...as a home cockpit builder myself, I can tell you I definitely didn't purchase FSUIPC for free... Since FDS is in the cockpit building business, it makes sense from a business perspective to publish an FSUIPC look-alike... even if the motive is to eventually charge for it sometime down the road (Like FSUIPC finally did)... ...and I suspect that might be in the plans for FDS. It's like any "Standard".. first we had Token Ring, then Ethernet. Let the better (or better advertised, or accepted) technology prevail.. (in most cases).... ;-) (SNIP)I see FDS' decision to produce FDSConnection as "peeing in Pete's rice bowl" because they wrote it for one reason and one reason only - to let payware developers get out of paying to connect through FSUIPC even while freeware developers - including themselves - could continue to take advantage of FSUIPC for free.(SNIP)Actually, I think the more accurate reason is FDS found that 'cutting Peter in' was too cost-prohibitive, in developing their own Simulator solutions, so they coded their own. The results of the decision to *not* cut Peter in I think is enjoyed first by FDS and their bottom line, and secondly, by the rest of us.

>its more expensive than an Operating systems with more lines>of codes... ill just use FreeFD... will save me more money for>other parts... an over head panel from FDS or 2 LCD>monitors...We need to understand that while FreeFD is nice, these are two different things. Magenta is a lot more than PFD + ND + engine displays. It's a whole avionics system simulation with a flight management computer, autopilot and cockpit displays - and now the pmsystems adds the aircraft system (hydraulics, generators etc logic) simulation. I havent used it myself, but I tend to think that even if it has some issues, none of the alternatives come even that far yet.It's pretty much like PMDG's 737NG add-on, but created for interfaceability from the beginning.//Tuomas

LawnDart:"as a home cockpit builder myself, I can tell you I definitely didn't purchase FSUIPC for free"If you paid for a registered copy of FSUIPC it was to get the EXTRA functions of FSUIPC, that FDSConnection does not offer at all. FDSConnection duplicates ONLY the core funtion of FSUIPC, and that is, as I said, FREE except to payware developers."I think the more accurate reason is FDS found that 'cutting Peter in' was too cost-prohibitive"No, because FDS' cockpit software is freeware. Pete allows FDS to use the FSUIPC interface for free. They don't have to cut him in - ONLY payware developers have to do that. Even after FDS released FDSConnection to let payware developers avoid paying, Pete STILL gives FDS a freeware key so their users can use FSUIPC for free. As I said, they don't benefit AT ALL from releasing FDSConnection because they can still use FSUIPC for free. ONLY payware developers benefit.And yes, if a payware developer decided that it was to his benefit to write his own connection software, instead of paying Pete, then I would consider that a perfectly legitimate business decision. What FDS did wasn't the same... they have released a program just to allow payware developers to avoid paying Pete, while continuing to have access to his software for free themselves.Richard

I don't understand the sceptism. Pete Dowson had FSUIPC for free (for developers and the mass). He decided to go payware for both the developers and us, since "extra features" are wideserver too, and not just variable handling.FDS provides a free solution for a network FSUI too that Dowson doesn't. It is a free alternative and basically I don't care if it cuts anybody's share.I suppose you feel the same against Linux and other free programs that cut the share out of other hardworking programmers that want to be paid (to the prices that they feel are right)? It is a free market after all.Should FDS (and FreeFD and other gs developers) also be blaimed for trying an alternative to payware Project Magenta? After all they cut 1000s out of them.

...actually, FDS is coming out with a line of "Hardware" products that are USB plug-and-play.. which require communication with the flight sim software... so the argument that the only reason FDS offered this software was to allow payware developers free access, is unfounded. (SNIP)And yes, if a payware developer decided that it was to his benefit to write his own connection software, instead of paying Pete, then I would consider that a perfectly legitimate business decision. What FDS did wasn't the same... they have released a program just to allow payware developers to avoid paying Pete, while continuing to have access to his software for free themselves.(SNIP)I find this statement absolutely unbelievable... that a company would devote internal resources ONLY to benefit members outside of the company without any intrinsic value to itself? Surely you don't believe that this software has NO viable use within FDS?I paid for FSUIPC to get my sim up and running. Regardless if FDSConnect has more or less functionality is not my concern. I bought what would work. If FDS matures into something on par with FSUIPC and offers something that FSUIPC doesn't, I will buy that if it is for sale... and therein lies a strong argument as to the reason FDS publishes FDSConnect. I should also note that I am merely speculating. As a previous business owner myself, I am drawing on my own experience to speculate on FDS' strategy. How are you getting your information?

>It's pretty much like PMDG's 737NG add-on, but created for>interfaceability from the beginning.Except for the little fact that PMDG's AFDS is nearly perfect, and has been nailed almost right on the delivery time, while PM still lacks functions and is far from "nearly perfect" after years and years and years of development.I found the previous price was high (for my availability) but justified by the value, now i don't feel the same anymore regardless of my money capacity.

yep... two different things. i hope FreeFD will come up with an avionics system and flight management computer that pars PM... as for aircraft systems... i can save 500 bucks (instead of PM)for my IOcards and use their SIOC software to simulate aircraft systems. $500 is a big deal of money especially if you leave here (Philippines)

I just want to clear up some confusion here... We are talking about a company called "Flight Deck Software", found here: http://www.flightdecksoftware.com/ , ...and not Flight Deck Solutions, found here: http://www.flightdecksolutions.com(I think I was the one most confused ;-) )

"...actually, FDS is coming out with a line of "Hardware" products that are USB plug-and-play.. which require communication with the flight sim software... so the argument that the only reason FDS offered this software was to allow payware developers free access, is unfounded."Where do you get that info from? There's no mention of them getting into the hardware field on their website. "I find this statement absolutely unbelievable... that a company would devote internal resources ONLY to benefit members outside of the company without any intrinsic value to itself?"FDS is not a "company" in the usual commercial meaning of the word, they're a group of freeware developers. As such they got bent out of shape at Pete's decision to start a) charging payware developers to connect through FSUIPC and :( to start charging for the add-on functions of FSUIPC. They therefore released FDSConnection simply to cut into his income from Payware makers as a "We'll show YOU" gesture."Surely you don't believe that this software has NO viable use within FDS?"None whatsoever. Most users of FDS' own GlassFD software still connect through FSUIPC because it's still so much more widely used than FDSConnection."I paid for FSUIPC to get my sim up and running."To do what? While a lot of the add-on functions of FSUIPC are very usefull, I can't think of any that would be 'needed' to get a sim up and running.Richard

"He decided to go payware for both the developers and us, since "extra features" are wideserver too, and not just variable handling."Not true. Wideserver is a totally separate program from FSUIPC, and is conventional payware. If someone produces a freeware alternative to a payware product, that's fine, everyone benefits. If the payware producer wants to maintain his market, he has to make his product better than the free alternative. We see this with FreeFD and GlassFD making a free alternative to PM, not to mention dozens of payware aircraft competing with their freeware competitors. FDSConnection was released as a free alternative to a program that FDS themselves continue to link through for free, for NO other reason than to cut into Pete's revenue from Payware developers who have to pay to connect through it.Richard

>>It's pretty much like PMDG's 737NG add-on, but created for>>interfaceability from the beginning.>>Except for the little fact that PMDG's AFDS is nearly perfect,>and has been nailed almost right on the delivery time, while>PM still lacks functions and is far from "nearly perfect">after years and years and years of development.>I found the previous price was high (for my availability) but>justified by the value, now i don't feel the same anymore>regardless of my money capacity.Out of curiosity, what kind of functions are missing?//Tuomas

>FDSConnection was released as a free alternative to a program>that FDS themselves continue to link through for free, for NO>other reason than to cut into Pete's revenue from Payware>developers who have to pay to connect through it.Still even if it is so, I don't see why this is a problem. We don't have any contract to pay Pete simply because he was the first to develop a good FSUI solution. If it weren't for him, it would have been someone else. All this time he kept it free (and did a pretty good job also) so there was no need for anyone else.What Pete's (base) program does is to "expose" variables. So does FDS's. There isn't any breathtaking technology or inovation there. It can't be patented either. So no problem for anyone else to do the same.Also may I point that the "share" that professional programmers cut to him is taken out of our pockets. So we end up paying him at the long run.I'm not saying that Pete is a bad guy. I admire what he did all the years that FSUIPC was free. I still support his decision to keep the base pack free. But when it comes down to paying, I don't owe him anything, simply because he turned it into a fiscal transaction.It is pretty much just like Linux. It is a free unix that others want you to pay for. OpenOffice also is the same. Both are not only for "simple" home users, but for bussinesses (since this is what seems to be bothering you). Do you object to that too?PS. Who can assure me that Pete will keep FSUIPC base free? Isn't it better to always have alternatives?PS2. I'm not making a contradiction here. I had to repeat the previous arguments that you didn't comment on because I think that they are significant.

"I'm not saying that Pete is a bad guy. I admire what he did all the years that FSUIPC was free. I still support his decision to keep the base pack free. But when it comes down to paying, I don't owe him anything, simply because he turned it into a fiscal transaction."And I agree that I 'don't owe him anything' in terms of paying for FSUIPC... If I choose to pay for the extra functions or not, that's my decision.HOWEVER... My original point was that FDS' reason to release FDSConnection was simply a mean spirited attempt to deliberately cut into Pete's income. That point still stands. There's nothing inherantly wrong with releasing an alternative to a freeware program. My gripe is with the motivation behind *this specific* release - it actually cut into the time the FDS guys could have spent improving their GlassFD application, just so they could take a dig at Pete.We DO owe Pete a certain amount of respect at least for all the time and effort he's put into writing and supporting FSUIPC completely free over the years, and the vitriol that was poured on him from those folks when he made the - fully explained - decision to start charging for the add-on features and for payware programs was totally unjustified.Richard

(SNIP)My original point was that FDS' reason to release FDSConnection was simply a mean spirited attempt to deliberately cut into Pete's income. That point still stands. There's nothing inherantly wrong with releasing an alternative to a freeware program. My gripe is with the motivation behind *this specific* release - it actually cut into the time the FDS guys could have spent improving their GlassFD application, just so they could take a dig at Pete.(UNSNIP)You are going to great lengths to paint FDS in a bad light. Where are you getting your facts, such as: "it actually cut into the time the FDS guys could have spent improving their GlassFD application"Are you THAT unhappy about FDS trying to publish an Alternative to FSUIPC? I don't understand where this 'fierce loyalty' is coming from...You state: "There's nothing inherantly wrong with releasing an alternative to a freeware program." ...but you also should realize that one of the unavoidable side-effects of doing exactly that, will be that profits of payware authors of similar products --will-- suffer... period... It's a fact of life, regardless of the motivation.If you want to tack "Mean-spirited" onto this unavoidable circumstance, so be it... but I think it's unfair of you to do so. So far, all you've done is state that the move was "Mean spirited", but you haven't in any way substantiated that claim with any evidence or backing.. you've only taken your speculation and have tried to establish it as fact... without basis.

>Out of curiosity, what kind of functions are missing?Well for instance roll-limits, but this and each different thing comes from the fact that PM doesn't actually fly the plane like PMDG or PSS do, it uses (or at least used as long as i knew) the FS default ap, controlled in a more precise way but always the fs own ap.Then being it a general software i don't know if it can be an exact replica of the NG afds (which is peculiar and has some custom annunciations and modes different prom 747.767.777), when i tried it couldn't (i admit it being some time ago).Remeber that Mr Schiratti started developing PM for his 747 project, then all other types have been added after.