Thanks. That’s what I suspect although indeed it is no great hardship to have an extra cable. I can’t wait to try it out.
Ok, here we go …
Apple once again rejected our app, so we have to make some last changes tomorrow. It’s actually not the app they have a problem with but our marketing model: We wanted to let users try each checklist for 30 days before they have to buy it, but Apple will not allow that. The app it self was to be for free.
We will now (have to) sell the app for a couple of Euros, and each checklist that we offer as in-app purchase will cost some more Euros. I guess € 14.99 for the complete system is not too expensive, but i would have rather given the users the 30 day test. I am convinced that few would have given it back …
Since everything else was fine the app should be in the appstore early in January. Sorry, guys. I’ll send out 5 morefree test apps to pilots of the following types: PA-28-151 or -161, or -181. Cessna 172N or 182P, Cirrus SR22 G2/G3 or G5.
First five PMs from pilots with any pof those types will get it tomorrow. Send PM with the eMail-Address you use on the iPad that you will use for the app!
That’s a shame it’s been delayed. PM sent
Finally: smartCHECK is available on the iOS Appstore!
The reason why it took so long is that Apple did not want to accept our marketing model to let users test the app 30 days for free before they would have to pay it. So we had to change the business model and now the app is € 8.99 but including the complete SR22 G2/G3 checklist set. Other checklists can be bought as inapp purchases, and we will try to make templates for many more types – after we get some first feedback. Also I want to see if the app has any chance on the market before I invest more money into it.
Although you can modify the Cirrus checklist for your airplane type by simply editing it and giving it another name, this solution is not perfect, because the Cirrus version has a “CAPS” symbol in the lower right corner that changes from gray to red at 500 ft AGL above airport elevation – and this feature cannot be removed by the user, so he’d have to download and buy a different template. We understand that this is a bad solution, because Cirrus G2/G3 owners will get their checklist with the app while others have to buy another checklist that can be edited for their airplane. We’ll have to find a solution for that. But it is as it is for now.
At least is always possible to get reimbursed for a checklist you bought and don’t like.
Great! Sadly I can’t find it on the UK appstore though!
If I edit a checklist on one device, would that get Synched to my other devices (I don’t really want to create the DA40NG checklist 3 times).
If you send me the format I could probably be able to type it all so that it’s available in app. The checklist comes from the manufacturer.
You have to seach for it from an iPad or in iTunes on your PC! It is NOT running on iPhones at the moment. (More later)
Alexis, what about selling the app for e.g. 0.99 (or whatever you find reasonable) with a simple almost empty check list (e.g. only the groups and one item per group)? Thus all pilots start with the app, being able to create their own check list manually or buy others as in-app purchases.
Vladimir, that would have been another possibility, sure. There’s many models one can think of. …
I will try to make different versions that each have one checklist included, ..172, 182, DA40, TB20 … and still offer the possibility to buy other checklists.
I am also thinking about letting other pilots do the checklists in the right format (It really takes me a week to make one without errors, I don’t have that time …) – and maybe pay them a 50% percentage of the inapp-sales. I have some other ideas too … but it’s still too early.
@NOE
you would have to write it in “JSON” format, which needs some explanation. If you want to do it, sure!
At the moment we have no way of syncing the checklists. I think most pilots will have the CL on ONE iPad and not on several, but of course that is a feature a future version should have (the whole list of ideas I have here is probably worth € 250.000 in prigramming ;-))
Flyer59 wrote:
JASON
JASON or JSON ? JSON seems pretty similar to something I use daily (sexp)
Sorry, of course JSON (sorry JASON :-))
