Hi Tim,

I would like to put my vote in for a new function which should be very easy to implement. When planning a longer trip I had initially split it up into two legs and saved each leg as a separate route. I then decided to look at the whole trip, with the two routes joined into one, and found that it wasn't possible to join routes.

Other example at hand: I am planning a long trip through Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Austria and Germany. There are 16 individual legs to it. I would like to see the entire trip as one route on my PC but don't feel like re-planning all of them at once into one route.

If there were a button under the Route menu which would say "Merge route..." or "Append to route..." and which would make a single route out of the one in memory and the one being opened, that would be great. In case the end of one route does not coincide with the beginning of the other route, you could simple create a straight line leg between them and let the user deal with it.

That ought to be simple and also useful.

Thanks, -- Chris.

There's a whole thread on multi sector routes in the suggestions area (I started it), but it seems to have gone a bit quiet despite several folk supporting the suggestion.

Any update Tim?

Hugh

Regards



Hugh

G-OIBM

Commander 114

Thanks for the pointer, I am aware of this thread. What I threw up here is, however, something slightly different and, I believe, more basic. I just want to be able to string together several individual routes into one route. For this I don't care about intermediate landing points and refuelling.

-- Chris.

You could probably do this by hacking your .flightplan files together. They are fairly simple XML files.

Yes, that's why I thought it would only be an hour's work for the coding guys to achieve just that. But if that isn't going to happen I'll have to resort to your suggestion.

-- Chris.

To be fair on the developers, when you have a list of hundred jobs - even if they are only an hour each - it'll still be a hundred hours before the last one gets looked at!

Steve's right, to implement this properly would be a non-trivial amount of work. Frankly, even if it was trivial, we wouldn't implement it (at this stage) because so far I think this is the only request for it, and we want to keep the addition of extra features that are not targetted at the majority of customers to a minimum.