A new user may not realize that any attached sample slots to a VSTi will assign the DEFAULT volume of the sample, rather than the GLOBAL value of the Instrument.

A new user should never reach this situation - if you create an instrument from a plugin, it is created without any sample associations by default, and if you decide to turn a sample-based instrument into a plugin-based instrument, OpenMPT will offer to remove all sample associations as you have found out, for this very reason (and a couple of others).

To put it more explicit: Having instrument plugins and samples within the same instrument is a deprecated option, hence I see no action required here.

Or maybe on the Patterns page there could be a reminder field of what the Default volume is for a chosen Instrument. This would be helpful for those trackers who normally have the "Show Default Volumes" off.

That basically equates to "I don't want to see default volumes but I still want to see them"? I don't get the point of disabling this option (it's default-on) but still wanting to know the default volume. Please don't request features that are potentially useful for someone else but you don't require yourself (as far as I understand you have the Show Default Volume feature turned on). If a person had a good reason to request this feature, they would hopefully do so (or otherwise it's their problem).

For what it's worth, I have documented the default case (instrument with plugin assignment and no samples) more clearly: https://wiki.openmpt.org/Manual:_Instruments#Volume_and_Panning

Wow, 90% of the time, Saga, you make it difficult to ask for any FRs and your attitude is unfortunately stereotypical for "geeks." I find that i'm more and more hesitant to make any mention of bugs or FRs because of your automatic dismissal of people's ideas. Or do you just reserve this attitude for mine.
Since it was merely an observation that turned into a Feature Request, i'm changing that attribute, so it can be properly designated.

My FRs are not always about me, but about ease of use for ANYBODY. Whenever i use any software and wonder if it can be done better, i take into account that OTHERS may find my ideas of any use, not just myself. Plus, if i just mentioned that i wanted the feature for ME, how quick would you respond with, "Well, we can't change the software just for your personal preferences..." Please don't ask me to "please don't ask for features that you're not going to use yourself." It's shortsighted and insulting, in case you didn't read it the way you wrote it.

The FR actually involved opening older files (in this case one that was used as a template) that was created with a previous version of openMPT BEFORE we were given the option to opt out of sample slot assignment when a user is assigning a plugin to an Instrument. The devs' current motivation seems to be inclusive of previous versions or older modules, so i'm curious as to the "whiff of the hand" and the upturned nose.

However, for more modern modules, it would be helpful as a Preview option to know what Default Volume will be used, just like we know what Instrument will be used (whatever's showing in the dropdown) and where the cursor will go when we enter a note (whatever showing in the Row Spacing field). These preview options make it easier to understand what will happeen when we do what we want to do, and such is the nature of the Feature Request.
And just because i work without showing the Default Volumes is only a matter of Display, not one of Knowledge. I like to keep my work area clean and simple, but once i know what will be the Default Volume entered for the given Instrument, i would just soon not have it cluttering the Pattern Editor. Actually, this Preference would be better served showing on the PE page than in the preferences.

I hope that clarifies the matter and inspires to take another look at the request and your assessment of it.

It's shortsighted and insulting, in case you didn't read it the way you wrote it.

To give a clarification of how I intended it to be read: We (and most other projects, certainly) do not want feature requests of the kind that the reporter themselves does not actually need but thinks that some day, someone out there might consider to be useful. Just to give an extreme example to make it obvious: Someone requesting OpenMPT to open Cubase project files, without ever having used Cubase themselves. These kind of requests just turn the software into bloatware because noone actually wanted that feature.

Back to the actual request:

The FR actually involved opening older files (in this case one that was used as a template) that was created with a previous version of openMPT BEFORE we were given the option to opt out of sample slot assignment when a user is assigning a plugin to an Instrument. The devs' current motivation seems to be inclusive of previous versions or older modules, so i'm curious as to the "whiff of the hand" and the upturned nose.

Let me clarfiy: The old default (assigning empty sample slots to instruments with plugins) is still possible as it was before, and the new default (sample-less instrument plugins) was already possible in those old versions. It's just a matter about what is the default, and as such there is no distinction between "modern" and "old" modules (they all look the same from this perspective). However, I don't think this has anything to do with the original problem (which default volume is used when?) because that is just a matter of documentation which has been resolved in the meantime.

For the case of not showing the default volume, I don't really know where this information should be put instead. Any suggestions are welcome.