So PF3 is not full of bugs then! I never thought so. It was always the fpl structure. If the OP dares to show his face on this forum again he should make a very public apology!!!!!!
Please calm down a bit ... I wouldn't expect anyone to react to such a line in a useful way.
If PF3 does not cope with such flight plans (either by working around the problems, or by rejecting them), then PF3 could be improved here.
The only problem with the request was the tone in the original post.
Thomas, The OP had no right to behave as he did on the developer's own forum! It was extremely discourteous and he was incorrect in his assumptions.
The golden rule for computer programmes is well known. "Garbage in - garbage out!" I have never seen any computer programme that produces a perfect result when given garbage. Having said that PF3 actually does come up quite often with a "workable" solution given a trash fpl. To get a result that matches or closely matches the real thing though often requires a little tweaking here and there and with PF3 you do get there with ease I might say!
Working with Dave as we both have, we both know his focus is to always improve on what he has done. He's quick to respond with fixes when they are needed and he has always been open to sugestion. not the "nudge nudge, wink wink" type though
(probably!!)
When you see other forums where developers have 'given up' or simply don't respond to requests for help even, one recognises how good PF3 is now and how it may develope in the future.
People want different things from different ATC programs. PF3 is flexible enough to satisfy the majority of needs in my opinion.