"Upgrade to FS_METEO V6.4 by Secure Credit Card purchases Click This upgrade is required only for customers that purchased a FSMETEO license previous to 01-July-2002." The above is from Marc's site: www.fsmeteo.comHi,I've just been over to Flightsim.com - first time in months ;) - and have been unable to see any similar threads or indeed any negative references to this supposed debacle surrounding earlier versions of FSMeteo. Using their search function and various key words was equally unsuccessful. So, what could this mean?Those criticisms directed here at Marc concern FSmeteo 5.1 which was compatible with FS2002 and versions of FSUIPC prior to version 3 (I think the last version was 2.975). Therefore, one must assume that these individuals, by choice, are still flying FS2002 since v5.1 is not compatible with FS2004 and FSUIPC v3.x. This is true for many of us, myself included, although those occasions are becoming less and less frequent as I have grown into FS2004. I use FSMeteo quite a lot and so, when Marc announced that he was releasing a new version which would be fully compatible with both sims (plus FS2000 , FS98 and CFS2) and FSUIPC v3.x, I knew I had to make a decision. Also, I was in that category of simmers who had purchased a license prior to 01-July-2002. For me at least this decision was a no brainer. I knew I had had my money's worth from the existing version, received superb support alone the way, and certainly could not expect the author to continue supporting outdated software indefinitely, any more than I would expect any author/developer to continue supporting previous versions of their software. I upgraded to FSMeteo v6.4 and have never regretted that decision.I think FSMeteo is in a unique situation in that it depends on a number of external factors for its correct operation. These factors are not under the author's control, yet for continued proper functionality the software has to keep pace with any changes. I think we can agree that while Marc referred to version 6.4 as an "Upgrade" there are a sufficient number of new features and improvements to elevate this to being considered a new program. Furthermore, it was redesigned to be fully compatible with the new weather engine in FS2004. Is it not reasonable, therefore, for the author to offer it to the community as such? To his credit, my understanding from the quote at the head of this post is that Marc was implying a free "Upgrade" to the new version for all users who had purchased the previous version after 01-July-2002. This is both fair and reasonable since the life cycle between subsequent releases of FS is 2 years.It appears from the posts I have read, that at some point towards the end of the life of the FS2002/FSMeteo compatible software, Marc had to make a decision regarding how he was going to deal with those changing external factors. Indeed, he may well have concluded that the complexity of the problem did not justify the effort involved were he to go down the free update route for all existing users. And so, the new version was born and arrangements were made to time expire the old version for which support would cease eventually. I imagine the coding was incorporated in one of the previous version's final updates after the decision was made. His error, quite evidently, was not to tell anyone which, to many, has implied calculated and devious behaviour. For me, Marc's track record suggests that this was a mistake, pure and simple, made by an individual who was doing his best to resolve a difficult situation rather than being motivated by greed.Those of you who are complaining must have purchased FSMeteo prior to 01-July-2002, in which case I would ask you to consider whether you feel you have had very good value from the old version. Those who purchased after this date will have no reason to complain since you will have received a free upgrade.The core complaint consists of the changes made to users systems without their knowledge or permission. On the face of it, this stance does seem perfectly reasonable, but, I would suggest that this is being fueled by all the threats of intrusion we are exposed to these days from the Internet. How many of us install software and then immediately look for updates? Those updates change and delete files with our tacit permission whenever we click the 'Yes' or 'Ok' button during the installation. We do not complain unless something goes wrong and, fortunately, such instances are infrequent. In other words, we are allowing this to happen almost every day, yet rarely does it become a cause for hysteria. Why? Because we trust the sources. My continuing belief is that we should be giving Marc the benefit of any doubt because, until this happened, he had done nothing to compromise our trust, for he is someone who, working by himself, has always tried, within any private constraints, to do his best to provide an optimal service for all his customers. Marc's mistake was to assume that those customers who have been affected by this 'intrusion' on there systems would understand why it occurred and, indeed, why it was necessary. All Marc has done was to pre-empt the disabling and deletion of files that would soon become redundant in any case. The guarantee of lifetime free updates surely should only apply to the lifetime of a version series and only for as long as the author/developer realistically could continue to provide support. Who amongst you would expect or receive a free update from, say, the latest version update of Nero 5 to Nero 6? This, it seems to me, is where the argument falls.Finally, I would remind you that the only software files that have been affected are those relating to a version of FSMeteo that would soon cease to be of any value to the end-user for the reasons stated. I cannot say why Marc has not felt able, as yet, to post a statement on this forum. There could be any number of perfectly acceptable reasons: perhaps it is because he rarely, if ever, posts on a public forum or perhaps there is a language barrier which is making him fearful of being misinterpreted. These days we all have to be mindful of what we say for there are an ever increasing number who are ever eager to take what they can out of context and use it against us. Usually the reasons are motivated by selfishness and/or a misguided desire to embarrass or destroy. We should all stop and think carefully before we post on sensitive issues such as this. Character assassination under any circumstances can not be justified unless you are very sure of your ground and have fully acquainted yourself with all the facts.MIke :-wave

I have to agree with you Mike, when I originally purchased Fsmeteo 5.1 Fs2004 was not in my vocabulary, and purchased this product for use with Fs2002 not Fs2004.I can't blame an author who has to take his time to make his product become compatible with a newer version for FS. and then charge for the upgrade.I did purchase the 6.4 upgrade and have not been disappointed with the product.Just my 2 cents worth.Kenny G.P.S. I do most of my flying with Fs2002 not 2004 just my preference.

Attention Ken and Tom:Please lock this one too, it's just getting old.sorry mike

I agree Scott!Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VACougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviation[link:www.cgrmthelos.com]Cougar Mountain Helicopters

I don't have FSMeteo... So I can hardly claim personal involvement in the issue.But if version 5.1 users were happy with that version and the EULA gave no hint it could be "expired", then my opinion of this practice can't be stated using "nice" adjectives. Whether a vendor chooses to support a product is one thing. I've worked for development teams for over fifteen years now, and we are quite clear in stating that users who choose to stay with older product are "on their own" after a reasonable period of time. No vendor should be expected to support a product for a lifetime without recouping some of the development costs. I think the argument is more one for justification of "pay as you go" licensing. But it's comparing apples to oranges to compare that with MSFS's life cycle. Regardless of whether I choose to run FS2004, I can even run FS98 if that tickles me. That's one of the reasons I keep investing in the MSFS franchise.I won't trash a man who has done me no harm, but if customers have found their installations trashed, regardless of the means, so the vendor can "force" an upgrade, then they've a right to be peeved and even have a right to hold low opinions of the person behind such schemes. If that's what happened, there's my two cents. If I read the threads wrong, I apologize for intruding with a dumb and false assumption...-John

Hi, I have no idea why you keep defending Marc, he should have the courage to stand up for himself.The point is not that he charges for an upgrade to a new version, that

Okay, I beleive this topic is had enough posts. It is locked now.