"- would you talk face-to-face with someone and use such language? I doubt it."I consider that a threat..... Threaten me again on these forums, and I will ask for your removal. I am entitled to an opionion, whether you agree with it or not. And back to the hardship issue--it was you who introduced 9/11 into the thread as part of Pete's issues, as if it is some part of a litmus test for sympathy.

>"so let's hope your software is more intuitive and in-tune >with the times." >>So, now you want to flame my software? This has nothing to >do about Pete. This has to do with your grandstanding. I >made be a "child and brutish", but you are a fool and have >stuck your foot in your mouth once again.... You started >attacking the person.... Maybe for your free copy of >FSUIPC? Want to score points, eh? GROW UP! Aha! Don't debate the point, debate the person. Great deflection, a career in politics beckons. The point I was making (and I'll make it clearer so that you can't deflect the point by misunderstanding and grandstanding) is that there should be no effect on your current creations, and you will have the opportunity to decide whether to adapt to the changed conditions the new version of FS (and FSUIPC) may present. If you choose to bypass a payware FSUIPC then you may. All you're doing is creating work for yourself, reinventing the wheel. And possibly problems for those who download the result, if it interferes with other software like FSUIPC. Que sera. Is there any indication that a FSUIPC in the payware domain will actively prevent other software from talking to FS? I think not. It's a facilitation tool, not a compulsory download. You have the opportunity to bypass FSUIPC if you want, just like any developer. Or you can embrace its facility and ease of use. Like many developers. Your choice. Just as it will be our choice to pay for it or not. Like another poster all I seek is a clear statement of intent from Peter as to what will happen, once he's decided. I'm happy with freeware FSUIPC. I'll willingly pay for payware FSUIPC.We had the same debate when Helge Schroeder made FSNavigator payware from freeware and he simply withdrew from the forums to develop and dsitribute the product via his own website. PD can ignore all the posturing you put up because it's unimportant to the decision he needs to make. What he needs is support for whatever decision he makes to from the community as a whole - and that will be supplied by the hopefully constant stream of funds and developer agreements. Then this discussion becomes irrelevant.ChasW

"Like another poster all I seek is a clear statement of intent from Peter as to what will happen, once he's decided. I'm happy with freeware FSUIPC. I'll willingly pay for payware FSUIPC."Thanks Chas....I have no problem reading your thoughts when they are worded like this response.I do see your point about Pete not being a participant in this thread. That is what bugs me the most--that Pete isn't taking an active role in speaking to us. My final thought, shared by some, is that perhaps Pete should consider breaking out the modules....creating a freeware state data interface, and a payware module that adds the enhancements brought forward into FS. Of course, an optimistic person would think that the next version of MSFS won't need someone like Pete to come along and fix issues. I still believe MS owes Pete more than any of us....some of FS2000's issues would have been show stoppers without FSUIPC. -J

By your same argument, I could say that it is YOU (the freeware utility developer) that entered into that contract with Peter. You are dependent on his program, not the other way around. It is you and those who use your program that owe Mr. Dowson so much.No where in the README or any other documentation does it say that Mr. Dowson will provide support for this product or continue to upgrade it in the future. Those developers that rely on FSUIPC are (and have been) gambling on the availability of FSUIPC.I have gained SO much from FSUIPC. My experience with MSFS has been nothing but a total joy. And in no small way, Mr. Dowson has been a part of that. I was more than happy to send some $$ his way to show my appreciation for the years of enjoyment.We all want the free lunch to continue, but times change. Sometimes time change in a way that we don't like, or would rather not see. Well, that's life. If Peter needs to charge for this, we'll have to deal with it when that happens.I personally suggest that everyone take a few Euros out of their wallets and send them Peter's way. If for nothing else, to show your respect and gratitude for all he's done and for all the enjoyment you've recieved.

>For those of you that suggest that Pete should be payed by payware >designers or even MS: I think you are very naieve; that's never >going to happen.That depends on: How much effort should be done to bypass FSUIPC. There are several variables that any developr with more or less effort can export (like the ones present in the gauges) but there are others not so readly accesible (TCAS data for instance). Do developers want to make the effort? I don't know.>I'm convinced that the current trend from freeware to payware will >finally kill this whole hobby.will not kill the hobby. There is a trend but the problem is that everybody wants quality, a standard that only very few developers grant for free. Usually everybody thinks in planes but in sceneries and utilities the freeware is still strong, just go to library and see that the latest developments are for free.>I guess this is a universal trend which doesnot fit in my way-of->livingme too. Althought I often pay for things.Jos

The real problem here is that this tirade should be directed at Microsoft. There is something hugely wrong with them sharing the hooks to state information for the simulator with only a select group of developers (one). This information should be published in an SDK for all to use or not shared at all. I for one will have a huge problem spending any of my money on a piece of software that is developed via this technique. On the other hand if an SDK of state information is published, then I'll spend my money on the best tool.My 2 cents.

We all know that there have been other freeware/payware publishers who have helped test Microsofts products for past issues of MSFS. Is this any different?L.Adamson

Testing is one thing. Having exclusive or semi-exclusive access to API's is quite another.

>Testing is one thing. Having exclusive or semi-exclusive >access to API's is quite another. I have no idea of access to API's, as I havn't went to any trouble to find out. I must not even care! :)But on the otherhand, Microsoft isn't a city, state, or Federal Government (taxpayer funded) that's handing out favortism to give someone an edge over the rest of us tax payers! Quite frankly, it seems to me that they can do anything they want, regarding this sim.What on earth gives some simmers the thought, that they have "voting rights" and control over MS anyway? L.Adamson

>This >information should be published in an SDK for all to use or >not shared at all. Well said! Couldn't agree more.... Best regards, Chris

Not all info but a lot it is published and usable in the netpipes SDK.Jos

Ray,Thanks for the notice.As everyone readily acknowledges, Pete Dowson has made an absolutely terrific contribution to our hobby. Is there anyone out there who is not running FSUIPC? While we might enjoy FS2002 without his module, no one serious about the hobby can do without it. Pete has spent an enormous amount of his personal time producing something that gives us all such joy. All in the spirit of sharing and giving. It is high time that we expressed our thanks.So I'm heading off to make a donation.However, in the long run I hope that we all can find a more nearly permanent source of funding. I stand ready to pay for this wonderful product. And I hope that our more successful commercial developers will do so as well.A tip of my cap to Pete for all he has done!Best,Mike MacKuen

Well, I've read through all the posts so far, both pro, con and on the fence, concerning whether Pete's program is worth a donation or to be future payware and who should pay.Based on Mr. Proudfoot's explanation of Pete's predicament it boils down to the fact that we have an individual who has given a great service to the FS community. An indiviual that now could use the communities' help.He has help me on a one on one basis in the past which, in my opinion, is worth every penny of my donation.Pete, my donation is on the way, thanks for all your help in the past and looking for a bright future for you.

In the light of your latest post I have no desire whatsoever to continue a discussion with you. It would be a complete waste of my time.

You are correct, guess I should have expanded my thought further. MS can do whatever they choose, and me as a user/developer of utilities don't have much say in the matter.My concern is that if as a developer of utilities, if I choose not to pay a licensing fee for FSUIPC (if it comes to that) I would have to somehow figure out the interface to the sim to retrieve/set variables to make my software interact properly with the sim. Obviously, if there is no SDK outlining how to do that, my work would be much more difficult and I may via virtue of someone having already done the work be more inclined to pay the fee. But if the SDK were available outlining the API for the interface to the sim, I could fairly easily code my own interface for the data that my utility needed, thereby saving me the cost of licensing a third party utility which provides a gateway to the data.The problem for me arises when MS choses not to publish the SDK but make the information available to a small group of developers for use in developing "for a fee" utilities. This is not the developers fault, but rather Microsoft's and as it is their software they may do as they please. All I can do is express my concerns to Microsoft. Obviously, if they choose not to listen to me, I'm SOL.Jim