Now that Pete has come out with his plans for FSUIPC, there is a lot of friction between those who think he should be compensated and those who do not.I for one feel he deserves to be compensated. I for one, don't agree with how he has handled it. First of all, let's turn the wayback time machine to the humble beginnings of FSUIPC. Yes, it was a neat piece of code, But, was hardly anything anyone would pay for. Now, fast forward to today. FSUIPC is considered required equipment on many freeware and payware modules. Pete has put in a lot of work, and many of his proponents let us know just how "valuable" that work is. But let me ask you all this. Is Pete's work valuable on it's own merit? or is it valuable because so many people use it? What we really should be asking ourselves, is would we buy this piece of code, based soley on itself. Or are we going to buy this code because it drives so many other applications.Here's the lowdown:- If you are a freeware developer,developing new add-ons you need to get a "free" stripped down version that will allow you software to operate, that you can archive with your creation.If you are a freeware developer, with something already out there, you have to create a new version that uses the "free" stripped down version so it is now "accredited".If you a payware developer, developing new add-ons or upgrading existing add-ons, you have to pay Pete to "accredit" the softwareIf you are an end user, and your add-ons do NOT get updated, your stuff won't work, unless you buy FSUIPC yourself. So the final onus is on you the end user.Does anyone here really think that a developer is going to purchase that stuff from Pete? Let see....* Automatic access for all compatible application programs whether they are accredited or not. No access keys are required for programs to use a fully registered user copy of FSUIPC. This may come in especially useful for programs which are no longer maintained by their developer and therefore not likely to become accredited. NOT. Hmm.. I think I will develop the add-on, choose NOT to have it accredited, and then place the responsibility on the end user. It only costs a couple more cents to add the phrase "Requires FS2004 AND A FULLY LICENSED VERSION OF FSUIPC" I don't see Add-on companies providing copies of Flight Sim to make their creations work, and I don't see the same companies ponying up for FSUIPC either. They will make the end user pay the fee, because the end user version will work with anything. And if you purchase the full version, and an add-on developer then chooses pays the cost to accredit the software, you paid for it twice. Once in your end user fee, and once for the extra cost the developer incurred.If you buy it because you think it is worth it. Great. However, if you are buying it because you require it to run your add-ons. You've been railroaded. I have to hand it to him. It's a brilliant move. Market something, make it invaluable, then charge for it after everyone has it and uses it. Simply Brilliant. Repugnant but Brilliant.

I don't want a bunch of threads on this subject. There is one already in progress. Thanks for your post though.Regards,http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"