Russ,I was thinking about the name issue even as I wrote my email yesterday. Write them--be polite, and offer a few suggestions for alternative names. Last year, a well known MSFS contributor released a payware utility which included a module called "Landclass Assistant". I wrote them, informed them about my application, and they changed the name immediately and put up a post on their website. Yes--gentlemen do exist! So drop 'em an email, and I'm pretty certain you'll see the name changed...And, FSConnect is still working flawlessly with LCA 1.4....-John

As a freeware developer (not much, but I do), I know that FSUIPC is available for freeware developers to use for free. But why do I have to ask someone to become an "accredited software provider". Don't like the sound of that at all.

I couldn't help but notice that there is an invitation on their site to send them money if you feel you would like to help their development. Freeware? For now yes, but in the future - who knows!!My loyalty is, and will remain with, Pete Dowson.

The fact that we still need a middle layer between us and the sim internals is sad. Also, the fact that it is the subject of the great freeware/payware debate is also frustrating. I hope the new SDK finally makes both of these programs less relevant. They are a carry-overs from the days of not being able to communicate with the internals of FS in an effective and stable manner. MS would probably have already made the SDK more powerful and safe to use if their had been more incentive (ie. More developers asking for it instead of depending on FSUIPC only).

>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. >Exactly. I agree that there is still a lot of confusion about who needs to buy fsuipc and why. Commercial developers should not be able to make money off of someone else's work. Period. This issue goes way beyond just fsuipc. People think that just because it has been 100% free in the past, that we have some "right" to it in the future. The freeware part of it is a little different issue, but again I see nothing wrong with having to get permission from the original author. People think nothing of asking permission to repaint someone else' freeware airplanes. I see no difference in asking to use a utility.

It is probably a coincidence, but I notice the release of the FDS product after the publication of the FSUIPC 3 series SDK was posted for download. Perhaps the SDK info helped those finish their product as to what was needed for FS2K4 interfacing. The FSUIPC SDKs give quite a bit of interfacing info about FS itself and those SDKs are freely downloadable.It looks like the FSUIPC SDKs for 2K4 beat MS's publication of needed info for developers, unless I missed MS's publication on their FS site.Credit where credit is due, please.

>It is probably a coincidence, but I notice the release of the>FDS product after the publication of the FSUIPC 3 series SDK>was posted for download. Perhaps the SDK info helped those>finish their product as to what was needed for FS2K4>interfacing. The FSUIPC SDKs give quite a bit of interfacing>info about FS itself and those SDKs are freely downloadable.>>It looks like the FSUIPC SDKs for 2K4 beat MS's publication of>needed info for developers, unless I missed MS's publication>on their FS site.>>Credit where credit is due, please.Now, I don't think we want to go casting aspersions without evidence Ronzie. After all, that seems to be what the `friends` of FDSConnect appear to be trying to do by spreading misinformation. Or `lies` as we call them this side of the pond.However, as none of the declared features of this new utility offer anything new over what tried and tested FSUIPC already does, what possible incentive is there for anyone to use it, unless you're a developer? And if you are a developer, don't you think it is more than a mite foolish to NOT develop for a utility 60 or 70 percent or ardent simmers already own or use in one form or another? Particularly if other packages that the ardent simmer also wants to use require it.And can FSUIPC and this new software co-exist in the modules folder without affecting the functionality of the other? If not only one will survive and it won't be the upstart. Even if they start receiving money - for freeware. Just run that bit past me again? Lots of questions, very few answers. No facts. Fortunately simming is all about fantasy. Allcott

Hi all.FDSConnection is freeware. The module currently has no "added value" function, unlike FSUIPC... it is simply an IPC to the sim that allows realtime external communication of values for things like altitude and heading. In this regard it is the same as FSConnect, by Russ Dirks.The FDSConnection module may be included in a freeware utility package. That means the distribution of the module with the utility is very handy... one download. FDSConnection has no need for any type of registration to work. Endusers will be able to download updates and fixes from the Flight Deck Software website.FSConnect, by Russ Dirks does NOT allow distribution of the module within a freeware package. In this way, Russ is able to insure updates and fixes are controlled... but this does require the enduser to download upgrades as a separate package. FSConnect has no need for any type of registration to work.FSUIPC also does not allow distribution within a freeware package, and it also requires entering the registration number of the utility by the enduser. If a new version of a utility is made, a new registration number will be required. Peter Dowson has retained the right to cancel the IPC functionality of any freeware utility using FSUIPC, by negating the registration, at any time.The IPC structure of FDSConnection is very similar to FSUIPC, so freeware developers could translate their code from FSUIPC-based code very easily. There is already an added Delphi code that allows me to use it in my utilities.FDSConnection exits with FSUIPC. I have utilities using each module... and they behave identically, and can be run at the same time. In fact, I'm doing just that as I type this.Seeing as the Flight Deck Software group have already given permission to distribute the module with freeware packages, and it easily co-exists with FSUIPC based utilities, or FSConnect utilities, there would be no reason for a freeware developer to not use FDSConnection, unless they prefer FSConnect or FSUIPC.==============I hope this dipels some misinformation about this module. As a freeware IPC it certainly competes well with FSUIPC. Dowson might just be relieved he won't have to deal with freeware registrations for IPC functionality.FDSConnection in no way offers any addon value like FSUIPC, nor does it currently allow usage by commercial programs ( to my knowledge ).That means that users of commercial programs that use FSUIPC can expect they will still need FSUIPC. Endusers that enjoy the added content of FSUIPC available in the sim from the menu, will still need to purchase FSUIPC.The opening title of this thread was misleading, and was a disservice to Peter Dowson and contented users of FSUIPC.Dick

I am continuosusly being surprised by some of the members/audience in this Forum behaving so Childish, B.S......s,inmature (for grown men). Maybe it is because I am not an American Citizen eventhough I got my under grad and post grad work in the USA. In fact I am living here for a couple of years.As an example all you have to do is read the content of this thread.It seems to me that there is one person in this Forum that keeps complaining because Mr. P Dowson started charging for all of his creations. What could we have done without FSUIPC and all other programs that Peter developed while MS was dormant (as usual) with the SDK.If you want to use the new freeware product go ahead and do it. Competition is always good! But please do not procrastinate against Mr Dowson. Your likings about that particular freeware products are yours, so keep them to yourself and go and praise the FDS creators in their Forum, assuming they have one already.AVSIM has been very fair and has mentioned this new product in the main page. It is up to us to evaluate and use it if we so desire.I do not see where Pete fits in all this.I find it very distateful ungrateful to critisize an author whisch decided and rightly so, to turn this product into a payware product.Por favor be constructive in your postings.Edmundo CardenasCaracas, Venezuela

Pete Dowson has indeed done great work for the community, in making many of the addons possible and hes had less income from it prior to FSUIPC 3 series than most mediocre addon payware makers.Although many of the addons could been possible by other IPC software had he made FSUIPC payware longer while ago, like we see now and he would been much less credited person than at the moment.However, I do find it very hard to swallow the price of 20-30