Active Camera now payware :-(

[Geofa 108]

Exactly! ....and I don't plan to ever do freeware again-because people seem to treat it and the authors like payware! lolSomething wrong with this equation-and I don't think it is with either the freeware or payware people.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

[Guest in_04]

Hi Ernie,youre comments are ok for payware which deliver a great use like the addon planes or Mesh and landclass.I already payed for several addons like LAGO's Emma Field, FSGenesis Mesh and landclass and 15 minutes ago for FSUIPC.These are all great addons and they are all developed with very hard work. But some tools, I would not name them, are quick work and the price is way too high for them.If you think that the Airfile Pro from LAGO is sell for ~10 Euro and LAGO is a professional combany I think that $15 for a former freeware is too much. The tools isn't developed from scratch nor improved in many points. It is only a update to a new version of Flight Simulator.If LAGO would offer the new version of FSSE (Scenery Enhancer) it would be a total new tool with new features. If FSGEnesis made South America Mesh it will be total new, but the Active Camera is not. The payment of FSUIPC is another one, but I decide to pay Pete for his great work and great support it give to us all and without the FSUIPC tool I could not program anything.To make a tool and not release it as freeware because you think it is not a good payware is youre choice.So I have contacted Pete for information about the new FSUIPC weather interface and think I start the update of my never released weather program asap.So watch out for some freeware tools in the near future.But again don't as for great support, because this cost's more time than developing a tool and I will not do this much.ByeMarkus

[Guest in_04]

Hi Geofa,did you mean my post?I say I start making freeware.Or do I misunderstand you?ByeMarkus

[Guest]

Hi guys what hell are we going? My point of view is no freeware, payware or shareware but the real value that this guys are asking for his products. Some of them are correct but many many others addons let us disapointed when compared the price and what they really deserve to value to the sim community. Hope FS2004 comes with more builtin improved engines and let the market reduce the prices this tendency. One thing is to pay 50 US dollars for the main software and anothe well different to pay 30 US dollars for a simple addon....that

[ErnieAlston 33]

>..These are all great addons and they are all developed with very >hard work. But some tools, I would not name them, are quick work >and the price is way too high for them.That may be so, and I agree with you WRT to some products.But that is the nature of any market, some products will be very good to excellent some products will be not so good.Its up to the consumer to make that decision which is the right product to purchase. Why should this be different for the Flight-Sim add-on market ?>I think that $15 for a former freeware is too much. The tools isn't >developed from scratch nor improved in many points. >It is only a update to a new version of Flight Simulator.Well I agree with you there, you shouldn't sell something that was formerly freeware unless there is significant 'added-value' forthe asking price. Because when you went freeware you de-valued the product, that was your choice as a developer.I already said before in another thread that I did not think FSUIPC had enough 'added value' for the $20 asking price. But you felt different and paid for it. That's how the market should work, the consumer makes the final decision.Regards.Ernie.

[Guest in_04]

I agree with you on all points.The FSUIPC update isn't worth the 20 bucks, but if Pete stop developing the utility I can'n made freeware programs any more :-(So I paid the 20 bucks for the future support of Pete not for the current functions. It's very simple no FSUIPC no programming of FS2004. If I where only a user of FS2004 I wouldn't pay for FSUIPC, only as developer it make sense to me.ByeMarkus

[Fitz505 21]

What I'm waiting for is for the Lawyers to start getting involved. It's the only thing left. Sooner or later, we are going to start seeing payware developers going after each other over similar products, though I would put my money on a payware guy going after a freeware developer first. At some point, I'm afraid this whole issue is going to implode the flight sim community, regardless of your viewpoint. Of course, the bright side is that we could all end up on Court TV as an expert witness. John Fitzpatrick

[garydpoole 183]

HiI've read through all of the acrimonious threads on this subject and noticed a small one line question which, in the haste to express their oppinion, most people seemed to have ignored - "does AC2002 works in FS9", has anyone actually tried it ???Gary

[Guest goon]

Hi all,Active Cam is (in my opinion) an essential add on to flight sim. The head latency provides superb feedback about the state of the aircraft in the GA field. The new approach view is superb for replays, and all for the price of a couple of bottles of wine (UK prices)! You've used it all for free for Dog knows how long, and now it's (cheap) payware. I've just exchanged emails with Serge at AntiCyclone, and if you knew the time and resources spent on ActiveCam, noone here would be complaining about the price.I mountain bike seriously for my 'other' hobby, and that costs me hundreds of pounds a year just to keep up with wear and tear, let alone new stuff. I don't get anything (except trails, fresh air and mud) for free, and certainly can't copy and share my purchases with my friends to deny manufacturers profit.

[Guest vas_yan]

Hello everyone, very interesting post so far...My view of the matter is this:Developpers should stop whining about all the time it takes to develop freeware in order to explain their turn to payware. If they come to a point that they believe it is not worth it anymore then I think they should just quit and let the community know so that someone else can take over from where they leave (don't look puzzled...you know who you are :( ).Also, i think that everyone should read this http://forums.avsim.com/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=11690&page=Is donationware really dead then?Finally my take on AC. It is a wonderful utility which adds much needed functionality to the clickable VCs of FS9. Something tells me that if A320 PIC had been selling better (it should be actually) then Activecamera would still be free...

[Guest]

I keep hearing about this "Walkaround" feature in Active Camera. Can't I just switch to the spot view and hold down my hat button on my joystick to do the same thing?Flyby view... I don't need it.Bobbing head and turbulence... I don't need it. I can get that in the real aircraft I fly.Zooming in on the cockpit and walking around the flight decks... I don't need it. I can read the cockpit radios just fine and I prefer to fly smaller aircraft anyway where you aren't likely to be climbing out of your seat. And I can always move around via a few keypresses anyway. Or better yet, configure buttons on my controls to do the same thing.I won't be spending my $15 on a product I don't need. Just humble opinion.

[Geofa 108]

My post addressed no particular post-just an observation.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

[Geofa 108]

"don't look puzzled...you know who you are :P"If you are addressing me-that is exactly what I have done. If you aren't, your words are exactly what is happening anways. The only whining I have seen seems to come from a different direction-hence the predicament.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"the point is that the program is SMALL, and easy to implement!!! (even I can say that!!)"I think you miss my point, although your response was very polite given my response to your first post, for which I apologize.These programs aren't small--although I am only talking about the ones which interface with MSFS or with Windows in general. Many of the people coding them (I am one, although my work remains freeware) have to spend hours of research for undocumented calls within MSFS. Provided you can find the calling conventions, there's a lot of work that goes into taking a program from code to the point where you can pan a camera around an aircraft. The reason I wondered about the languages you mentioned, is none of them seem current with the programs used today for most of the Windows and MSFS interface programming. IIt used to be I could knock out a few lines of code in something like Borland's C++, and have a fairly robust DOS application. My first commercial program, CDBASE took less than an hour to pound out in QBasic. I haven't looked at the code in years, but I'd guess there's less than 100 lines of code. But at the invitation of Microsoft in '93 (I was even given a free copy of VB to do it), I ported the program over to Windows 3.1. The code required to set the properties, validate the fields, manage the windows, and call the Windows API went up four fold.Whether it be ActiveCamera or FSUIPC, these are complex programs that may have a small byte count, and may seem simple, but they rely on a lot of code and research to get there. Modern Windows programming is nothing like the dos based progamming that Pascal, QBasic and even the first VisualC were oriented for. I'm not a biologist, but I am an IT professional, and I head up Network Admin and also assist development in my company. I've seen a simple screen--a screen meant to capture simple data from a customer, require several hundred lines of code to deal with the validations and interaction that screen requires with our systems. That is Windows programming, and that is why I jumped perhaps a bit too hard on your post. My challenge to you--write your own version of Active Camera, and post the code as Public Domain. Let us see if you can get it done as easily as you assume. I'm not saying that to be mean--I am saying that because it's not easy to understand how much is really required to write a program that deals both with the user, with Windows, and with MSFS... If you start such a project, it's the only way you can really understand what I refer to. One great place to start is with Visual Basic and Pete Dowson's FSUIPC SDK. He's taken a lot of the coding out of the hands of add-on programmers like myself. -John

[Guest vas_yan]

Geofa,I wasn't addressing you sir, even though I am aware that you have discussed extensively the issue of how time consuming the Debonair project has been. I can only imagine so seeing what an excellent aircraft you have designed. However, you and every other aircraft modeller can go whichever way you like. If I don't have enough money to purchase a payware version of the Debonair, or If I don't find the investment worthy I will not buy it and opt to fly something else. Can someone tell me what should I do now that I have to change rapidly my viewing angle to reach that tight spot behind the yoke in the button enabled vc of yours or someone else's aircraft where the lights switches are located without buying Activecamera?There are some things which the flightsimming public has earned, advancements within the sim to which everyone should be entitled. You would like me to name a few? FSUIPC, Squawkbox, Activecam, TTOOLS, AFCAD etc etc. What do they have in common? Their initial developpment wasn't profit driven, instead, they were created for the benefit of the community. Payware developpers can produce as many aircraft and scenery as they wish, but not these programs.I ask no developper to work unrewarded, I would only dare ask people like Lee Swordy, Pete Dowson etc., when they feel tired just let the rest of the community know. Do you find that your time and programming skills go unrewarded? Step down, let someone else continue developpment and rejoice at the fact that you have become an FS legend. Otherwise, turn payware, allow to be targeted for being greedy, because people will have good reasons to think so, and stop calling on your forum pals to support you. If no one picks up on your work, bad enough, no one will enjoy it anymore, but why should you care? You are exhausted, right? I WOULD MUCH RATHER NOT HAVE FSUIPC AT ALL IN FS9 RATHER THAN HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!To all those who say that people who think like me are greedy freeware scavengers: I couldn't care less for the measly amount of money charged for Activecamera. It is so disappointing when people confuse moral standing with greediness :-roll If only flightsimmers where a more disciplined bunch... Edit: Geofa, I wasn't aware of your actual plans but if I understand correctly you intend to go the way that I described. If so congratulations, sir, you are the second person today to inspire some hope for this hobby, after Richard Stefan of Navdata. Maybe all is not lost...