What a lame excuse

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Ironically Carmine, I think Iron Claw has something valuable to add. It's just that he doesn't have the means to follow up without some slight or attack against the person, vs. the thought.Had he cared to look at my posts regarding Pete's decision to go payware, he'd know I was dropping my link to FSUIPC in favor of my own means for grabbing data for MSFS. It is simply too difficult to stay freeware and be beholden to a third party commercial vendor, especially after building up a user base. I also maintain, and have been slammed by the "Pro Pete" forces, that Pete is only able to go payware in part because of the demand freeware applications have built for his product. Even if Pete is going to include a stripped down IPC for our use, the point is we'd have to answer to him in some way as freeware developers. I can't see myself doing that.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Just see my reply to Carmine, since we can't have a dialog directly. I have two very strong, and conflicting opinions on this issue. I suspect one of them is very close to yours.I'd love to see an honest discussion in the forums surrounding it. You are among the few who dared even risk offering a dissenting opionion, since I perceive many of the posts regarding Pete as an attempt to--well--kiss certain parts of his anatomy. I will argue that Pete has a right to go payware, but I will also argue that freeware developers don't have to embrace it.

[Guest]

HiI will again invite all to reread my first post which in so many words is a resignation to the fact that payware is a dominant forceand likely to become more so.I attack no one it`s just my opinion.

[Guest]

JohnLet`s bury the hatchet on this one.I`m resigned to the payware issue and extremely saddened to see this happen.I thought my original post expressed this.No hard feelings Ok?

[Guest]

I think the larger issue here is the fact that some of the software that has gone from "Freeware" to "Payware" has not lived up to the expectations. Especially so when the add-on costs almost 1/2 as much as the original product. FSUPIC has (by being freeware) allowed almost anyone to develop any add-on product (freeware or payware) with little or no control over the quality. Personally I'm glad to see Pete move to a Payware stance giving him some control over the products that use his product (I'm sure many of the updates we've seen have been a result of inferior add-ons).I would like to see the Payware community offer MUCH MUCH more "Preview" access for customers. Too often have I paid for a product that now sits dormant on my shelf (or in my local landfill) because it was a bad product. Considering that the electronic entertainment industry is well on it's way to topping the combined sales of the Motion Picture and Music Industy, with only 1/3 of the costs, more care should be taken to ensure customer satisfaction.Rob

[rstough 527]

To Rob and Everyone -It is evident that this is an extremely touchy issue. The original press release was not to spark this kind of a response. Being a developer I have a tremendous amount of respect for those that have produced very good add-ons for Flight Simulator 2002 and such. To properly develop a good product it takes a lot of time and energy and I think they deserve to be compensated for it. I agree that there needs to be more trialware out there. I have been burned several times by products that I have spent $30 dollars for and they don't work. That is probably what has caused this great divide. The fact is I do not look forward to this, because it can be very risky to set up accounts for this kind of thing. If your product doesn't sell as well, it could cost you more than what it cost to develop in the long run.So my commitment to you all is that IF we have to begin charging for Weather Maker or any other product that is an add-on we will first offer it as trial ware first. And if you don't like it you don't have to use it anymore.

[Guest racartron]

Only one concern IMHO. I don't have a problem paying Pete for the continued availability and support of his fine FSUIPC product -- or for high quality add-on planes, scenery or other utilities for that matterBut I have a HUGE problem paying every developer that relies on FSUIPC additional coins to offset his/her cost to Pete for the right to it.I've also been in and around the software development arena since 1980 (a long time) and am well aware of the costs of creating and supporting a software product. I am very familiar with the "round table" discussions regarding how much to charge for a potential offering. There is no way any of the payware groups supporting us Simmers will ever see a penny of true profit. At best they may cover the cost of the equipment, and development tools they need to do the work. And if everything goes well maybe even a little extra spending money to take their family out ever so often.In the end we each decide exactly how much we are willing to fund this hobby once beyond the initial purchase. The vast majority of FS users never get beyond opening the box and loading up the game. If you were to ask one of them to pay another 50 or 75 bucks to buy one more airplane and maybe a scenery and even a utility, they would laugh in your face. Face it, we are not a very big part of the FS world -- just very loud.Sorry, didn't mean to carry on this long, but yelling and screaming over something we have ZERO control over seems, well silly. IMHO :-)Racartronit means something, but I just can't remember what

[Guest wathomas777]

I've followed this debate for two weeks, and here's my take.One, I don't feel that the practice of charging for FSUIPC is terribly bad. However, I do believe that it is the hard work of other developers that has made FSUIPC such a valuable commodity.On it's own, FSUIPC is an amazing piece of code. But is not really something that one might pay for separately. Just like Direct X is not something I would want to hitch up to pay Microsoft for, despite the usefulness of it.However, it's the applications that USE FSUIPC that has made it invaluable. Weather Maker is but one. And this is where I have a problem. Pete created freeware, brilliant as it was, then let other developers increase the value of his own software. Now, once the software is considered indespensible, he wants to charge for it. And now, the developers who helped raise the value, now either have to pony up to Pete, or stop using the product.Sound's pretty crappy to me.Imagine had MS developed Direct X and given it away, only to now, at DX9.0a, tell all the developers that they had to pay MS for development costs and licensing. Now, everything that uses Direct X must pay a fee to Microsoft. Does that seem right. We'd scream our bloody heads off. The issue here, is not whether Pete deserves to be compensated for his work. The question here is, is it fair for Pete to ask for compensation, since it was the hard work of others, that made his product so valuable in the FS market in the first place.What makes a diamond valuable? The diamond itself? or the value someone attaches to it. The same goes with FSUIPC. Is it valuable because of what it does, or what others have done with it. And if that is the case. Who deserves the compensation?

[Guest crashing_pilot]

>I've followed this debate for two weeks, and here's my take.>>One, I don't feel that the practice of charging for FSUIPC is>terribly bad. However, I do believe that it is the hard work>of other developers that has made FSUIPC such a valuable>commodity.>>On it's own, FSUIPC is an amazing piece of code. But is not>really something that one might pay for separately. Just like>Direct X is not something I would want to hitch up to pay>Microsoft for, despite the usefulness of it.>>However, it's the applications that USE FSUIPC that has made>it invaluable. Weather Maker is but one. And this is where I>have a problem. >>Pete created freeware, brilliant as it was, then let other>developers increase the value of his own software. Now, once>the software is considered indespensible, he wants to charge>for it. And now, the developers who helped raise the value,>now either have to pony up to Pete, or stop using the>product.>>Sound's pretty crappy to me.>>Imagine had MS developed Direct X and given it away, only to>now, at DX9.0a, tell all the developers that they had to pay>MS for development costs and licensing. Now, everything that>uses Direct X must pay a fee to Microsoft. >>Does that seem right. We'd scream our bloody heads off. >>The issue here, is not whether Pete deserves to be compensated>for his work. The question here is, is it fair for Pete to>ask for compensation, since it was the hard work of others,>that made his product so valuable in the FS market in the>first place.>>What makes a diamond valuable? The diamond itself? or the>value someone attaches to it. The same goes with FSUIPC. Is>it valuable because of what it does, or what others have done>with it. And if that is the case. Who deserves the>compensation?i think...I MYSELF THINK(just to clear it up for some people:this is MY OPINION!!)that Pete Dowson has made fsuipc to what it is today,thus i feel that if someone is going to charge for it,it should be Pete.who are the others you claim have made fsuipc to what it is today?if i'm correct it is Pete who has coded this,who has been up giving people advice,who has been integrating ever more features into it,who has redesigned most if not all of the code...and if it wasn't for the change in his personal circumstances it might still be freeware...only thing i see is more and more OTHER applications needing fsuipc...using it to their benefit...thats okay,cos it is there,and it will always be available to freeware designers as well...i think it is only fair that payware designers pay a fee,if they don't want,well,they'll have to design their own...might be harder then you thought you know :-)IMHO Mr Dowson deserves to get some compensation out of it,and if somebody doesn't want to pay him,don't use it!disclaimer:this is just my opinion,and if you don't like it.....TOUGH LUCK MATE!

[vgbaron 3,496]

>>But I have a HUGE problem paying every developer that relies>on FSUIPC additional coins to offset his/her cost to Pete for>the right to it.>OK - agreed but as I understand the concept - There will be a version of FSUIPC that you can buy from Pete that is FULLY functional, therefore you need not pay additionally to a third party developer.The third party developer will have a version of FSUIPC locked to his/her product that is not fully functional but specific. The third party developer *should* ( I say again *SHOULD* ) offer a version with FSUIPC or not if you have the full version.A lot of this is still being worked out so the final result may look nothing like what I've described.hth

[yellow5 0]

In the end isn't it up to the consumer to make the final decision? If you want payware then go buy it. If you don't want it or can't afford it then don't buy it. Designers will come and go, and those that can charge for it will. I am very thankful to all the freeware designers who have taken the time to learn this very complicated artform, and have given us quality plus hours of pleasure. I am also thankful to the payware folks who also have taken the time to learn this artform and deliver quality plus hours of pleasure. Let those that can - do, and let those that can't - enjoy what those that can - do.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

wathomas777,Pete created freeware, brilliant as it was, then let other developers increase the value of his own software. Now, once the software is considered indespensible, he wants to charge for it. And now, the developers who helped raise the value, now either have to pony up to Pete, or stop using the product. Sound's pretty crappy to me.I'm sorry but I can't ignore comments like this.Pete found himself working more and more hours a day on FSUIPC much of which was to implement user requests. He has spent hundreds of hours on FSUIPC without any charge being made.His financial circumstances have changed and he now needs to increase his income. If you have a product that everyone wants and you are working several hours a day to maintain it it seems perfectly logical to make a charge for it.Pete developed FSUIPC several years ago (following on from Adam Szofran's original FS6IPC) to support his own requirements. Much later on developers saw an opportunity to embrace it to sell their products and jumped at the chance. I don't blame them for doing this - it's sound business sense.No one is forcing you to buy FSUIPC but if you did all that is being asked is roughly $20-

[ErnieAlston 33]

>OK - agreed but as I understand the concept - There will be a >version of FSUIPC that you can buy from Pete that is FULLY >functional, therefore you need not pay additionally to a third >party developer.I think the point he was making is that the third party developer will be forced to pass on the additional cost to the customer.So if you buy FSUIPC separately you're actually paying for it multiple times if you also purchase payware that uses it.It will be interesting to see if Peter can work out a pricing scheme so people don't end up overpaying for FSUIPC by virtue of having several payware apps.Regards.Ernie.

[Guest wathomas777]

I agree with your points, but at the same time I think the end user should not be saddled with paying for the software once, twice or three times a lady....Perhaps this licensing plan would work for all involved:FSUIPC ships in three versions:Development version: Is strictly licensed. All developers must use THIS version for any software development freeware or otherwise. Contains the runtime environment plus debug and programming tools. Developers apply for a license. Payware must pay royalties, freeware is exempt, from royalties, but must remain freeware. The software also must contain in it's archive a copy of the license agreement along with the unique license code given by Pete. Any software that does not have a valid license code, or has a freeware code and is payware, can be subject to revocation of the license, and legal action if required. This version also will contain a runtime environment that allows the software to function but does not contain any GUI that would allow the end user to manipulate any calls to FSUIPC. This runtime environment is free to distribute with the software application:Retail version: Contains all the runtime environment and includes the GUI interface that we are familiar with. This version can be used by software, but also can be used standalone. This version is available to end users at a nominal cost. (In reality, the runtime is still free, you are paying for the GUI so that you can manipulate it from within the Flight simulator)Runtime Environment: This is a runtime environment only and can NOT be manipulated via a GUI. This is aimed at the end user who wants to update his runtime environment, or be able to run programs that require FSUIPC but may not necessarily include it in the package.I think this would work to keep everyone happy, and you would not find your self suddenly forking out dough to make a freeware package now work when it used to work with the older version. Does this seem out of line? I don't think so. And as far as my earlier statement, I only use FSUIPC because of Weather Maker. I personally don't use the GUI at all, so to me, paying for a stand alone version just to make weather maker work is not worth it for me.

[Guest]

In the end Microsoft will win. Their new weather system is going to hurt all of the weather related programs that are "no longer freeware". What in the world has happened to this hobby. I am simply disgusted. Pathetic.Dr. Abe