own database of navaids, etc, behind the FMS. I can pick most any current STAR or RW IFR route or approach plate and as often as not, one or more of the fixes is simply not in FSX. I've even seen airways that are not in FSX.

As a for instance, I pulled up the current Anney Two STAR into the Miami area from the FAA on-line site. I picked it at random - did not select it as a particularly bad case. In ANNEY TWO, the fixes PCMAN, PHORD, ANNEY (for which the STAR is named), SNSBK, and HILEY are simply not present in stock FSX. In fact, of all the intersections on the STAR, only KAINS is in stock FSX.

Also, the VOR TREASURE (TRV) as shown in the STAR is there and in the correct location but is named VERO BEACH (VRB) in stock FSX.

The capability to use RW pubs for detailed flight planning in FSX is getting more and more difficult as the RW moves on from the world as it's depicted in FSX. If you buy a flight planning program that uses AIRACs or other RW data, there's no guarantee that the navaids and other entities that are in the nav data will actually be present in FSX - chances are they will not be.

Thanks for the link to the AVSIM thread - I picked up the link to Herve's site there and now have it in my favorites list.

John

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

Hi, John!

 

> "I believe you must be flying PMDG or other heavy-duty aircraft that probably have their own database of navaids..."

 

Exactly that, my friend (hence my comments about "... probably it's because I never fly VFR...." and "...as long as the aircraft you are flying is up to date with everything else that you use...").

 

I do deeply sympathise with the problem you face (that situation would seriously drive me crazy). My deep regrets that I couldn't suggest anything helpful.  

 

Cheers,

 

Brian

 

[allardjd 1,853]

Adding fixes is pretty easy, of course, but in the numbers required can become quite burdensome.  There are five or six changes to FSX required just to use that one STAR, and as I'm sure you know, the FAA and the other aviation authorities world-wide are adding and deleting things all the time. 

 

Physical navaids don't change all that much in the RW because it costs money, but Intersections and GPS waypoints and things like that are much easier for them to diddle.  There is an army of bureaucrats in most large countries whose job is to do just that, along with revisions to all the affected publications.

 

For those who fly high-end add-on aircraft that use an FMC that contains (or connects to) its own data sources the problem mostly takes care of itself.  For those who fly default AC or non-FMC add-ons, navigation by panel instruments using current RW navigation pubs is going to be a somewhat problematic evolution.

 

Thus, my original point, a flight sim navigation program that uses AIRACs or similar real-world sources is not going to produce a usable flight plan for FSX unless the user is willing to manually add the missing intersections, etc. to FSX.  That can be done and on one level is kind of a fun thing to do but can become laborious if you have to do it every time you need a realistic flight plan.

 

John

[brett 2,303]

Maybe this company should come up with a program to make all these changes in FSX so that their program would find a larger market. One can dream right?