The future of FSUIPC

[Guest A321]

I will most defiently Pay for FSUIPC if thats what pete needs, however i will only send money once i know if its payware or donation ware. This means im not waiting for him to say "ok its still free", whatever he does he will still receive my money, but first he has to make up his mind as to what he wishes to do.On a lighter note, PETE, YOUR THE MAN Jason Chandler

[bobbyjoh 11]

After going through and reading this thread, I know why I could NEVER be a politician. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some of them stated in this thread in my humble opinion border on just the bizarre. There are discussions that loose all rational and are just tirades about nonsense.I thank Ray for taking the time to express to the general community some of Pete

[kaydub 3]

>Lastly, I sent my donation to Pete on the first day Ray >posted. Let your own conscience guide you, but there is no >such thing as a free lunch in life. Pete has been feeding >all of us too long and it is time to recognize that a

[jd 57]

http://secure.simmarket.com/product_info.php?products_id=453

[Guest]

Hi Ray,Thank you for posting this. I made a donation the other day - given all Pete has done for our hobby, and all the add ons (freeware and payware) that I have enjoyed because of FSUIPC, this was the best retrospective flight sim purchase I have ever made!Pete if you are reading this thread thank you for all your efforts, and please continue - if it needs to be payware the next time around that is fine with me.Best regards,Vic Alesi

[Guest hoohah]

>Since the inter-workings of FSUIPC is not easily understood >my most of us in the general flight simming community, it is >fair to add a couple of points. First, many of the add-on >packages that we all enjoy today, just would not be here if >it were not for FSUIPC. The amount of state interaction >plus the package coding would be a hurdle that most >developers would not want to tackle, and that is both >FREEWARE and PAYWARE. >That reminds of a "once popular" addon that I purchased for FS2K.It had problems right out of the box, one of which was that it needed a particular version of FSUIPC and there was no mention in the docs that it used FSUIPC - I guess they assumed you just had it installed. That is when I first learned of FSUIPC.(I've also had problems with installs overwriting the current version of FSUIPC with an older one; but that's another issue).>Second, Pete has fixed some general problems inside of >FS2000 and FS2002 that EVERYONE benefits from on each flight >without even thinking twice about it. >FSUIPC is almost synonymous with your body

[Guest Tim13]

"Is there anyone out there who is not running FSUIPC?"I guess that would be me. I don't fly on VATSIM, and most of my flights are relatively short using real weather in large turboprops or GA planes. Other than downloading an older version of it to check out it's "weather smoothing" features that didn't seem to do much of anything, I've never really utilized it. What I do know is that this is one very important piece of software for many in our segment of the flight sim community. Whether it is freeware, payware, or donationware, I just hope that he continues to advance this program for the forseable future. It would be a shame to lose such a valuable resource such as FSUIPC.Tim13

[Guest]

Something makes me think you consider money and anyone wanting compensation for their efforts to be an evil thing.Please explain...

[Guest]

>To me, I see this as nothing but blanket soliciting. >Everyone is trying to make a buck off of FS, under the guise >"I work so hard". To heck with freeware then--it simply >isn't worth the effort. From this point forward, I will no >longer support or update my two apps. If I have to "pay" to >produce freeware, it simply isn't worth it. Everyone needs >an extra dime here and there, but I am shedding no tears for >Pete... Seems like he's just another joining the "can I get >a buck outta this" club... >John, didn't you pay for the software you used to create your programs?Personally, I've paid thousands for compilers and APIs that I use for little or no gain. I may have landed a job because I had experience using them, but never sold anything made with them.I see FSUIPC as similar to all other APIs and toolkits. Some you have to buy, some are given freely.Not to say I was surprised when Peter suddenly announced he needed money to continue development. Something clearly changed in his social and/or financial situation driving this move.Did he get laid off loosing access to the compilers he used maybe? If so, why not say so. That's a small amount for the community to provide (a year ago before I was laid off myself I could probably have given him half of it myself no problem, now I can't).I was seriously considering making a donation towards FSUIPC (but had to wait until my paycheck is in, which should be this week) but I won't be bullied by threats such as Rays post is clearly meant to be no matter what he says.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

In light of all my posts in this thread, I ask Avsim to remove them. I let myself get out of hand, and only recently did your original post get called to my attention, which I sadly missed while out of the state last week. I apologize, and will offer no more resistance to your efforts to help Pete. I had a chance to browse the forums over there--I wish him luck, especially considering the challenges FS 9 may introduce. Regards,John

[Guest]

>I agree it's very hard work and writing code is no easy task >but it seems that FS is becoming more and more about >commerialism and money and less about a hobby. >For you it's a hobby, for others it's not.And for others still it's a hobby they can't afford to continue unless they get part of their cost compensated.>To be honest people this is a HOBBY, this is not a car >you're buying or health insurance or a real boeing Aircraft >for that matter... >For most people a car is a hobby or a tool they use for their hobby...There is no line.>I've purchased serveral great payware programs, most of >which i haven't regretted spending the money. But it seems >that the more and more you look everyone is trying to charge >for these tools relating to our hobby and justify it as a >way of earning a living and it shouldn't be. If you cannot >balance your time or devote enough time to your job and do >this on your free time then you shouldn't do it at all. >Ever thought that it may not be about time but money?If Pete needs to buy a new C++ compiler he's looking at spending

[Guest]

Seeing how many "freeware" panels require commercial addon gauges I don't see the problem.Either you have or are willing to buy the addon or you don't use the product.Maybe those panels will be less popular with the "I refuse to recognise that people are spending money on creating this so I won't pay for it" crowd, but are those really the people you want as users anyway? They're likely to backfire on you as they're often also part of the "this button is the wrong shade of green so your panel is a piece of crap" crowd.All freeware authors have tanked on Peter's personal investment of time and money in providing for them for years and years.Many of them have invested their own time and money to be sure.If you don't like the way the future of FSUIPC is looking, why not try to replicate it by providing similar services through another module you write yourself?

[CraigC 0]

While I agree that Pete has spent a thousand hours or two developing and tweaking the module that is literally a requirement for most add-on developments for FSx, I feel no guilt to shoulder the cost of keeping this FSUIPC movement going. I (we as end users) didnt choose to lean on a single module to make pieces of a flight simulator fit together, and I refuse to take on the responsibility of supporting Pete and FSUIPC on my own with the other end users. Freeware and commercial developers decided this was such a necessity (Im sure to lighten the programming burden on their end), and payware developers shouldve been paying Pete from the start. That is not my fault and I will not let Pete's bad decisions as a programmer/businessman reach in my wallet.My suggestion is to let all of the commercial developers who use the module either pay Pete for his time spent getting THEIR software to be compatible with MSFS or pull the plug on the whole thing. I completely understand how important this module is for the functionality of add-ons in MSFS, but I didnt ask for development of the module, I downloaded or installed it because a developer said I had to to use the product.Craig

[Guest]

"the current trend from freeware to payware"This notion crops up now and then..I don't think such a trend exists any differently than it has ever since the internet has made e-commerce and freeware possible.Certainly, people we have known as freeware artists can decide to go commercial, but this is not new. My first "mentor" in scenery design was Justin Tyme. He taught me more than I'll ever repay back in the days of fs98. Remember his freeware of that era? Remember delmarva? PA? Ok, so are the worriers about a "trend" including Justin's establishment of "FSGENESIS"? I can name many household names in scenery design that hadn't yet been heard from in 98, can't u? Isn't it obvious that you can't claim the demise of freeware unless you stop seeing new folks beginning to learn? There is a constant stream of people who are just now uploading their very first creation! Freeware LIVES, always has, always will. The problem isn't that freeware is trending to payware. The problem is that users begin to "latch" onto certain freeware artists. Once the user "latches" to any one author, then the changes THAT author goes thru begin to feel to that user as significant. If you can flow from one author to another, if you can recognize the growth and development that designers go thru, you can end your worries. Design is fun..folks are always turning onto it. Freeware is cool, its a classy way to thank those that taught you (usually for free).Something to consider...has any reader of this thread done the same thing for fun over and over again for years? Don't you need to vary what you do for fun, for it to stay fun? If you get REALLY good at what you do for fun, the adulation that can be created may keep them into it longer than they would really like...perhaps then it feels like a job. No doubt, if I had to take on a second job, it wouldn't be for free. That's, of course, only one way to respond to staleness. Has anyone noticed that Ken (webad) Nelson has transitioned from freeware scenery design to freeware utility programming? If you had "latched" onto Ken's work (fun bush type airports), and didn't follow the world of design, you might imagine that Ken is more "proof" of the trend. Course if you've downloaded lwmdraw4, you'll be once more enjoying FREEWARE. LOL And look at the cool learning that Ken is going thru and sharing with us. When I first met Ken, he didn't know how to code...now he's learned so much that he can produce an EXCELLANT utility. The only trend going on here is CHANGE. That's one thing you can count on. Just don't latch hard to your "present", and you'll again realize that nothing is "bringing this hobby down". In fact the only thing that will bring the hobby down for any one individual is that person's worrying....no doubt once you begin to worry its time to change hobbies. Bob Bernstein

[Guest R5D4]

Yes - make commercial outfits pay to utilise features (either one-off fee $5000 per product or per-user license - say $1 per user). Make the module itself free for download, saving on distribution/registration/ecommerce costs and avoiding piracy issues."Donation ware" is noble but commercially naive.