Sign in to follow this  
Guest kyle

FSUIPC Interesting note from a friend with COF

Recommended Posts

Had a friend testing whether or not the current PFC.dll would work with COF with no luck (one reason why I'm not purchasing right away, all that equipment and I can't use it..)Anyways, the newest version of FSUIPC apparently has a preprogrammed message in it saying along the lines that this dll is not compatible with COF please visit the homepage for updates... it then terminates COF. Funny thing is a previous version to that didn't post that message, and in fact I was told that COF loads up the FSUIPC and PFC dll files, but the PFC equipment did nothing, although calibration worked, the inputs aren't relayed to FS making it useless...So it got me wondering, why does a version of FSUIPC from 4 months back in March have a preprogrammed message saying its not compatible with a product that hasn't even been released? (This is a message from the dll, NOT COF as it says please check the homepage of FSUIPC for updates)Anyone have any inside knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Probably because Peter Downson was most assuredly a beta tester...Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, just a tad off topic but Pete said shortly after COF release, PFC dll will be updated. A more interesting question for us PFC hardware users is this: What if Pete stops makeing dll's? Don't you think PFC should be responsible to make sure their hardware is able to be used by MSFS. I mean, we are paying hundereds of dollars for this stuff don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Chris, just a tad off topic but Pete said shortly after COF>release, PFC dll will be updated. A more interesting question>for us PFC hardware users is this: What if Pete stops makeing>dll's? Don't you think PFC should be responsible to make sure>their hardware is able to be used by MSFS. I mean, we are>paying hundereds of dollars for this stuff don't you think?I totally agree with you... but on the other hand I have to question why the &^$% M$ is always changing the way everything interfaces (without a performance gain).. they know that people use this stuff, but they gotta mess with what works and break it. Maybe M$ should be starting to include a way for these more sophisticated yokes/rudders/throttles etc can interface with the sim directly as well. Or has M$ become so dependent on the fact that a 3rd party can make it work, so they don't need to bother. Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is this: when will MS finally bow to the open source community and release a truly open version of FS? Same goes for the critical add-ons: fsuipc.dll, fssound.dll, pfc.dll, etc. Clearly there is a strong community built around Flight Sim, just as there is with Linux. The biggest obstacle to future growth is the proprietary nature of all this software. Lack of standards, nonsensical licensing terms, etc, are all standing in the way of some _real_ progress. One only need look at the gains made by Linux to see that this dinosaur really needs to shift gears and make things easier, not harder, for the developers out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris_CYWG, Please tell me where MS has changed something that I can no longer use? I have been a beta tester and everything works fine. guyjr - I would think your question could be answered by asking why Coke does not release their secret recipe, why David Blaine does not reveal the true magic behind his performances and why KFC refuses to release the names of those damn 11 herbs and spices that make us crave for it nightly. In your comparison to Linux, I think MS is doing fine and have progressed this wonderful hobby for us quite nicely. BTW - how do you find FS runs on Linux?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Chris_CYWG, Please tell me where MS has changed something>that I can no longer use? I have been a beta tester and>everything works fine. PFC equipment doesn't work any longer until the new dll files come out... if you know of a way that it does work with the current files available, please do tell and I'll let my friend to test it out and verify it... I can't justify paying for the new version (as much as I'd like it) when my hardware won't work with it until a new file is released... Obviosly M$ has changed something if the current files available can't relay the the commands to flightsim! Like I said if there's a way I'd be most interested in knowing.I'm not gonna start anything here about this, and don't intend to... but your essentially saying that every addon you have for FS2002 works flawlessly in COF (provided it was done within the 2002 SDK standards)? I just read that parts of Ultimate Traffic don't work (AFCAD I beleive).. maybe I'm wrong, if so I stand corrected!Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,the problem is not Microsoft always changing interfaces. The problem is purchasing hardware which is not USB/Windows/DirectX compliant...Any USB/Windows/DirectX compliant game device can provide axis, buttons, shortcuts...And FS is just designed to use any USB/Windows/DirectX (direct input - a standard in the game industry) as a peripheral controler for FS.Now should a hardware designer wants to have specific controls to FS, almost all controlable features of FS can be assigned a key shortcut. It is just up to the hardware vendor to provide a joykey-2-beyboardkey emulation interface (and I even wonder if this is not something DirectInput can do easily) to make their hardware compatible with any keyboard driven game. For very specific functions not enabled through a keyboard shortcut, then they have to program their own driver to FS for such and I tend to agree, most should be able to provide their own for the sake of support in the long run.Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone read the FSUIPC forums? You'll find your answer therehttp://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?...5a81d5f3b233cf1"No way! I've not even got a version which will run with FS2004 Release version. I am hoping for my advanced copy of FS2004 to arrive soon, and then I will get to work on it. The changes needed in FSUIPC just from Beta 2 to Beta 3 of FS2004 took around 120 hours real hard work. I don't know if the differences between Beta 3 and the Release version will be more or less. The relationship between FSUIPC and FS is very intricate. It isn't using regular gauge/panel interfaces, they do not provide enough control nor data. I am pretty sure I wil be able to release an FS2004 compatible version of FSUIPC around the same time as FS2004 is released, but it may not be complete at that time. It should support the majority of applications, however. There will be a fairly frequent update rate for a few months whilst I find other stuff, no doubt. Regards, Pete "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case you'd be completely wrong. Coke does not make billions of dollars a year by keeping their formula secret... hell, in blind taste tests, people can't tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. The secret is marketing, and lots of it.Now, religious war aside (I hope), I think the big risk that the add-on community at large (both payware and freeware) faces is that the key ingredient in building a successful (and possibly profitable) addition to FS lies in the use of a select few tools and interfaces. One day, the owners of these tools may just decide not to continue with their work, and that will definitely have a negative impact on developing new add-ons for FS. In an open-source model, everybody is on a level playing field, with no one individual exerting undue control over the success or failure of many other projects. This minimizes the risk to everyone involved, because at some point in the future, an individual or group can take ownership of the more critical pieces without losing any of the work that has already taken place. Having code opened up also invites peer review and usually results in cleaner, more robust development. I think these ideas certainly apply here, because of the large developer community providing countless unpaid hours to support a project used by tens of thousands worldwide.p.s... as for David Blaine, go check out alt.magic.secrets. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>hell, in blind taste tests, people can't tell the difference>between Coke and Pepsi. The secret is marketing, and lots of>it.>Must be blind & no taste buds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"PFC equipment doesn't work any longer until the new dll filescome out... if you know of a way that it does work with thecurrent files available, please do tell and I'll let my friendto test it out and verify it... I can't justify paying for thenew version (as much as I'd like it) when my hardware won'twork with it until a new file is released... Obviosly M$ haschanged something if the current files available can't relaythe the commands to flightsim! Like I said if there's a wayI'd be most interested in knowing.I'm not gonna start anything here about this, and don't intendto... but your essentially saying that every addon you havefor FS2002 works flawlessly in COF (provided it was donewithin the 2002 SDK standards)? I just read that parts ofUltimate Traffic don't work (AFCAD I beleive).. maybe I'mwrong, if so I stand corrected!Chris"Chris, I think the point here is not that MS has changed it on us, it is that we rely heavily on 3rd party addons instead of the default and that is the problem. If we used a default sim like the majority of users then none of this would be an issue and we would all be very happy to have a new sim with some new features. Technically all 3rd party addons are based on the original sim that MS released way back when so they don't owe us anything and can change whatever they want, now it would be nice to have much more support for 3rd party designs, but this is the way of the world, you get comfortable with something and it changes. I for one had issues with the thought that I would be without active camera and a few other utilities when I got the new sim, but the designers are hard at work, like they did before, to bring us a working quality product to enhance the sim that MS gave us. Gotta love it!BTW Pepsi is way to sweet for me I prefer Coke, or better yet, Mountain dew!Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stand tall Mr. Dowsonyou and a handful of others make flight simulator what it is... and make us even bother to use these forums let alone suggest they will not even buy the new program without your support...you rockkeep up the good workand bill M$ for the work you do to make their sim work (and us too I guess):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>hell, in blind taste tests, people can't tell the>difference>>between Coke and Pepsi. The secret is marketing, and lots of>>it.>>>>Must be blind & no taste buds! Got that right. Now can somebody please tell me those darn herbs and spices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idiotic "everything should be free" argument all over again...I wouldn't even WANT an open source version of FSUIPC or FS (and Microsoft will not release one because that would kill their income...).Every kid on the block going around hacking into FS and FSUIPC to make it do something different that they think is a "bug" in the released version and then complaining when something else falls over?Thank you but better not.Linux hasn't made much gains at all. About the only things that have improved are hardware support and the installers and that only because COMMERCIAL companies have added CLOSED extensions to make their own products sell better.The internals are still a mess of code hacked together (not all parts, but many).You see, if Microsoft were to make FS open source they'd loose all control over the product. No more sales therefore no more support team and no more development.They'd be stupid even trying to support an open source version with thousands of versions that all have different bugs (but the end user doesn't know they were introduced by someone else and blame Microsoft).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am stating that FS works perfectly fine on my system. Since when is it the job of MS to ensure that third-party add-on's work on all versions?Sure the add-on's (some of them) do not work. That is expected. Surely you do not expect it to be MS' job to only release a version if all currently released add-on's work in it? THat is truly dreaming.FSUIPC does not solely rely on the SDK's - it rely's on the knowledge that Peter Dowson has of the program from many years of developing it. So far, yes. It does seem clearly obvious to me that anything that followed the SDK's does work. But you have to remember, so many add-on's rely on other third-party files that may not be built around the SDK's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can not agree with you.I make my living off of designing aviation related software and solutions and in no way would I ever release my code to better the industry.Secondly, visiting forums like these you do get the impression that this is a large community but there is absolutely no way you can compare Linux with FS. Linux is HUGE and so is the very community that it was founded on. Out of all purchases of MSFS, I would be surprised if over 5% actually visited online FS web sites.To think that FS could sustain itself as a open-source product in my view would be inaccurate. Afterall, the majority of people that visit this site download rather then upload. With the recent outcry of some complaining that some developers have now decided to charge for their ideas and efforts, leaves me to think this community we have would become extremely polarized if your idea came true. MS provides us with a foundation, one hell of a foundation at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone ever said that they weren't going to buy or support Pete in this thread... Heck I *HAVE* to buy the dll to run my PFC stuff... yeah I'm a little disappointed after shelling out cash for Avionics, yoke, rudder, and throttles only to see it won't work, and now I have to buy something else to make it work, but Hey, thats the way she blows I guess... As for M$ not changing anything, heck Pete said in his post..."The relationship between FSUIPC and FS is very intricate. It isn't using regular gauge/panel interfaces, they do not provide enough control nor data. "The way I read that is something has changed, and from what I remember he said he's spent 120 hours on it I believe, no one can deny that M$ has changed soemthing somewhere!!Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris - no one is saying that MS has not changed things - but rather why is it MS' job to ensure that third party programs still work????Seriously, if this HAD to be the case, we would still be flying FS 5.0. MS has every right to upgrade their program and so they should to make our enjoyment that much more pleasing. And Peter Dowson has every reason to charge for his programming efforts since it is so obvious that a lot of others are reaping the benefits of it but not him.

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