Thanks guys at Flight Deck Software for this outstanding FREEWARE contribution....FDSConnect replaces the payware version of FSUIPC....http://www.flightdecksoftware.com/fdsconnect.phpRJ

I am waiting until this weekend to check out the SDK...if I can convert Autoland 2002 to this new interface, then I'll be able to sing its praises. Surprise there's been little mention of this in the forum. I've already used FSConnect by Russ Dirks for my coming new release of Landclass Assistant. I'll be curious to see how well these utilities coexist together... -John

Fingers crossed here as well..... In time, lets hope developers allow apps to use either FDSConnect or FSUIPC... Very nice to see some FREEWARE competition..RJ

I resent this post.... As long as Pete Dowson has been providing this utility free of charge you have the gaul to say "Goodbye Payware FSUIPC". I guess you think everyone's hard work should be free... Seeing that MicroShaft hasn't released an SDK to make life easier for add-on developers, they should get paid twice as much for putting in the time to find out what makes FS2k4 tick. Our community has been the only support for FS2k4 since it's release (and you think you shouldn't have to pay).... I for one will gladly pay Pete not only for his work today but for the years he's given selflessly to everyone in this community. I'm thinking about paying him extra as a thank you.Thanks Pete Dowson for everything...

Lol...Why should YOU resent this post? The simple fact is Pete stopped providing FSUIPC for free which put many of us in a bad spot considering how many addons use FSUIPC. The reason it became the standard is because many made the erroneous assumption it would remain freeware. If pete wants to charge for his work that is certianly his business, but he (and you) should expect someone else would pick up where he left off. There are many in the community who work very hard providing us with FREEWARE addons which is what makes this perhaps one of the greatest games (did I say that) ever made. None one as of yet in this thread has picked on Pete (except for possibly me)... So no reason to take offense. So go ahead and pay Pete some extra cash. If you like I can email you a list of several hundred people who have been providing fantastic addons for free who also deserve your cash. Should I resent the fact that you will likely pay them nothing? OF course not, the beauty is that many enjoy this as a fun hobby, not a cash making enterprise. At the very least you should not critisize those of us who appreciate that.Brew

Pete has done an outstanding job, and I've thanked him for his efforts many times over, including donations.But for other flight simmers who can't afford to pay for all the add-on's, I also support FREEWARE developers for their efforts. Microsoft (NO NOT MicroShaft Dilloll0) started this great hobby, and many FREEWARE developers enhanced our great hobby. Their is nothing wrong with Payware, but being a long time flight simmer, I really like to see the efforts of FREEWARE developers..RJ

First, I consider Pete's tool the Swiss pocket knife of MSFS utilities. Anyone who can prove otherwise doesn't know what an effort of love and passion his tool is.But let's not turn this into a bashing session.... I welcome any freeware alternative to FSUIPC for communicating with MSFS for those of us who are freeware developers and don't want to have more conditions and terms placed on writing and release of our products. And this still is the "cart before the horse" question... FSUIPC wouldn't be payware today were it not for the HUGE support it received from freeware developers, myself included. People use it as much for freeware add-ons as they do for it's "Swiss Pocket Knife" gizmos... FDSConnect, FSConnect and any process like them are great for those of us who write freeware on our own....there's no overhead other than the honor system. I don't know whether you develop, but it opens up creativity when I can code away a new idea for the sim using a choice of tools, and release it no strings attached. I do agree that the "Goodbye payware FSUIPC" could have been left off the thread's title, but I am ecstatic that I can spend a weekend of exploring another tool, knowing I can release a new freeware application without having to endure a verification/registration/certification process first. Pete is a pioneer, but so are those who helped launch FSUIPC into the list of "must have" utilities by their own support.-John

I agree, "Goodbye payware FSUIPC" was not and is not appropriate..I didn't mean it in that context... Again Sorry if I offended anyone, especially Pete... Just very excited to see another FREEWARE interface in development.RJ

Aren't some of you missing a point here?FSUIPC is still free in 1 version.The payware version is to be used for payware add-ons.If XXX Inc. is going to charge you to fly their new BR549 and it requires FSUIPC, then Pete should be collecting royalties.But if ABC Airways gives you their new OU812 that requires FSUIPC, then Pete will allow you to use the free version.Man, this debate is endless.KJhttp://fsgateway.com/frank/fs9paibeta.jpg

Hi EveryoneI have Pete Dowson's payware 3.10 FSUIPC.If I try FDSConnect in FS2004 do I remove FSUIPC DLL from the module folder and place FDS connect in its place.Would like to try this freeware unsure where to place FSUIPC.Thanking anyone for their replys.Kenny G.

Kenny,Keep FSUIPC there. FDSConnect won't do anything for you unless you intend to develop with it. FSUIPC has features beyond its interface with MSFS...can't even count them all. FDSConnect appears to be a resource for those of us who are working on utilities for COF. Will it replace FSUIPC? Hard to say--from a quick peek, Pete's SDK with FSUIPC is far better than that provided with FDSConnect. But it's a new tool--FSUIPC took years to mature.Until you start seeing utlities which use FDSConnect, I wouldn't install it quite yet.... Issues may arise which those of us writing code will discover that require FDSConnect to go through a cycle of patches...-John

Tks. John for the quick reply.Will stay with FSUIPC.Have a safe one:)Kenny G.

I think you may be misinformed. FSUIPC must now be licensed if, as an individual user, you want to use the "power" features independently of a 3rd party app (like WideFS, visibility smoothing, and joystick calibration, for instance). But FSUIPC still remains free for freeware developers. I don't think many freeware authors realize this. Granted, you must apply for a license key now to become an accredited software provider - but free is still free.As for commerical apps. Applications like FSMeteo expose most of FSUIPC's weather-related functionality anyway. You don't need to pay an additional license fee to use an accredited program like this. You pay what you always paid for FSMeteo.There's plenty an emotional argument for being angry at Pete for going 'commercial' - but if you read the licensing terms - there's not a terribly compelling logical case for it. That said - I was wondering how long it would take for someone to implement a spin-off of FSUIPC. So we shall see...

What do you guys think about the name he chose, which is only 1 letter away from my FSConnect? That is too close in my opinion. I think he should re-release it with a different name. I'm all for diversity and even competition -- after all, its just freeware, but there needs to more distinction between differing products.Russ Dirks

>What do you guys think about the name he chose, which is only>1 letter away from my FSConnect? That is too close in my>opinion. I think he should re-release it with a different>name. I'm all for diversity and even competition -- after>all, its just freeware, but there needs to more distinction>between differing products.>>Russ DirksRuss,I agree. Who are these people anyway? Haven't seen much in the way of contributions to the community from them before, or have I missed something? Meanwhile I continue to support FSUIPC in both its free and paid-for incarnations.I have no problem with freeware, but when `unknown` authors pop out of the woodwork casting aspersions on those who dedicated themsleves to this hobby for many a long year and incorrectly state that their product is free to freeware developers when FSUIPC isn't - a blatant lie - then the conclusion I draw is:1: They're not as good as they think they are, or they'd have done this a long time ago2: They're not people I want to do business with, even for nothing.3: They have some kind of hidden commercial imperative that will be revealed at a later date. And I don't want to get suckered.FSUIPC continues to offer many facilites and functions that are worth every penny you pay for it. And for those that don't want those extra functions, you do not have to pay. You still get the interface functionality. And you have years, that's YEARS, of freeware support from Pete to thank him for. Is the payment of a few bucks really too much to ask, especially when you know the circumstances that forced Pete to payware?It would go a long way toward restoring my opinion of these `upstarts` (I can't think of a better word for them) if they would post a public apology to Pete Dowson and retract all claims about FSUIPC and their product. If it's good, the (hopefully renamed) FDSConnect will stand on its own merits. If it's not, well there's still FSUIPC for free. Russ, I agree too that it does need to be renamed to avoid confusion. I thought it was you to start with! So while they're doing that perhaps they could rethink their strategy, which whiffs a little if not actually stinks.Allcott