Fair enough. It's his time and effort. We've had it pretty good for a long time now. Pete has to buy food, pay bills, etc like the rest of us. I'm sure that some people who are unhappy about the future cost of this program won't think twice about rushing out and paying whatever FS2K4 costs without reading any reviews, thinking about hardware issues, etc.It's sad for those who genuinly can't afford it, but that's life. I've always fancied owning a Ducati, but can't afford one. Or a nice villa on Gozo. Or maybe my own private plane. Who knows? Necessity being the mother of invention, maybe somebody will produce a freeware product that replaces FSUIPC. Until, prehaps, they see how much work is involved.Have a nice weekend everyone!Gavin

Russ --Thank you sir!

Yup, if only one unit is sold that'll show Pete how much his effort is appreciated even more than the donations of

People who donated more than a token amount (so bye bye

>> I just wish MS would see sense and pay-you. >>>>:-lol :-lol Yeah!! What world do you live in?? Microsoft>paying someone for something...right!!Actually I live in your world my friend, Matbe M$ get away with so much becuse we as the consumers allow them to. I dont see anybody starting a petittion for this, so ofcourse they do as they please.

Very nice workI look forward to playing with it when you release it.Hopefully microsoft eventually picks up on this and will add their own support for the features these dll supply.

Maybe what needs to be done is someone to come up with an open source alternative to FSUIPC. Then the burdon doesn't fall on one programmer to do all the work. Maybe it's not too late for Pete to release the source code under the GNU/GPL.

Let's just say that people should not be putting the cart before the horse here.Pete is a good guy, and has thought the entire issue though. I suspect that many of the dire predictions here will not be borne out, in all honesty.Nobody has all the information yet. Let's wait for Pete to publish his full plans to the public domain before we start to comment on how bad it would be for the hobby.--M

I think many of you, have either not read his statement or are missing the point.As i read it, Pete is essentially offering two options.The first is for the user that wants everything - then you will need to pay.The second is for the developer. They essentially licence it from Pete and distribute it with their software. If the user doesn't have a full licence (as in the first option) then they won't get the interface features that are currently available.Pete also states that individula arrangements will be made with freeware developers through another licensing mechanism.RegardsRussell Jourdain (NZL007/ZK-RHJ)

HmmmmmWell I guess getting to play with all the addons that he modified hisdll for was`nt payment enough.Well I guess it shows the current state of the hobby which can be boiled down to one word.(((((Greed))))).Well he`s got us by the short hairs so if I need it I`ll pony up until I get fed up and spend the money flying real world.

About Freeware applications: Freeware program will be able to access FSUIPC using a free access key which will be provided on application basis. This will not give access to all FSUIPC only the IPC part. As a freeware author I can't ask for more.Jos

BC, did you read Peter's announcement? If you had, you would see that Pete has so far set up 2 schemes. If you want full use and control over FSUIPC functions, you buy a copy. If you don't but have a 3rd party addon that requires FSUIPC, you will not have to pay. The addon will still work and will most likely come with a somewhat neutered copy of FSUIPC, but you won't have the ability to adjust FSUIPC settings. In this case, the license will be paid by the entity releasing the addon.Many will probably opt for the latter plan. Some who make use of many FSUIPC features will want to pay for a full license. And those of us who donated will get a license.In my opinion, it's not a bad scheme. Pete does a lot of work to develop and support FSUIPC and WideFS. He gets only token acknowlegement and deserves more. Regardless if we like it or not, this situation is how things are going in many areas of FS and many areas outside the realm of FS.

Hi Matt,I think the reason of the various opinions in this thread, as many others about the same topic, is that there is still a problem understanding what FSUIPC is, hence the licensing structure Pete is talking about. It seems that many users don't even properly understand what FSUIPC offers, especially in respect to what it does for third party vendors:FSUIPC is 3 in 1 with these general areas: enhance FS2002 features (weather...), provide Joystick controls and external hardware support, offer IPC (inter process communication) to read/write data from/to FS2002 and an external software. Hence the problem to understand who pays what and what for.As a user, for adding what FS2002 lacks in standards, such as better overall weather (or related type of enhancements), and / or for supporting my harware, it is not the same need as a developper, which need exported FS variables to develop external applications. In this case, it is a design choice wether or not we want to be in full control of our software design and features, or rely on third party code.However, as a developper, anything that FSUIPC exports is almost readiliy available (99% of it) from the SDK and a couple other sources, and can be exported in our own way for our own applications in coding our own "exporting" module if you are designing Windows applications which communicate with FS2002.This is the reason there are two main licensing offers planned by Pete so far, and it is completely WRONG for one to think to purchase FSUIPC because there are so many add-ons relying on it. It as nothing to do with the number of add-on using it because of the following:- if it is a freeware add-on, there will be a freeware FSUIPC license.- If it is a payware add-on, there will be a payware license paid by the vendor.- wether or not you are using FSUIPC with an add-on (which as mentioned above is only necessary for exporting data from/to the add-on and FS2002) but you are using FSUIPC for its User Oriented Services (joystick calibration, weather settings...) THEN and only THEN you will need to purchase your own personal license.Hope this helps on this topic.

Morning Ken!Yeah, I read Pete's note. It was late, so let me clarify....I have no problem with Pete making a buck, he deserves every cent. It's just that I am of the opinion that the commercial vendors should/could be funding this venture, as they should have been all along.WideFS is not going to fall into this two tier scheme and I am one of those guys who uses it. Oh well, loosen up ye olde purse strings...I am curious how Pete is going to work out the details on a product basis? For example, I have the PFC console setup, which utilizes FSUIPC. Now, the setup cost a bucket-load of cash and I expect there will be a "crippled" version of FSUIPC to make it work. Fair enough. Now I have a weather program that uses FSUIPC to work with the sim. Will there be another version of FSUIPC for that, or will the standard crippled version do the same thing for all add-ons?I'll just buy the full version and be done with it. Much simpler, but I still say it's a shame that it has come to this. Oh well, life goes on.Happy Contrails!BC

>About Freeware applications: Freeware program will be able to> access FSUIPC using a free access key which will be provided>on application basis. This will not give access to all FSUIPC>only the IPC part. As a freeware author I can't ask for more.>>Jos