The future of FSUIPC

[Guest sbdwag]

I recall in the last few months a developer who created a product that needed an upgrade from another developer to work. After the developer released his product everybody was waiting on the other developer to upgrade his product so they would work together. At the very last minute I get this email from the second developer saying guess what since you have had my product for more that a year if you want to play with this upgrade you are going to have to pay. So I paid my 15.00US just so I could use it with the other developers software. And the only feature he added was support for the other persons software. In effect he saw a way to make a quick buck knowing the people needed his software for a much in demand addon. I can see that happening more and moreI dont like being held for ransom. Both of those developers can take their software and shove it.sbdwag

[kjackson 0]

Just to put my two cents in...I'm not a developer of any software product but I do purchase an awful lot of payware add-ons for MSFS. I also use a great deal of freeware too and I often thank those who provide it. I don't feel qualified to debate this issue at the level I've read here but I do want to add that one should be very careful about asking for donations. I was planning to donate but am hesitant due to the fact that my donations may be for a lost cause if the software goes payware or dies. How about those whom have donated? Can they be promised that their donations will keep the product alive? Just a concern.Thanks Pete for a wonderful product for a long time.Ken

[Azapata87 173]

hello,I also agree with John. Making fsuipc payware would kill many freeware utilities, panels, and aircraft.Andrew

[LAdamson 240]

>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... >>When everyone makes the choice to enter the sim world and >begin developing things for FS they should a) learn to >manage their time between real qorld commitments and this >hobby and :( understand that this is not something to be >making a living off of. >There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a partial or full living off this so called "hobby". This hobby has gotten to the point, that thousands of hours are required to produce 3rd party products that appeal to our constantly increasing appetites. If this time interfers with other real world commitments, then by all means, make it profitable. Or just do it for a "living" period. Afterall, it's what the people at Microsoft do!!L.Adamson

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"If this time interfers with other real world commitments, then by all means, make it profitable."You always make strong points, but now I realize why I am so upset. Take away the dozens of freeware utilities that exploit FSUIPC in some way (I'd argue they far outnumber payware). How much is FSUIPC worth without them? Like it or not, Pete entered into a partnership the minute he opened up FSUIPC to outside development. By charging now for it and blindsiding the authors that worked to build a purpose for FSUIPC, he is exploiting the work of a large community. By rights, we should be asking for a percentage of his "profit" by making his utility viable with our contributions. The more I think of this, the more it stinks to high heaven. Pete's efforts to make a buck are in part taking advantage of the foundation for his utility our community helped build.

[Guest JTWhite]

I think Mr. Dowson now wants to put the toothpaste back in the tube, so to speak.Its a wonderful thing he did, allt he work on fsuipc, and it's commendable that he did it out of his love of the hobby and that we all could use it free and clear, no guilt.But that's the way it worked out.Now, if he suddenly wants to start charging for it, fine, too. I willd ecide whether it's worth it or not, depending on my need as far as new apps and stuff go.I dont fault him for suddenly wanting to charge ... hobbies have a way of getting out of hand that way.But, this plea to "donate" money kinda makes me wince.Charge or dont charge... I dont know him, so I wont get mad at him.Jst dont whine about how it takes too much time or that code isnt cheap anymore.We're all big people now, and that there's no such thing as a free lunch.Just my 2 cents worth.

[Guest]

One intangible should be mentioned in this debate, and it is the foremost reason I donated $10 to Mr. Dowson. A few months ago I was experiencing severe visibility anomalies after purchasing Radar Contact 3.0 which I traced to the newest version of FSUIPC that was installed with Radar Contact. Peter spent several hours (maybe more) analyzing the data I sent him over several days time, often answering emails until 3:00 AM his time ! The anomalies were random but persitent and proved a real headache for both of us. I could tell by the tone of his emails that he was getting frustrated with me, but he never once gave up in his attempt to rectify the problems. Now remember I am a total stranger who has bought nothing from him, yet his 'customer service' was above and beyond that of many payware outfits. I am a poor person, and I regret not being able to send more.John Marino

[Guest]

>Now, Pete is pointing a gun to our heads. "My program is >soooo good, and I need the money soooo bad, pay up, or else" FSUIPC really IS that good. It corrects or restores the function in FS of far too many apps and hardware problems to list.>And the minute FSUIPC becomes payware, I will instruct >Avsim and all sites to pull my freeware.You could always rewrite your software so it doesn't need it. But aren't you now making the same (perceived) threat you lament ... ?Peter is one of those fellows who has worked tirelessly for years for free, like many of us have, to correct many dysfunctions and incompatibilities within FSxx. I'll gladly support Peter financially to maintain FSUIPC's evolution and I'll do it right this minute without a moment's hesitation or complaint. >I am so disgusted with this hobby at this point.... Yeah. Some posts make me feel like that too. But I'm glad I read this thread so I can say 'thanks' to Peter in a practical way.

[Hakkie 0]

Be warned: This will be another daring statement and pure speculation.Why suddenly start charging now when FS2004 is about to be released? Could it be that FSUIPC is not being needed 'that hard' anymore? Sure, some addons keep relying on FSUIPC. But take a look at for instance the new GPS, AI and weather. It comes real close to many current payware stuff. So now is the time to make money...???Again: this is pure speculation!

[jcboliveira 1]

FSUIPC is not one utility it is in fact two: an Interprocess comunication with FS and a Swiss army knife for FS bugs and enhancements. I use both, the first when I develop utilities or use certain utilities and planes. The second for correct some problems with FS. First of all I strong believe that Pete is one of the finest developers and I'm sure that if he goes into payware he will try to minimize the impact. As a freeware developer I hope that the first part remain free for my programs (I believe that payware developers should pay for it, if they don't want them they should develop one, them they can evaluate the man/hour needed to do that) the second I will gladly pay for it. In the utilities arena I'm from time to time amazed with people asking money for bad programs, so paying for a good utility it isn't so much.Jos

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

To all,There has been a lot of dicussion on this - too much for me to comment on individually. Most messages have been very supportive of Pete's efforts over the years but a few see him as trying to cash in or blackmail people with the imminent arrival of FS9 - a comment that saddens me. If you knew Pete as I do you would know he is not that sort of person.Whilst I'm a close friend of Pete's I'm not his official mouthpiece. I'm simply putting into a public forum what has been discussed in a private one. Perhaps if I give you a little background you might better understand his reasons for his decision.Pete is approaching retirement and the company he is a co-director of has not made a profit for the last two years primarily because of the dreadful events of 11 September 2001. I'm sure his company is not alone. Because of his greatly reduced income and his impending retirement he now needs to make up that shortfall.For three years Pete has developed and nurchured FSUIPC from a basic module he initially wrote for himself to one that now enhances many features both with FS and with 3rd party addons. How many of you can remember the cloud visibility bug in FS2000 that ruined many flights when visibility remained at zero after descending through cloud? I know it ruined many of my flights. Pete identified and fixed that bug for no charge. Then there was the spiking problem with the 767PIC - again another problem identified and fixed. I could go on and on but I don't think I need to. Pete has provided a first class service to the FS community for over three years for no charge.For him to now ask for a donation is entirely reasonable and if everyone who used FSUIPC (not forgetting his many other addons) then he wouldn't be in a position where he feels the way he does. Whilst he developed FSUIPC because of his love of this hobby he does spend an inordinate amount of time developing new features in that module and helping people who have problems all for no charge.I am not going to get into a debate with any individual who feels he is greedy or jumping on the money-making bandwagon. Pete does not have the monopoly on modules for FS. If anyone else feels they have the necessary skills in C+ to develop a rival module that does everything FSUIPC does and is then happy to support it for no reward they are free to proceed.To anyone who is now going to remove FSUIPC from their system, well that is entirely up to you but it smacks of cutting off one's nose to spite your face. We all spend quite a bit on additional software to support a great base product and a small contribution to support a great piece of software is not unreasonable IMHO.I hope that helps you understand his reasons.

[Guest]

I think that says it best Ray.All the whingers who complain they will remove FSUIPC because their software or addon requires are effectively admitting they couldn't code worth a damn in the first place and had to piggyback the tireless work of others. Nice admission John.FSUIPC is only required to:Correct anomalies in the basic FS programming (which MS should fix or pay Pete for so doing); provide compatibility with the FS engine by freeware and payware developers (who could be expected to make their own packages work properly the first time, so get to work guys); and for the enhancements of the sim that Pete has discovered & coded - enhancements which no-one had better deny are worth paying for.JohnCi's attitude is childish and brutish. Has Pete even mentioned that he would remove earlier versions of FSUIPC in a deliberate attempt to `blackmail` the community? No. So your `valuable contribution` to the sim world would still work and you would only have succeeded in cutting off your nose to spite your own face if you insist on it being removed, as it would then become an admission that without FSUIPC, your `work` is substandard - and you deny anyone the opportunity to prove that is not the case. After all, if you wrote it properly, FSUIPC shouldn't be needed, should it?After seeing all these threads, I'm not sure Ray has done the right thing by opening a debate on the matter. Pete should simply have issued a statement that FSUIPC is going payware as the donation thing hasn't worked, and to he77 with the consequences. Obviously, other diehard freeware exponents are pefectly at liberty to release their own freeware version. As the expression goes: "Come and have a go if you think your hard enough." ChasW

[Guest]

i agree.people seem to have no problem spending several times the price of msfs on addons, yet when they are politely asked for a contribution to keep what is arguably the most important thing installed after the flight simulator itself they have the nerve to argue.and although i agree that payware developers should pay for fsuipc and freeware developers shouldn't, i don't see any freeware developer complain about the price of visual c++ or visual studio, and that ranks in the hundreds of euros/pounds/dollars.of course, bottom line is microsoft has been cashing on fsuipc for years, so they probably should say thanks for that, but most likely they won't because they are microsoft.cheers,pedro

[Hakkie 0]

Ray, thanks for providing some background information on this issue. As said, my statement was/is purely speculation. I'm glad you share this info with us without touching Pete's privacy too much. I too lost my job due 9/11 (used to work at SITA, a company aimed at the airline business). Anyway, I've been using FSUIPC and addons running on it for years and won't mind paying for it. But like many others I feel payware addons needing FSUIPC should contribute a significant part of the finance needed. Ofcourse they will compensate for this in their pricing. But this only 'hits' users buying this particular addon and not the 'home' FSUIPC users. I also agree with the statement made in this thread that companies not willing to pay for FSUIPC should write their own version of this module.Pete, I wish you all the best in finding a good balance between time/income and sincerely hope you will be able to enjoy your retirement. Thanks again for your perfect contribution to our FS community!

[Guest]

>FSUIPC is only required to: >Correct anomalies in the basic FS programming (which MS >should fix or pay Pete for so doing); provide compatibility >with the FS engine by freeware and payware developers (who >could be expected to make their own packages work properly >the first time, so get to work guys); and for the >enhancements of the sim that Pete has discovered & coded - >enhancements which no-one had better deny are worth >paying for. Charles,The above statement is incomplete. FSUIPC does far more than "correct anomalies in the basic FS programming."It provides the interprocess communications necessary for outside applications to receive/transmit data back and forth. To be sure, all third party programers could develop their own code to enable this bi-directional communications process, but only at the cost of bloated code, and the very great danger of having too many competing methods interfering with each other.Now the simple fact is that - as one person has already said - the "toothpaste" is already out of the tube. As long as the last 'free version' of FSUIPC continues to fulfill its role in providing the services it already does, there is no compelling reason for anyone to 'upgrade' to a payware version.If and when a new, payware version is released, I will evaluate it just as I would any other bit of payware to determine if there is sufficient 'value added' to make it worth the cost.If the cost/benefit ratio is high enough, I'll buy it. It really is that simple.At this juncture I would only consider making a 'free will donation' if I received public assurance and a written guarantee that any such 'free will donation' would be considered 'payment in full' for all future payware releases/upgrades.