FSUIPC and blocking posts

[Guest Bigshot]

Well, if it gets to bad, MicroSoft can put a stop to any payware. Read their license agreement. Personally, I don't think I should have to pay a royalty fee to a payware developer which in turn goes to Pete every time I buy a payware aircraft that requires FSUIPC and then have to pay another $22 fee directly to Pete to get the old freeware aircraft working. Sure, the old freeware will work if its author updates it with a FSUIPC license. How many of them are gonna do that? If they don't and you want it, you gotta pay. MicroSoft needs to build an interface that'll make the freeware work. It's the freeware that sells the sim. I for one wouldn't bother with Flightsim but for the freeware addons. I'm sure someone from MicroSoft is reading these threads with interest.

[Guest]

Yeah, I agree totally about not flying without the 3rd party add-ons. I'm not sure but what you don't get FSUIPC for free if it is a freeware program . I believe I read (correct me if I'm wrong) that Pete said his program would be free to freeware developers, and in turn the user would have it free. Hopefully that is the case, because otherwise we would be paying for FSUIPC many times over with each payware add-on.I do have some payware, but I have freeware that is the equal of the best payware in my machine. As I said earlier though, I am very much more selective than I used to be. That isn't being "cheap" necessarily, it's just that I can't afford to add payware the way I added freeware (just like a golfer doesn't necessarily own more than one set of each club, although the way I golf, redundancy is not a bad thing :-hah).Glenn

[Guest ba747heavy]

Gentlemen-I fail to see the point of this whole entire thread. I used to be highly against Mr. Downson's going payware. I thought he was screwing over the freeware market(which royally ticked me off)But then I read his announcement today with great interest. And now I applaud him. He has made the *core* part of his program freeware. Or did I mis-interpret that? The relevant quote:"* The ability to run all FSUIPC-dependent application programs which have an access key. Such programs are called "accredited", in the sense that their developers or suppliers have come to an agreement with me which permits them to access the FSUIPC interface and, if they wish, package a copy of FSUIPC with their product. For this access right, commercial and shareware products pay a fee or subscription. All genuine freeware programs get free access keys on application."He has made it open to freeware developers. He is allowing freeware(and as a consequence us the end user) the ability to continue to use FSUIPC in a free compacity. Sure, we lose some things, but if you find the need for them, then pay. What in the world is wrong with that?Seriously, I think the argument 'he is screwing over freeware' is a load of hoo hocky. Holds no water in lieu of his announcement today clearing up the debate.So, why are you guys complaining? Sure, I would have loved it if Mr. Dowson continued the freeware approach. Sure I would have loved it if Mr. Dowson decided to charge only those payware groups that use his module as a money maker. But alas....

[Guest rogue1]

Ah, but you will be paying for it over and over again. For each payware package you buy that uses FSUIPC to interface to the sim, the developer will have to pay Pete a licensing fee. You in turn, will be charged a portion of that fee by the developer to recoup his costs of licensing to use FSUIPC. Or, that developer will choose not to license FSUIPC and develop their own interface which will add to the development time of the software, which of course will increase the cost.Jim

[Guest]

It is my opinion that not everyone is rich...Richard CYHZ

[Guest jordan]

Anything that generates interest for, or creates a dependency on having MSFS is good for Microsoft. They benefit from both freeware and payware. They also benefit from "interest" generated from both sectors. Although, I would think that the majority of their sales are not driven by someone seeing a freeware or payware add-on and then running to by the MSFS software. It seems more logical that dedicated flight-simmers would already have the game before seeking out the addtional options whether they be free or commercial.I am a person who has always been into "hobbies", and I don't remember any of best ones being free.Implying that freeware is a necessity or somehow a "right" because some people can't afford to purchase payware, is similar to saying that bread should be free because some people can't afford food.In the end its a question of a developer's motivation, and also their means. Some developers are motivated by the idea of making money, some are motivated by the idea of sharing a great new thing. Some are motivated by sharing a great new thing, but can't give it away for free because it is somehow costing them money to produce. Its clear there is wide range of reasoning behind the payware/freeware topic, and that it will remain that way.

[Guest rogue1]

One word - principal. Freeware is freeware, payware is payware; and the two shall never mix properly. All my stuff will remain freeware. If I have to rewrite it to use FSConnect or develop my own interface so be it. That is my choice. I don't like the idea of having to have a program "certified" by another developer; what are the criteria for being accredited to use FSUIPC with a freeware product? Do I have to submit my code for review? That's not going to happen, my code is my code and I don't share my IP (intellectual property, which my code is, ok most of the time anyways :-)) with anybody. Or will Pete sign an NDA to ensure that my IP remains my IP? Just ask? I haven't seen anything regarding this process, only how to pay for the end-user version.Jim

[Guest]

Hello,From Websters Dictionary:Main Entry: HOBBYFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural hobbiesEtymology: short for hobbyhorseDate: 1816: a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation- hob

[Guest GabrielR]

Agree 100% with the last post.The sad thing about the reaction of the fellow simmers against with Pete's idea about going Payware, is that maybe, most of them have never developed software, Freeware to be more specific... I'm not talking about a single texture for a given AC, Im talking complicated pieces of software, that eats time, lots of it, and the developer, like anyother has to work for a living.I develop freeware, and released the first version of a package months ago... People, that had nothing before the package (Its the only one that supplies this specific needs of a little group of simmers) started to complain about the few bugs that it had and started to ask very hard for updates, most of them reallly frivolous... I spent the next two months day and nights, weekends trying to please everybody... some people even harrassed me on my email!... This was very hard, because I NEED TO WORK like almost everybody, and share with my family, and developing that package was eating all my time...so now imagine Pete... FSUIPC is FAAAAAAAAAARRRRRR more complex than what I did, imagine him using his FREE time, to please everybody during years, nothing in return...He has all the right to sell HIS software, as LAGO sell his, or ABACUS, why in the world could we say that he can not charge for HIS work? do you work for free, do you? I guess not...Have you paid for any add on? then why not paying for FSUIPC!The other point: the addicting drug example.... to be honnest, that is ridiculous, I'm sorry, but I dont think Pete has worked free for all these years just to tease us!! How many companies offer a free limited version of their software to add in the sales of a product, most of them do it, and for a very limited time, for those that are still not convinced, take it like this:Pete gave us a free trial version of FSUIPC for years, he has won the right to sell it now!I can say as a developer, that Pete believes in Freeware, as I do, and by going Payware, he is not betraying his beliefs. he has provided the possibility for the freeware to go on...This is just another example of the 2000 year syndrome: the End is comming! Freeware is going to die! LOL!!PS/1. Not related to FSUIPC or Mr. Dowson in any way, Use of FSUIPC just 6 months ago, when I purchased a wheater program.2. I will buy FSUIPC if I need to.3.Sorry...English is not my native language...

[Guest]

Yeah, I know. THAT part has me concerned, I must admit. We'll have to wait and see on this one I believe. Such is life :-).Glenn

[ErnieAlston 33]

>>Why would you rewrite a freeware program to use FSConnect, when >all it takes is an accredition from Pete for your current program >to continue working with FSUIPC in FS2004 ??>>One word - principal. Freeware is freeware, payware is payware; and >the two shall never mix properly. There appears to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary.>All my stuff will remain freeware. If I have to rewrite it to use >FSConnect or develop my own interface so be it. That is my choice. Yep, your choice. Myself I've got better things to do, than rewrite what I already wrote.>I don't like the idea of having to have a program "certified" by >another developer; what are the criteria for being accredited to >use >FSUIPC with a freeware product? Do I have to submit my code >for review? I'm sure some sort of a declaration that your product is indeed freeware is all that will be necessary.>That's not going to happen, my code is my code and I don't share my >IP (>intellectual property, which my code is, ok most of the time >anyways ) with anybody. I haven't heard exactly how Pete will handle it, but I doubt it will be much different than the scenario below...On accredidation, Pete will likely provide your appication with an access code. This code will give your program access rights toFSUIPC's offset information, etc, etc. Depending on the type of code submitted will determine what areas of access (or role) your program has while communicating with FSUIPC.>Or will Pete sign an NDA to ensure that my IP remains my IP? Just ask? Now why would this be necessary ? (Consider all the times you submit your IP while on the internet).RegardsErnie.

[Guest rogue1]

Good points, Ernie. Of course, nothing will be certain until Pete defines the accredidation process. I'll wait and see. I don't submit my programs on the internet though. You may download the executable, but you cannot download the source code. That's on my computer and only on my computer.JimOoh, just had a thought. What is to prevent a payware developer from submitting a freeware program for accredidation and then using said access code for the payware product. Case in point, ActiveSky, it was freeware, then Damian decided to go payware. What would have prevented him from just using the freeware access code (other than his morals and/or Pete's lawyer :) ) with the now payware product. Man, what a can of worms.Just a disclaimer on that last part, I am in no way suggesting that Damian would do such a thing. I was just trying to create an example of a scenario. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers with that.

[Guest rogue1]

In Pete's support forum, he states that this cost is no different than the developer passing along the cost of his development software. I agree, but this is just one more thing that is driving up the cost of payware. Time to ask for an increase in my allowance. :-)Jim

[Guest United]

I wonder if anyone is livid that they have to pay Microsoft for their product??........I mean, it's a hobby, shouldnt it be free??Other payware vendors have been living off Pete for too long. Where's the pay window for FSUIPC, I'm ready.Randy Jura, KPDX

[Guest]

On a good weekend, 600 or so people are on VATSIM. 3/4 are usually pilots. Most controllers are pilots also.500 copies won't happen eh? VATSIM is addicting, and the people who fly on it use add ons such as Captain Sim, PSS, PIC, Flight1, Carenado, etc (sorry if I missed your company)Now, thats just maybe 1/4 of the very active devoted VATSIM community.The product will be making over $11,000, not all of that will be in Petes pockets, but he's making a lot of money, which is well deserved, but, I think if he cut the price down to $10 or $15 he would sell more, and it would be more affordable to students, or people who feel spending $22 or so dollars on something they can't even touch. $10.00 is like not going out to eat at a fast food joint one night during the week with a girlfriend(boyfriend w/e) so it isn't a big deal. $22 is a tank of gas, and thats quite valuable as it gets people places like the airport...Now don't think I am a Don Cheapo. When I go to Oshkosh in a week or so, which is a 3 and a half hour drive for me, I fully intend to buy some software from Flight1 and whoever else is there. So HINT HINT, you software people there, make sure you have everything, please, as I am sure many others like myself have been saving up, to avoid shipping prices, and get the actual hardcopy of the software(I need to be able to see what I buy)Anywho, back to the subject:It's Petes property, he can do whatever he wants with it, price it whatever. And whatever he does, I do hope he makes the sum he wants and puts to good use, maybe of them big giant simualtors using all that Schiratti* and Project Magenta stuff. Or buy an ultralight or plane, perhaps..Last thing,What upsets me is that people, someone like me who has been flying since the release of FS2000, who has invested over $100 in add ons, will have to buy his software. It's not like I am going to forget about over $100 in add ons because I didn't spend $22 or whatever on FSUIPC. The commercial developer should have to pay for it, which they are apparently, but so are a large number of personal private users. I'm confused, and a little upset about it.I guess we all have to just wait and see when FS2004 comes out, then we can get things sorted.(Yeah I know I probably spelled a number of things wrong, sorry ;) )(Also, I apologize for wasting anyones time with my post, just posting how I feel about the issue)Paul Meyer - Morris, C09http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/Us...7b45404593a.jpg