FSUIPC is now Payware???

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"....I also wonder why people always bring out the "I'll get my lawyer onto you because it sounds like libel" post when they don't like a particular post. In my opinion (which I am legally entitled to have ) proving libel (or defamation)is difficult and can make a lot of money for lawyers without doing a lot in real terms for the parties involved. Most times this is an empty threat and everyone knows it so why make yourself look silly (in my humble opinion of course)?...."If you're commenting on Barry's remark, it was in reference to a post that was deleted, not the one which opened this thread. I'd rather not say anything more regarding that at this point.But in general, your post is well worded. Many of the people complaining about the price of FSUIPC will have to pay for FS2004 with some form of currency. But as someone steadfastly devoted to freeware development, I think Pete's change in direction is enough for me to not risk employing his interface in my future work. I don't want to be in a situation where I have to seek a lawyer's advice in order to link work that only brings me spiritual profit, to work that is commercial in nature.What came first--the chicken or the egg? Old question, but some freeware authors would argue that Pete wouldn't be in a position to profit from his work, were it not our use and promotion of his work in our contribution to the community. I really have to wait for the specifics--as I don't want any of my users rushing out to buy his product, just to regain the functionality of mine. That's the only fly in this whole ointment, as far as I am concerned. Payware authors owe him plenty, but Pete also owes the freeware community a bit. Now he is taking the driver's seat with us, and pretty much dictating the terms under which we can operate, knowing that many of us don't have the time to scramble to develop new interfaces for ourselves. I am lucky in that I do have a limited one for one product, but the other is dead.

[Guest cw1011]

I sense that what is really at the heart of this thread is not Pete's decision to sell FSUIPC - it is future of the internet and communities like this one. This site and its network of partners, visitors, and registered users truly represents what the internet at its very best can be. It is free and active, vibrant community. Ideas are shared, and the concept of freeware is a logical extension of the utopian vision of the Internet as a place where ideas are freely exchanged, where open-source software can be adapted and improved by any one with a clever idea. Advancing knowledge and in so doing serving others is its own reward. As many of this site's long-time contributers seek compensation for their many hours of work (PMDG once estimated that it took something like 10,000 hours to code their Fly2 777 package - that represents five people each working a full time job for a year), the reaction of the poster is understandable. It's as if someone is changing the rules mid-game. The internet wasn't supposed to be like this, and the fact that it has become a mostly commercial and business medium with fewer and fewer examples of communities like this is at once sad and utterly predictable. (That the majority of those businesses are pornographic is tragic - but that's another discussion). I bear no grudge to anyone who wants to profit from his or her labor. Nor do I condemn someone for feeling disillusioned. I understand both feelings and suggest that, while they come from completely separate points of view, both are valid and both have a place here. There is no right or wrong here, and it is not our place to judge the actions and decisions of others. Our responsiblity is to act in a way that is true to our own beliefs and values and to be respectful of the feelings of others. This corner of the internet is still pretty unique - let's at least agree to keep it open, friendly and non-judgemental.

[gosta 0]

Hi Ryan,I agree with your comments, but I feel this whole thing is just a storm in the teapot. You said:>if you don't think Pete's work is worth your money or if it's against your psuedo-moralistic ideals to pay for FS software (you bought FS didn't you??!) then don't buy it. Just be prepared to accept the consequences of not being able to use addons that require it.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest moomox]

This is definitely going to be leaving some addon developers scrambling to figure out what to do next. All of a sudden, the best commercial addons out there will cease to function without paying for a separate piece of software (whoops!). We really can't blame Pete for needing to support the software. I think most of us lack the appreciation for all of the time he has taken away from other things in his life to work on such a fanstatic and necessary module.It's kind of a catch 22... Either we get it for free and Pete has no life, or we pay a little money for it and know that he will have no life, but be paid for it... lol... Sorry Pete (programming is a lonely sport)how would the rest of us feel if all of our hard work in life never made us a cent. It might be idealistic, but not realistic.Anyhow... complain as we might, FSUIPC is one program we really should be thankful that we have at all.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"....there is the option to develop their own IPC module - with the netpipes SDK, that shouldn't be too difficult." Many of us looked at the NetPipes SDK--it is very difficult, has no VB support or tutorials, and does not support the functionality that Pete's interface does. Add to that, many of us don't program at the level Pete does--meaning the level to hack into the internals of FS. Pete has knowledge of how this is done, but that knowledge is not delivered in any of the SDK's.Pete's statements about licensing leave the door open, but once he talks about certification, what does that mean? Does that mean he's going to certify based on our commitment to remain freeware (that's fine with me), or is he going to place some type of litmus test against our work (ain't going to happen). What if someone starts selling our work in some type of compilation. Is Pete going to press us to seek legal action against such people, at our own expense? What does it mean to our users, or to MSFS? How much recoding would we have to do, to support his work?And that last question I think is what leaves freeware developers concerned. If Pete would have taken the time (there aren't too many of us) to communicate his intentions months ago, we could have prepared our users for the coming issues. But Pete hasn't treated us like partners--at least I've never heard a word from him, and my Autoland utility was among the first VB based freeware apps to exploit his interface. Some view these concerns as an opinion that Pete doesn't deserve to make money. I don't view it that way. I view it as a missed opportunity by Pete to enlist our aid in making his a long overdue, profitable venture. I would have been among the first to help in doing that. But like Pete, I can't see myself investing hours to recode a program that already works. The other (Landclass Assistant) has another option, so I am not concerned about it. But I'm sad (even if I am the only one on the planet who uses it) that Autoland will probably fade away with the transition from FS2002 to FS2004.

[Guest Brent Hebert]

I'll share my opinion of the commercialization of FS addons real briefly.Over the years, the simmers out there, including yours truly, have demanded a much more detailed aircraft with as many bells and whistles as the $100,000,000 real thing. The time required to produce such a product requires thousands of man hours. Keep in mind that developers have real life jobs and committments and can only spend a few hours a night working. Thus not being able to release anything until 12-18 months later, working part time.A developer who decides to go commercial can devote his entire life to do the work in less time, thus meeting the demands of the market.The days of Flightshop and FS5 aircraft with 8 textures and 8 sided fuselages are long gone and we have entered a new generation of addons.Brent HebertMEMBERhttp://www.cox-internet.com/bhebert/aopa.jpg

[Guest]

As long as he pays tax on his earnings he has every right to charge whatever he wants for his time. Who works for nothing?What I personally find offensive are the numerous people making a very good living off the internet and not paying any tax at all! Seems to me that they are no better than the "pirates" they are so quick to put down.Oh yeah, there are some of those in this hobby too.

[ErnieAlston 33]

>So I do agree - the hobby is changing - not by virtue of what the developers have chosen by going payware, but because of the >shifting attitudes in the community which drive them to it.I think the increased difficulty level in producing add-ons has made the shift in attitude. It's increasingly harder to justify putting all the effort into FlightSim add-ons for free.People are more demanding, they have been given higher quality, now they expect it from freeware as well as payware. More details, Animation, Virtual Cockpits, up to date weather, and Navdata, etc,etc.Back in the FS95 days, there wasn't much animation the textures weren't that realistic, there was no vitual cockpit. Today You either need a team or an awful lot of time to create good quality freeware aircraft.The current efforts needed to produce good freeware is pushing the envelope regarding acceptable time and effort for freeware.Several freeware authors are realizing it is either go payware partially or fully , or stop producing add-ons completely.I think also its the lack of appreciation for freeware that has also driven some to payware. Dealing with the sometimes harsh criticism, complaints, the thefts, the lack of copyright respect, etc, etc. This all plays into the shifting attitude you referred to.Regards.Ernie.

[Guest]

>As long as he pays tax on his earnings he has every right to>charge whatever he wants for his time. Who works for nothing?>>What I personally find offensive are the numerous people>making a very good living off the internet and not paying any>tax at all! Seems to me that they are no better than the>"pirates" they are so quick to put down.>>Oh yeah, there are some of those in this hobby too. :-hmmm :-hmmm I

[Guest Milio_B]

I think it goes both ways...I mean if you're going to produce a payware prodcut, you must make it better than the freeware there, and that's why developpers spend a lot of time trying to make it as perfect as possible.We pay because of the hours they work, but in the same time they have to work those hours if they expect us to pay...I don't know if I make myself clear.For example, a developper that makes a fliught model, with no VC, no panel, no sounds and tries to sell it is not that popular with the community, because pacakages that are more complete are available for free.If you want to charge you have to make it worth it, and that's why you have to work so hard in my opinion.

[Tabs 2,790]

>But the fact that freeware has become an onerous, burdensome,>support-ridden, chained-to-an-oar endeavor speaks more about>what we've become as a community of hobbiests than anything>else. What people aren't seeing here is that there is a massive difference between making the freeware of today and the freeware of old - we're at the point where realistic panels with custom programed autopilots, FMCs, and real world systems performance are the expected norm for the hobby. It's not enough to just put out an eyballed model of a plane with some eyeballed FDE info and a slapped together panel with default guages. If a freeware author releases something like that (or even something that has minor flaws compared to the real world aircraft) he/she is crucified on these very forums - we've all seen it a million times. People DEMAND these hi-fidelity aircraft and utilities that take thousands of man0hours to construct, yet expect to pay nothing in return for them.What it says about our hobby is that it's gone beyond a hobby and into the realm of truly simulating real life - I will more than likely never pilot these aircraft in real life, and I have absolutely no qualms with paying for that. People are losing sight of what FS addon authors have accomplished and how amazing it is that we can even think about doing the things we're doing with FS now.Ryan

[gosta 0]

Hi John,those are excellent points you made.Interesting about the netpipes SDK, I wasn't aware there were such difficulties associated with its use (but having read the aircraft container SDK with a feeling of 'tell me what I DON'T know', I should have guessed, really).'Certification' - well, that's one of those things. I've got no clue what it means in this context, but it would appear that generally, IT developers have a very unique perception of what the law is, could or sould be, without any regard to actual existing legislation. Now, considering Mr. Dowson's record, I assume he is a sensible person, just as you are, and would hope that the 'certification' process requires nothing more than an undertaking only to include 'FSUIPC lite'(i.e. IPC only) with a freeware product, so as soon as you decide to release updated versions of your product as payware, you'd be required to pay for a distribution licence. To me, this would be the most sensible (and least labour-intensive) approach to take. > What if someone starts selling our work in some type of compilation. Is Pete going to press us to seek legal action against such people, at our own expense?And that last question I think is what leaves freeware developers concerned. If Pete would have taken the time (there aren't too many of us) to communicate his intentions months ago, we could have prepared our users for the coming issues. But Pete hasn't treated us like partners--at least I've never heard a word from him, and my Autoland utility was among the first VB based freeware apps to exploit his interface.Some view these concerns as an opinion that Pete doesn't deserve to make money. I don't view it that way. I view it as a missed opportunity by Pete to enlist our aid in making his a long overdue, profitable venture.:).Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[vscimone 16]

The world is a changing place. Once upon a time.. two guys sat down and wrote a game in their living room... the game was called Myst and it was and still is probably the best selling PC game of all time. Then suddenly, the power of the PC increased from what we now have in our cell phones, to what was then a 10 million dollar computer that would fill half a room.I'm sure if we were creating addons for FS1, we would all be happy to give it away, but now it takes a large team of people a year of 15 hour days to put something of quality out. Sorry.. but it is no longer a hobby for hardcore developers.Vin

[Tabs 2,790]

Vin,I'd say you guys were absolutely crazy if you *weren't* charging for that NG of yours and I'd demand you take my money!

[Guest]

Before I begin to state my undoubtedly controversial opinion, I would like to make a few things clear about myself.I too am a programmer, but not as a paying job--it is merely something I do for fun. While I admit I have not yet to date contributed any kind of utility to the flight simulator genre, I have done so on numerous occasions for other games (namely X-Wing Alliance, Allegiance, and just recently Freelancer). However, for everything I have ever uploaded to the internet for people to use, I have never asked for nor expected a cent. Could I use the money? Of course, everyone could use an extra buck. But the main incentive I had for ever releasing software was simply because I wanted other people to benefit from it the way I had.Having said that, I can't help but question Pete's motives regarding the whole issue of FSUIPC. If memory serves me, Pete said that he would have to make the switch to payware because of financial difficulties in real life. If he doesn't make money from the module, he would have to abandon development so that he could devote time to supporting himself. This is where I find my first qualm. One should not look to an add-on module that they designed for a $50 game as a means for paying the bills. It will bring in cash, but only to an extent.Now, we all know that Pete is the only one who intimately understands how to interface with Flight Simulator's internals, and I'm sure he realizes this as well. What you end up with is essentially a monopoly in this whole area. At least before this wasn't an issue because as long as the only add-on of its kind is free, there's really no need to look elsewhere for an alternative. Another thing I'm sure Pete realizes is that this puts him in a perfect money-making situation. There are NO alternatives and virtually every add-on on the planet depends on it. This is where I start to feel that Pete's interests do not exactly lie with the flight sim community. If he couldn't continue development he could have easily released his source code, or even just given a few trade secrets to the public so they could pick up the torch. Of course, no one can force you to do that with your own software so unfortunately we have to abide by whatever Pete decides.I think I know what some of you are thinking now; why do I think Pete shouldn't charge for his module when other people are charging for their add-ons? Well, for starters I would wish no one would charge for their add-ons for the exact reasons stated by the originator of this post. But I suppose the more realistic answer would be for 2 reasons; A., because there is an opportunity for competition to arise, and B., the functioning of hundreds of other add-ons aren't dependent on them. If someone doesn't like a certain add-on plane, they can wait for a freeware one that may be even better, or another payware one that may be cheaper.My basic philosophy is this--if you are going to charge for something, do so from the start. Don't let people grow comfortable to it then pull it out from under their nose.-Derek