CrashGordon

Sorry I keep coming up with these bizarre things.

I found something interesting. It took 198 flights to carry over 2 million passengers:rolleyes: I have a nagging suspicion that it is returning the total units, meaning pax and lbs. of cargo. I also haven't found a way to get rid of the decimal amount in fuel burned. Airline Statistics Total Pilots: 28 Total Flights Flown: 198 Total Aircraft: 104 Total Hours Flown: 498.37 Passengers Carried: 2297149 Fuel Burned (lbs.): 3157507.1060009 Miles Flown: 213119 Total Flights Today: 0 Total Schedules: 2335

They are in different folders, totally different domains with DNS set up to point the domains to the specific folders and homepages. The only reason I got curious about it, is that a couple of times, I've landed on the home page, which showed I was not logged in, but when I went to log in, I got an error message stating I was already logged in. EDIT: Whoops, I'm an idiot. I believed my own propaganda. Correction, the domain name for the server is fspirep.us. Omega-air.org is pointed to its own subdirectory, below which is the phpVMS directory. that allows me to display the phpvms pages in an iframe. Typing in http://www.omega-air.org takes you to Omega-Air's home page. The second VA is located in a directory below public_html and can only be accessed by typing in the site's domain name and path to its home page. Anyone typing it that VA's domain name gets a page that tells them access is by invitation only.. I don't know if that clarified things, or made it harder to understand.

That's what I do as well. The only thing missing is the amount of cargo carried, but there does not seem to be any easy way to work that in.

I have two iterations of phpVMS on a single server. Each serves a different VA, the URLs for which are pointed to different directories. Each has a separate database. The question I have involves the cookies used by phpVMS. I noticed the following commented out line in app.config.php //Config::Set('SESSION_COOKIE_NAME', 'VMS_AUTH_COOKIE'); I'm assuming that is a default. My question is if both iterations of phpVMS are setting similarly named cookies, can that cause a problem for someone who logs into both VAs? If so, what would be the suggested naming convention to use? (No, I don't spend all my time dreaming up crazy questions.)

Depending on what page you place this, copyright © may get a question mark in a diamond displayed. It can be avoided by using copyright © in your code.

I'm puzzled by it being tricky to rename. The only reason for it being tricky I can think of is that it still has dependencies on the files in the crystal folder. I used the crystal skin as the basis of what my VA uses, but I created a new folder in skins, then copied all of crystal to it and finally ran a global search and replace in that folder so that every file and all content replaced crystal with the new name. Never had a problem in that regard.

If the content is the same what makes a PDF better than a web page?

Have you looked at CutePDF Writer? It installs as a printer driver and when used, it produces a PDF file. It's free.

I may use a similar approach, though in my case all flights are attached to OMG. The others merely exist to make finding types of flights (pax, cargo, regional, etc.), easier to find. I've been working on something else all day and just wanted to cobble something together quickly.

You're probably right, but I feel tacky today. Maybe, I'll change it tomorrow.

Or, I could place a notice on the page. IMPORTANT: Please select, "OMG - Omega-Air Virtual Airlines" as your airline. This is the umbrella organization for all our operations. That will let me know if they can read and follow instructions.

A while back, I created several airlines in addition to Omega-Air (OMG). Some of them were Omega-Air Express (OME), Omega-Air Freight (OMF), etc. The idea was to allow for easier searching of routes. In that regard, it was successful. The problem is, that when pilots have been joining, they've been selecting amongst the airlines.. While that isn't necessarily bad, it is a bit of unnecessary chaos. Is there a way that would allow me to use the different airlines for sorting routes, etc., while only presenting a single one to those joining?

Looks great, but the site seems very slow.

If 2007 had the feature, it was so bad I didn't use it in 3 years. the thing that drove me nuts with 2007 (and earlier) is they kept placing settings in counterintuitive places. 2010 is a lot better...at least for me.

Yes. It works quite well. The culprit was the hotmail connector...even though it didn't specifically identify itself as and Outlook 2010 prerelease version. When I changed it to the current version, Outlook 2010 installed without incident. Being able to store email as "conversations", is wonderful. but before someone suggests Thunderbird, let me say that I use so many rules in sorting and dealing with email, that it has choked every version of Thunderbird I've ever tried.

I should have said Windows Me! The key word regarding those file formats is that it can "open" them. I found no option to save in those formats.

Because Open Office doesn't do either .docx or .xlsx file formats. Even if it did, its appearance is so "Windows 95".

Which part of escaped your attention? I use Word a couple of times a month. The same with Excel. I hate Powerpoint with an undying passion and never use it. I don't even have much use for Onenote. So why would I spend another $150 to upgrade those applications, especially since they haven't been improved all that much? Outlook, on the other hand, is substantially improved.

I think you missed the point. The only thing I wished to install in 64 bit was Outlook 2010. It found I had Office 2007 32 bit and refused to install. I have no intention of upgrading my Office Home and Student 2007 to 2010 because I don't use it enough to justify the expense and there haven't been enough changes to interest me. If I were to remove Office 2007, Install Outlook 2010 and then reinstall Office 2007, I'm not sure what the reaction would be. Frankly, it is too time consuming to try to find out.

One thing that annoys me is that MS doesn't say you can't install the 64 bit version if you already have 32 bit MS Office installed. That is a bad omission. It is also blatantly false. There is no need to have the 64 bit Outlook share anything with the 32 bit MS Office programs. The other thing that annoys me is that MS, which has all kinds of programming ability, doesn't have their installer say, The following program(s) prevent Outlook 2010 from being installed. Do you wish the installer to remove them?

The problem is that I have Office 2007 Home and Student, which was only made in 32 bit. As long as it is installed, I can't install the 64 bit Outlook 2010. I have no wish to upgrade office, because what I have is totally adequate. so, I'm stuck using the 32 bit version of Outlook 2010, which, by the way, is pretty good.

By any chance, did you have the Outlook connector for hotmail and live.com accounts, installed? It turns out, that was the problem here. Google was my friend, in this case. I still am fuming over the 64 bit issue.

I haven't bashed MS in a long time. (a week) That is about to change. I went to the MS online store and got Outlook 2010. I downloqded the 64 bit version, which promptly told me since I had Office 2007 32 bit, I couldn't install it. Gotcha #1. I downloaded the 32 bit version, which refused to install because it thinks I still have one of the prerelease versions installed. I uninstalled it months ago. I would tell Steve Ballmer to go to hell, but hell hasn't caused me any trouble, so why should I bother hell.

Because everyone thinks their screen shots are wonderful and want to show them off. I point to my first statement. "Is it just me, or does anyone else think this is like reinventing the wheel". I've got no problem with things that extend the functionality of phpVMS, though I always have a nagging doubt whether it will work with the next version. But, if I have a forum, blog, gallery or wiki that works to my satisfaction and it is accessible to the users, I'm not going to make those items dependent on another piece of software. That limits the options I have in developing my site. I don't think this is an area of right and wrong. It's about what the site owner's priorities and preferences are.