The future of FSUIPC

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Ray,Thanks for the update....For what it's worth, Pete shouldn't feel pressured to get the FS9 version of FSUIPC in synch with the release of FS9. The fact is, his work has been a free ride for all of us, developers and users alike. Even if he charges from this point on, he is under no obligation (other than the obvious commitment he displays to the community) to get FSUIPC ready based on Microsoft's schedule. In another forum, I had mentioned that there used to be an easier way to read/write data from FS without need for a separate dll.... But Microsoft changed the calling conventions of most of FS's functions, and those original methods became dead in the water. Sounds like Pete is facing the same situation..... To get a sense of what that means, perhaps those who aren't developers should take a peek at Pete's SDK, which I and other developers have had to rely on to "talk" to FS. If the offsets in the SDK change by even one byte, rewriting the SDK alone is a major project....Regards, and best wishes

[jcboliveira 1]

Microsoft as stated that FS2002 addons that followed the SDK are compatible with ACOF. I'm wondering how may are in that situation. Jos

[Guest]

Part of me hopes that Pete won't have read all the way down this thread to this point, but in case he does, I'd just like to add another vote of thanks to him for all that he has done for the flight sim community.FWIW he's had a cheerfully-provided donation from me. Goodness knows how many hours of enjoyable flight simming I've had that wouldn't have been possible without the many hours of freely-provided work he has given us.Best wishes, Pete, whatever you decide to do...--Brian ToobyTCA Pilot #2658Pilot's Assistant Home Page:http://www.tooby.demon.co.uk/P_Assist_Home.html

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I don't think Pete's work will fall under Microsoft's statement. FSUIPC was made compatible with FS2002 long before Microsoft released the SDK. Had Pete waited for the SDK, we would have had no FSUIPC, or we'd have been stuck waiting for it. He had to pour a lot of research into getting it to work. Someone had noted that Pete shouldn't charge for FSUIPC, as it was developed out of another interface module written by Adam S. I would suspect that FSUIPC has evolved so much, that all code within is now Pete's and Pete's alone. It's his, and we shouldn't think of it in any other way.As for the SDK, I ran into the same issue with Landclass Assistant. I released it some months before the 2k2 Terrain/Scenery SDK, mostly using info gleaned from the scenery design forum, including some of the reverse engineering done by some very dedicated hobbyists. Waiting for the 2k2 Terrain/Scenery SDK would have stalled many projects. We've also found that for landclassing and photoreal scenery, the FS2000 resample utility included with 2000's SDK seems better suited to the task.

[Guest etanin]

As soon as I saw the donation site I jumped in with out a second thought!Pete has gone WAY out of his way to help me in the past, and add ideas I came up with and shot some down :(When I thought of what I would have if I removed ALL of Petes great work that was enough for me.Sure you can use FS without Fsuipc go ahead and try it.I for one would give up the hobby if there was no Fsuipc, Gpsout, Widefs, Advdisplay, Autosave, and let me see what else do I use that he gave me? Everyone gets something different out of FS. I get a hell of a lot from Pete.Just my 2 cents.

[Guest rogue1]

John, if you need help with the state data let me know. I'll attempt to contribute what I can. Not much on C++ programming, but VB still works! :-)Jim

[blave 0]

John,I wanted to pipe up and mention that I came very very close to slamming you in this thread, much as "vgb" did. I had read all of this thread a day or so before I made my initial response to it, and your first few posts were, frankly, the ones that got me all worked up in the first place. I happened to read the newer responses immediately before making my post, and the result was a last-minute excisement of a paragraph dedicated to you 8^) .So maybe that's what happened with the other fellow as well.FWIW, probably nothing to you, but I am pleased/relieved that you seem to have revised your original position on this whole thing - I have occasionally been as guilty as anyone of posting something based on my first take of something in a forum, only later to realize that I should've waited a little before responding.regards,Dave Blevins

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Thanks Dave,Part of my fault was not taking the time to read the original thread Ray had placed. I was in California at the time, and rather than take a simple minute to search, I decided to chime into the thread on half my cylinders. Had I not been so lazy, I would have understood Ray was coming in as a friend to our community, and saved a lot of frustrations for people who had to read my blather.-John

[Ray Proudfoot 8,928]

JWenting,<>You know, I've tried really hard to make these messages not look like threats but it seems I've failed to find a choice of words that is acceptable to you. To me they are statements of fact. It's all the harder because I'm trying to describe to you the thoughts of another person who has yet to make up his mind on how he intends to proceed. Pete's decision should be known in a couple of weeks so perhaps you could hang on until then.Knowing the man and how much he derives pleasure from FS and all its supportive software I would be very surprised if he didn't develop a version of FSUIPC for FS9. Please note this is my own personal opinion and nothing should be inferred from it.I also know Pete is a man of impeccable character and if there was a future version of FSUIPC those who have contributed above a reasonable minimum would not be forgotten. Again, this is my own personal opinion.As for the timing of the appeal, donations would generally be made by credit card anyway so the timing in relation to payday is not that critical in my own opinion. If people are going to give I think they will whatever the time of month but I can understand their reluctance if they felt there wouldn't be a future version of FSUIPC. My own gut feeling is that there will but again, I repeat this is a personal opinion.I hope in the light of this you will reconsider your decision.Regards,

[Guest Tim13]

Quote:"My suggestion to Pete is to have three versions1) A Professional version:This would be required for most payware developers. Each payware developer would have to pay a license fee to include it with their package. Part of this fee would include support for future customizations, etc. This version would recieve the highest level of support and recieve the most improvements and customizations.2) A developers version.This can be used for shareware or freeware developers for a nominal fee, there would be limited support improvements and customizations.3) General versionBasically the freeware version, very little support very few additional features added.This way anyone paying a fee will be paying for new features and support rather than just paying for what they are already getting for free. But a developer or anyone else who wants a new feature or customization or bug fix included should be prepared to pony up.Those who do not wish to pay a fee under any circumstances, do not lose anything they can continue to use the general version free of charge.Regards.Ernie."End Quote.I think that Ernie has provided a much needed moment of clarity here. This is an excellent idea. Payware companies get treated like real companies, developers of freeware are cut a lot of slack to allow them to provide thier talents to the community, and the end user gets to make the final choice with his/her wallet.Excellent post Ernie.Tim13

[Ray Proudfoot 8,928]

Hi John,<< For what it's worth, Pete shouldn't feel pressured to get the FS9 version of FSUIPC in synch with the release of FS9.>>I agree but I believe that once FS9 is out the public clamour for FSUIPC would be overwhelming especially as so much 3rd party software now depends on it. Compared to 18 months ago when FS2002 was released there wasn't so much around so the pressure was less.Although I'm a programmer myself I don't dabble with C++ so most of what you said has gone over my head unfortunately. But, you're not wrong in what you say about the amount of work now facing Pete.Good point about everyone taking a look at the FSUIPC SDK. I think it would make a lot of us understand just how complicated it is to write a module. When you consider that no-one has come up with a rival one in over 3 years it more or less sums up how intelligent Pete is and we should be very grateful he decided to take up flight simming as a hobby. Imagine if he decided on stamp collecting! :-(Cheers,

[Ray Proudfoot 8,928]

To all FSUIPC users,IMPORTANT NEWS Pete Dowson has posted his own thoughts on the future of FSUIPC and his other contributions on his support forum on simFlight.com. You can hear it straight from the horse's mouth here... http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=4561Please remember he's on holiday from this Friday until 14th April so won't be able to respond to any messages.Cheers,

[Guest]

>To all FSUIPC users, >>IMPORTANT NEWS I wonder if perhaps other folks might be 'put off' by the fact that donating through the simMarket link is only possible in Euros?I have absolutely no clue what the exchange rate for $/Euros is, but unless I have a firm $ amount to enter in my check register (using my Visa Debit card), I cannot make a contribution... :(

[ErnieAlston 33]

>I wonder if perhaps other folks might be 'put off' by the fact that >donating through the simMarket link is only possible in Euros?On the right frame there is a section labeled 'currencies'. You can select dollars and all the prices from then on will display in US dollars.RegardsErnie.

[Guest CharlesH]

HiIts probably been covered before, but I think that if commerical software develers use his program, then he should be paid at least something for it. It seems to me that they are using his program and he does not reap any profits from his work. I don't mind contributing to Pete myself, but I do wonder why he does not require those commercial users to pay him a fee. That would be a place to start.I wonder what the stance of other commerical develers stand on this, like PSS, Dream Fleet, etc??Charles