By Tim Mitchell 859102
#520168 Hi Ross,

I have a couple of requests for features; no idea how easy these may be, one of them may happen or there may be a method for it already but I'm not sure.

1) Allow pilots to specify a registration when logging on, would allow for an AI traffic specific repaint to display if the livery is present that has the same registration taken from atc_id in the aircraft.cfg. Would be good for special liveries

2) VMR auto check for changes when vpilot loads up.

Thanks

Tim
By Michael Wellner 1024937
#520727 We are trying to start a formation-flight on Vatsim, while using JoinFS to connect the pilots/aircrafts for faster connection. But we need to stop vPilot submit the aircrafts allready shown by JoinFS to FSX. There is a delete button in the .aircraft list, but it only deletes the aircraft until the next receiving of the aircraft data. Maybe you could put an ignore-button next to the delete button?
Or it would be really great, if we could get back the .ignore command in the new version of vPilot as in version 1.1.5596.33514 you posted some year ago in this thread.
Thanks,
M.Wellner

BTW: Tx a lot for this masterpiece of Vatsim-Client. :D
By Simon Kelsey 810049
#520737 For what it's worth - +1 on the REG/ field for model matching. That would be extremely cool.

Also an 'ignore' function would be of interest aa well for a similar reason to Michael (multiple users connected a Join FS server, albeit for shared cockpit rather than formation flying) - at the moment with one aircraft and two pilots it works well but I imagine with two simultaneous aircraft (ie four pilots in two aircraft with two separare callsigns) we'd have the duplication issue.

Out of curiosity, how does vPilot handle >2 shared cockpit users? If the main connection is ABC123, obviously ABC123A (logged in as observer) will be ignored. Will ABC123B, C etc also be ignored if say one, two or more pilots also joined the flight deck?
By Ross Carlson 887155
#526198 I honestly don't recall the reason for removing it ... I vaguely recall that it ended up not really being a full solution to the problem, or something like that.

Simon Kelsey 810049 wrote:Out of curiosity, how does vPilot handle >2 shared cockpit users? If the main connection is ABC123, obviously ABC123A (logged in as observer) will be ignored. Will ABC123B, C etc also be ignored if say one, two or more pilots also joined the flight deck?


Looks like I missed this question back in January.

It's not actually a matter of ABC123B etc. being ignored by the main connection ... that already happens because ABC123A/B/C/D etc. connect as observers, so the main connection doesn't see them anyway. I think you really meant to ask whether or not ABC123B etc. will successfully ignore the main connection, and the answer is yes. If you connect in observer mode, vPilot will ignore any other aircraft that matches your callsign minus the trailing letter.
By Trevor Hannant 1240481
#526201
Ross Carlson 887155 wrote:I honestly don't recall the reason for removing it ... I vaguely recall that it ended up not really being a full solution to the problem, or something like that.


Thanks Ross.

What are the chances of getting added back, or some other way to ignore specific aircraft so that "doubling" doesn't occur when using other connection tools? Unfortunately, for us fast jet jockeys, formation flying is pretty awful with the default VATSIM connections when flying at higher speeds so the likes of JoinFS are key to the success of doing this. At the moment, having no option to ignore your "playmate" means the only solution is to turn the following setting to '0':

Settings > Performance > Maximum aircraft to display


Trevor
By Ross Carlson 887155
#526205 The chances aren't very good, mainly because this is something that would benefit only a tiny minority. The more likely fix will be when VATSIM improves its position update rate ... that will benefit everyone.
By Trevor Hannant 1240481
#526230 Could do Rob - but that would mean amending and importing every flight as callsigns/registrations change...

Ross, pity but understandable. Wish it hadn't been removed in first place but then if you don't know the value of it to determine whether to keep or not...