>I have never seen the Maddog in action. I'm still waiting for>the VC ;-) But I will get it, when they release the update. >>And I'm sure it will be worth the money ... only for the SC.>>AlexFunny sometimes a grin when reading all this ;-)As for shared cockpit the true one here is the Maddog and a bit more complex to :-lolHave fun,Andr

Michael,I'm not sure what you are fighting about. It is established that if you design your gauges using the FSX gauge function set, then the gauges MAY work in SC (not all of the gauge functionality in FSX is supported in SC). But if they had to do anything special to get functionality that FSX does not supply, then they will not. A large portion of the planes that you listed were not designed for FSX in any way (i.e. Milton Shupe's planes, KBT PC3, I believe most of the Alphasim planes). In most cases, the only updates to FSX for many planes are replacement of FS98 style gauges, and some changes to the aircraft.cfg file in terms of addition of cameras, and maybe some flight parameters if the designer is savvy enough.But now I'll have to load the latest patch for the SR22. Last time I checked, the Avidynes and Garmins were not supported in SC (a change in one cockpit was not reflected in the other). I'll be psyched if they work now. I did not notice that change in the list of functionality of the patch (nor was I expecting it).And actually, thank you for your list. I don't know why you were reticent about posting it. It is useful information.The only problem that I see is that this request could convince developers to add less functionality in the cockpit, focusing more on making gauges work in SC, rather than creating new functionality to make more realistic, smoother performing gauges and systems.If this functionality is necessary for you, your best bet is to inquire before purchasing; and hope that eventually the functionality becomes more robust and is better documented. If anything, I'd spend your time communicating to ACES how important this functionality is to you so to convince them to put more resources into it (thereby taking them away from somewhere else).BTW, I'm all for better support of SC in multiplayer. I think it is really important technology.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Actually, wikipedia is more reliable than most people think.http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+acc..._3-5997332.htmlFor us it's fine, and people writing papers and articles don't cite encyclopedias anyway; even if the information is good, they worry that to not use the works of specific scholars or theorists makes them look amateurish, which it does. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ is good but I think the best free online dictionary ishttp://hyperdictionary.com It has very complete lists of definitions as well as synonyms, antonyms, and related words. Then it shows words in classic contexts from Webster's 1913 Dictionary and cross references with others, like Easton's Bible Dictionary. Finally, at the bottom, it has a thesaurus. The only problem is that it doesn't have a spell checker, so you have spell words correctly for them to be looked up.For etymology, http://etymonline.com/ And Rhett, I was being serious. As for shared cockpit, I agree that whether a product is compatible or not should be included in a "features not included" list, which most developers omit. This would be capabilities that one might reasonably expect given the add on, so an fmc for a modern business jet or airliner, for instance. It should not be left up to the customer to surmise - based on "price points" for example - or tread through forums in order to determine what a product fundamentally does or does not have. Moreover, the development of add ons can get expensive for very different reasons, like a hard to acquire military soundset, a complex model and animations, or an accurate fmc and database. These three things are not the same and are consequently valued differently by different customers even though they equally contribute to driving up the costs of development and therefore prices. The lack of such a list of unincluded features really bothers me. I think people buying flightsim add ons know what they want and would rather be completely informed than possibly duped. Don't we all agree on that? In the end, it disrespects the customer and hurts the reputation of the company if their products are below the standard, explicit or tacit, they pretend to meet.

>The bigger issue it that unless planes are tested with shared>cockpit, a lot of the 'basics' do not work. I see the gear up,>the other player sees the gear down, AP not working for both,>lights on for one and off for the other, etc, the list goes>onOk ahm lemme assume you have not really tried out what you describe here to the fullest extent. In case you had overseen that, the 'basics', as you call them, do not even work in default planes. This has been an issue for most of the lifetime of FSX (I should exclude SP1 here though because I have not much MP experience with it yet). So I for myself would not even ask the question why they don't work in add-on planes either. Just mentioning the gear and maybe light switches, it has been more or less safely discovered that these represent 'toggle' events, where the other machine only receives exactly that, not the actual state of the switch. If for a reason nobody would ever know both machines are out-of-sync from the very beginning (which is what used to happen on a regular basis), it would obviously remain out-of-sync forever. More great examples are the COM1 radio, some autopilot variables (check the SPD one for example...) as well as reverse thrust. As said, some of these things might have been fixed in SP1, rev thrust is said to, but I doubt about the rest. Havent tried myself, but I and many others did try RTM more than enough where the above has been true. I dont want to say your dicoveries were wrong, but I just wanted to make sure you know these issues do not begin at an add-on level but already way below.Cheers, :-beerchugEtienne :-wave

Thanks for your input, but your assumption is wrong. I have over 300 hours in MP, over 1/2 of which is in shared cockpit, and have tested many planes. These functions work fine in the defaults I have flown, and quite a few addons. I am currently testing other planes now to see which are compatible.

Flyingscool,Your post peaked my curiosity so..................I am currently in the air flying the Columbia 400 from Eaglesoft, my co-pilot has control of the plane while I type this on a 2nd computer and speak to him on teamspeak. We are able to share all the functions with no problem, AP, GPS, Avidyne the whole 9 yards!I would like to invite you to join a multi-player session with me at your convenience and would be more than happy to assist you in learning how to make the shared cockpit function as perfectly as it is at this moment.and the issue still remains the one of accountibility.

I don't have the Columbia 400 (and am a bit strapped for cash at the moment). But I do have the SR22, and will upgrade it with the latest patch later this week.Then I'd be happy to go flying with you.In my experience pre SP1 and pre SR22 latest patch, when I changed the Garmins or Avidyne on one computer, I didn't see a similar change to the screens on the second computer. But it may well be fixed by the patch.BTW, I think a list of airplanes that work in SC would be very useful. I'd be happy to maintain such a list on my site with input from users on what planes and associated features are supported in multiplayer SC. I don't think a list of planes that don't support it is worth it, but a list of planes that do would be great for the community.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Something worth trying then with any aircraft, in the hope to understand further implications of "compatiblewith FS(x)":take any aircraft audio panel, and adjust the audio panel volume. Does this change the NAV/COM audio volume in FS? You might say it is not fully comptible since FS offers an in-game audio level setting and the audio panel in the aircraft is not actually changing the audio level??!Hope this helps!

"Back on topic (sort off). I've seen you use this forum several times for promotion of your products. I think it would be beter if you stopped posting that way. Posting end user questions and opinions is fine by me but promoting your own product should be left to advertisments and reviews on this site.BTW Your postings over the last days left a negative impression on me. I would have to overcome that impression before I buy an Eaglesoft product so your postings might generate a different effect then the one you seem to seek."There are Eaglesoft ads submitted here. Simply awaiting our turn:-)Plenty of Eaglesoft reviews as well with a few being addressed as we speak:-)Sorry to hear you have a negative impression but on the positive side...users are certainly free to make their own purchase choices and we are glad to see you are exercising your right:-)

Whats going on here with dumping on Eaglesoft?Eaglesoft IMO is one of the best addon vendors out there. Especially since their Cirrus SR aircrafts came out. Looking forward to many great aircrafts from them.IF any newbies out there reading this... if you are considering Eaglesoft, Don't hesitate... I as a Flight sim user and addict (no association with any addon vendors or commercial interest) fully endorse Eaglosft!Now, if only they put out their G1000 aircrafts.... That would put them on a stratosphere!:)Manny

BTW, could someone from Eaglesoft take a look at a post about the Hawker I made on your forums? tks :-)

>BTW, could someone from Eaglesoft take a look at a post about>the Hawker I made on your forums? tks :-)The only question I can find has been answered; by yourself! ;)You must load any default a/c first, then load the Hawker.

Then that eliminates the Hawker from multiplayer, as you cant change planes once in the session, tks for the info

>Whats going on here with dumping on Eaglesoft?>>Eaglesoft IMO is one of the best addon vendors out there.>Especially since their Cirrus SR aircrafts came out. Looking>forward to many great aircrafts from them.>>IF any newbies out there reading this... if you are>considering Eaglesoft, Don't hesitate... I as a Flight sim>user and addict (no association with any addon vendors or>commercial interest) fully endorse Eaglosft!>>Now, if only they put out their G1000 aircrafts.... That would>put them on a stratosphere!>>:)>>MannyThanks Manny! Much appreciated:-)The G1000 Columbia 400 is under development and as always we'll let everyone know when we have something for them:-)

>Thanks Manny! Much appreciated:-)>The G1000 Columbia 400 is under development and as always>we'll let everyone know when we have something for them:-)>>You always try to bump your Eaglesoft topics do you :-lolA free tip don't use this forum as free advertisement and just let the users here discuss the products available and to share opinions amongst users not developers...If a product is that great freeware or payware it sells it self but then again you feel the need to take every opportunity to advertise :-)Thanks and much appreciated to have an unbiased opinion here ;-)Cheers,Andr