Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rhumbaflappy

FSUIPC Saga... A Possible Solution...

Recommended Posts

Guest

Blah, blah.How did this discussion, right in front of you, completely fly over your head? No one is begrudging Peter, his work or his desire/ability to make money from that work. As a matter of fact, most are advocating FSU-IPC continue in whatever monetary fashion he deems necessary: minus the IPC part.Here, I'll help to try and clear up your confusion in simpler terms: This thread is about a partially broken game/feature from Microsoft and how to fix it. Peter has done that for a long time... Its more than high time Microsoft does that itself (and it seems they have with the latest SDK, albeit in a somewhat broken fashion as well, to date).I would love if people actually read, but more important - understood threads before responding to them.Elrond---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (Y/N)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LarryJ_KMSO

First possibility: M$ hires Pete Dowson as I recall they did the originator of the FS6IPC, (Adam S.) concept back in the FS98/FS95 days. M$ then includes FSUIPC a part of the FS SDK.Second possiblity: M$ sees Pete Dowson making a small amount of money from his essential FSUIPC programs. Their Corporate lawyers determine that this violates the M$ FS license (Remember when you clicked "I agree") and they launch a law suit complaining about "reverse engineering" or something similar in lawyer'ese.Third possiblity: All us users of FSUIPC simply do the right thing and quietly slip Pete a few $ or pounds. (Yes, I've already done that already myself). He's very thankful and deserves your support. It's quick and easy. You choose the amount. Go here and click on the "donations" notehttp://www.schiratti.com/dowson.htmlLarry JonesFlorence, MT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has something changed? FSUIPC is freeware and always has been. Like all freeware out there until someone starts charging for it I will not pay for it. Simple. I pay a lot for payware every week it seems. Just ask my wife. I don't see a problem that needs to be solved here.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JeanLuc_

Hi Barry,I may have a different view, more from an add-on side than a user side, but it seems that some confusion lies in these "FSUIPC" threads. So let me try to express how I see it.FSUIPC is a 3 tier application:- provides feature enhancements to FS2002 (such as no reposition on flight plan load and "weather control") and "bug" corrections (such as "stop the rain")- provides access to FS2002 variables (totally unecessary for any program running in the FS2002 address space, i.e. gauges / modules, since fully documented in the FS2002 SDK)- provides "interface" functions to FS2002, such as Joystick calibration and shortcut keys.As a "developper" support application, besides the AI Traffic (for which we don't use FSUIPC neither), there is no need for FSUIPC in accessing FS2002 internals. Besides, any FS2002 "FSUIPC" offset is easily addresseable in the globals.DLL. Well, almost all of them :-)So even not documented FS2002 vars could be easily accessed this way (such as the day / night / dusk / dawn variable).As a "user" support application, then each one's its own! Pretty much as purchasing a Vendor GPS system such as the Flight Line 530XP instead of using the default FS2002 one, or purchasing an "AI Traffic" tool instead of the default FS2002 one, or purchasing a "weather" tool instead of the default FS2002 one.In this respect, having it a standard component in FS2004 makes no sense (even less sense considering that Microsoft should be aware of the bugs in FS2002 and solve then in the next release, should the reason considered for FSUIPC from a user standpoint is to solve bugs).Having it as a payware application makes sense. Should a user needs / wants the "enhancements" (such as the weather), then it may be a good solution to purchase, as mentioned above.Having it as a payware application for developpers (even some dared to mention "developpers to pay only" as stated in another thread) makes little sense for FS gauges / modules since the information broadcasted is readily available (again, besides the AI Traffic). It may however makes sense for "external hardware" interfaces / cockpit builders. But then, Microsoft features a more versatile and robust way with Netpipe...Hope it helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>As a "developper" support application, besides the AI >Traffic (for which we don't use FSUIPC neither), there is no >need for FSUIPC in accessing FS2002 internals. Jean-Luc you miss a point. Large part of FS addons are written in VB, Delphi. As far I know Netpipes and all SDK are for C or C++ so you will see a lot of applications without support. >Do you think Microsoft should obtain the rights or OEM FSUIPC from >Pete Dowson and make it part of the FS9 / FS 2004 release?What part? The interprocess part? No, Microsoft will not respond as fast as Pete. Do you want to see a 2 year cycle on FSUIPC? I don't. Jos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What you are proposing would be a HUGE mistake. Pete does things for us that MS would not even dream of spending the time to do. Take for instance the last major thing I saw Pete do. He was reading the Home cockpit Forum here at AVSIM and stumbled across a thread where someone was contemplating how to put reverse thrust on a seperate axis. Well within a week Pete took it upon himself to program this feature into FSUIPC and then release an updated version. Can you see MS doing that??!! Not in a million years....You know why? It is not profitable, that's why. Pete helps us all for the love of the Hobby, MS helps us all for the bottom line $$. Not that MS is bad for doing this but that is the way buisnesses work. Imagine an employee of MS telling his boss that he wanted to spend some time on the clock helping some poor flight simmer who is trying to build his home system and then release this work for free. Not gonna happen my friends. Bottom line is Pete has done us all a huge favor for so long now that most of us just "expect" he will continue, and some even demand it. I say let Pete make it payware, let us all pay $10-$20 for it including all the upgrades needed to support the current version of FS. This way Pete gets compensation for his work, we all get to continue to enjoy the fruits of one very unselfish man and the cost to each of us is minimal. Just my 2 Cents worth....http://www.ktone.org/images/FSD_ken.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest byoung

Thanks everyone for the comments..I think the main point of this thread is to see if AVSIM should create a pole with a simple yes or no question.Do you think Microsoft should OEM FSUIPC and distribute it with the next version of Flight Simulator (FS9 / FS 2004)? Microsoft would just pay Pete a royalty or fee and then he would support and develop it like he currently does. The key here is distribution and then Pete would have ample funding to continue development and support.This makes the most sense to me since it is the most widely used add-on for Flight Simulator FS 98 and FS 200x today.Now the only exception to this case would be if FSUIPC isn't needed in FS 9 / 2004 at all. Then it is a mute point..But whether it is or isn't required hasn't been determined. Microsoft will probably say that it FSUIPC isn't necessary, when in reality, Pete Dowson is really the only one that can make that judgement.Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JonP01

I certainly don't support MS providing fsuipc as part of the OEM FS package. I think just about all the reasons I feel this way have already been pointed out previously in this thread. Add to that the fact that probably 95% of people who buy FS don't use or require fsuipc in any case. You can't judge the usefulness of fsuipc based on what you read in internet discussion forums such as this. The vast majority of people who buy the sim end up using the sim just as it is out of the box - without problems, nor with any need to enhance the product in such a way as to warrant the use of fsuipc. Whilst there are quite a few add-on manufacturers (software and hardware) that rely on the fsuipc module, they are still only catering to an esoteric high end market - not the mass market to whom the simulation is primarily aimed at. In my own case, I don't use fsuipc and don't need it, even though I consider myself a reasonably hardcore user of FS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi Jon,I'd love to see any substantiated research that backs up claims like:"The vast majority of people who buy the sim end up using the sim just as it is out of the box - without problems, nor with any need to enhance the product in such a way as to warrant the use of fsuipc."I always have to chuckle a bit when I read stuff like that (and its stated here quite frequently). Sure, there *have* to be some people who don't know what the internet is today or how to get on it - *YET STILL PLAY GAMES ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS* -, but I've never met any either professionally or personally. The overwhelming majority of people I meet in my work who play games are online as well - its almost impossible not to be in todays day and age regardless of your computer habits. This runs the gamut from the enthusiasts like you and me, and the newbies buying their first computer: almost always with getting on the net as the main reason - Word and games the distant second.So, lets assume that newbies who play games are all on the net. What the first thing most people do when they get a game? Go find the patch for it - because almost every game released today is released in a beta state - and everyone knows it (specially the newbies). So, they head off to google to find info on "flight simulator". Here's its listing:http://www.google.com/search?q=flight+simulatorWhats the third ranked listing there? FlightSim.com of course (unfortunately, the first mention of AVSIM isn't until the 223 listing! - ATTN AVSIM GUYS: dramatically fix your Keyword metas!).My point being: the oft stated "average gamer" that only flies FS stock out of box and nothing more, ever, is a *very* rare breed I'd think. The internet is much more pervasive than those that make this argument give it credit.Take care,Elrond---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (Y/N)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest byoung

Again let me clarify, that would be the purpose of the pole, to see if the Flight Sim community would embrace a proposal. If the response is low and does not represent a true sampling, then it may not be worth even approaching Microsoft.We won't know until we pole on Avsim... If we get 100 votes yes and 20 votes No, that isn't enough to drive Microsoft to consider it.But if the numbers are substantial, Microsoft may have to give it some consideration.Maybe we need to also classify the user. Nunber of hours per week flying FS 2K2. Types of flights and add-ons used.Maybe what has been concluded so far is that FSUIPC just isn't important to the Flight Sim community in general. Maybe it is important to just the hardcore users... Maybe hardcore users are the minority.Who knows?Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JonP01

Hi Elrond,I'm not sure I buy all of your argument. It seems tantamount to saying that just because one owns a Ferrari, one must drive it at 300 km/h. It doesn't automatically follow that just because someone has access to the internet or add-on files that they are necessarily going to use them. I certainly don't have any independant research to back up my claims, so this has to remain a moot point. But, for example, I still think if you asked 9 out of ten purchasers of FS what fsuipc is, all you get is a blank stare in return. Look at it this way. How many copies of each version does Microsoft sell? One million, ten million, twenty million? Then, how many copies of add-on software get sold in proportion to total end-user sales. I would not think the proportion would be terribly high. Let's say byoung ran his survey and got a 100% "yes" response? All that says is that everyone who responded to the survey supported the argument. To me this seems as reliable as a political pre-election opinion poll. I hope you are not saying that the typical member of avsim is representative of the mass market to which FS is pitched - because I really don't think avsim members are representative of the average fs purchaser at all.In the end, I feel the suggestion is somewhat academic, not only because I still stand by my point that only a small proportion of users actually use fsuipc, but also because the cost of drawing up the required agreements would likely exceed the cost of Microsoft incoporating the requisite code themselves (ever checked the hourly rate of the average contract lawyer?). I cannot see any reason why anyone in Microsoft would be willing to purchase the distribution rights to a chunk of computer code that they would be capable of producing themselves - should they choose to do so.I think your original suggestion makes the most sense. If Microsoft consider the functionality to be of any consequence, they can incorporate it into FS themselves. They have the distinct advantage of having the source code to work from. In the event that Microsoft showed no interest in the concept of licensing third party software into their base code (I believe this would be the case), I don't mind one bit buying fsuipc so long as I had a need for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John.Much of what you say makes great sense to me.I have used FSUIPC... it's dll is currently in my Module folder. I have also made some small scenery design utilities that use FSUIPC's IPC funtion to communicate between the apps and the sim.Peter Dowson's personal circumstances seem to be the reason he is going to charge for FSUIPC in the future... and he has warned us that older versions will not work in FS2004.Why doesn't MS incorporate this IPC funtionality? It already does.The majority of the community that makes utilities simply hasn't yet deciphered how to do it ( even though the Netpipes SDK gives us the basic information ).My response is, that eventually, I will figure out how to program interprocess communication into my small utilities by using the built-in flight recorder as MS has indicated. When I find out how to program this, I'll blab the technique to the entire FS community. If others find out how to do this, I'm sure they'll blab the secret. :)Then FSUIPC will have some serious freeware competition... not only for IPC funtionality, but also for all the other functions of his program. He currently has no "competition" because no one has needed to reinvent the wheel... his work was free. I'm not going to distribute a freeware utility that requires anyone to buy another utility to work... and neither will most programmers.My view on this? Mr. Dowson may do whatever he pleases with his program, and if I don't like it, I can do something about it. An inconvienience. Irregardless of what he finally does, the damage has already been done, concerning app designers. We can no longer count on his generosity, so we will design apps that do not use his FSUIPC. We'll need to invent other "wheels". Oddly, that competition will diminish sales of his product, and probably lead to it's discontinuation, as he will no longer have a monopoly on FS IPC, and he won't make enough money on it to build that custom simulated cockpit he wants. :(Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...