Curt:
Quote:
"It is interesting to here about the RV use of wanting the fuel counter to be reset at a stop. I use S&T to plan trips on my motorcycle. I may cover up to 1500 miles in a day and the only way to do that efficiently is to know exactly where to stop for gas. I spend a lot of time researching gas stations online (Google, Yahoo, S&T, etc.). I don't use S&T for navigation while I'm riding. So it would be nice when I lay down a route that when S&T calculates where I need gas that I can tell it where I got gas."
Sounds like you're doing some IBA rides?
My upcoming trip will be an SS2000 followed by an SS3000. I plotted out my fuel stops for the SS2000 using the distance tool and the Find function in MapSource. Very laborious.
I was psyched when I got the trial version of S&T - it is
much faster than MapSource and thought that the feature to recommend fuel stops would be great. Until I found out that it wasn't interactive.
I was completely dumbfounded that it didn't recalc fuel stops. The irony is that if you create a new waypoint for a gas station, it recalcs the route so it would seem to make sense that it should recalc the distance to the next fuel stop, right?
Quote:
"I also realize that a lot of people are using S&T as a realtime GPS unit which is a great feature but wasn't it's intended use when it was first launched. It was used for planning trips. Why can't it excel at both instead of putting all the focus on the GPS part. Some people here are asking "Why would you want to do that?" "Why can't you do it like we all do it?" to that I would say "Why do you want a full blown GPS in your laptop when they have device that already do that?". But I don't say that because we all have different needs. S&T was trip planning software first and then a GPS. We all have different uses and adding one checkbox for refueling seems like a pretty tame request. If you don't use the fueling feature then don't try to convince someone that they don't need it either."
Agreed - there's no value in trying to convince people that they don't need a feature. I think it's constructive to offer a work around (I wish there was one for this problem) but not to convince someone that they don't need a something like this.
My take on software (having been writing software for almost 20 years) is that it's either a feature or a bug. It would be
really hard to defend this lack of functionality.
Hopefully someone in Microsoft will champion this feature. Or maybe someone in Microsoft will try to use S&T for a long distance ride and get so frustrated that they add it. That would be nice!