FSUIPC and blocking posts

[Guest BC_KBOS]

WATHOMAS777 has hit the nail on the head. We are not a bunch of cheapskates out looking to deny Pete the benefit of his work. We ARE a bunch of people who are a little ticked off the way this whole thing has worked out.I'm a guy with a very expensive PFC console that will have to, HAVE TO buy the full FSUIPC or my investment is in the tank for FS2004.Done deal. Regardless of the fact that I am one of those guys that am willing to support Pete, I chafe at the concept that I HAVE to do it because the payware people who profit from his labors refuse to support him.The very first time that a payware product came out requiring FSUIPC, Pete should have been getting a Lawyer.Period.He didn't, the precedent was set and now we, the end users, get it in the neck, or pocket, however you prefer.Somebody in another stopped post asked the question: "What of Adam Szofran, who developed FS6IPC in the FIRST place?" It was most definitely a free product, and that was the intent. Of course, that was back in the day, where nobody even DREAMED of doing this for money. Wonder what Adam thinks of all of this.The bottom line is that if you buy FSUIPC and then later buy a product that is "accredited", you'll be paying twice. That will lead to payware stuff not being "accredited" (we are not stupid, we won't buy stuff twice, the payware people will/have figured that out already) and we, the users, will pay to support Pete. Not the ones who got this whole thing going in the first place.And that really makes my blood vessels stick out.Maybe I should take up basket weaving. Does someone have a license on that?BC

[Steve Cannell 4]

Frankly, I don't care anymore.FS addon companies conduct themselves in a manner which suggests to me they don't care either.It's hard for me to get excited about FS2004 with it's improved AI and weather when I will most certainly be left with even more useless or handycapped addons. Far too many addons I've purchased, I have come to realize, are short lived vapour ware, tools to spy or control, and poorly supported just a few months after release. It seems it's all about making a quick buck, protecting their work no matter the cost and moving on to the next version or project. I rarely post or reply at FS sites anymore and I can clearly see hundreds of those I used to talk to on a daily basis over the years have moved on as well. Hopefully they didn'let the state of things completely end their FS hobby. It won't end mine. I won't let it.Freeware - Payware ?I used to think freeware was for the love of the hobby.I used to think this community was for the community. Did anyone notice it went commercial !!SteveCYYZ

[jcboliveira 1]

"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"That is a wrong statement. I can't believe that a freeware author that spends a lot of time in a project because likes it will behave like that. If I'm doing a freeware program,I want my "costumers" to continue to enjoy it for free or else the all reason for freeware is dead. Jos

[Guest Thunderchief]

I have a few comments, this is the first thing for a while that I've posted, I've just had to recreate my account after the great purge of the 6th of July, just in case anyone thinks I'm a one shot poster.It occurs to me, that a lot of people have thrown their hands up in disgust without actually thinking what affect it will actually have on them.How many freeware add-ons require fsupic? And of those that do require it, how many would work directly in FS2004 without modification even if an unrestricted version of fsupic was available?I suspect that a good percentage of add-ons will need some development work in order for them to be fully functional anyway, applying to Mr Dowson for a key code would hopefully be trivial at that point.Some one brought up the cost as being expensive, even compared the cost to being equivilent to a "tank of gas". I believe Mr Dowson lives in the UK, and as such $22 does not buy a "tank of gas", not even half a tank in an average family car. It cost's me 40 uk pounds to fill my car up that's about $65! In my opinion 20euros is reasonable for the functionality gained.It was also mentioned that Payware developers would not pay Mr Dowson and would force users to buy fsupic. I would suggest that any developer that would do that is not worthy of support, I certainly will not be buying a product that requires fsupic but does not come with a licence.Simon.

[maxter 0]

OK Jason, I will try not to make this personal, however "you" used the term "you" at least three times in your post so I will address this reply to you as I appears that you were addressing your post to all of US out here. Well here is the point of view from a "mindless robot" as you so artfully put it...Right... since when is a hobby have to be some sort of a free experience? The mere fact that one needs a program and a computer to enjoy MSFS puts that argument to bed as neither of those two items are free unless one has a kindly old fairy godmother. Just go out and ask the millions of folks that, soup up cars, make pottery, go sky diving, build plastic planes and boats, do some gardening, race RC cars, fly RC aircraft etc. how free their hobby is? I hope you get the point...I also wonder whether you expect the MSFS developers at MS to also produce this simulator for free as by your definition it is used for something (a hobby) that is meant to be free. Maybe they also should be going out and getting a (real) job. How do you differentiate between a MS developer and a FSD or DF or F1 developer. Is it the fact that FSD is an organisation comprising of only four people who supply to a hobby that differentiates them from MS and that because they are so small they are not worthy of earning an income from a hobby? Try telling that to the three employees at my local hobby supplies store. Maybe they should not be earning an income from their labours in the store. How do you differentiate between LAGO, FSD, PC Aviator and Reality XP?Given that Steve, Tim, Owen and Jim at FSD on average spend more hours developing their products than the hobby store workers, I would have thought that they would be more deserving of our support rather than denying them the right to earn money from their efforts.On peoples desire to shut down discourse on the subject, I agree that this is an issue that has at times got out of hand, however one that AvSim have dealt with with good balance over the years given the complex mix of visitors to this site. However, while I will defend absolutely your right to disagree with my view, I also insist upon the right to disagree with yours. It cuts both ways. As long as it is done in a civil manner.I am afraid the light in your dark tunnel may be your ability to develop suitable and comparable products for your own use. Maybe you can spend many hundreds, if not thousands of hours developing something of the quality of the FSD Cheyenne or Roger's C420 and then give it away for free. Believe me, I will be first in line to publicly thank you and pat you on the back. It would be a just reward for your effort...NotPete Dowson has his own reasons for moving to payware. The choice is simple, develop an alternative yourself, pay for the product or don't use any add-ons that utilise FSUIPC. Market forces will decide in the long run as to whether this was the right decision.In conclusion, let me reiterate, MSFS has never been free. It has only been through the largesse of the many talented people out there that we have been able to utilise their creations at no cost to ourselves. However as the development of MSFS add-ons becomes ever more complex and hobbyists demands become ever more challenging, it would be unfair in my opinion for us beneficiaries to begrudge them some monetary return for their efforts. I do not for one moment believe that this community is less great because people now make a dollar or euro or peso. The vast majority of developers out there put a huge effort into their creations whether free or pay ware and still maintain the love and passion for the hobby. The income earned in most cases is never "easy".Yours respectfully,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaIntel Pentium IV 3.0GHz (800FSB) Socket 478 pins CPU w/Hyper-Thread Technology MSI 875P NEO FIS2R, AGP 8X, i875P ICH5R Chipset with Gigiabit LanKingmax 512MB PC3200 Double Data Rate (DDR) RAM CAS-2.5- 400MHz Rated x 2BUILT By ATI (Original) Radeon 9800PRO w/TV Out & DVI 128Meg DDRTEAC DV-W50E, 4x DVD-R/ 2x RW, 16xCD-R, 8xCD-RW, 16xDVD, 32x CD-ROM Internal Drive Only Western Digital Raptor 36.0GB HDD IDE, 8MB Cache, 5.2ms, 10,000rpm , S-ATA, w/DataLifeguard WD 40Gig HD for dataATX 470W Pentium IV Power Supply CESkyhawk Jupiter Aluminum CaseHyundai -ImageQuest P910 , 19" Multi-Scan Digital MonitorHercules Game Theater XP, 6.1 speakers Dolby

[maxter 0]

>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? :-rollWow, I didn't realise that I was being greedy when I expected payment for effort expended... Mmmmm new concept.Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

[Guest]

And it is of my opinion that people want to make a buck out of every opportunity :( Look at how many "freeware" authors are going payware for FS2004 ... it beggars belief! Panel authors, plane authors, scenery authors ... they all want to make a buck :(If Airline Simulator 3 ever appears, and the graphics are half-decent .... I will jump the MSFS ship like a flash! :-lol

[Guest R5D4]

>It was also mentioned that Payware developers would not pay Mr>Dowson and would force users to buy fsupic. IAbsolute rubbish. Payware developers will not limit their market in this way.

[Guest]

You're right, Steve :)I couldn't give a rat's backside for FS2004 ... many items which are freeware in FS2002 will be payware for FS2004 ... and let's not forget that many FSDSV1 and non-Gmax planes won't even work!The payware community seems to have its fair share of unprofessional, rude, careless individuals, who think that YOU owe THEM, even after purchase! I purchased a plane a little while back: not only was the "customer support" rude and carefree, but the product was flawed, and didn't work properly :( Many ex-freeware groups behave as if they were STILL freeware .... they think that they can be rude to customers, when in actual fact the customer is highlighting an error in the the payware group's product or services.Freeware is for the love of the hobby ... or it should be! :( Here is a disturbing trend: I have seen freeware authors appear from nowhere.... When they've got enough FREE feedback from the unwitting BETA testers ... they go payware :( maybe we should start charging to be BETA testers? :-rollRoll on Airline Simulator 3 ....

[Guest Thunderchief]

>Absolute rubbish. Payware developers will not limit their>market in this way. >I agree It would be very unlikely, Payware producers of the likes of PSS, DF, and FSD Im sure will do the right thing, or perhaps develop their own system. Simon.

[Guest RSmith]

Definition of "Hobby" as "free"......... where ?? what hobby ?? My other "hobbies" = radio control model aircraft ($650 - just to get started), Hobie Cat sailing ($4,000 is boat, parts, spares), and my biggest hobby - Mountain Biking - heck - my bike (3rd in 6 years) cost $3,000, with another $1,500 in clothes, helmets, parts, pumps, etc. What hobby is free..... Flight simming is a real bargain !As expensive as golf....... don't think so. Each round, avg., fees and expenses average more than $60.... I haven't spent $200 on software "adds" for Flight Sim. 2k2, although I have upgraded hardware regularly to keep enjoying the "hobby".....Oh well, I'll support Pete's side of this, and for all his development work to help some valued "adds" working, I'll gladly support the small fee........Ron

[Guest Liam]

Well,Yet another post on how everything in this hobby is now geared commercially. I have very mixed opinions on this subject. It is understood that Pete has placed alot of time and effort into FSUIPC. Also understandable is the fact that payware developers are making money/breaking even releasing products which utilise Peters utility. So in that repsect I can sympathise with why he would want to charge. However I do tend to agree with others where by, you get used to using a product for a while, then you are asked to pay for it.At the end of the day the choice is ours as to whether we purchase it or not. In my case it will be not, as I am not going to join the hundreds buying FS2004 just to be able to select a runway which I wish to utilitse or give me another excuse to rebuild my system from scratch because the demands it places on graphics cards and processors.Leads me to wonder what is next with this hobby, looking at how things have panned out over the past few years. Here could be some predictions going by the current trends:Those who use the VATSIM online environment start paying for air traffic control services......Those wishing to fly for a virtual airline will be charged a fee to join....thus emulating some of the rea world carriers where they will onyl accept a ttype rating from one of their own approved ground schools!For a while now I see people banging on about wanting it to be as real as it gets. Well looking around it would be cheaper or atleast similar in price to give up simming and get yourself a frozen ATPL.....he he he........atleast that way you can get paid for poking up with political and purely financial driven decisions.My appreciation goes out to the developers payware and freeware who develop and release products which work. My dissapreciation goes out to those who develop, release and worm their way round this (industry) trying to become the next Bill Gates.Please everyone accept that each and every person is entitled to an opinion. If you want to buy it great but do not shoot down someone else for not being whole heartedly happy about it.Remember, if you can not respect someone elses opinion how do you expect them to respect yours and more so makes your opinion invalid!RegardsLiam

[LAdamson 240]

I totally agree Chris-----Everytime I read the this sentence in Jason's original post:"If you want to put food on your table you get a JOB!!!"At least I DO realize that developing software can be every bit as much a "job" as others. Why do others think it's not? Is it because they still live at home, don't have to support & spend time with their families, or just don't have to worry about the future yet?L.Adamson

[Guest Ken_Salter]

I really appreciate most everyone's input on this topic. I am now going to move it over to the hangar forum.http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Liam,I've just read in another thread that some complained about vendors earning money on the back of Pete because they all (not all) used FSUIPC for building their add-ons, and never gave money back to Pete. Well, I'm sorry to say this but the only one to blame is Pete, which willingly allowed payware vendors for years to interface and include his FSUIPC for payware add-ons, at no cost, with the sole compensation being to offer him the said add-on for free for his personal use...I'm sure if this hasn't been such, many would have built their own interface already, and would not end up being somewhat dependant now. Short sighting in this case, and no investment in the long term from many vendors.Anyhow, unless you really need the joystick / weather features, or as seen in another thread, if it happens you have purchase a several hundreds (if not thousands) famous yoke, that requires FSUIPC and for which it looks like so far you have to pay again for a software driver (FSUIPC) for having it work in FS2004, then you don't have to be afraid about FSUIPC going payware because:1) if a payware software requires it, the cost will be included in the payware software. Acutally this make me think that non FSUIPC software vs FSUIPC software, from a price perspective, would lead to great differences in prices for add-ons for the end user.2) if a freeware software requires it, there is no cost to both the developper and the user as Pete is willing to offer free keys for the freeware add-ons.So in turn, you don't have to purchase FSUIPC as an end user if the sole fear / need is how you would run your favorite add-on in FS2004, because if freeware (and more precisely a freeware panel) there is a great chance it is updated (I suspect the ones not updated will simply loose their appeal) and if payware, the vendor would certainly provide an upgraded version for FS2004 (or the risk is to kill a product line if only relying on the good will of the end user purchasing FSUIPC on his own), for which the addtional cost of the FSUIPC license will be charged to you, the end user.Of course, for FS2002 payware products, which have been announced to be upgraded to FS2004 for free, this is the payware company that will have to support the new additional FSUIPC cost for you, at their expenses. Too bad.Hope this helps!