FSUIPC and blocking posts

[Guest ba747heavy]

"...., will have to buy his software...."Paul, that is where you are wrong. ;-) You *don't* need to buy it, at least as far as I can tell. He said he will make FSUIPC free(parts of it, ie the stuff that panels use) No where does he say that you have to buy it, to the contrary, the way I read it is that you may get ahold of it, and use it all you want. You just wont' have access to things like control spike elimination, etc etc.See the quote in my first post to see where I am basing this assumption(albiet a good one :-hah)

[BobP 56]

I wonder how the payware companies feel about this? Some are passing the cost of FSUIPC directly to the customer. I.E. Precision flight controls has announce there will be a fee for the new FS2004 drivers. Business must be good.BobP :)

[Guest SuperFlight2002]

I like to add my 2 Cents to this as well.Lets go back to basic math hereLets so Joe Someone makes an freeware add-on spent oh say 150 hours of true time to make this add-on. Most software developers today depending on were you live there salaries are mid level from 50K up to the really fortunate 100K+ now with that this is full time I take so we take the 150 hours spent on making the add-on in his spare time over 3 to 4 months. Now a month later or two he decides to sell this add on oh lets say for $20 I am using dollars here just as a point of reference.A percentage of that sale is always given to some type of overhead like 1.9% to up 3% for the use of a site to sell the product and take credit card processing. Now there is the fact that maybe the developer likes go cheap and hosts a website on a cheap hosting company you can get them for oh say US 100 year. So now the developer original price is striped from $20 to lets say $14 here to be safe.Now take the ammount of people that purchase add-on programs and I think it is fair to say that if the product is popular then 1000 purchases over 3 months isn't too much. That works out to be $4600 a month thats more money than most people in this world make workin 40 hours a week at $8 dollars and hour!Ok a lot of people say and I have heard developer after developer say they don't make any profits or the profits are little to none? How can this be with all the diffrent payware add-on groups around? If they didn't make a profit in doing it then why do it? Or sould I say why sell it in the first place? Just my two cents!

[ErnieAlston 33]

>Good points, Ernie. Of course, nothing will be certain until Pete >defines the accredidation process. I'll wait and see. Ok, Good Plan.>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.This is all client side stuff, you will not have to connect to remote server to be authenticated. Your access code would work similar to an Installer or setup reg-key does. Its the sequence of characters in the code that will determine yur programs access rights (again this is my guess as I have never talked to Pete about how this will work).>Ooh, 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. He'd probably get away with it for a while. But Pete's history is he has done a lot of updates. So he could just block its access in the next update, then Damiam would be getting lots of emails from his users asking why the program no longer seems to be working right when they start downloading the new FSUIPC updates.Regards.Ernie.

[Tabs 2,790]

I am so sick of this "our hobby should be free" BS. Seriously - I'm fairly certain all of us on this forum come from capitalist countries where supply and demand and the exchange of goods/services for monetary compensation is the way things are done. This is INSANE that people expect developers to spend YEARS on developing software for all of us and then give it away. TIME IS MONEY!In my other "hobby", which is music, I play guitar in a local rock band - should my band not charge a bar or club owner for our services because music is a "hobby" and some people think they should be able to enjoy live music without paying for it?? Afterall, you're not getting anything tangible from it, just years of development honing skills, workign up a set list etc. (sounds like software code eh?) Should that club owner be able to make a profit off of people entering the club, buying drinks etc when our band is contributing to the atmosphere and attracting people to the club? (sounds a lot like Pete's situation - he's the band and the payware developers are the club owners, profiting at least in some part from his hard work) I enjoy music to a very high degree and it is a satisfying "hobby", but am I going to expect absolutely nothing in return for the time I've spent learning to play well enough to feel confident showcasing my skills (I've been playing for 13 years) in front of the general public - HELL NO!!! Am I going to turn down payment because of some warped idiology about it being for the "art" or the "hobby". Please. If freeware developers want to invest the amount of time they do into giving things away, that's perfectly fine and honestly I don't know how they have the time and $ to afford to do that - there's nothing wrong with that, but PLEASE do not bash on payware developers like they're some evil plague running amok in the FS community. I probably would not still be into FS were it not for products like 767PIC and the PMDG737 that keep raising the level of realism to new heights. Freeware developers simply cannot affor to make stuff like that (with a very FEW exceptions), the economic inequality is just too high. I'd consider someone certifiably crazy if they thought they were entitled to a complex simulation of a multimillion dollar airliner that pilots get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to fly, simply because it's their "hobby." Please stop with these threads, if you don't like Pete taking FSUPIC to payware (note too that it doesn't even affect freeware developers for the IPC portion!) then shut up and invest years of your OWN time and write your own module to give away so you can satisfy your psueo-moralistic ideologies. It's real easy to say "it should be free, how dare you charge" when you're not the one developing the product.Ryan

[Guest]

Hi Fred,Thanks for clarifying the issue a little more, I see that I misunderstood something along the way somewhere, it all fits now. With all these posts on all FS outlets, the message gets scrambled a bit. I feel a little, well ya know, like a dope. I understand what you're saying. I do hope this all goes well, and we'll see when FS2004 is released.Paul Meyer - Morris, C09http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/Us...7b45404593a.jpg

[Guest Daniel Pimentel]

>I am so sick of this "our hobby should be free" BS. Shame, your being sick doesn't seem to stop it from happening. :-lol>Seriously - I'm fairly certain all of us on this forum come>from capitalist countries where supply and demand and the>exchange of goods/services for monetary compensation is the>way things are done. This is INSANE that people expect>developers to spend YEARS on developing software for all of us>and then give it away. TIME IS MONEY!As insane as it may be, thousands of us contribute to this community everyday and release free add-ons... But now it's the trend to go payware when the stuff seems to be a hit. Am I going to turn down payment because>of some warped idiology about it being for the "art" or the>"hobby". Please. Luckily those of us who contribute don't think the same way you do, or this community would be 100% greed-based. Wouldn't that be nice now? :-rollIf freeware developers want to invest the>amount of time they do into giving things away, that's>perfectly fine and honestly I don't know how they have the>time and $ to afford to do that - there's nothing wrong with>that, but PLEASE do not bash on payware developers like>they're some evil plague running amok in the FS community.We're not bashing on payware developers, we're commenting (that's what this is, don't call it any other way because we're not being rude) on how a freeware developer decided that after making his add-on free for years, and letting the community become dependent on it, he's charging for the functionality. (because you can only dream that payware developers won't compensate the expenses by increasing prices) I>probably would not still be into FS were it not for products>like 767PIC and the PMDG737 that keep raising the level of>realism to new heights. Freeware developers simply cannot>afford to make stuff like that (with a very FEW exceptions),>the economic inequality is just too high.It's not about economical inequality, freeware developers could do EXACTLY what payware developers do, but they'd take much longer since they're not living off of their creations. The freeware Dash-8 mentioned recently in this forum is a prime example. Please stop with>these threads, if you don't like Pete taking FSUPIC to payware>(note too that it doesn't even affect freeware developers for>the IPC portion!) then shut up and invest years of your OWN>time and write your own module to give away so you can satisfy>your psueo-moralistic ideologies. That's rude. If you don't like these threads don't come in, and do not reply. You're only fueling the fire. And besides, who are you to tell me to shut up, sir? Good. I thought so. STOP TELLING US TO SHUT UP. I can voice my opinion, just like anyone in this forum. Nobody asked what you thought about it, and I think your bellicous tone is just flame bait in a thread that, despite having different opinions, was going perfectly fine. It's real easy to say "it>should be free, how dare you charge" when you're not the one>developing the product.I contribute to this community, maybe not as actively as Pete, but I know what is involved in developing freeware. The whole point of the thread is not about him going payware, it's about the moment he did. And actually, the whole point was how people like you can't stand those that disagree with them, and feel compelled to tell those who think differently to shut up. That is ignorant to do, and I think you can do a lot better than that. If you feel like having a rational discussion, by all means feel free to reply. If you'll post another childish rant glorifying your point of view as the correct one, I think I'll pass. Good Day.Daniel P.

[Guest ChrisTrott]

Only post on this subject and only becasue this last one really caught my attention.1) Airlines don't make much of a profit when they make one. It's usually less than 5% and more commonly in the 1%-2% range. But that's still multiples of millions of dollars (US). So you've got to look closer to what they're saying when they claim "little to no" profits. Are they talking percentage or actual numbers? Same with software and developers.2) Many of the hobby's payware developers aren't in it for the profit, they're in it for the offset of costs. Imagine this- You pay $10US for an addon. The author sells 1000 copies. His income is $10,000US.But Wait! He used GMAX with a license since he's using it for commercial purposes. $500US or more. Now he's got $9500US.He also had to pay for the PaintShop Pro or PhotoShop and its license to produce commercial products with it. $800US - $1500US for the software, another $200US for the license. Now he's got $7800US.He also had to pay for webspace to host the files. It costs $25US for the domain name for a year, $200US for the 500MB of webspace for the year, and another $500 a MONTH for the bandwidth. So, for the year that's another $6225US down the drain. Now he's got $1575US.Now, say he bought a new computer with all this becasue he wanted something better to design on. It cost him a total of $1300US for everything. Now, he's made a whopping $275 on the whole shebang.Okay. There's some math for you guys. It's only an example, but if you do the numbers, these guys are charging pretty cheap rates and really aren't making a huge profit off them on most occasions.Oh yeah, I forgot to include whatever PayPal, Flight1 or SimMarket.com charges for processing fees to process the orders. So in reality, if this example was real, he could take a LOSS on the whole, even though he's charging for his work.Jason, I do agree that at the surface what Pete's doing looks underhanded, but I'm not sure we (the end users) will notice much of a difference unless you want all the extra features that he offers. Of these, there's 2 that I actually want, so I won't buy it for now, and just use whatever version comes with the products I get. He's trying to get re-imbursement for the PAYWARE products that go out, and not the freeware ones, so I'm not worried that my HJG, FFX, POSKY, AFG, FFG, Mike Stone, I3D, or any other freeware aircraft I have won't work in FS2004 because I didn't purchase FSUIPC and just used the free version.

[LAdamson 240]

>>Lets so Joe Someone makes an freeware add-on spent oh say 150>hours of true time to make this add-on. Your whole essay is "flawed". You write of 150 hours true time, which is only a fraction of true time spent on worthwhile payware projects, let alone support. Back to the "math" chalkboard for you..L.Adamson

[Guest Deeks]

Wonderfully put Jason. Now I would like to voice my opinion on this subject further but since I consider talking a hobby and find it cutting into my job and family life I will now have to charge for any responces I give. The cost will be $20.00USD per a word or $200.00USD for a complete sentence and I will give a deal on vowels ...buy 2 get the third for free. These prices may go up in the future ...we'll see how it goes. I will be granting a free license to free-thinkers though.

[ErnieAlston 33]

In order for a product to be 'popular' as payware, it has to be significanfly better than freeware products of that type.150 hours is pretty low development time, if you did it in 4 months you'd be spending maybe 2 hours a night on it. Your not spendingany more time developing your add-on than a freeware developers are doing. Which means it likely won't be much better than what is already available for free. So I really doubt you would be able to sell 1000 copies in 3 months on such a project. You'll be lucky to sell 300 copies total for the year, much less in 3 months.Also multiply your sales percentages for the distribution site by about 10 and you'll be in the ballpark on what their cut. Your talking 15%- 20% not 1.9% to 3%. They are not just doing the CC transaction, they are generating the regid's, providing the bandwidth for the downloads, etc,etc.So your cut now is down to about $12 per copy. Total income over 1 year for this 150 hour project $3600.Even if you pull this off you'll likely have few return customers anyway. Regards.Ernie.

[Guest wathomas777]

Here is the point that EVERYONE has missed:* Automatic access for all compatible application programs whether they are accredited or not. No access keys are required for programs to use a fully registered user copy of FSUIPC. This may come in especially useful for programs which are no longer maintained by their developer and therefore not likely to become accredited. The above is a feature of the payware version of FSUIPC. If I am a developer, what motivation do I have to accredit my software? NONE!!! I simply tell my end users that they need a FULLY LICENSED copy of FSUIPC and be done with it. PERIOD. I don't bother getting freeware "accreditation" or bother paying Pete a FEE. I make the end user pony up the cost of buying the full version.Folks, if you don't think that is how this is gonna pan out, you are seriously in denial.It is VERY easy for me to tell the user that my software requires FS2004 and a full version of FSUIPC as well. And, I can even spin it to make me look good. I can put out a press release that says, I have chosen NOT to accredit my software, because I can not in good faith see people paying twice for the software. I can claim that a good portion of my customers may already have FSUIPC, and if I "accredited" my Add-On, I would be forcing them to help pay a license for software they already have.All this "crud" about freeware, and accreditation, and limited versions is just a red herring. Pete knows that developers are not going to go through the hassle, and will not be willing to pay Pete any royalties. They would much rather release the add-on at a lower cost, make the end user buy FSUIPC, and then not have to pay pete a red cent.That's the hard truth gentlemen and ladies.

[Guest]

God, when I see threads like these, I just want to throw up. This is what FS is coming to, everything should be of payware quality and everything should be free. "It's a hobby and it's our right to complain because we have to shell out a few more bucks to support our addiction".Release something as freeware, and your "banished" to remain freeware the rest of your life. Pete has his reasons for charging. But who compensated him for the software needed to develop this program? Who compensated him for the countless hours he spent in time to program everything and continually keep up to date with all the changes? Let's see, how many updates have we had since it's introduction? Who compensated him when the payware companies made some major dollars on their products?You'll go out and spend $39.95 or more on an add on scenery or aircraft and won't complain one bit, you'll post a hundred posts in the forums here saying how great it is, but never complain that you had to pay $40 bucks for it. You didn't complain when you had to pay $60-$80 for FS2002. You didn't complain when you bought PSS or PIC etc. They made BIG bucks on their products and Pete was left holding the bag. $22? Hmmm, lemme check my bank account.... oh damn! I'll be overdrawn! Oh! Hey wait a minute! So and so just released that hot aircraft... I gotta get that! Damn this is so great!Look people, no where does it say in any language on this planet that a hobby is restricted to being free. Some of you are accusing Pete of being a crook, a theif, basically everything in the book, but these are modern times. Time costs money, costs keep going up, not down, and Pete is entitled (in my opinion) to recoup all for his efforts over the years and for all the losses as well by payware compinies. The only flaw I see is that Pete should've caught and done something about the abuse long ago and require some sort of licsensing agreement or whatever from the compinies. If you honestly believe $22 bucks will break you and the bank, then maybe you should find another "hobby". Last time I checked, ANY hobby of ANY kind costs money... and time.Stop trying to be so rightous and stop trying to rewrite the dictionary definitions to suit your cause. Be glad that MS didn't do this first, then we'd all be paying out the ying yang. As I stated sometime back in another post, wether you wish to believe it or not, but MS is researching and watching what is being developed in the freeware AND payware markets here in FS. And their long term goal is to monopolize the market. When I participated in the "round table" discussion last year on FS2004, 99% of everything discussed was geared towards the "what if" scenario, as in "what if MS did this or that" regarding the add-on market. They really didn't care much about what we wanted to see as far as improvements or flaws. I will add that they at least listened to the majority of them and FS2k4 does have a significant amount of them addressed. But the fact remains that they are exploring ways of entering the add-on end of it with licsensing rights and more. If their "master plan" comes into play a few years from now... then what are you gonna do?If you can't afford to play the game... then get another one.Mikehttp://sgair.net/mike/mike/mike_small.jpg

[Guest aeroworx]

Mike,Couldn't have said it better myself. Of all the hobbies on this planet, FS probably gives us the most options and greatest level of enjoyment for the least money spent.I wonder if the guys who complain, also do so when the hire & fly fees go up, or maybe they want to do that for free too ;)CheersHenning

[Guest wathomas777]

You are missing the point. What if Microsoft tomorrow told you that DirectX 10 would cost you 50 bucks. Or the new .dll to run your joystick is gonna cost you an extra 10. That is where this is leading.Pete created a very usefull .dll. A very useful "driver". It was HIS decision to make it freeware. It was HIS decision to let people develop using it. And I am sure that Pete got quite a bit of benefit (in free software and hardware) from payware developers who used his module.The reality is that it is the END USER who will now be forced to pay extra to make something that was functional in FS2002, functional in FS2004.Most developers will probably choose not to accredit their software or drivers. As a result, the only way it will work in FS2004, is if the end user buys the full version.So instead of attacking all those people who are a bit upset, why don't you put yourself in their shoes. I for one would be rightly Peeved if my joystick now won't function in FS2004, because I have to buy FSUIPC, or worse, I have to hope my joystick manufactuer makes new drivers or accredits existing ones.Charging for fully functioning software is onething. Charging for DLL's is a bit daft. Oh, and I hope I don't hear you complain if Microsoft starts charging for all those security updates or decides to license Direct X for a fee.If you don't want to pay, don't play.........