Sign in to follow this  
Guest Tim W

A question about FSCUIP.

Recommended Posts

I am sure everyone knows about the payware siuation, but there are just a couple of questions i want to ask, to clear up a few things.1) Is this module required to fly with Vatsim UK online? 2) Is this module required to fly online at all?I am a BA Virtual Pilot, so would like to know how this will be affected.Thanks. Regards,Bob.

Share this post


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

All in onea) If you use FS2002 it isn't required:( In FS2004 the present SB multiplayer doesn't work. A new SB is needed to use the multiplayer. The homepage for the new SB is http://www.squawkbox.ca there you can find a forum and you can ask specific questions about the coming SB.C) I think that there is an ACARS to the BA pilots. If this program needs FSUIPC the developers should contact Pete.Jos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the software you want to run in FS2004 is payware, then someone will need to pay, preferrably the developer. If the software is freeware, then it should work fine with an unregistered FSCUIP.Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tony,"If the software you want to run in FS2004 is payware" is not totally true.If the software you want to run in FS2004 is payware AND it requires FSUIPC is better. Not all payware offerings require FSUIPC to run, and we the added fee for having a payware offering run with FSUIPC on FS9, maybe even more would develop alternative ways to replace their FSUIPC dependencies in the next FS version.Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, that is an important clarification. Only payware software that requires FSCUIP will require registration for FSCUIP. Sorry if it sounded like I meant otherwise.Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If every add-on communicates on its own without a unified interface, extra pc resources would be used and they might get in each others way.A .dll, such as FSUIPC, is coded to be shared by many processes without loading it for each use thereby reducing memoey requirements. This was a significant advantage when it first appeared in one of the later versions of Windows in 16 bit versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a very good point, if developpers were not optimizing or properly coding such proprietary interfaces. I suspect many well known are coding properly to avoid such a problem.Anyhow, unless you really need the joystick / weather features, or as seen in another thread, if it happens you have purchase a several hundreds (if not thousands) famous yoke, that requires FSUIPC and for which it looks like so far you have to pay again for a software driver (FSUIPC) for having it work in FS2004, then you don't have to be afraid about FSUIPC going payware because:1) if a payware software requires it, the cost will be included in the payware software. Acutally this make me think that non FSUIPC software vs FSUIPC software, from a price perspective, would lead to great differences in prices for add-ons for the end user.2) if a freeware software requires it, there is no cost to both the developper and the user as Pete is willing to offer free keys for the freeware add-ons.So in turn, you don't have to purchase FSUIPC as an end user if the sole fear / need is how you would run your favorite add-on in FS2004, because if freeware there is a great chance it is updated (I suspect the ones not updated will simply loose their appeal) and if payware, the vendor would certainly provide an upgraded version for FS2004 (or the risk is to kill a product line if only relying on the good will of the end user purchasing FSUIPC on his own).Edit: I almost forget I wanted to add something. I've just read in another thread that some complained about vendors earning money on the back of Pete because they all (not all) used FSUIPC for building their add-ons, and never gave money back to Pete. Well, I'm sorry to say this but the only one to blame is Pete, which willingly allowed payware vendors for years to interface and include his FSUIPC for payware add-ons, at no cost, with the sole compensation being to offer him the said add-on for free for his personal use...I'm sure if this hasn't been such, many would have built their own interface already, and would not end up being somewhat dependant now. Short sighting in this case, and no investment in the long term from many vendors.Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well stated, JeanLuc. And just a side note, I'm glad that RealityXP decided to use their own interface to the simulator.Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since SB3 will be freeware, I assume it will get a freeware license key for FSUIPC.For my recently released TCAS IVSI and transponder gauges, which use FSUIPC to get other traffic, Pete Dowson happily gave me free license keys to insert into my code so it works with upcoming payware FSUIPC. I tested it with beta FSUIPC and it worked just fine.I think this is getting blown out of proportion.Lee Hetherington (KBED)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think? Well, I think a majority of the developers are gonna bag, and simply NOT accredit their software and make the user pay for the full version of FSUIPC.It's very easy for me to say "Requires FS2004 AND Fully Licensed version of FSUIPC".That way, I don't have to pay Pete a cent, and I don't have to hear from all my customers saying how unfair it is that they have to "eat" additional costs to license software they already own.The only way to counter that is to release TWO versions of the same software and let the customer decide which one to buy. But since releasing two versions is always a headache (ask microsoft), I will probably just do nothing and let the user pay for FSUIPC himself.I hope I am wrong, but I bet I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I hope I am wrong, but I bet I'm not.You may well have a point, we'll just have to wait and see won't we. I really don't see what the fuss is about paying 20 euros for this utility. I have spent a lot more on products that do a lot less than this one and that I subsequently regretted purchasing. It didn't stop me buying them though. I agree that Pete should have done something about this a long time ago when the first commercial developers started using the functions of FSUIPC in their products. However, times change as do situations. I for one don't begrudge paying for FSUIPC. It has added a great deal to my enjoyment of FS in the recent years. Starting way back in FS98 when Pete managed to cure that dreaded "white out" effect that had you constantly enveloped in a grey mist once you entered cloud. regardsTimhttp://www.cambridgeflyingclub.com/images/timavatar2.jpg

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