Hello Ray or 'Bonjour' as you people in England say,When is Prince Charles going to sieze power from his mom and become the rightful Monarch of the descendants of the Norman French? Haven't we waited long enough? Here in America we don't have a King, at least I don't think we do. I'll have to look it up and make sure though. That's a different subject altogether though, sorry.Ok, here goes......A fellow named Adam Zsofran (Australian) developed the first communication module for an earlier version of Flight Simulator. His work was always free and was pioneering. In addition, he published intricate programming details of his work so that other developers could further build upon his accomplishments.Pete Dowson used and expanded upon Adam's work, admittedly as freeware in the beginning - at that time Pete's freeware inter-process communication tool was indeed a contribution to the simming community.I feel, however, that Pete had always planned to profit from FSUPIC from the beginning, but what he needed was industry-wide dependence on has software beforehand. Sort of way of establishing a fixed marketplace with no competition. (Bill Gates would be proud to the point of tears) Developers simply assumed FSUIPC would always be available for free (shortsightedness), and a whole genre of software was developed with FSUIPC as an integral part.When everything began the switchover to FS2004 of course, Pete was very saavy and sprung loose his business plan. The market was huge by now as a host of developers had already integrated FSUIPC as was aforementioned. If developers and users of a wide array of add-on software wanted to continue to have FS2004 functionality as such, Mr. Dowson was now going to get a serious cut of the pie. :) Pete is a shrewd businessman and I'm not condeming him for this kind of strategy.So, is FSUIPC a 'contribution'? Heck no, this is where I draw the line. It's profit-motivated product for Flight Simulator and it's author is a businessman. Do I respect Pete Dowson as a saavy businessman? Sure - his success is obvious, even being acknowledged directly by Microsoft as you mention. More power to him. Bottom line - there is a distinction between philanthropy and profit :) Pete is another add-on developer, nothing more, nothing less. :) A cool and useful program to be sure but not a 'charitable' contribution to the simming community. INSERT FLAMES (IN TRIPLICATE) HERE ------- >

With respect, you seem to be conveniently overlooking some critical points during your revisionary history lesson. There are three levels to FSUIPC's use:1) Freeware developers can obtain - for FREE - a license for their "customers" to use FSUIPC for their specific project. There is ZERO COST to either the "customer" or the "freeware author."2) Commercial developers can obtain - for a FEE - a license for their customers to use FSUIPC for their specific project. There is ZERO COST to the customer for FSUIPC, as the developer has paid the license fee.3) Individual users can obtain - for a FEE - a fully enabled and licensed copy of FSUIPC, which will unlock all the OTHER cool features of the product for ALL their add-ons.Now, consider for a moment that it is a near certainty that the vast majority of simmers will never purchase a fully enabled and licensed copy of FSUIPC, but will instead rely on the freeware registration method, and/or the commercially enabled and licensed registration.So, the conclusion that FSUIPC is ONLY a "commercial product" is the result of a fundamentally flawed reasoning, engendered by using a set of fatally flawed assumptions.NO FLAMES - just FACTS! :)

Bump (grin)!Jaap.

Bump (grin)!Jaap.

Bump (grin)!Jaap.

> Not to sure about the word"DECREASED" up there............>> IMHO Pete Dowsons work enables the full potential of FS9 to> become available to those that choose to use the simulator> for and with other applications ( EG: many addonsd, online> flying etc).I wasn't attempting to offer a verdict on the usefulness of FSUIPC, nor on the existence of any contacts between Pete and MS. All I meant by "decreased compatibility" was that earlier versions of FSUIPC will work with the pre-patch FS9, and (according to the readme) may not work with the post-patch FS9. Compatibility with fewer versions of a piece of software is a decrease in compatibility, if we are talking in the strictest sense.I'd tried FSUIPC in the past ... although I really never noticed any advantages of it myself, I recognize that I didn't use it long enough or with enough other add-ons to really figure out how it helped. Also, more than once I've entertained the thought of writing my own weather add-on for FS2004 (based upon some of the InfoMETAR technology and probably with similar mapping capabilities, but otherwise not the same thing at all) ... but with the existing popularity of several competitive products in that realm, I worry that I'd get more derision from the user base than support.- David Sandberg

a) Is FSUIPC a contribution?Since all freeware FSUIPC based programs can benefit from FSUIPC for nothing. It is a contribution.:( FS2004 addons must depend on FSUIPC?And as far I know there isn't anything that couldn't be done without FSUIPC. So there is no 100% FSUIPC dependency.My personnal view is that Pete made a genuine effort to keep FSUIPC free and that the final solution: Free for freeware developers payed for payware producers is a good and balanced one. The FSUIPC addon part (joysticks buttons etc) is another story and Pete as all the right to ask money for it.Jos

>INSERT FLAMES (IN TRIPLICATE) HERE ------- >

Rugerdog,I'll refrain from comment on the first part of your message. Instead I'll stick to the subject...I know Pete personally and have done for many years so I know precisely the background to FSUIPC and how Adam got the ball rolling and Pete's reasons why he went commercial. I have no intention of repeating them here.It's sad that threads like this that give people the opportunity to praise Pete for what he has given to FS end up as a vehicle for them to criticise him and undermine his contribution to FS. Let me remind you that anyone with the right skills can write a DLL that emulates what FSUIPC does but it's strange that no-one has yet delivered one free of charge. Perhaps that tells you just how difficult is is to develop these skills.Pete is not just another addon developer. Many 3rd party offerings and freeware rely on FSUIPC. If you don't think it's critical just try removing it for a week from your MODULES folder and see what happens. He has probably made the single most important contribution to FS and evidence of this is shown by the awards he has received from various FS organisations.As far as I'm concerned the subject is closed.

David,It was not my intention to suggest FS requires FSUIPC to run. Far from it. What I was trying to say was that this is the first time that Microsoft has publically acknowledged the existence of 3rd party modules and suggested you need a specific version of them (if installed) for the patch to work successfully.<>On the contrary, unless you have FSUIPC you will still suffer the rapid change of wind which MS chose not to fix. FSUIPC still fixes that making it just as essential and before.Cheers,

I'm just going to echo Ray here. On the risk that people have good intentions.If, Rugerdog, you are troll--then simply ignore the following.I've only sparingly intereacted with Pete Dowson but can verify that his motives are as pure as anyone's. Here you (Rugerdog) guess, or malevolently assume, motives for Pete that are simply untrue. Then you malign Pete's character. This is just not adult conversation. I'm going to politely ask you, Rugerdog, to be kind enough to apologize personally to Pete. I would apologize for you, but hope that you are man enough to do it yourself.Best wishes,Mike MacKuen

KEN COME SAVE ME, DO YOUR MAGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALCOTT IS TRYING TO FORM AN ANGRY MOB. HE IS TRYING TO KIDNAP ME AND TAKE ME TO THE VET TO HAVE A RABIES SHOT OR SOMETHING, DID YOU READ WHAT HE WROTE???? SOMEONE HAS EXPRESSED A PERSONAL OPINION ON HERE ABOUT A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT!!!!!!! ACK ACK ACK, HELP ME, I BESEECH YOU OH JUST MODERATOR OF THE FORUMS. I WEEP AND DESPAIR KEN, LOCK THIS THREAD AND WITH IT, MY HUMILITY.

Dear Alcott,It sounds to me like you need to be taken to the vet yourself and be neutered - well actually in your particular case spayed - but you get the point. We had it done with our dog and it did wonders for his temperment. :)

Hi Ray,Yah, FSUIPC IS critical, no arguement. That puts Dowson in the position of charging developers and end users out the ying-yang for it too. Like I said earlier though, that's business. It's a money-making deal, not a contribution as such. That's the point I keep trying to make.NOTHING about FSUIPC is free Ray! Even if a user has a commercial add-on with FSUPIC and needs to have FSUPIC functionality to operate the add-on, the developer of the add-on is paying a hefty licensing fee to Pete Dowson. Again, that's business, I'm not condeming it. The end-user is paying for FSUIPC indirectly of course when he/she purchases the commercial add-on that requires it. So, FSUPIC is still not FREE, dang it. It is not a CONTRIBUTION. FSUPIC is a commercial, for profit, add-on. Pete is out there to make money and that's the bottom line. No big deal, it's just not 'charitable' as you and so many other individuals try to continually make out. I don't understand the particular group of people like yourself who refuse to do anything else but worship a particular developer as a benevolent saint rather than simply a businessman. I have nothing against either you or Pete Dowson. I just see the situation in a wholly different light. Do people like you send letters to Bill Gates thanking him for his contributions to the personal computer industry? Do people like you send flowers to your petrol company, thanking them for 'contributing' to your personal conveyance, which would be impossible without that wonderful fossil fuel they developed and keep improving upon?:)Ok, so I'm not on an anti-Pete Dowson campaign, geez. I never said anything bad about him; rather, I simply stated the facts as to his business acumen. He is making some serious money from his work, more power to him. I paid $28 US dollars to register his program because I wanted the extra features like wind control and joystick calibration. It works great but I don't think I recieved a 'contribution' because I paid for this program and it's author is making a very sizable profit. I also paid for FSUIPC when I purchased the PMDG 737, as PMDG charged me indirectly for licensing FSUPIC. I paid again for FSUPIC when I purchased FSMeteo for the same reason. How did I receive a 'contribution?' :) I don't get it? :)"I dance, I praise, I cry - eternally will I sing, I await the day when Camilla is a consort and Charles is my King"Do you get that one? I had to study British literature at an American University! They made me!!! Fortunately, Pete Dowson was not in any of my classes so I was able to concentrate more fully on my course syllabii.

Greetings RugerDog!Following your way of reasoning Thomas Alva Edison made no contribution to the comforts of life at all, since he became rich off his electric light bulbs, grammophones etcetera. Neither did Chris Barnard make any contribution to medical technology, since he was handsomely paid for his first and subsequent succesful heart transplants. Especially Bill Gates, who became the richest man on earth, apparently did not make any contribution to computer/software technology. The receiving or not receiving of money, RugerDog, at least to MY mind is not the stick by which the concept of "contribution" can (or at least should) be measured. But then again, it's easy talking for me: I never made any noteworthy contribution to anything (grin)!Be well!Jaap Verduijn.