vPilot: Concorde No Longer Listed

Would it be possible to add the Concorde (CONC) back as an aircraft in vPilot?

The model matching rules for the Concorde no longer work even if a pilot even if a pilot enters CONC in the aircraft box when connecting to VATSIM.

Here is a screen shot showing a pilot that logged with the ICAO code CONC and vPilot is showing it as VW10 therefore none of the VMR rules are picking up the correct model.

Thanks in advance,

vPilot doesn’t change the code that another user enters when they connect. What leads you to say that that pilot connected as type CONC?

Because I asked him to as I was testing some additions to our vPilot model set. He connected with the aircraft type CONC.


Seems he was mistaken … he connected with VW10 as the aircraft type. Maybe he meant that he filed a flight plan with type CONC or that he was actually flying a Concorde aircraft in the sim.

Edit: VW10 is the code for the “AIRCONCEPT Airbuggy” … notice that the manufacturer’s name contains the string “CONC”. So most likely he typed CONC into the search box in vPilot, and selected the first match that came up. The Concorde doesn’t come up in the search results because it’s not a valid type code anymore.

The problem is in vPilot, the Concorde no longer appears in the list of available aircraft.


Right, but it’ll still let you connect as CONC. That user just didn’t realize that apparently.

You can connect using CONC as the aircraft type, but vPilot does not recognize the aircraft as a Concorde. It detects it as a VW10 therefore any VMR files looking for CONC as the aircraft type does not work.

No, that’s not correct. vPilot only sees whatever code the user connected as. If he had actually connected as CONC (which he did not) then it would show CONC in your aircraft list. vPilot does not change it to VW10 (why would it?)

I can only guess that he is entering CONC and then selecting AIRCONCEPT Airbuggy (VW10) from the dropdown list which is kind of wonky as all other aircraft types exist when typing in an aircraft ICAO code.

Would it not be possible to add the BAC Concorde back in the aircraft list?

I will retest again and ask him to enter CONC but not select anything from the dropdown list and see what happens.



Yes, it would be possible to manually add old codes that are no longer valid to the list of official codes that I get from the ICAO web site, but I don’t think it’s necessary, since you can just type whatever code you want. I mean, people fly as CONC on the network with vPilot on a regular basis.

I understand that in reality the Concorde no longer exists in the real-world (what a shame), but from a VATSIM practical point of view, this would certainly avoid a lot of confusion.

I am not sure that everyone (myself included as I learnt something new today) that you can enter a code without selecting an aircraft from a dropdown list.


I can’t agree that it would avoid “a lot of confusion” … people seem to manage just fine connecting with CONC (or other invalid type codes) on a regular basis. I think most people realize that the popup list in the vPilot connect window is just a list of search results and you aren’t required to choose one of the entries. In that sense, it works similar to the search box on Google and any other search box with a list of suggested results.

1 Like

Ok thanks for the clarification Ross.


If people do it « just fine », that’s good for them. However that’s a poor user experience.

In general, when you want to allow such action as you describe, then if the code you typed doesn’t exactly match one of the list, the first result should give you exactly that code, as a fallback.

User experience is tricky, and opening a search result by default suggests that you have to pick a choice.

If you want to be a better developer, listen to your users :blush:

Just because I don’t make every change that users ask for, doesn’t mean I don’t listen. The fact that I’m participating in this conversation is proof that I listen to my users.

If you want to be a terrible developer, do everything your users ask for. :smiley:

Not « do everything », but use standard UX design…

You are also an user and that type of « fill the field and I give you possible input » always show back the thing you typed when you’re meant to be able to keep your input.

An opposite way is where you type a city that is not recognized by the system, it doesn’t allow you to keep it (field validation will fail) and it doesn’t show in the list.

Or if it allow you to type it anyway, it show « keep my choice » or something. It really depends on the website for the wording, but it should be clear on an User Experience point of view. And as a developer, you must rely on an UX/UI for those sort of things.

And not always think like « most people do It just fine ».

Anyway, I said what I wanted to say, have a good one) Nice flights!

I agree that most search boxes include what you’ve typed in the results list when you are meant to be able to keep what you’ve typed. However, this case is a little bit specialized. We actually mean to discourage using an invalid type code. The fact that users still want to use invalid type codes exacerbates the issue a little bit, but only for those users. By deliberately NOT including what you’ve typed in the results, this serves the goal of cutting down on the invalid type codes that we see on the network. (This problem is precisely why the search results list was added in the first place.) If I were to include the typed string in the list of results, many users would never look at the other search options and they’d just continue with the invalid code such as “777” or “A380”.

Understandable :blush:

A whitelist would take too much time?

I considered a whitelist for some retired codes that people still use occasionally such as CONC, but I see it as a solution looking for a problem, since those users manage to connect as CONC all the time without a problem. Might still do that, but it’s waaaay down on the priority list.

Yeah, I bet there are other things coming up before people flying with old ass plane :sweat_smile: