Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Captain Barfbag

What a lame excuse

Recommended Posts

Guest

>Hi Andy>>Well we might as well face it.The heart of the hobby is being>ripped out and being replaced with a cash register.The heart of the hobby was NEVER freeware, it was FS itself.Personally, I've always enjoyed a lot of commercial addons far more than most freeware ones simply because they are of a lot higher quality (I know there's bad payware too).>There is really no use grousing about it as the majority of>simmer`s now agree that being compensated financially is the>way to go anymore and that the satisfaction of contributing to>the community is not enough.Which is caused in no small part by the ever increasing number of threats, flames, etc. authors receive...>I can inmagine what is going through the minds of these groups>as they see all these former freeware programs fall to the>siren song of the almighty dollar and why should`nt they go>and get a slice themselves.I know I would in the current>enviroment.You've obviously not even read Pete's comments on the matter, or you'd know it's not the dollar at all and certainly he didn't "fall for it".Get your facts straight before you whine about things (but then, if you did you would have no reason to whine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sad fact is that a lot of people don't buy commercial addons but pirate them instead, then go to the creator and demand all kinds of time consuming support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,>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)http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wathomas777

I didn't catch that in his announcement, but if that is what he is truly suggesting, then I don't see the big deal.That seems more than fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased to see you've understood how fair Pete is trying to be to everyone. :-)Cheers,


Ray (Cheshire, England).
System: P3D v5.3HF2, Intel i9-13900K, MSI 4090 GAMING X TRIO 24G, Crucial T700 4Tb M.2 SSD, Asus ROG Maximus Z790 Hero, 32Gb Corsair Vengeance DDR5 6000Mhz RAM, Win 11 Pro 64-bit, BenQ PD3200U 32” UHD monitor, Fulcrum One yoke.
Cheadle Hulme Weather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jmarcure

>Sad fact is that a lot of people don't buy commercial addons>but pirate them instead, then go to the creator and demand all>kinds of time consuming support.I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>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.I have to take issue with this assertion. I could list a screenful of uses for FSUIPC as a "stand alone" program. I you cannot do the same, then it is evident that you haven't truly explored all the options... :) Here are just a few of the more critical uses for us here at St. Gregory House:1) "Spike elimination:" traps spikes in polled values from controllers that eliminate runaway turbine spooling at ground idle.2) "Smooth Transition" between weather layers: minimizes a defect in the FS2k2 weather engine3) "Key Assignments:" allows for greater flexibility in creating key assignments4) "Do not relocate on Flightplan load" (should be self-explanatory!)5) "Everlasing Rain Fix:" cures defect in the FS2k2 weather engine whereby rain, once started, with NEVER END! :(6) "Extend Battery Life:" allows extending the "battery life" from the miserable ~120 seconds that is FS2k2 defaultPlease note carefully that none of the above listed issues are dependent on any other program than FSUIPC itself. Now, not having access to any of the beta versions or the Press version, I cannot know if any or all of these crucial issues have been "fixed" in FS:CoF, but as long as we have FS2k2 installed on our file server here at SGH, we'll continue to need the "Swiss Army Knife" that FSUIPC truly is to fully realize our enjoyment of the sim.BillAVSIM OmbudsmanFounder and Director,Creative Recycling of Aircraft Partshttp://catholic-hymns.com/frbill/FS2002/images/fartslogo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rogue1

I'm sure Pete is trying to be fair in his licensing arrangements, but as an end-user this is the problem as I see it.Developer A needs FSUIPC and pays Pete a licensing fee to be able to distribute FSUIPC without an interface with their software. To cover their licensing costs they add say $2.50 to each copy. They also deside to provide a version without FSUIPC and do not add a charge to cover their licensing fee (so it's $2.50 cheaper than the version with FSUIPC).Developer B needs FSUIPC and pays Pete, then to cover their licensing fees, charge their customers and extra $5.00 (maybe they won't sell as many versions as Developer A, but their licensing cost is the same). They do not provide a version without FSUIPC.Developer C needs FSUIPC and pays Pete, then to cover their costs add $2.50 (they think they can sell as many versions as Developer A). They do not provide a version without FSUIPC.So me as an end-user without purchasing FSUIPC has to shell out $10.00 extra to cover 3 developers costs for licensing FSUIPC; and now I have 3 copies of the run-time version of FSUIPC. Or, if I have FSUIPC, I still am paying $7.50 for 2 run-time versions of FSUIPC even though I don't need it.So, my choices are, buy an end-user license for the full FSUIPC and then suck up the fact that I'll also be paying some developers for a run-time version that I do not need. Or, don't buy a license for the end-user version and pay more for multiple copies of the run-time version. This is the problem as I see it. I don't see an easy way out of this for anyone. In the end, I believe, everyone will lose. Some developers will create their own interface to FS (already being done); some will pay to license FSUIPC and pass that cost on to their customers; some will just stop developing for FS. And end-users will get stuck with the bill; or not, we can choose not to buy it.Oh, and BTW, I have developed and am developing tools that use and don't use FSUIPC. I have yet to decide what to do regarding this, waiting to see what the licensing plans are that Pete comes up with. Which leads to my last observation, most of my thoughts above and those of others will probably be rendered useless based on the FSUIPC licensing arrangement that Pete decides on, and what if anything Microsoft has done to FS2004 and any SDK that is released.Just my 2 cents.Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Much later on developers saw an opportunity to embrace it to sell their products and jumped at the chance."I wanted to clarify this point. Developers were "invited" to embrace it when Pete released the SDK. Pete could have kept that to himself.I for one wouldn't have had a clue how to use FSUIPC without the SDK. It was one of the best, most brilliantly written pieces of documentation I'd seen. And it stood the test of time--I was able to transition Autoland from FS2000 to FS2002 with very little in the way of code changes. It took me five minutes to code in my LCA interface to Pete's work. Still, I agree with the general feeling among many *freeware* developers that Pete wouldn't be in a position to profit from his work, without the support we've given it in our products. In a sense we've served as sponsors of FSUIPC. I think it would be fair of Pete to contact every freeware developer he can, and expain things directly outside of the heat and misunderstandings these forums can have. I know that means more work, but P.R. is part of being commercial vs. private. And, it would show the freeware community that he considers us as important to his success as FSUIPC is to ours. The shoe's on Pete's foot, IMHO....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,I assume you're adressing your comments to me because you've quoted part of my message. In future would you mind addressing me so I can be sure - thanks.I think it would be fair of Pete to contact every freeware developer he can, and expain things directly outside of the heat and misunderstandings these forums can have.Pete doesn't visit this forum so I suggest you either contact him personally or post a topic at his support forum over at SimFlight.Cheers,


Ray (Cheshire, England).
System: P3D v5.3HF2, Intel i9-13900K, MSI 4090 GAMING X TRIO 24G, Crucial T700 4Tb M.2 SSD, Asus ROG Maximus Z790 Hero, 32Gb Corsair Vengeance DDR5 6000Mhz RAM, Win 11 Pro 64-bit, BenQ PD3200U 32” UHD monitor, Fulcrum One yoke.
Cheadle Hulme Weather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest united777

Well I have also been following this for a few days now and I must say that if you go from Freeware to Payware, I think that is low, personally. But if there is reason such as two versions-payware/freeware-. I support it. I think that most people take freeware for grantid and don't see the time and effort they take from their days and families to produce and display their work. Some people have told me how they feel about a certain freeware product and I simply tell them ,"It's free, who cares." But if the reason Pete has decided is a fair and balanced one I fully support his actions. I can see how such a vital piece of software could make a few bucks out of it, but if pete is secretly selling it because it is a vital program and he knows he'll get money, I just have to say that is very high on the cheap scale.. I'm neil cavuto.. GOod night.. Reminded me of a final remark from Neil Cavutos shows on Fox :-)!"... AND I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"[b/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Liam

What a complete load of old tosh :-)IMHO there are only two add ons that really do FS any justice DF 737 and PIC 767. The rest get em out of here :-) Of course there will be there hairbrush drivers who will jump all over me on this one....just my humble opinion.Although this thread has made me giggle at work on a somewhat dull night shift.....keep it up LOLLiamP.S. Lads can you make the comments a little more condisending towards each other, there is room for more :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liam--A bit late to the party with your comments, aren't you? And I thought this thread had died..... But to add to the two add-ons you mention, I think the DF Cardinal, Flight 1 421, and Eaglesoft aircraft all do FS justice. I'd pay for the whole bunch again, if God forbid I lost my reg keys...Also--just a P.S.--always (and I mean always!) use a spell checker before you use words like condescending..... Of course, you may have been referring to the newly added English word, "condissenting", which means "a group of enthusiastic simmers trying to con each other with indecent dissent" I think....:-beerchug

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...