I DID make a donation to Pete and I'll happily pay again for his next version. Solid work like Pete's deserves to get recognized and compensated. Hat's off to ya, Pete.

Yep I'll agree did the same and will do it for the next version :-)Andr

It is just irony, but kinda funny. I WONDER if Pete donated money to the Phpbb forums freeware that he's using on his site... none of my darn business, I just wonder and wonder if anyone else ...well wonders lol.. Oops- just realized its on SimFlight site..ok.But really, good to see Pete finally taking action for payware developers, making them PAY. It should be interesting to see the outcome of all this.

"Freeware program will be able to access FSUIPC using a free access key which will be provided on application basis." I saw that and was happy to see it, but Pete mentions that some type of certification/recertification process would be necessary to reactivate the key after a certain period of time. If that throws too much overhead on some of the smaller freeware developers, they may end up dropping their projects or going payware themselves. I would need to see what Pete means by this, and what the consequences are to my users (i.e. would I be flooded with support emails once a year as these keys expired). As I have a working alternative to FSUIPC for Landclass Assistant, my next release will use that vs. FSUIPC. My program is a small fry amongst the other freeware apps that use IPC, so I doubt my decision will impact Pete, or at least I hope it won't. It will just be easier for me to manage working with an interface that is independent of any legal or licensing issues. My only other IPC based app, Autoland 2002, never generated much response from the community, so I'm no longer developing that, and won't support it in the next release of MSFS. -John

Hello All, I am glad that Pete has decided to go that route. I am one who believes that the user has no comback if a freeware product results in somewhat less than optimal performance but can request decent assistance from a commercial product vendor. I feel Pete's decision, in a long run, could be of benefit to the community. He already has a decent, proven interface and his action can only inspire others to develop a similar interface with possible expanded functions.Good Luck Pete

Personally I really like the options for visibility control, hotkey programming, etc. I know there may be other freeware out their which permits this, but to me an integrated solution that works seemlessly within FS, while I'm flying, is a real bonus that I'm happy to pay for.Joel

Please don't get me wrong. I feel the same way about commercial developers using freeware in their applications and making money with someone else's efforts. I think Mr. Dowson's is a tremendous contribution to this environment. He is doubtlessly a dedicated, creative and hard working man, with enough guts and insight to provide this community with some very helpful tools, aimed at easing the interface with FS, and perhaps even correcting some points overlooked by MS. I sincerely wish him the best of luck in his new endeavour, hoping someone else will carry the flag.I am simply disappointed. :-hmmm Forever learning!Paul

JohnYour work with SDK is to be praised I'm too looking for an alternative since I only program in C and the SDK seems attractive but I'm not thinking about leaving FSUIPC since it provides me a cross FS version compatibility and I have code based in FSUIPC that easily can be reused."certification/recertification process would be necessary to reactivate the key after a certain period of time."About freeware programs, there's something that must be considered in a freeware access to a IPC key: the possibility of a freeware program turn in to a payware. So I think that the best approach for a freeware developer is to mail Peter and ask what will happen.Jos