i'm d/l this baby while I speak!!www.lagoonline.comciao!Brian S

AWESOME!!! :-)but is it also for the VFR cruiser? I usually cruise alone (*cough* newby) heheGreetz,Paul

yes, you can use it for VFR, but its not really designed to be used with small single prop planes, although you can, just not designed for it. i've never tried it with a single, i'm hoping that they or someone will be able to have work around for that. i like to fly bush, however it does with with the caravan, baron58, etc. so...ciao!Brian S

>yes, you can use it for VFR, but its not really designed to >be used with small single prop planes, although you can, >just not designed for it. i've never tried it with a >single, i'm hoping that they or someone will be able to have >work around for that. i like to fly bush, however it does >with with the caravan, baron58, etc. so... The aircraft will not be a real problem as FSMaintenance should work with all aircraft. But many of the smallest lack systems that we track and fail. That's why we started at utility turbo props and left out the Cessna 172 etc. But they will function normal.In principle it will work but you might have to do some CFG tweaking (FSM is a tweakers dream program, loads of CFG files and all are well documented).Problems you will see, are things like that in bush flying rather strong pitch up and down attitudes are normal to clear trees etc. Also 'rough' touchdowns are normal. In the standard settings these would be logged and penalised but the CFG settings can be chnaged to allow these. We also might have to allow a bit more money for maintenance as bush flying tends to wear down aircraft much faster.If somebody send me a good tweaked (and tested) CFG for bush flying at [email protected] I'll send him a free code for FSMaintenance.Mathijs KokLAGO

This comment may be a day late and a dollar short, but I wrote these suggestions a month ago with the intent to send them during development. I was sidelined for personal reasons and did not get then to LAGO. So, without actually trying the product yet here they are:I suggest a measurement and reporting capability for Passenger Comfort. Items to include in the measurement are:1) Long-duration positive G. This can occur at bottom of climb, bottom of decent or in a steep turn. 2) Long-duration negative (or less than 1) G. This can occur at top of climb or beginning of decent.3) Excessive Lateral force. This can occur during a poor non-coordinated turn or during the landing phase if excessive slip is used.4) Excessive acceleration or deceleration force. Although the acceleration force is more acceptable to pax (if they are sitting face-forward), deceleration is not. Excessive use of speedbrakes, landing gear brakes, sudden throttle down, or non-smooth throttle changes (actually, sudden throttle chages have the added effects due to sound - or lack of sound - the pax's concern level will rise with a sudden spool-up or spool-down when not seemingly appropriate for the current flight status i.e. landing or taking off).5) Excessive Axis Rotation Rate. This will occur if, during flight, the vector of any axis is changed too rapidly. A fast roll, fast rotation from the runway, poor flare, improper use or dancing on the rudders.For the GA pilot these measurements and scoring would be minimal. However, for regional and major airline flights these factors become most important to comfort of flight, the goal being to keep that Xerox salesman in 13C's gin & tonic on his tray the entire flight. Smooth flying and preplanning (being ahead of the aircraft) will produces the best results whereas poor planning and jerky movement of controls will produce the least desirable effects.Just a thought.OBVIOUSLY if the above items are covered then just ignore this post. I just had this list setting on my PC and these were my thoughts at the time.

>1) Long-duration positive G. This can occur at bottom of climb, bottom of decent or in a steep turn. 2) Long-duration negative (or less than 1) G. This can occur at top of climb or beginning of decent.3) Excessive Lateral force. This can occur during a poor non-coordinated turn or during the landing phase if excessive slip is used.4) Excessive acceleration or deceleration force. Although the acceleration force is more acceptable to pax (if they are sitting face-forward), deceleration is not. Excessive use of speedbrakes, landing gear brakes, sudden throttle down, or non-smooth throttle changes (actually, sudden throttle chages have the added effects due to sound - or lack of sound - the pax's concern level will rise with a sudden spool-up or spool-down when not seemingly appropriate for the current flight status i.e. landing or taking off).5) Excessive Axis Rotation Rate. This will occur if, during flight, the vector of any axis is changed too rapidly. A fast roll, fast rotation from the runway, poor flare, improper use or dancing on the rudders.

Dear Lago-people,what about 767pic failures? I strongly suspect that the do not work with FSM? Or am I surprisingly wrong here?Cheers,mmmol

Thanks Mathijs!"It is also a bit of a arguable issue which we learned when we discussed it with some pilots.":-lol :-lol :-lolEVERYTHING is an arguable issue when you discuss them with pilots.P.S. I plan on purchasing this today.

Congratulations on getting it out the door without crashing into something Mathijs :-rotor (P.S., how are you doing, fully recovered yet?).You might want to check the spelling of the FS Maintenance info page. Clearly written by an Italian (spotted 3 typos/spelling errors in the system reqs alone) :-lol

>what about 767pic failures? I strongly suspect that the do >not work with FSM? Or am I surprisingly wrong here? Everything that is programmed according to the SDK's released by Microsoft will work fine. We noticed that a few things in PIC are desigend from the ground up because FS2000 simply did not provided the functions they needed.Of course we do NOT trigger the failures PIC has build in, but most of what we trigger will work in PIC without much problem. In fact many of our testers used PIC during the tests. The failures will coexist without any problems of course.In FS2002 the options for aircraft have expanded so we believe most people will follow the SDK, thuse removing this 'obstacle'.Mathijs KokLAGO

>Congratulations on getting it out the door without crashing >into something Mathijs :-rotor (P.S., how are you doing, >fully recovered yet?). I still look like the United Nations :-) many parts of my body are black, brown, yellow. I have no idea what race is coloured purple but I got that as well. In fact all is well, simple need some time to get back to my normal piglet pink colour.>You might want to check the spelling of the FS Maintenance >info page. Clearly written by an Italian (spotted 3 >typos/spelling errors in the system reqs alone) :-lol I know... I know... You should see our Japanese pages..Mathijs