Omega wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:19 pm:1. I may click "assign squawk" by mistake.
2. I may need to include additional instructions to the squawk assignment in the same message (e.g.: Reset transponder, squawk 0351 - Cleared to xxxx via x squawk 1234 - squawk 0123 and ident).
3. I may need to change to a different squawk code, either because the squawk code range values were incorrect or some other aircraft was already assigned the same squawk code.
4. An aircraft may be communicating via voice (FGcom, mumble etc). Therefore, sending the squawk code over text would be considered as something unnecessary.
In case (1) you can revoke the squawk code. although not telling the contact about it would be better.
I understand (2), in case (4) the text message would bring redundancy.
Case (3) would be a bug, because OR tracks which Squawks are in use.
I have another thing to ponder about: We don't have an auto text that includes squawk. Without the automatically sending of the squawk message, you would have to write 'squawk' many times in a shift.
We have different possibilities:
(a) set the squawk message into the chat input box, but wait for further editing by the ATC, before we send it
(b) add squawk to the auto texts (this would make everything difficult, as there are scenarios without squawking.
Maybe 100 NM is too far, but this feature exists by purpose, to allow an early alignment with the runway. As this feature came out of the community, I cannot change it easily. Please discuss it!
There is already a simple ruler feature for that but my main concern is that it doesn't look professional enough, there is a reason why they don't have center lines extending up to 100nm in vatsim or any other real life radar scope. I'd rather have the aircraft just proceed direct to the airport or a navaid and then be vectored for final at a good range for the ILS. If they are on a STAR that would be much better.
From my side, my personal target is not the maximum of professionalism. I would not care, to add features, that are useful and convenient in our environment, as long as the professional radars could implement it too. I want, that we attract many ATC-enthusiasts, let them have fun and give them a tool to make flying in FGFS more attractive. If we are close to the reality, the better.
OR is already very configurable. If you implement a very configurable application there is a big danger: Very soon, you can reach a state, in that everything is connected to everything and a minor change causes a lot of problems. Because of this danger, I am hesitating to fulfil all appearing wishes.
Now more specific to your request:
In the dialog to modify the extended centerlines, you can simply set the length to whatever length and you may use the button 'copy to all' to have this setting for the whole airport.
This should be at least a rather good workaround, if you don't work on too many different airports.
I didn't test squawking yet but thanks for letting me know.
Everything is described also on a wiki page:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/OpenRadar:_TransponderYou can track the progress also on the change log page...
A good start into the week to everybody!
Wolfram