By Markus Schober 1328585
#500798
Ross Carlson 887155 wrote:I've always assumed that normally people only add liveries to flyable aircraft, which typically aren't used for model matching due to their complexity and performance impact. What are your thoughts on that?

What I do from time to time is manually adding liveries to AI aircraft from other sources than World of AI (for instance FSX AI Bureau).
The only way I found to make vPilot updating the rules was to change the content of the aircraft folder (for instance, move a folder out, start vPilot, confirm the dialog, close, move the folder back in, start vPilot and confirm again). While this works, it's not very handy. By the way, why does one have to confirm the detection of changes? There is no option to "cancel" anyway.

So if there is no fast and reliable way to detect changes to the folder, I would be happy with a "refresh" button.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#500800
Markus Schober 1328585 wrote:By the way, why does one have to confirm the detection of changes? There is no option to "cancel" anyway.


It's really just to let the user know that the re-scan is going to happen.
By Markus Schober 1328585
#500877
Ross Carlson 887155 wrote:Edit: I just realized that you can use WoAI's installer to add liveries to existing aircraft ...

Maybe adding a force refresh button is the best compromise, here.

Yep, just happened to me, too. While I still think that a button will be sufficient for a quick solution, I like the approach of creating "hands-off" programs, in this case one that can detect changes itself.
I was thinking about the problem that parsing every aircraft.cfg file for possible changes was too slow and realized that I am using a version control system (Mercurial) that detects changes very quickly, even in rather large projects. Mercurial checks the timestamp and size of each tracked file, which is way faster than parsing the content of course. Maybe this is an idea for you to pick up for further improvements.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#500885
Markus Schober 1328585 wrote:Mercurial checks the timestamp and size of each tracked file, which is way faster than parsing the content of course. Maybe this is an idea for you to pick up for further improvements.


I considered just looking at the timestamp and size, but there are reasons why the file might be modified other than adding or removing a model. For example, I recall reading about add-ons that modify entries in the file when you use their flight planning tools. Not sure what gets modified, maybe weight and balance data, tail number, etc.

However, I think I just thought of a way to make it work. After each scan, I could save a file on disk that keeps track of which models were found in each aircraft.cfg file, and also store the file size and time stamp. If a size or time stamp change is detected, I could re-scan only that file.

This would require a substantial change to the way the scan result data are stored on the user's disk, but it's probably worth it.
By Clarke Kruger 847916
#500910
Markus Schober 1328585 wrote:This one is not precisely a feature request but I put it here:
Can you add the following two ICAO codes to the list of known airlines in ModelMatchingData.xml -
EPA (Donghai Airlines)
CCD (Dalian Airlines)
Thanks!


You can edit the XML as well. I've done it many times already. Use Notepad++ which is a free download.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#500911
Clarke Kruger 847916 wrote:
Markus Schober 1328585 wrote:This one is not precisely a feature request but I put it here:
Can you add the following two ICAO codes to the list of known airlines in ModelMatchingData.xml -
EPA (Donghai Airlines)
CCD (Dalian Airlines)
Thanks!


You can edit the XML as well. I've done it many times already. Use Notepad++ which is a free download.


It is not a good idea to edit the file, since it will be overwritten by vPilot when I update the data, and your changes will be lost.

Clarke, what changes have you made?
By Clarke Kruger 847916
#501023 Just edited some of the model matching data, Added the Freighter variants since people still seem to be listing B77F and MD1F as there ICAO codes.
Just so they show up rather than a default model.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#501024 Clarke, did you see my previous reply, warning against editing that file? Your changes will get overwritten the next time I update the file.

B77F is already in the similar aircraft types list, so you don't need to add that one anywhere. (If it didn't end up matching a triple 7 model that you have installed, let me know, since that may indicate a bug.)

I'll add MD1F to the similar types list for the next update.
By Clarke Kruger 847916
#501035 Sounds good, Yes I did read your post as well.
Easier editing the text then getting people to search proper ICAO codes.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#501138
Clarke Kruger 847916 wrote:Easier editing the text then getting people to search proper ICAO codes.


Not when your changes will get clobbered!
By Boaz Lev 1285642
#501594 So, may be a bit late to the game, but I'll give it a shot anyway: Would it be possible to configure output per radio? So, for instance stating that COM1 goes to this sound card and COM2 goes to another? Obviously, it would be possible to set both to the same output/input, but for home pit builders, this would be a real killer feature :) I am assuming the change would be minor as you already know in the incoming data stream which of the radios is receiving the stream.

Thanks,
By Ross Carlson 887155
#501598
Boaz Lev 1285642 wrote:So, may be a bit late to the game, but I'll give it a shot anyway: Would it be possible to configure output per radio? So, for instance stating that COM1 goes to this sound card and COM2 goes to another? Obviously, it would be possible to set both to the same output/input, but for home pit builders, this would be a real killer feature :) I am assuming the change would be minor as you already know in the incoming data stream which of the radios is receiving the stream.


For such a feature to be complete, vPilot would also need to have two different PTT buttons configured and be able to *record* from the two different devices simultaneously. I'm not sure the VATSIM voice code supports that, but I'll check into it.

And that then raises the question of whether or not it is acceptable policy-wise to have two different users transmitting over a single user's connection.

Have you considered using observer mode for this?
By Ross Carlson 887155
#501720 I've just posted vPilot 2.0.7 for download (still in open beta) and this version will detect new liveries added to an existing model.